Man Fired for Pot Use Plans Court Test of Medical Marijuana Law

kxtv ^

[chance33_98]

Man Fired for Pot Use Plans Court Test of Medical Marijuana Law

A 40-year-old computer specialist from Sacramento is forcing a court test of a controversial state law allowing medical use of marijuana.

Gary Ross was fired when a drug test revealed he had recently used marijuana. Ross had worked at the $74,000 per year systems administrator job for only a week when he was dismissed.

Now he has filed suit against RagingWire Telecommunications, arguing that the marijuana had been prescribed by a physician as a means of relieving chronic back pain. Ross contends that the firing was illegal under the terms of a six-year-old California law allowing the use of marijuana as medicine. "I had gone through all the steps necessary to make sure it was perfectly legal," said Ross. "I don't know why they terminated me. I was very surprised."

RagingWire Telecommunications replied with a written a statement that said, in part, "Mr. Ross signed and accepted an offer for a position that required [full time] on-call availability. Mr. Ross failed to inform the company he was using marijuana for medicinal purposes prior to receiving his offer letter."

California courts must now decide if an employer can choose which medications are off limits. Ross said he doesn't really want to be the flag bearer for a cause. Instead, he said he just wants justice. "I don't really consider myself a test case," said Ross. "I just consider myself an employee who was wrongfully terminated."

Ross claims he tried nearly everything to relieve pain from a 20-year-old back injury before turning to marijuana. He finally tried the drug after his doctor recommended it. "It's been the best medication I've taken for my back since my injury," said Ross.

Ross said he could have avoided using marijuana in the weeks prior to his drug test, but felt that would be admitting he's doing something wrong.

[rb22982]

You made a statement to me about compromising sensitive info. I responded, with "why, marijuana doesn't make you crazy or anything". You responded that you didn't say it did. You then gave a quote saying marijuana inhibits the brain for a period of time (aka "high"). I asked what they had to do with sensitive info. I am not trying to be the inquisition. I was trying to figure out where you were coming from to ask a question like that

[HairOfTheDog]

I think there are enough reasons to justify legalization of pot as a no-harm drug, which makes it unnecessary in my mind to sell it as a wonder drug is all. To many, it seems silly because proponents think it solves too many ailments to be real. It's like "Doc Wonder's Miracle Elixir" Good for whatever ails ya!

It makes people who feel bad feel good. OK... It makes people want to eat that didn't want to eat before, and helps nauseous people keep the food down. But the better argument to me where pot is concerned is the no harm argument.

[HairOfTheDog]

Yes they are... You want them to have your agenda ;~D

[rb22982]

Yes and my agenda is to return to a federal system like what our founding fathers used, not a national trumps all system that ignores the bill of rights, with my main focus on the 10th amendment.

[Sweet_Sunflower29]

i apologize for the way i worded that. check your FReepmail

:slinks of quietly to a corner:

[HairOfTheDog]

I didn't read all that after you said "marijuana" and "Netherlands"... Between you and I, we solved marijuana 50 posts ago. I know it doesn't kill people. We are now talking hard drugs.

My point is more people do legal things than illegal things. Look at the top three... you think that is an accident because they are the most dangerous?

Put it this way. I smoke. If they outlawed it, I would quit and so would most others, I would be willing to bet. Because most people with productive lives are not willing to hang out in dark alleys to get it, or to go to jail over it, and because I don't want to hide 20 times a day to feed an illegal addiction that would now be even more a source of shame than it is now.

[JediGirl]

placemarker

[rb22982]

The point of the Netherlands was to show there wasn't a huge rush to go out and smoke weed after it was legalized, even though it's far safer than meth, crack, etc.

[rb22982]

I disagree, and Alcohol Prohibition supports my position.

[HairOfTheDog]

Alcohol prohibition is an interesting case, I grant you that. I don't have a lot of knowledge, though, of what percentage of the population actually regularly used it during prohibition compared to after. I know a strong majority use it to some degree now.

Do you disagree that most smokers would quit if it were outlawed?

[rb22982]

Yes and no. I'll touch more on that later. I'm going to play a game of Warcraft III.

[Dane]

You can post all the studies in the world but they aren't going to disprove the one thing that is basically the elepahnt in the living room, that marijuana is an integral part of the drug culture.

You can show this study or that study, but all one has to do to do is look, and find that the majority of those who glorify marijuana, also glorify other drugs.

Yeah, yeah, you will give the head in the ground simplistic comeback that druggies also drank milk as kids.

All one has to do is look around and to deny that marijuana is not part of the drug culture is to deny reality.

[HairOfTheDog]

The reason I questioned the numbers on that table is that alcohol did not kill all those people, I suspect. I would guess that car crashes while drunk killed most of those people. It is a fine distinction... Not that many people are actually killed by alcohol itself, rather what they do on it. Hard drugs kill people all by themselves.

[HairOfTheDog]

OK - I am going to go to bed. Lets all take ten! (hours) The drug war will still be here in the morning!

[chance33_98]

So your study is saying that legal drugs cause more death then illegal ones. Hmmm perhaps then if we legalize them all we can even out that chart a bit. That's a good idea...

[rb22982]

Slight of hand on your part. You know why it is part of the rest of the drug culture? Your DEA and Drug laws put it with them.

And the plain truth of it, it matters not anyway. It's still not very harmful. That is the only thing that matters. Anything is a 'feel based' arguement which of course is the standard liberal MO

[rb22982]

Well there were only ~43,000 accident related deaths TOTAL so if you subtract ones that were not DUI related, and ones accidents from other drugs, you can maybe subtract 20,000 from the alcohol number.

Also, the drug deaths are also pushed up quite a bit. If they die and had taken a substances it's marked as one of the causes of death (true with cigarettes also), whether or not it was the main cause of death.

[rb22982]

I dont think making it illegal would make people stop smoking, however, if the cost of cigarettes skyrocketted to lets say comparitible to marijuana, many might out of economic costs. Most people who smoke marijuana do so maybe once a day. Cigarette smokers smoke far more often and their costs would be extraordinarily high if tobacco were to go as high as marijuana...which can cost as much as gold

[Dane]

Slight of hand on your part. You know why it is part of the rest of the drug culture? Your DEA and Drug laws put it with them.

Really the embrace of marijuana by 60's leftist hippies and radicals had no part of creating the drug culture, I guess to you. Like it or not marijuana is an integral part of the drug culture, to deny that is to deny reality.

And the plain truth of it, it matters not anyway. It's still not very harmful. That is the only thing that matters. Anything is a 'feel based' arguement which of course is the standard liberal MO

LOL! Nothing "feel based" about it. It is the truth that marijuana is an integral part of the drug culture and to deny that is to use the standard liberal MO of denying reality.

[rb22982]

Rock 'n Roll is/was part of the drug culture also, should we make it illegal?