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.

[carenot]

You are correct there, If I was his employer and he was doing it on the job I'd fire his a$$ for taking mind altering drug (currently legal and illegal) while on the job and then putting other's lives at potential danger (DUI)

I would fire him because I got to know him, and I don't like him.

Lots of people want a job.

[carenot]

Then we agree. People must be responsible for their own behaviour and employers should not be allowed to second guess licensed physicians by prohibiting prescribed medications.

Employers should still have the right not to hire you if you have red hair.

[carenot]

Let me explore further on this though. With your knowledge of the Constitution, where do you want meth, etc to be declared illegal. The national, state or local level?

That is not what I am worried about. Why can't I just fire someone that I don't like?

[rb22982]

Why can't I just fire someone that I don't like?

You are free to fire whomever you please. That wasn't the discussion at hand. The discussion was on whether or not it should be illegal in teh quote you gave from me.

[Dakmar]

On a philosophic level, you are correct, employers should have the right to hire or fire anyone they wish; that is free right of association. My arguments on this thread were mostly to point out how the "law-and-order at all cost" crowd approve of breaking existing law.

[L.N. Smithee]

Too many people , like yourself, are so caught up in being anti-drug that you fail to read or comprehend others' posts.

Nonsense. You pulled out the canard that the Bible somehow permits/recommends use of marijuana by using wine as a surrogate. That is what I addressed.

If you will read my ENTIRE message, I said, and still say, that ABUSE is the problem.

As I have been saying ad infinitum, the people who want the government to lay off medical pot want to let people use it for recreation in violation of federal and state law. If they didn't, they would insist on safeguards to make sure it wasn't abused.

[Ken H]

The people who want the government to lay off medical pot want to let people use it for recreation in violation of federal and state law.

If that is true, then over 60% of the voters in CA, AZ and the legislatures of the several States that have approved medical pot, NV for example, are in favor of allowing recreational use of marijuana.

[Boot Hill]

rb22982 says:   "Marijuana is safer, less addictive and less of a high than alcohol."

When it comes to FR's great love/hate relationship and our never ending debate about drugs, the area I'm most comfortable with are the constitutional arguments. When it comes to the truth of claims like you make in the above quote, I generally take a pass and leave it to others to argue out the relative hazards.

rb22982 says:   "Since alcohol is legal, its only logical to make marijuana legal as well."

Now there is an argument that I CAN sink my teeth into. Your logic has at least two fundamental flaws in it.

The first flaw is to presume that, when comparing alcohol to marijuana, the appropriate standards for comparison are safety, addictiveness and level of intoxication. You've offered no reason or logic as to why we should accept those standards for comparison (irrespective of their truth), nor have you offered any reason or logic as to why we should reject any other possible standards for comparison.

The second flaw is to presume that society, by accepting one type of hazard, is therefore morally obligated to accept additional hazards as well. It is not "hypocritical" (as you say) for a society to draw a limit line as to the total amount of risk they're willing to accept and say "this far and no farther".

--Boot

[L.N. Smithee]

If that is true, then over 60% of the voters in CA, AZ and the legislatures of the several States that have approved medical pot, NV for example, are in favor of allowing recreational use of marijuana.

Not true. The proponents have never been above board with their intentions.

It's a fact that in California, the advertising for the medical pot initiative made it appear as if marijuana would be treated as medicine (the TV commercials featured an M.D. in a lab coat).

[L.N. Smithee]

The second flaw is to presume that society, by accepting one type of hazard, is therefore morally obligated to accept additional hazards as well. It is not "hypocritical" (as you say) for a society to draw a limit line as to the total amount of risk they're willing to accept and say "this far and no farther".

I agree with your post. If rb's attitude prevails, then there will be a competition to create recreational narcotics that fall below the threshold of "less dangerous than alcohol" (such as ecstasy) that will be pushed as the next legal drug.

[Boot Hill]

Not to mention that the determination of what dangers a drug may pose is quite a subjective undertaking to begin with.

Regards,

Boot Hill

[chance33_98]

the TV commercials featured an M.D. in a lab coat

There is a joke in that somewhere...

[apochromat]

In addition, researchers have discovered that learned behaviors, which depend on the hippocampus, also deteriorate via this mechanism.

That also describes a natural mechanism of forgetting that removes clutter, as far as I know, and there is only a known link between usage of the suject substance and short-term effects on short-term memory. As I have read about it, the effect of usage is an inevitable consequence of the way in which the brain allocates units of attention to sensory input. Suggestions of "deterioration" of important memories, or of likely significant long-term memory effects by usage, are apparently disinformative. But what's new there?

Perhaps that site should post a disclaimer for its construction.

[jayef]

Marijuana is an integral part of many cultures. I'm not sure what you mean by "the drug culture". I'm not so sure that "the drug culture" is the bogeyman you seem to think it is. I'm not sure what the point of your argument is. By the way, I'm almost positive that milk is an integral part of the "drug culture";-).

[jayef]

Those are crimes against people and property. Drug use is not.

[jayef]

Notice that Dane never posts any sources, while all of us liberdopians always have cites backing up our claims. Interesting that.

[rb22982]

When it comes to FR's great love/hate relationship and our never ending debate about drugs, the area I'm most comfortable with are the constitutional arguments. When it comes to the truth of claims like you make in the above quote, I generally take a pass and leave it to others to argue out the relative hazards.

Ok, explain the 10th, 18th and 21st then.

The first flaw is to presume that, when comparing alcohol to marijuana, the appropriate standards for comparison are safety, addictiveness and level of intoxication. You've offered no reason or logic as to why we should accept those standards for comparison (irrespective of their truth), nor have you offered any reason or logic as to why we should reject any other possible standards for comparison.

Ok genius, what other standards WOULD you use except safety, addictiveness and intoxication when comparing a drug. Medical benefits maybe? Ok marijuana has more medical benefits than alcohol. Deaths caused? Ok marijuana is impossible to OD. alcohol causes over 100,000 deaths a year (which is far more than ALL illicit drugs combined). Societal costs? Alcohol has more societal costs than all illicit drugs combined. In fact, I dare you to show me in any way why alcohol is ok but marijuana is not by using any same standard.

The second flaw is to presume that society, by accepting one type of hazard, is therefore morally obligated to accept additional hazards as well. It is not "hypocritical" (as you say) for a society to draw a limit line as to the total amount of risk they're willing to accept and say "this far and no farther".

It is hypocritical if in EVERY way marijuana is less of a problem than alcohol. "I want my drug but you cannot have yours". Sure at the moment society can decide legally, that does not it any less of a hypocrite and immoral.

[hoosierham]

No I DIDN"T substitute wine for marijuana. YOU did.

I said the Bible speaks of both plants(herbs) as medicine and wine as permitted for man's use, not ABUSE.

America's disastrous experiment with Prohibition of Alcohol(wine contains alcohol, as you know) was ostensibly for the betterment of society; yet the observable result was the criminal mobs killing rivals, bribing or killing officials and getting filthy rich from the ILLEGAL traffic in a substance that previously was legal and less profitable. The great majority of the population either tolerated or participated in the use of what is no less a drug than marijuana ; they ignored the dictates of a minority of people who demanded others behave as the little group saw fit.

A couple of old saying come to mind:

Love the people for what they are, not what you would have them be,

There are none so blind as he who will not see.

And as I have been sayin,we ought not listen tothe opinions of those people who are so afraid of freedom that they wish to chain all their neighbors JUST SO THEY CANNOT CHOOSE WRONG..

[Boot Hill]

rb22982 says:   "Ok, explain the 10th, 18th and 21st then."

LOL, you want the whole constitutional argument in 25 words or less? Ok here is a thumbnail sketch of the relationship of the 10th, 18th and 21st Amendments to the drug legalization debate.

AMENDMENT X
State Rights
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people." (emphasis added)

Notice that the 10th Amendment does not reserve any powers to the state or the people if those powers have already been otherwise delegated. The Constitution, via the Interstate Commerce Clause (Art.1, §8, ¶3), delegates to Congress the sole power to regulate interstate commerce and therefore, unfettered interstate commerce in marijuana is not a power reserved to the states or the people.

AMENDMENT XVIII
Prohibition
(in pertinent part)
"...the manufacture, sale and transportation of intoxicating liquors within...the United States...is hereby prohibited."

The goal of prohibition was not to simply regulate (prohibit) interstate commerce in alcohol, but intrastate commerce as well. The Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause only permits the regulation of interstate commerce, hence the need for an amendment. This explanation of the 18th Amendment, by extension, also explains the 21st Amendment (Repeal of Prohibition).

rb22982 says:   "Ok genius, what other standards WOULD you use except safety, addictiveness and intoxication..."

Listing other applicable standards in this reply would not cure the defect in your flawed premise. You concluded that a person would be a hypocrite for not accepting your standards and no other standards, but you failed to present any reasons or logic for why this sould be so. My purpose in detailing that flaw was to elicit from you those reasons and logic. Do you have any? (Then we can get on to the separate issue of what other standards there may be.)

rb22982 says:   "It is hypocritical if in EVERY way marijuana is less of a problem than alcohol."

Again you assert, that the only standards to judge that "in every way, marijuana is less of a problem" can only be the standards you offered and no others. Until you can show the reasoning and logic behind why we should use your standards and no other standards, your conclusion of "hypocrisy" can not stand. Flawed premise = flawed conclusion.

You've got some work to do here, rb22982, if you want to make your case.

--Boot

[rb22982]

Wow you are so wrong on so many levels.

Lets start with the constitutional level. I understand interstate commerce, however the federal government has banned INTRA state as well. Why do you think they keep going into California Medical Marijuana facilities, genius.

Listing other applicable standards in this reply would not cure the defect in your flawed premise. You concluded that a person would be a hypocrite for not accepting your standards and no other standards, but you failed to present any reasons or logic for why this sould be so. My purpose in detailing that flaw was to elicit from you those reasons and logic. Do you have any? (Then we can get on to the separate issue of what other standards there may be.)

You haven't given a SINGLE reason why it should be illegal besides a liberal rhetoric for the community reason, which would make alcohol illegal as well. Name ONE, just ONE reason why alcohol should be legal, yet marijuana illegal. That is logic, not the crap you are putting out.

Again you assert, that the only standards to judge that "in every way, marijuana is less of a problem" can only be the standards you offered and no others. Until you can show the reasoning and logic behind why we should use your standards and no other standards, your conclusion of "hypocrisy" can not stand. Flawed premise = flawed conclusion.

Nonsense, I see you cannot read, I asked you what way you would judge it and you haven't given any reasons besides the ones I gave. Next time, try reading and comprehending what I wrote before you respond with things I've already addressed. Give me one reason why marijuana should be illegal, and alcohol illegal. You have yet to do so.