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.

[hoosierskypilot]

"...he could have avoided using marijuana in the weeks prior to his drug test..."

Question: how long does it take the human body to purge all traces of pot?

If you can answer that, tell me, how long does it take the human body to purge all traces of nicotene?

[hoosierham]

"Job performance is the only criteria that matters. Anything else is just nonsense"

BINGO!!!

I, for one, believe ALL gov't employees including the Supreme Court, Members of Congress, the President of these United States and the local dogcatcher should be subjected to exactly the same level and frequency of testing as pilots,truckers,security guards, teachers, students, and backhoe operators!

Wonder how many vacanies would result in the Senate alone ?

[hoosierskypilot]

By the way, would not an employer reserve the right to set the rules for employment?

This case might hinge on whether or not he signed a contract that specified no pot use.

[HairOfTheDog]

A blood test will not prove DUI with pot. A blood test will show marijuana residual for three weeks, long after intoxication is gone, and there is no way to tell when the intoxication occurred.

There are some eye-reflex and observational kinds of tests police can do that are admissable, but any attorney can counter a simple blood test.

[HairOfTheDog]

It takes about three-five weeks to have levels fall below a testable window for a normal person.

[hoosierskypilot]

What about nicotene?

[HairOfTheDog]

No idea....

[Ramius]

You got it all wrong, sport.

Why is it that the only argument these WOD mongers can make is to somehow impute some sort of drug self interest on the part of those of us that think the WOD is stupid?

For your info: my drug of choice is just beer. I happen to be enjoying one right now. A fine Red Hook ESB. I am not a threat to anybody just yet. I know some people who use other things (like pot) that also are no threat to anyone.

I know many more people who abuse alcohol that are a far bigger threat to general public than anything else. But that remains legal. Why? Because we figured out that the black market for alcohol created problems that were far worse than the drug itself. Crime. Murder. Gangs. In my mind those side effects are far worse. Al Capone wanted alcohol prohibition. It's what gave him his empire. That the "revenuers" and "G-men" stomped all over the constitution in order to fight that empire was of no consequence to him. Sure, they nailed him eventually, but others were more than happy to step into the void. Did the War on Alcohol make a dent in alcohol abuse? Hardly. Alcohol use was down some, but abuse was just as common. Alcoholics are funny that way. That something is against the law doesn't seem to bother them. Funny that.

But there's good news for you WOD types: Have no fear, drugs will never be legalized or decriminalized. There's way WAY too much money to be made by all sides of the war for that to happen. The inner city gang infrastructure that is eating away at the heart of our country must be supported. After all-- if certain drugs were legal it would totally kick the financial legs out from under the gangs. They wouldn't have the resources to attract new gradeschool gangbangers and they'd have to go out and get jobs. Local police and federal law enforcement budgets would suffer badly. Nobody wants that.

Cheer up. You're getting what you want. Easy availability of drugs, a cancer in the inner city, and nicely inflated government budgets with all those nifty no-knock warrants on the wrong houses thrown in for free! Enjoy...

[Ramius]

Pot comes up, and if driving home from work they could find themselves in a lawsuit because of deep pockets.

That's not true of alcohol. Why not?

[Sweet_Sunflower29]

a shot in the dark im sure, but what about the possibility of him having access to 'sensitve' information?

d@mn hand hurts...easier to forgo the caps for now

[Texasforever]

That's not true of alcohol. Why not?

It is true if he was drinking on the job.

[HairOfTheDog]

I am not as against the WOD as you are in that post, though I think we have NO compelling reason to continue to enforce penalties on pot. I would vote to legalize it.

But that is the only one. We have to try to discourage and reduce the availability, and most important, the respectability, of hard drugs.

Meth, crack, crank, herion... those drugs are too devastating to be legitimized. Meth cannot be "tried". I firmly believe that. Right now, adults with any sense of being law abiding don't use them, because they aren't around them, and they aren't around them mostly because they are illegal and carry a heavy stigma. That stigma would dissipate with legalizaton. If they were being used at the next table at the local bar, would more people who are more willing to try it, particularly the young, get sucked down the pipe? - I think so.

Right now those drugs take some, those who are comfortable with both breaking the law and taking personal risks. I want to keep it that way.

[HairOfTheDog]

He would only be less likely to care to read the sensitive information. What do you think stoned people would be more likely to do with sensitive information? Are you wondering how it affects his security?

[Sweet_Sunflower29]

Sorry to hear about your incident, hope all is ok now.

thanks, everything is just fine now...

[Ramius]

Understood.

I certainly don't think that drugs are a good thing. I don't know where I'd draw the line. I wouldn't start doing heroin just because is was suddenly legal, but maybe that's just me. Criminalizing pot is just dumb. The harder stuff is a tougher call, I'll admit.

The money is in coke and (by association) crack. The other stuff is really peripheral. I'm guessing that if coke were available legally, crack would disappear. Crack was invented as a cheaper and more potent way to deliver cocaine.

What keeps coming back to me though, is that the genie is already out of the bottle. Drugs are already everywhere. They've already been invented and enforcement is largely ineffective. It's like trying to eliminate violence by outlawing weapons. Too late for that. Drug abuse is a medical problem, not a legal problem, and we're using the wrong tool.

[Dakmar]

Where, pray tell, would he get a prescription for liquor?

[rb22982]

What does that have to do with anything? Pot doesn't make one crazy. It has similiar, yet less harmful, reactions to alcohol.

[rb22982]

It is true if he was drinking on the job.

Which is the same thing I said. But that doesn't relate to someone getting off work friday. Smoking by themselves at home or with friends on friday evening. Then going to work monday and getting into an accident on Monday evening.

[Texasforever]

Where, pray tell, would he get a prescription for liquor?

That is the point. When you medicalize pot then the employer has a harder time firing a guy just for taking his "medicine". Now if he only needs his "medicine" off the job then he obviously just likes to smoke pot. Wouldn't you agree?

[rb22982]

That stigma would dissipate with legalizaton.

Why do you think that? Are you tempted to go eat rat poisoning now? It's legal, yet you don't do it. Why?