Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 09/20/2002 5:56:11 PM PDT by 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.


TOPICS: Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 261-279 next last
To: Texasforever
It doesn't say in the article he was smoking marijuana on the job. Just that he tested positive for it. Well when you have a 2-2 1/2 week time frame for testing positive (in the most common methods) and he was using it for prescription then well he's going to test positive.
81 posted on 09/20/2002 8:40:53 PM PDT by rb22982
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: rb22982
Well when you have a 2-2 1/2 week time frame for testing positive (in the most common methods) and he was using it for prescription then well he's going to test positive.

The article says he suffers from severe back pain and that he uses pot to relieve that pain. Now, does he just have the pain on weekends while relaxing at home? Does his pain go away when sitting at a computer for hours at the office? Isn't it remotly possible that this guy is just blowing smoke in more ways than one?

82 posted on 09/20/2002 8:44:49 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
If he is smoking on the job, then I would agree with you. If he is smoking after he goes home, then the company isn't liable and he isn't causing any potential traffic problems.

That said, I wasn't aware that marijuana relieved pain anyway. I'll try and find out.

83 posted on 09/20/2002 8:46:24 PM PDT by rb22982
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: chance33_98
A $74,000 per year systems administrator job, and he didn't even study for the urine test? Not so good . . .
84 posted on 09/20/2002 8:49:27 PM PDT by BraveMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever; HairOfTheDog; chance33_98; Senator Pardek
I don't recall there being any pain-relieving qualities to marijuana.

The Institute of Medicine's 1999 report on medical marijuana stated, "The accumulated data indicate a potential therapeutic value for cannabinoid drugs, particularly for symptoms such as pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation."

Source: Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson, Jr., and John A Benson, Jr., "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base," Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Research, Institute of Medicine (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999).

Evidently it does.

85 posted on 09/20/2002 8:53:49 PM PDT by rb22982
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Ramius
That is where I differ... Hard drugs are not everywhere... they are really just in the fringes. Your coworkers may be getting stoned, but I would be willing to bet they are not on meth. Nor cocaine derivatives or heroin. Because they are professional people and it just isn't done. Would that change if it were legal? - Maybe, some would try it if it felt more legitimate because it was legal. And the stuff is highly addictive. When we felt experimental, the stuff wasn't around, or was so expensive that is couldn't be addicting to a normal kid.

I don't know what the answer is. I know it is hard to stop people from doing things that sound fun to do. And meth creation as an illegal substance is actually putting my hobby at risk, because the mobile meth labs are being found in the public forests, and the cheapest answer to that is gates on the roads in. But I don't want a neighbor making it at home either, and would hate to NOT have the law on my side if they were. People explode alot making that crap.

Would the drug war make you crazy if pot were not a part of it?

86 posted on 09/20/2002 8:55:01 PM PDT by HairOfTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: rb22982
I honestly believe there are much better pain relievers than pot. Uses like nausea I can buy. But it isn't a do-all wonder drug.
87 posted on 09/20/2002 8:57:15 PM PDT by HairOfTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog
Oh I'm sure there are better pain relievers. That doesn't mean that it doesn't help some though.
88 posted on 09/20/2002 9:00:52 PM PDT by rb22982
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
And if vicodin was legal, a doctor could prescribe it and people could take it work and not get fired, since they were taking it under orders of a physician. What interest would an employer have in picking and choosing which prescription drugs to disallow in the workplace?
89 posted on 09/20/2002 9:01:10 PM PDT by Dakmar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: rb22982
I explained why drug use in the general law-abiding population would increase if they were legal... in two different posts. Do you still have that question of me now, or have you read those and disagree?

I don't eat rat poison because it isn't rumored to make me feel good. People use drugs because they are fun to use, even if they are harmful. There are a lot of drugs that more people might use if they were more legitimate. Many of the same people who see no wrong in getting drunk for fun now. Many of my friends, but my friends are aging out of that now. The younger set would grow up with less stigma attached to their use.
90 posted on 09/20/2002 9:03:27 PM PDT by HairOfTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Dakmar
And if vicodin was legal, a doctor could prescribe it and people could take it work and not get fired, since they were taking it under orders of a physician. What interest would an employer have in picking and choosing which prescription drugs to disallow in the workplace?

If that person was taking that medication on the job and was involved in any kind of accident during work hours or on the way home after ingesting that drug at work then the employer would be liable if the dosage was such as to be impairing.

91 posted on 09/20/2002 9:05:19 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Sweet_Sunflower29
heehee...fixing some squeaky doors? wd-40 is good stuff, always have it in the garage.
{w-40 forms...haha}

It was intentionaly - I need a lubricant before I fill them out and get screwed by the government :)

92 posted on 09/20/2002 9:11:14 PM PDT by chance33_98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog
Oh i've heard those arguements before, but the facts just don't back that up. Drug use has increased after criminalization. The most recent is ecstacy. Use has gone up about 1500% since criminalization in the 80s. The first was Alcohol. Use did not skyrocket after the 21st amendment.

Believe me, everyone who wants to do drugs is already doing it. It's incredibly easy to get. Most high schoolers can get illicit (especially marijuana and ecstacy) drugs easier than alcohol.

Also, the economic costs of drugs themselves are but a fraction of the cost of the drug war. That's right, you could pay for all these druggies social costs and save money from what we are currently spending.

The younger set would grow up with less stigma attached to their use.

This is the most liberal logic I've seen. "It's for the children." First this won't stand up because it will still be illegal for those under 21. In fact, I'd recommend 10 years in prison or more with no chance of parole for anyone caught selling to someone 16-18, at least 25 years for someone under 16, and at least 2 years in prison for those selling it to 18-20 year olds.
-Furthermore, keeping them illegal creates drug gangs which in turn creates violence. Also drug dealers are encouraged to sell harder drugs to their MJ customers to increases their profits. White market forces don't work that way, as it is easier to track to whom what is being sold and less incentive to sell it to a minor.

That said, legalizing marijuana would drop the drug war costs in half. I'd be willing to drop the anti-drug war fight if it meant would could legalize MJ. Marijuana is less addictive, less harmful and less of a high than alcohol, and MJ is impossible to OD on. There is no reason it should be illegal and alcohol legal.

93 posted on 09/20/2002 9:14:25 PM PDT by rb22982
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
I think you are reaching to find any liability by the employer because he ingested a drug at work, and then later got in an accident on the way home. Unless the person's JOB was to take the drug under orders of the employer, of course... ;~D

Consent to take a prescription drug at work, does not indicate employer responsibility for the person driving afterwards when off duty.
94 posted on 09/20/2002 9:14:44 PM PDT by HairOfTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
...if the dosage was such as to be impairing.

According to....hmmm? Lawyers? Experts from the pharmaceutical manufacturers? DEA? Hippiies/Narcotraffickers?

95 posted on 09/20/2002 9:15:08 PM PDT by Dakmar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
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)
96 posted on 09/20/2002 9:16:04 PM PDT by rb22982
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: hoosierskypilot; hoosierham
Is it me or the weed? I keep seeing a lot of hoosier ;^)
97 posted on 09/20/2002 9:18:17 PM PDT by budwiesest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: budwiesest
Hoosierdaddy?
98 posted on 09/20/2002 9:18:52 PM PDT by budwiesest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: rb22982
Fine, punk, you try and fire an epilleptic because they are taking valium on the job. :-)
99 posted on 09/20/2002 9:19:48 PM PDT by Dakmar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog
Also, you could turn it around and say that many young kids take illicit drugs because they are illicit and feel like they are rebelling and it's the 'in thing' to do. Teenagers do that kinda thing.
100 posted on 09/20/2002 9:19:48 PM PDT by rb22982
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 261-279 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson