Contact
Subscribe


It’s Not Just Bogus. It’s Against The Law.

Sep 10, 2008
By Patrick.
Law, Politics & Current Events

The State of California, never content with the idea that employers might know better than the government what’s required to actually earn tax dollars, is now prohibiting “employment discrimination” against medical marijuana users:

it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person in hiring, termination, or any term or condition of employment or otherwise penalize a person, if the discrimination is based upon either of the following:

(1) The person’s status as a qualified patient. [meaning a medical marijuana user]

(2) The person’s positive drug test for marijuana, provided the person is a qualified patient and the medical use of marijuana, as defined in Section 11362.7, does not occur on the property or premises of the place of employment or during the hours of employment, as required by Section 11362.785.

The law contains exceptions for use on the job, as well as for “safety” occupations, and (naturally) for the government itself, but otherwise medical pot smokers are protected from mellow harshing by employers who just don’t understand that employees need this stuff to cope with their asthma and anger management issues.

But “safety” and government employment are pretty narrow exceptions.  As I read the law, a junior attorney with a medical marijuana prescription could load up in the courthouse parking lot just before a morning session, then begin “hours of employment” nice and baked.  His employing firm’s clients might not feel too safe knowing their financial welfare or freedom were in the hands of a stoner, but firing the attorney for appearing in court while stoned would be out of the question.

The same risks hold true for accountants, doctors, and just about any other job that isn’t necessarily related to safety (whatever that means), but where getting it done right might matter to the customer.

“Dude, these spots on this mammogram are like … totally Jackson Pollock or something.”

Here’s a solution that might make sense even under current California law.  Give employees the right to use marijuana if they have a genuine medical need for it, and give them the freedom to face the consequences if it impacts their job performance.

Via Overlawyered

Last 5 posts by Patrick

2 Comments
Tags ,

2 Comments

  1. reggie  •  Sep 12, 2008 @7:08 pm

    Sir,
    I have read your posting and while I am not one to advocate people living is a bong induced state of wandering in circles looking for the car keys located in their pocket, I do take exception to most of your position.
    In your diatribe on the Bill, A.B.2279, which lacks only the Governors signature to be enacted as law, you make a series of inaccurate statements.
    In your opening paragraph you attack the state of California for putting this bill forward. First, this is a bill, it is not yet a law. Second, left soley to the wisdom of ” employers who earn the tax dollars”, the average working man would not get overtime pay, unemployment insurance, protection from discriminatory hiring practices, workers compensation ect…….you get the point.
    You have posted a small portion of the Bill to support your position, but to be well inform a person must read the whole bill. The exceptions to use on the job does not mean that “a junior attorney with a medical marijuana prescription could load up in the courthouse parking lot just before a morning session, then begin “hours of employment” nice and baked”. Being under the influence constitues “use”, and as is clearly stated in the Bill (d) Nothing in this section shall prohibit an employer from
    terminating the employment of, or taking other corrective action
    against, a person who is impaired on the property or premises of
    the place of employment or during the hours of employment,
    because of the medical use of marijuana.
    Based on your statements here I am forced to wonder if you would champion a movement to remove the protections already in place that allow you to take a percocet after dental surgury without the risk of losing your job.
    A.B.2279 is a bill that seeks to extent the same protections afforded other medications to those who genuinely need the benifits of medical marijuana.

  2. george  •  Oct 23, 2009 @11:36 am

    His employing firm’s clients might not feel too safe knowing their financial welfare or freedom were in the hands of a stoner,
    But, being in the hands of a drunk is ok? What’s to prevent the same “junior associate” from chugging down a pint of whiskey before going into a full day of court? How is that any different? Strawman. Bogus.

Leave a Reply

Allowed tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>