Jump to content


Photo

Employee Rights And Medical Marijuana Users


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Ambrose Law Group

Ambrose Law Group

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 17 May 2010 - 02:39 PM

we wrote a blog on our website about this topic http://wp.me/pPmDf-7D

Here is an excerpt from our blog. We'd love to hear what other people think about this issue. It's a very gray area!

The Michigan Medical Marijuana Act states that a person carrying a medical marijuana card cannot be “denied any right or privilege” by a “business or occupational or professional licensing board.”

The problem is that the Act does not require “an employer to accommodate the ingestion of marihuana in any workplace or any employee working while under the influence of marihuana.”

While “ingestion” of marijuana at work is unprotected, a covered employee may claim a right under the Act to “possess” the substance at work, either externally or internally, so long as the employee is not “under the influence” of the drug. The problem is there is no sobriety test for marijuana.

So, what is considered under the influence? Being “under the influence” of marijuana is different for individuals and hard to determine or prove. Unlike substances such as alcohol, an employee will test positive for marijuana if he or she used the drug any time in the previous weeks. Just because marijuana is in an employee’s system does not mean that there has been “ingestion of marijuana in the workplace” or the employee is “working under the influence of marijuana”, as prohibited by the Medical Marijuana Act.

#2 Silverblue

Silverblue

    Peaceful Warrior

  • +Authors
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,212 posts
  • LocationA place in my mind where Compassion rules!

Posted 17 May 2010 - 04:09 PM

The law seems to be contradicting itself. I notice that about other laws, too, they're not well written. I'm fairly certain I saw an article on this site someplace about someone who got fired because of MM. I don't remember if the patient is appealing the decision or not.

Sb

#3 JohnB RPh

JohnB RPh

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 254 posts
  • LocationSW MI

Posted 17 May 2010 - 05:40 PM

I can say from personal experience that at least one company in Michigan does not permit the use of marijuana by their employees at any time, for any reason, regardless of approval by the Michigan Medical Marijuana registry. And as for possession of said substance on company grounds of a large corporation, no offense, but as the kids say rofl. It will be years before that comes to fruition, if ever, in my opinion. And although not the company I am refering to, in hindsight, it seems plain that is Wal-Mart's policy as well.

I can also state from personal experience that a particular state health licensing board considers one "under the influence" at least one day following use. I do not believe said board ultimately forbade my ability to use it, and although by that time I had obtained my card, I didn't press the issue. I should clarify my experience with said board involved a legal complaint and not a professional complaint. I am 100% positive, however, should any incidences arise concerning my professional performance or legal status it was implied it would be used in consideration against me.

Before all the warriors here chastise me for being disingenuous and not standing up for my/our rights, I'm too old to start a new profession, too cynical of the overall intent of the justice system, and was in no position to say anything but "Yassuh, Massah", and as long as Michigan is an at-will state I believe it will remain that way. I firmly believe that ultimately, if the government is out to get you, they will find a way.

#4 Guest_Wayne_*

Guest_Wayne_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 May 2010 - 05:44 PM

The State of Michigan is now utilizing drug testing as a bargaining chip at the table. They have been willing to decrease testing percentages to gain other concessions. Rather sad but the unions are getting contract language changed to the benefit of those they represent. Funny how lack of money changes the political landscape.

#5 Ambrose Law Group

Ambrose Law Group

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 17 May 2010 - 07:43 PM

The law seems to be contradicting itself. I notice that about other laws, too, they're not well written. I'm fairly certain I saw an article on this site someplace about someone who got fired because of MM. I don't remember if the patient is appealing the decision or not.

Sb



#6 Ambrose Law Group

Ambrose Law Group

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 17 May 2010 - 07:45 PM

The law is very contradictory. It will be interesting to see how cases like this end up playing out in court. As a law firm we're hoping to get some of these cases and help set the precedents that will shape the law. Obviously, it needs to be addressed and clarified.

#7 bobandtorey

bobandtorey

    The First To Be Raided and legal

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,105 posts

Posted 17 May 2010 - 08:32 PM

As announced by Joseph Casias yesterday: "I would like to announce my repesentaion for my lawsuit against Walmart will be as follows: Daniel GROW lead attorney; my co-council is the Michigan ACLU and the national ACLU. I will need a lot of prayers and support moving foward in this case. GOD bless."

Little Berrien County Attorney Dan Grow (and the ACLU) against Walmart - the Goliath. Go Team!
found this from a old post




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users