Filed under: Hemp&Law, HempTherapy, hemp in general | Tags: Arnold Schwarzenegger, California, cannabis, ganja, hashish, hemp, marijuana, pot, Proposition 215, skunk, supreme court, weed
Sacramento, CA — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has vetoed a bill sponsored by medical marijuana advocates that would have protected most employees from being fired for testing positive for pot that they used outside the workplace with their doctor’s approval.
The measure, AB 2279 by Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, would have overturned a state Supreme Court ruling in January that allowed employers to punish workers for using medical marijuana that was legalized by a state ballot measure in 1996.
Under Leno’s measure, the only workers who could have been fired for using medical marijuana would have been those in safety-related or law enforcement jobs.In its 5-2 ruling, the Supreme Court said the initiative, Proposition 215, exempted medical marijuana patients and their caregivers from state prosecution, but wasn’t intended to limit an employer’s authority to fire workers for violating federal drug laws.
Schwarzenegger used the same rationale in his veto message Tuesday.
“I am concerned with interference in employment decisions as they relate to marijuana use,” the governor wrote. “Employment protection was not a goal of the initiative as passed by voters in 1996.”
Medical marijuana supporters disagreed.
Source: San Francisco Chronicle
Filed under: Hemp&Law, HempTherapy, hemp in general | Tags: cannabis, ganja, hashish, hemp, marijuana, medical cannabis, medical marijuana, pot, skunk, supreme court, weed
California — Last Wednesday the California Supreme Court unanimously agreed to hear the case of California vs Patrick Kelly to determine whether any limits imposed by the legislature to the Compassionate Use Act is constitutional.
While the California Supreme Court takes up the issue, the existing limits in the California Health and Safety Code remain in effect throughout much of California. For Mendocino County, the limits are a bit murkier as the ongoing legal challenge to the portion of Measure B, which had the county adopt the state limits may await the final Supreme Court decision.
Superior Court Judge John Behnke in his August 8 decision on the challenge to the Measure B limits ruled “if the state legislature cannot amend a stat law passed by initiative (the Compassionate Use Act) by passing specific legislation certainly the electorate of a county can’t amend a statewide initiative by passing a local ordinance or initiative.”While this decision was made prior to the Supreme Court accepting the Kelly case for review, Behnke cited the more recent appeals court ruling from July 31 of California vs Phomphakdy as raising similar issues to the Kelly case although it cannot be cited for 30 days and also may be accepted by the Supreme Court for further review.
The Behnke decision leaves the county effectively without any new guidelines for law enforcement, although the statewide limits appear to serve as a minimum protection for medical marijuana users, at least until the Phomphakdy case either becomes law on August 30 or is accepted for Supreme Court review.
A review of California vs. Patrick Kelly:
A Los Angeles County medical marijuana case, which most agree would never have seen a courtroom in Mendocino County, has raised questions on whether any limits imposed by the legislature to the Compassionate Use Act is constitutional.
The Court of Appeal in the case of California vs. Patrick Kelly ruled limits on medical marijuana possession imposed by the Health and Safety Code to be unconstitutional. In July, the state Attorney General petitioned the state Supreme Court to review the case. On August 13, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, leaving in place the current provisions of the Health and Safety Code.
In California vs. Patrick Kelly, the appeals court overturned Kelly’s 2006 conviction for possession of more than an ounce of marijuana for which he received a sentence of 2 days in jail and 3 years probation. The jury was asked, but declined, to convict Kelly of possession and cultivation of marijuana for sale.
A summary of the case reveals a substantially different prosecutorial atmosphere in Los Angeles County than prevails in Mendocino County. According to court records, Kelly suffers from several ruptured vertebrae causing severe back pain, as well as mood disorders, hepatitis, nausea and lack of appetite, which he had tried treating with epidurals, pain therapy, hot and cold braces, nerve stimulators and medication. Dissatisfied with this treatment plan, in part due to the cost of pain management pills, Kelly sought a recommendation to use marijuana, which he received in 2005.
Unable to afford marijuana from a dispensary, Kelly began growing a few plants at his home, consuming between one and two ounces per week.
Based on a tip from an informant and the visibility of some pot plants in the backyard, law enforcement officers obtained a search warrant for Kelly’s home and confiscated 12 ounces of processed pot stored in 2-ounce baggies, seven potted marijuana plants, a loaded gun in the nightstand and a scale.
Kelly had taped a copy of his valid medical marijuana recommendation to the garage door including a phone number where it could be verified 24 hours a day, keeping the original copy in his bedroom. The deputy called and verified the validity of the recommendation. One plant had a homemade trip wire constructed from Christmas wrapping and bells.
Because Kelly had about 4 ounces more marijuana than allowed under the California Health and Safety Code and did not have a special doctor’s recommendation to exceed the code amount, he was arrested for cultivation and possession of marijuana for sale. The charges were filed despite the lack of any evidence associated with the sale of marijuana such as nickel and dime bags, pagers, cell phones, pay-owe sheets, money, safes or elaborate growing systems at the Kelly residence. Kelly denied ever selling marijuana.
The case went to a jury trial. During the trial, according to the appeal, the prosecutor improperly instructed the jury that because the Health and Safety Code set an eight-ounce possession maximum for medical marijuana, the possession of more, which was not specifically authorized by a recommendation, was illegal. The case was overturned and a new trial ordered.
Although the court also declared the current Health and Safety Code limits unconstitutional, when the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case, that declaration was set aside pending the outcome of a future Supreme Court ruling.
Source: Willits News (CA)
Website: http://www.willitsnews.com/
Filed under: Hemp&Law, hemp in general | Tags: cannabis, drug, ganja, hashish, hemp, italy, marijuana, rasta, rastafari, supreme court
Good news for Rastafari religion….
A 44 years old rasta-man in December 2004 was catched with almost 100gr of marijuana and arrested with the accusation of “sale of drug” and condamned to one year and four month of prison.
The man affirmed that “the sacred grass could be utilised till 10 gr every day” and so 100gr are personal use.
Today the italian supreme court affirmed that for rastafari marijuana is “utilised not only as curative grass,but also as meditative grass”.
I belive in Italy tomorrow there will be more rasta….
Filed under: Hemp&Law | Tags: cannabis, ganja, hashish, law, marijuana, medical cannabis, oregon, supreme court, us
Portland — The Oregon Court of Appeals has ruled that an employer must make a reasonable accommodation for medical marijuana use for a disability. In an opinion issued Wednesday, the appeals court upheld a ruling by the state Bureau of Labor and Industries.
The agency said that Emerald Steel Fabricators in Eugene violated state laws barring discrimination against the disabled by discharging an employee who used medical marijuana.
A key issue was the fact the employee never used marijuana in the workplace — an issue the Oregon Supreme Court avoided in 2006 when it ruled against a registered medical marijuana user fired from his job at a Columbia Forest Products plant after urine tests detected traces of the drug.
Employers do not have to let patients smoke medical marijuana in the workplace. But the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act approved by voters in 1998 was unclear about whether employers must accommodate workers who smoke medical marijuana off the job.
In the opinion by Judge Timothy Sercombe, the Oregon Court of Appeals went back over the 2006 Oregon Supreme Court ruling to emphasize the Emerald Steel employee never used the marijuana at work — just like the worker in the Columbia Forest case.
The appeals court also noted the Oregon Supreme Court did not address some of the defenses raised in the earlier case, including the argument an employee could be affected by medical marijuana use while on duty or in “safety-sensitive positions.”
It also rejected an attempt by Emerald Steel to raise new issues on appeal, including the fact that marijuana remains illegal under federal law despite state law allowing its use for medical purposes.
“Accordingly, we will not consider those issues for the first time on review,” Sercombe wrote.
Medical marijuana has been opposed by the construction industry, which wants laws to prohibit medical marijuana users from potentially hazardous jobs such as operating heavy machinery.
Associated General Contractors has lobbied for laws defining safety-sensitive jobs, including driving large trucks, handling explosives, working at construction sites and other jobs listed as hazardous under state work safety laws.
Supporters of restrictions on medical marijuana use, including state Rep. Mike Schaufler, D-Happy Valley, have said they are trying to ensure public safety.
But medical marijuana activist John Sajo says that during legislative hearings last year, nobody was able to identify a single case where a medical marijuana patient had caused a workplace accident or problem.
He also said the vast majority of medical marijuana patients are too ill to work.
Eleven other states — Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington state — have medical marijuana laws.
Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Website: http://www.seattletimes.com/
Filed under: Hemp&Law, HempTherapy | Tags: California, hemp, marijuana, medical cannabis, medical marijuana, supreme court
State Assembly passage of a right-to-work bill is cause for rejoicing among area medical-marijuana patients.
Clients, volunteers and officials at Medical Marijuana Caregivers Association of El Dorado County applaud the passage May 28 of Assembly Bill 2279, introduced in February by Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, said Elaine Roller, volunteer.
Following a state Supreme Court ruling Jan. 24, an employer currently can fire anyone whom they know is a med-pot patient. The Leno bill would override that ruling to reflect what he and others say is the intent of voters’ legalizing medical cannabis with Prop. 215. To become law, AB 2279 must pass a State Senate vote and gain a signature from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
“Patients have a right to work,” Roller said.
The bill excepts workplaces where people do safety-sensitive jobs.
Even so, Leno said, the bill “is not about being under the influence at work.”
Matt Vaughn, director of Medical Marijuana Caregivers Association of El Dorado County, said it was no surprise the Leno bill passed the State Assembly.
“It’s a natural progression of due process,” Vaughn said. “This was something voted on by the people. I can understand the ( exception ), but not everyone has that kind of job.”
Roller said she sees clients whose severe pain once had them on the controversial prescription narcotic Oxycontin.
“The difference is the joy in their lives when they do not have to rely on heavy medication,” Roller said.
The state Supreme Court ruled against plaintiff Gary Ross, formerly of Carmichael, who in 2001 was fired from his job for testing positive for marijuana. He is a disabled war veteran and med-pot patient, who described himself as a “productive worker” for a telecommunications firm.
“The voters who supported Prop. 215 did not intend for medical-marijuana patients to be forced into unemployment in order to benefit from their medicine,” Leno said.
