Pubdate: Fri, 15 May 2009
Source: Arizona Daily Star (Tucson, AZ)
Copyright: 2009 Arizona Daily Star
Contact:  http://www.azstarnet.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/23
Author: Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services
Cited: Arizona Medical Marijuana Act http://stoparrestingpatients.org/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal)

MEDICAL POT INITIATIVE LAUNCHED

Would Provide Protections Against Getting Fired From Jobs

PHOENIX - An initiative drive launched Thursday would give some 
people who are prescribed marijuana and test positive for the drug on 
the job the same legal anti-discrimination protections against 
getting fired as women and minorities.

The measure, dubbed the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, would allow 
doctors to essentially prescribe marijuana to patients who are 
suffering from any one of a specific set of conditions. It also would 
allow creation of a network of nonprofit shops that would sell 
marijuana to those who have those prescriptions and allow those not 
within 25 miles of a shop to grow their own.

Backers need to gather 153,365 valid signatures by July 1, 2010, to 
put the measure on the ballot that year.

The plan, modeled after similar laws in other states, requires only 
"written certification" from a doctor to get up to 2.5 ounces of 
marijuana every two weeks. The drugs would come from nonprofit 
dispensaries, though the question of where they get their plants or 
seeds is not addressed.

Campaign manager Andrew Meyers said there are differences in this 
plan designed to make it less subject to abuse than the California 
model, like distance restrictions of these shops from schools.

There also is a list of medical conditions that could be treated with 
marijuana, ranging from glaucoma and AIDS to chronic or debilitating 
conditions that lead to severe and chronic pain, severe nausea, 
seizures, or severe and persistent muscle spasms.

What it also contains, though, are anti-discrimination provisions, 
including one that an employer cannot make hiring, firing and 
disciplinary conditions based on a person's status as the holder of a 
medical marijuana card. Potentially more significant, that protection 
extends to someone who tests positive for drugs unless the person 
used or possessed marijuana on the job or was "impaired" during work hours.

Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall said the problem is proving what 
constitutes impairment.

With alcohol, she said, it's easy. Tests determine a blood- alcohol 
level. And there are standards in both state and federal laws that 
determine what level constitutes impairment.

That doesn't exist for marijuana.

Attorney Don Johnsen, who specializes in labor law, said the 
language, similar to laws that prohibit discrimination on race, 
religion or gender, will lead to a lawsuit every time a company fires 
or refuses to hire someone with a medical marijuana card if he or she 
is found positive. Johnsen said each side will hire medical experts 
to argue to a jury whether a specific reading of a metabolite of 
marijuana shows the person was impaired.

Meyers agreed that the question of what happens to a worker who tests 
positive "becomes a question for the courts." But Meyers said he's 
not concerned about employer rights in these cases.

"We don't believe that someone that is using a medication that their 
doctor recommends to them should be fired because they're following a 
doctor's advice," he said, adding marijuana should not be treated 
different from other prescriptions.

Johnsen, however, pointed out that employers are now free to fire 
people for virtually any reason at all, including showing up at work 
under the influence of other legal drugs.

Another provision says schools could not refuse to enroll and 
landlords could not refuse to rent to those entitled to use medical 
marijuana unless they would lose dollars or licensing because of federal laws.

And the use of marijuana for medical purposes could not be taken into 
account in child custody or visitation disputes, nor would it be 
evidence of neglect or child endangerment "unless the person's 
behavior creates an unreasonable danger to the safety of the minor as 
established by clear and convincing evidence."

Nothing in the Arizona proposal, like those approved in other states, 
would immunize anyone from prosecution under federal drug possession 
laws. But the record so far has been federal agents have shown little 
interest in going after individuals for possessing small amounts of marijuana.

[sidebar]

DID YOU KNOW

If backers of a proposed medical marijuana law are successful in 
getting it on the ballot, it will be the fourth time Arizonans are 
asked to legitimize medicinal use of the drug.

Voters approved a measure in 1996 allowing doctors to prescribe 
otherwise illegal drugs to seriously and terminally ill patients, 
only to have key provisions repealed by the Legislature.

Voters reapproved the law in 1998, but language requiring an actual 
written prescription made it useless after the U.S. Drug Enforcement 
Agency threatened to revoke all prescription-writing privileges of 
any doctor writing such a prescription.

A 2002 measure sought to get around that by making a simple written 
recommendation by a doctor sufficient. But that initiative failed, in 
part because it would have made the Department of Public Safety the 
state's largest marijuana supplier. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake