Pubdate: Wed, 13 Jun 2012
Source: Denver Post (CO)
Copyright: 2012 The Denver Post Corp
Contact:  http://www.denverpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/122

POT PATIENTS' LIMITED RIGHTS

The Supreme Court Spoke Volumes by Not Hearing the Case of a Medical 
Marijuana User Who Was Fired After Failing a Drug Test.

Sometimes, inaction speaks louder than words. That is what happened 
when the Colorado Supreme Court recently refused to take a 
lower-court case involving the firing of a medical marijuana user for 
having pot in his system while on the job.

The crucial finding is that the constitutional amendment passed in 
2000 legalizing medical marijuana really just provided a 
get-out-of-jail-free card for certified users, not a constitutional 
right to the stuff.

It's an important ruling, or non-ruling if you will, that has 
implications for the ability of local governments to impose zoning 
regulations on dispensaries and even ban them.

And it backstops an employer's right, established under state law, to 
avoid being charged for unemployment benefits for employees 
terminated for having controlled substances in their systems that are 
not medically prescribed.

These issues were explored at length in a 2011 case, Beinor vs. 
Industrial Claim Appeals Office. Jason Beinor was employed by Service 
Group Inc., which has a zero-tolerance drug policy, to sweep the 16th 
Street Mall in Denver.

Beinor got a physician's recommendation (that's not a prescription, 
mind you) for medical marijuana to ease severe headaches. He was 
fired in February 2010 after failing a drug test.

Beinor claimed Amendment 20, the medical marijuana initiative passed 
by voters, legalized his use and possession and therefore should 
trump state laws that resulted in his being denied unemployment benefits.

An appeals court disagreed, and the Colorado Supreme Court 
essentially upheld that view in announcing last month that it would 
not hear the case.

We'd prefer employers demonstrate empathy toward employees who use 
medical marijuana legitimately, but we don't dispute the court's decision.

The situation leaves medical marijuana advocates despairing about how 
users will be affected. What if such a rationale were used to deny 
medical pot users gun permits or government aid? You can bet they'll 
redouble their efforts to ensconce new marijuana protections in the 
state constitution.

It will be important for Colorado voters, when faced with such 
measures on the November ballot, to fully understand the implications 
of creating a state constitutional right to use marijuana.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom