Pubdate: Mon, 22 Jun 2015
Source: Arizona Republic (Phoenix, AZ)
Copyright: 2015 The Arizona Republic
Contact: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/sendaletter.html
Website: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/24
Author: Jayne Clark, USA TODAY

LET OTHER STATES FIX BUGS IN POT LAW

Ardent supporters of the legalization of marijuana just learned an 
important life lesson: The law moves slowly.

The Colorado Supreme Court - the highest legal authority in the state 
with the country's most liberal pot laws - recently ruled 6-0 that 
employers can fire workers who use medical cannabis, even outside of 
working hours.

"Lawful activities" are truly lawful only when they comport with both 
state and federal law, the court said. Colorado has legalized the 
possession and use of marijuana. Federal law is another matter.

The court didn't address recreational use of marijuana, also legal in 
Colorado but illegal under federal law. But its decision leaves no 
doubt what it would say about that.

Advocates should see this as a teachable moment. Two groups have 
launched petition drives to legalize recreational use of marijuana in Arizona.

The Colorado decision should be clear evidence that Arizona should go 
slow and let other laboratories of democracy work through the legal 
pitfalls that come with such a dramatic shift in public policy.

The disappointment among legalization advocates is palpable, of 
course. They had hoped the state's Medical Marijuana Amendment 
liberalizing the drug's use would comport with another state law, the 
Lawful Off-Duty Activities Statute, that protects workers from being 
fired for using specified drugs.

The justices concluded it does not, for the same reason legal experts 
in Arizona and many other states wrangled with the issue: An activity 
cannot be truly "legal" if it remains illegal under federal law. And 
federal law does not appear likely to change anytime soon.

Affirming lower-court rulings on the rights of businesses to keep 
their "zero tolerance" policies proved to be an easy call.

Federal law views marijuana as a drug that (in the justices' words) 
has "no medical accepted use, a high risk of abuse and a lack of 
accepted safety for use under medical supervision." It is difficult 
to envision how the court would not rule that businesses should 
retain the right to forbid use of a drug with a legal designation such as that.

Reform activists are not the most patient folk. But it helps to 
remember just how emphatically the concept of "zero tolerance" for 
drug abuse has been drilled, over the decades, into the corporate 
consciousness. Employers and the law will not quickly adapt to a new 
and growing tolerance for marijuana.

If it is any consolation for activists, the number of companies 
maintaining a strict zero-tolerance policy in Colorado seems to be 
dwindling - likely the result of an increasingly competitive job 
market and the slow acceptance of a marijuana-tolerant culture.

Reforming federal laws controlling these issues will be another 
matter. But until all those bugs get worked out, the experiences of 
Colorado and other pot-friendly states should tell Arizona to go slow 
on its own reforms.

We should be in no hurry to take on the challenges they are 
discovering. Let others work the bugs out.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom