Michigans medical pot law takes center stage in federal court
As most of the state was preparing for the blizzard that buried much of the state in snow Tuesday, advocates for the state medical marijuana law’s confidentiality provisions were in federal court in Grand Rapids trying to quash a federal subpoena for medical information in the possession of the Michigan Department of Community Health.
Both state and federal authorities were in court on Tuesday as well as advocates for Michigan Association of Compassion Clubs arguing over whether the MDCH can release information about seven patients/caregivers without violating the law’s confidentiality clause. The Medical Marijuana Act makes it a crime to release information contained in the confidential records turned over to the Michigan Department of Community Health as part of getting a patient card.
Republican Attorney General Bill Schuette has said he will release the information if the federal courts issue an order directing the records be released and preventing officials from being held liable for the release under Michigan law. Schuette opposed the 2008 ballot initiative which created the law.
Jamie Lowell from MACC had this to say to the Grand Rapids Press about the potential impact of releasing confidential medical records.
“When you get the application, you are under the impression all of the information will remain confidential,” he said Tuesday, outside of U.S. District Court. “People aren’t going to have that peace of mind, and they’ll think twice.”
Federal officials, however, say MACC has no business in a legal dispute between the state and federal governments.
[Assistant U.S. Attorney John] Bruha said that medical-marijuana advocates have built a case based on “rather vague confidentiality provisions,” in the law. The federal government could legally obtain the information on specified patients through a third party, or the state, which does not violate constitutional rights against self-incrimination because “the target is not being forced or compelled to do anything,” he said.
Marijuana in the Workplace?
Thank God for the Golden State: It's perfectly legal to smoke the green stuff, even on a daily basis, if you have a doctor's recommendation. But your boss might not agree that bud is the best influence for her workforce. As it stands, she can fire you for smoking medical pot (or she can decline to hire you too).
But a California lawmaker wants to change that. State Sen. Mark Leno has proposed a law that would prohibit most employers from firing you if you test positive for marijuana. The Bay Area Democrat tried it once before. His 2007 bill was rejected by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Maybe he has a chance with Jerry Brown, although we must say that Brown has become a law-and-order guy since he spent time in the Attorney General's office.
Leno's bill "would exempt from protection workers such as doctors, nurses, school bus drivers and heavy equipment operators who hold so-called safety sensitive jobs." Of course, there might be one more hurdle: Federal law, which still says employers can fire people for weed use. And weed use is still illegal on a national level. Will this trump a California law?
Leno bill aims to protect working medical marijuana patients
In 2008, then-state Assemblyman Mark Leno got a bill passed in both houses of the California Legislature to prohibit employees from firing workers simply because they were medical marijuana patients.
A little more than two years after the bill was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Leno, now a Democratic state senator from San Francisco, has introduced similar legislation.
Leno's Senate Bill 129 would prohibit employers from discriminating against workers with medical marijuana recommendations in hiring or firing decisions or in their rights to participate in the workplace.
The bill would allow employers to fire workers for impairment on the job. A summary of the bill said employers in fields, "in which medical cannabis-affected performance could endanger the health and safety of others," would be exempt from the legislation. Those who wouldn't be protected by the bill would include school bus drivers and other transportation workers, operators of heavy equipment and health care providers.
Leno introduced his earlier bill after the California Supreme Court ruled on behalf of employers in a landmark 2008 case on marijuana in the workplace. The court ruled that California's 1996 Proposition 215 medical marijuana law doesn't require employers to make accommodations or waive any workplace rules for legal cannabis users.
The Supreme Court case upheld the firing of a Carmichael man who was dismissed after failing a drug test as a condition of employment at a Sacramento firm, RagingWire Telecommunications. Ross had told his employer that he had a medical recommendation for back pain and spasms from injuries suffered in the U.S. Air Force.
Leno charged that the court's interpretation effectively said that California voters had approved the legal use of medical marijuana only "to benefit unemployed people." He said his bill will put it into law that "a medical marijuana patient has a right to employment in California."
The last time Leno introduced the marijuana employment measure he faced opposition from The California Chamber of Commerce. In an interview with The Sacramento Bee last year, Denise Davis, CalChamber's vice president for media relations said, "An employer's right to maintain a drug-free workplace is critical."
The Chamber later opposed last year's Proposition 19 initiative to legalize marijuana for recreational use on grounds that it could subject employers to costly litigation, create a workforce of stoned employees and make it difficult for employers to fire workers without proof of impairment on the job.
Leno argued that improved drug-testing technologies can detect workers' current impairment for marijuana, making it easier for employers to enforce workplace standards.
Sask Delegate Sparks Debate Over Medical Marijuana
While members of Parliament head back to the hill Monday, medical marijuana advocates from across the country are following suite. What began as a Facebook support group for medical marijuana users, has grown into a lobby group with a country-wide network and Monday members of the Medical Marijuana Access Regulations lobby group are taking their message to the top.
“We’re going to occupy the public gallery in the House of Commons. Our goal is to respectfully follow the rules of Parliament; exercise our right to observe those who are deciding our fate; speak publicly about our situation and lobby for change,” said Saskatchewan’s only delegate Caleb Hubbell.
When Hubbell was six, he was diagnosed with a degenerative bone disease and by 12 had severe arthritis. He was managing his conditions until a couple years ago when he was crushed by a sheet of steel while on the job and hasn’t worked since. “Doctors had me on such a high narcotic painkiller regime. I was taking morphine patches, delotid and other medication and was getting heartburn from all the pills. And then I was having problems sleeping because of all the pills and my body started shutting down after about two years on pills.”
Marijuana grow houses are a growing controversy at Denver City Council
In the fall of 2009, Denver City Council rep Charlie Brown realized that the city had to get a handle on the booming medical marijuana dispensary industry -- and even as the Colorado Legislature was just starting to discuss MMJ, Denver was signing off on its ordinance. But now the city needs to revise its Denver Medical Marijuana Code to deal with certain provisions of the state law and the growing controversy over grow houses.
Marijuana Activists Fight DEA Efforts to Eviscerate Medical Privacy
If the State of Michigan won't protect the people, activists will. So went the cry of medical marijuana groups in Michigan this week, concerned that the privacy of medical marijuana patients there is at grave risk. According to reports, the Michigan Association of Compassion Clubs filed an emergency motion this week to halt efforts by the federal government to gain access to the records of several Michigan medical marijuana patients. As a result, A U.S. District Court hearing this week that would have decided whether the Michigan Department of Community Health would have to comply with a June subpoena by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) for the records was postponed until Feb. 1, giving a host of advocacy groups a chance to file amicus "friend of the court" briefs against the DEA's efforts.
Americans for Safe Access (ASA) said it filed its own brief on Thursday, pointing out that the current medical marijuana law in Michigan protects the privacy of patients and that the state is obligated at all costs to uphold it, even at the risk of crossing the federal government. "We must do everything we can to protect that right to privacy, especially for medical marijuana patients who remain vulnerable due to an outdated federal law," said ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford, author of the group's amicus brief, in a statement. "Patient privacy is an important ethical and public health issue of our time, regardless of whether patients benefit from the use of medical marijuana." For its part, the DEA is seeking "copies of any and all documents, records, applications, payment method of any application for Medical Marijuana Patient Cards and Medical Marijuana Caregiver cards and copies of front and back of any cards located for the seven named individuals" in an ongoing investigation. While the DEA has declined to name the individuals or provide any details of the case, activists believe it is connected with an investigation into medical marijuana patients and caregivers in the Lansing area.
So far, the state has refused the DEA's request, arguing that turning over the records would actually put the Department of Community Health at risk of breaking its own law. Unfortunately, the DEA has an ally in new state Attorney General Bill Schuette, a vocal opponent of the medical marijuana program. Court records reveal that his office has already agreed to turn over the records if the court orders it -- and if the department and its employees are given immunity from liability for breaking the privacy provisions in the law. The state's medical marijuana law says such disclosures are punishable by up to six months in prison or a fine of up to $1,000. In the emergency motion to stop the court proceedings this week, Traverse City attorney Jesse Williams, representing the compassion clubs, said that based on the language in the DEA's subpoena it is "highly likely" that it is after more than just the records of seven people, making this fight a more critical crossroads forMichigan's nascent medical marijuana law (it only went into effect in 2009).
- 191,098 Views Category: Odd
- 150,242 Views Category: Fun
- 139,716 Views Category: Culture
- 100,747 Views Category: Culture
- 99,330 Views Category: Culture
- 99,106 Views Category: Fun
- 79,847 Views Category: Culture
- 78,023 Views Category: Odd
- 69,917 Views Category: Fun
- 63,093 Views Category: Fun