Truth Seeker
New Member
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.
News Hawk- TruthSeekr420 420 MAGAZINE
Source: journal-advocate.com
Author: Journal Advocate Staff
Contact: Contact Us - Journal Advocate
Website: Denver Post: Medical marijuana patients' limited rights - Journal Advocate
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.
News Hawk- TruthSeekr420 420 MAGAZINE
Source: journal-advocate.com
Author: Journal Advocate Staff
Contact: Contact Us - Journal Advocate
Website: Denver Post: Medical marijuana patients' limited rights - Journal Advocate
