March 19, 2010 – PHOENIX — What happened to a Walmart worker in Michigan who was fired for testing positive for marijuana probably could not happen in Arizona if voters approve a ballot measure in November.

The initiative 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 let those not within 25 miles of a shop to grow their own.

But the ballot measure also contains anti-discrimination provisions, including one that says 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 company could prove the person used or possessed marijuana on the job or was “impaired” during work hours.

Two labor lawyers said that will present hurdles for Arizona companies in proving what is impaired.

And Andrew Myers, campaign manager for the Arizona initiative, said it is, in fact, the intent of backers to preclude workers from being fired for testing positive on the job. “I believe that our language is very clear on that point,” he said.

The Michigan case, which came to light Thursday, involves Joseph Casias who has a medical marijuana card under that state’s laws to deal with the pain from sinus cancer and a brain tumor.

He told ABC News it was never an issue until he sprained his knee at work last November and, pursuant to company policy, had to take a drug test. Casias said company officials fired him for the positive test, saying it doesn’t honor the marijuana cards.

According to ABC, Michigan law says employers do not have to accommodate the ingestion of marijuana in the workplace or employees working while under the influence.

That, however, would not be the case in Arizona if voters approve the version of the law likely to appear on the ballot in November. Backers claim they already have the 153,365 valid signatures necessary to qualify and will file the petitions next month.

Attorney Don Johnsen said current state and federal law does not require companies to make accommodations for those who are using marijuana.

If pot approved, state will get tax

If voters decide to legalize marijuana for medical purposes, users will have to give some of what they pay to the state.

Without debate, the Senate gave preliminary approval Thursday to legislation that says marijuana should be subject to the state sales tax.

That would be an exception from existing law which exempts prescription medications from tax.

Sen. Jorge Garcia, D-Tucson, said he supports the initiative to allow doctors to give patients a written “certification” to purchase and use marijuana. But he said there is no reason to exempt it from taxes.

Legislative staffers estimate the levy could raise $1.3 million a year at the current 5.6 percent sales tax — more if voters approve a temporary one-cent hike on
May 18.

The marijuana initiative will go to voters in November.  Source.

March 19, 2020 – When it comes to medical marijuana, Colorado employers are caught between conflicting laws.

The state’s medical-marijuana amendment, passed by voters in 2000, says that employers don’t have to accommodate medical-marijuana use in the workplace.

But another Colorado law, enacted a few years ago to protect cigarette smokers, prohibits firing employees for engaging in legal activities during nonworking hours.

That suggests that people who smoke medical marijuana before arriving at work could be protected under state law, whether their employers like it or not. And with roughly 30,000 Coloradans now estimated to be qualified to use medical marijuana, employers are growing increasingly uneasy.

It’s the kind of quandary employers in other states are have faced as well, as medical marijuana gains increasing acceptance.

“No cases have been litigated yet in Colorado, so we’re not sure how a court might rule or how a jury might find,” said Danielle Urban, an attorney with Fisher & Phillips LLP, a Denver-based employment law firm.

State courts in California, Washington, and Oregon have handled cases involving employees that were terminated for medical-marijuana use, and they all have sided with employers, she said.

However, none of those states had a law similar to Colorado’s “Unlawful prohibition of legal activities as a condition of employment” statute.

“An employer can always send an employee home if they’re under the influence,” said Vance Knapp, an employment attorney at Sherman & Howard LLC in Denver. “The tricky issue becomes what happens if an employer does a random drug test and an employee tests positive, but says ‘I’m not intoxicated; I’m using this on my own time to treat my chronic disease.’”

Unlike alcohol, elements of marijuana use can be detected for days or even weeks, making it difficult to determine how recently the drug was used.

“I’m a former prosecutor, and I can tell you that sometimes the trace elements of marijuana can be in a person’s bloodstream or hair follicles for three weeks, even after smoking one marijuana cigarette,” Knapp said. “It’s not like alcohol, where it burns off after a good night’s sleep and drinking some water.”  Source.