Oregon employers must make a reasonable accommodation for workers who use medical marijuana for a disability, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled in an

• read full post
• 2 comments

A medical marijuana employment rights bill that would protect California patients from being fired because their medication is marijuana passed the California Assembly Wednesday.

In a May 22 decision, the California 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles has ruled that state lawmakers unconstitutionally overstepped their bounds by limiting the amount of marijuana patie

The South Carolina Supreme Court Monday threw out the homicide by child abuse conviction of Regina McKnight, the first woman in South Carolina to be convicted on that charge for suffering an uninte

[Courtesy of National Advocates for Pregnant Woman & Drug Policy Alliance]

For Immediate Release: May 12, 2008
For More Info: Lynn Paltrow 917-921-7421 or Tony Newman 646-335-5384

South Carolina Supreme Court Reverses 20-Year Homicide Conviction of Regina McKnight

Decision Recognizes Research Linking Cocaine to Stillbirths Based on "Outdated" and Inaccurate Medical Information

COLUMBIA, SC – Today, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that Regina McKnight did not have a fair trial when she was convicted in 2001, becoming the first woman in South Carolina to be convicted of homicide by child abuse as a result of suffering an unintentional stillbirth.

McKnight was arrested in 1999, several months after she experienced a stillbirth at Conway Hospital. McKnight’s conviction was based on the jury’s acceptance of the scientifically unsupported claim that her cocaine use caused the stillbirth. McKnight had no prior arrest history and even prosecutors agreed that she had no intention of harming the fetus or losing the pregnancy. Nevertheless, upon conviction she was given a twenty-year sentence, suspended to twelve years in prison with no chance for parole. She was projected to be released in 2010.

The medical community has strongly opposed McKnight’s prosecution and conviction. From the beginning, leading South Carolina and national medical, public health, and child welfare organizations and experts have opposed the prosecution and conviction. These organizations—represented by National Advocates for Pregnant Women and the Drug Policy Alliance, with South Carolina counsel Susan Dunn included the South Carolina Medical Association, the South Carolina Nurses Association, the South Carolina Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors, and the South Carolina Coalition for Healthy Families—argued in an amicus (friend of the court) brief that women do not lose their rights to a fair trial upon becoming pregnant and challenged the state’s evidence that cocaine use or anything else that McKnight did or did not do caused the stillbirth.

In 2002 counsel for Ms. McKnight challenged the constitutionality of using homicide statutes to prosecute women who experience stillbirths. On appeal, a bare majority of the State Supreme Court upheld the conviction and the new interpretation of the state's homicide law. The Court held that a pregnant woman who unintentionally heightens the risk of a stillbirth could be found guilty of “extreme indifference to human life” homicide. Under this decision a conviction for homicide is permitted on any evidence that a pregnant woman engaged in activity “public[ly] know[n]” to be “potentially fatal” to a fetus. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the decision.

Today’s ruling focused on the question of whether Ms. McKnight received a fair trial and concluded that Ms. McKnight's counsel was "ineffective in her preparation of McKnight's defense through expert testimony and cross-examination." The decision also indicated that the medical and scientific basis for her prosecution and that of other women in the state is based on outdated and inaccurate medical information.

“Significantly, the opinion acknowledges that current research simply does not support the assumption that prenatal exposure to cocaine results in harm to the fetus, and the opinion makes clear that it is certainly 'no more harmful to a fetus than nicotine use, poor nutrition, lack of prenatal care, or other conditions commonly associated with the urban poor.'” said Susan K. Dunn, counsel for amicus. “This decision puts prosecutors across the state on notice that they must actually prove that an illegal drug has risked or caused harm—not simply rely on prejudice and medical misinformation.”

This ruling addressed a petition filed on behalf of McKnight seeking a judicial review to determine whether the person is imprisoned lawfully or should be released from custody. The petition must show that the court ordered the imprisonment based on a legal or factual error. In McKnight, the factual error was accepting a causal link between McKnight’s cocaine use and her stillbirth. The legal errors were not calling medical expert as witnesses who could refute that link, failing to investigate the medical evidence the state's witnesses relied on and that was based on outdated scientific studies, and failing to challenge the court's confusing and contradictory explanations to the jury of what "intent" Ms. McKnight had to have.

“Ms. McKnight is one of more than 500 women in South Carolina who experience stillbirths each year, and in many of those cases, medicine just can’t determine the cause,” said Brandi Parrish, coordinator of the South Carolina Coalition for Healthy Families. “It is a tragedy that Ms. McKnight has been in prison for nearly eight years for a crime she did not commit. Families in South Carolina are not helped by treating stillbirths as crimes and wasting hundreds of thousands of tax dollars to imprison innocent mothers.”

The medical and public health groups also raised concerns about the consequences of South Carolina’s policy of arresting pregnant women who experience drug problems. In their brief, they cited the fact that threatening pregnant women with jail time deters them from seeking prenatal care and other vital services, as has been the case in South Carolina since the Whitner ruling in 1997 that originally permitted prosecution of pregnant women under state child endangerment charges.

Ms. McKnight is represented on the petition by C. Rauch Wise of the American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina Foundation, Inc., and Matthew Hersh and Julie Carpenter of the law firm Jenner & Block for the DKT Liberty Project.

In a decision handed down last Friday, the Vermont Supreme Court threw out the felony marijuana cultivation conviction of a man caught growing marijuana following a warrantless flyover of his rural

For more than 30 years, Alaska's courts have held that the state constitution's privacy protections barred the state from criminalizing adults possessing and consuming small amounts of marijuana in

In a March 13 ruling, the Washington state Supreme Court has rejected the random, suspicionless drug testing of high school students.

Back in January, Sgt.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has ruled that the scent of burning marijuana emanating from a car window is not probable cause for an arrest and vehicle search.

[Courtesy of Americans for Safe Access]

For Immediate Release: January 24, 2008
Contact: ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford (415) 573-7842 or ASA Media Liaison Kris Hermes (510) 681-6361

CA Supreme Court Denies Medical Marijuana Patients' Right to Work
Advocates to call on state legislature to prevent discrimination

Sacramento, CA -- The California Supreme Court ruled against medical marijuana patient Gary Ross today in his fight against employment discrimination. In a 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court claimed that Ross could not rely on the Fair Housing and Employment Act or the state's medical marijuana law to prevent discrimination at the workplace. The Court did indicate in its decision that the state legislature had not adequately clarified employment rights of medical marijuana patients.

"Obviously, we are very disappointed by today's decision," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel of Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the medical marijuana advocacy organization that argued the case. "However, we remain hopeful that the legislature will come to the aid of patients by preventing the sort of discrimination that is likely to occur from such a decision." The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Joyce L. Kennard, stated that the ruling "has seriously compromised the Compassionate Use Act, denying to those who must work for a living its promised benefits."

Despite a clearly worded amicus "friend of the court" brief filed in support of Ross in July 2006 by all of the original co-authors of SB 420 (state legislation that helped to define the rights of medical marijuana patients), the Supreme Court failed to believe that it was the intent of the entire legislature. Advocates assert that they will seek a different response from the state legislature in the form of a bill introduced in the next few weeks.

Gary Ross, a 45-year old disabled veteran and a medical marijuana patient living in Carmichael, California, is at the forefront of a landmark employment case, with significant ramifications for patients in California and across the country. Ross was fired in September 2001 for failing an employer-mandated drug test while working as a systems engineer for RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc.

"All I am asking is to be a productive member of society," said plaintiff Gary Ross. "I was not fired for poor work performance, but for an antiquated policy on medical marijuana,” continued Ross. “This practice allows employers to undermine state law and the protections provided for patients.”

Ross's physician recommended cannabis for chronic back pain that resulted from injuries sustained during his military service. But Ross's employer, RagingWire Telecommunications, refused to make an exception to its policy of terminating anyone testing positive for marijuana.

Ross filed suit after he was fired in 2001, arguing that RagingWire illegally discriminated against him because of his condition. However, a Sacramento Superior Court, and then the Third Appellate District Court both rejected his argument. In October 2005, ASA appealed to the California Supreme Court on behalf of Ross. Strong public support has been shown for Ross and the plight of California patients to seek and maintain employment.

Since it began recording instances of employment discrimination in 2005, ASA has received hundreds of such reports from across California. Companies that have either fired patients from their job, threatened them with termination, or denied them employment because of patient status or a positive test for marijuana, include Costco Wholesale, UPS, Foster Farms Dairy, DirecTV, the San Joaquin Courier, Power Auto Group, as well as several construction companies, hospitals, and various trade union employers.

Further information:
Today's California Supreme Court decision: http://www.safeaccessnow.org/downloads/Ross_Ruling.pdf
Photo of Gary Ross: http://safeaccessnow.org/img/original/Ross_pic3.jpg
Legislative-based amicus brief: http://www.safeaccessnow.org/downloads/ross_legislative.pdf
Review legal briefs and more about the Ross v. RagingWire case here: http://www.safeaccessnow.org/Ross

The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that employers may fire workers who use medical marijuana in compliance with California's Compassionate Use Act -- even if they are off duty and even if

One of New Mexico's first registered medical marijuana patients is suing Eddy County Sheriff's deputies for seizing his marijuana plants and grow equipment and turning them over to the DEA.

The California Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled last Friday that police cannot enter a home without a search warrant just because they see someone smoking marijuana inside.

Judges in Chicago's main Criminal Court Building at 26th and California hear some 28,000 felony cases a year, with each judge hearing about 800, or about four per judge per work day.

[Courtesy of Americans for Safe Access] 

Court rules that police must enforce state, not federal law

Dear ASA Supporter,

Yesterday, a California Appeals Court ruled that “it is not the job of the local police to enforce the federal drug laws.” Ending years of dispute, the court ruled in favor of Felix Kha, a medical marijuana patient seeking the return of his medical marijuana that was seized by police. “It should now be abundantly clear to law enforcement across the state that it is not acceptable to seize the medicine of seriously ill patients,” said Joe Elford, who represented Kha as Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access (ASA).

Yesterday’s victory marks the culmination of two years of litigation led by ASA. This important decision would not have been possible without the generous contributions of ASA supporters.

To help ASA continue the fight for patients’ rights, donate today!

"The ruling can help someone else that is in really bad need of access to their medicine." Felix Kha said after hearing of the victory. Felix is not alone: Americans for Safe Access (ASA) has compiled reports from nearly eight hundred patient encounters with local or state police during a period of more than two years. These reports show a glaring trend: more than 90% of all encounters result in medicine seizure by police regardless of any probable cause. According to reports received by ASA, rampant seizure of medical marijuana from qualified patients and primary caregivers has taken place in 53 of California's 58 counties.

As of yesterday, California law enforcement will be “fulfilling their more traditional duty to administer the laws of this state,” according to the court’s ruling. This precedent-setting victory was achieved through years of meticulous planning by ASA’s Legal Affairs Department, none of which would have been possible without our members and supporters, whose donations fund the $200,000 annual budget of our Legal Affairs Department.

Donate today! Support ASA’s Legal Affairs Department and help set precedents to ensure patients’ rights!

With your help we can fund several other important legal challenges to achieve the lasting victory we seek: Truly safe and legal access to medical cannabis for every patient who needs it. Thank you for your continuing generous support!

Warmly,

Steph Sherer
Executive Director
Americans for Safe Access

P.S.: To learn more, please refer to Felix Kha's return of property case and the Decision by the California Fourth Appellate District Court.

[Courtesy of Americans for Safe Access]

For Immediate Release: *November 28, 2007

Appellate Court Strongly Vindicates Patients Right to Medical Marijuana
Seized by Police

Ending years of dispute, court rules that police must enforce state and not federal law

Santa Ana, CA: A California Appeals Court ruled today in favor of Felix Kha, a medical marijuana patient from Garden Grove seeking the return of his 8 grams of medical marijuana that was seized by police. In a ruling that rejects law enforcement's claim that federal law preempts the state's medical marijuana law, the court asserted "we do not believe the federal drug laws supersede or preempt Kha's right to the return of his property." The court further stated that, "it is not the job of the local police to enforce the federal drug laws..."

After more than 2 years, the appellate court has answered a divisive question pitting the State Attorney General against the California Police Chiefs Association. Both filed "friend of the court" briefs in the case on opposite sides of the issue, with the Attorney General in support of Kha. "It should now be abundantly clear to law enforcement across the state that it is not acceptable to seize the medicine of seriously ill patients," said Joe Elford, who represented Kha as Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access (ASA), a national medical marijuana advocacy group. "And if, for whatever reason, a seizure occurs, the court has ensured that patients have a mechanism to get it back."

Kha was cited for marijuana possession and had his medicine seized in June 2005, but after the case was dismissed in August 2005, an Orange County Superior Court judge ordered the return of his medicine. However, the City of Garden Grove not only refused to return Kha's unlawfully seized property, it also appealed the order, an unprecedented action by a California city.

Americans for Safe Access (ASA) has compiled reports from nearly eight hundred patient encounters with local or state police during a period of more than two years. These reports show a glaring trend: more than 90% of all encounters result in medicine seizure by police regardless of any probable cause. According to reports received by ASA, rampant seizure of medical marijuana from qualified patients and primary caregivers has taken place in 53 of California's 58 counties. These violations of state law occur in both urban and rural locales, in the north as well as the south, and by both city and county law enforcement.

The court's ruling also affirms a policy change by the California Highway Patrol (CHP), which until 2005 held the record for the worst violator of Proposition 215. The CHP's policy of mandatory seizure of medical marijuana was challenged in court by ASA, after which the state's top law enforcement agency amply modified its policy. "Both today's court ruling and the CHP policy should go a long way to restore patients' rights in California," continued Elford.

For further information, refer to: Decision by the California Fourth Appellate District Court (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G036250.PDF) Felix Kha's return of property case (http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=4412).

Court rulings in two medical marijuana states this week slapped down law enforcement agencies who don't want to uphold the law.

For Immediate Release: November 18, 2007
Contact: Brian Vicente, Sensible Colorado, 720-280-4067

Historic Lawsuit Overturns State's Medical Marijuana Policy

Denver Judge slaps state health department; rules medical marijuana patients can appoint provider of their choice.

DENVER -- Sensible Colorado will hold a press conference on Monday, Nov. 19, in front of the Denver City and County Building, to announce the issuance of an order by Chief Denver District Court Judge Larry J. Naves permanently overturning the Colorado Health Department's "Five Patient Policy." Adopted by the Health Department in a closed meeting in 2004, this policy limited the number of patients to which a caregiver can provide marijuana for medical purposes.

Chief Judge Naves's decision stems from a lawsuit filed in June 2007 by Sensible Colorado on behalf of state-licensed medical marijuana patient Damien LaGoy. LaGoy, who uses medical marijuana to cope with nausea related to AIDS wasting-syndrome and Hepatitis C, sued the agency after his caregiver request was denied by the Health Department in May 2007 based on the "Five Patient Policy." In a July hearing Judge Naves temporarily suspended the policy accusing the agency of acting inappropriately in establishing the policy in a closed-door meeting which was not open to public or scientific input. Naves further alluded to the harmful nature of the policy in stating, "There is no reason this plaintiff should suffer."

In a decision released late last week, Naves permanently overturned the policy citing violations of both the Colorado Open Meetings Act and the Administrative Procedures Act. This decision will allow the plaintiff Damien LaGoy, and the rest of Colorado's 1700 licensed medical marijuana patients, to appoint the medical marijuana provider of their choice.

"I feel safer already," said LaGoy. "Now I can get my medicine from a safe and responsible caregiver instead of taking my chances on the streets."

"This policy had the real effect of harming seriously-ill Coloradans," said Brian Vicente, lead attorney and head of Sensible Colorado. "Hopefully the Health Department will now begin acting to help medical marijuana patients, not harm them."

WHAT: Press conference to announce an order protecting medical marijuana patient rights

**copies of Judge Naves's decision will be made available at the press conference**

WHEN: Monday, November 19, 12 p.m. (noon)

WHERE: In front of the Denver City and County Building, 1437 Bannock Street

WHO: Damien LaGoy, plaintiff and medical marijuana patient
Daniel J. Pope, medical marijuana caregiver for LaGoy
Brian Vicente, attorney and Sensible Colorado executive director
Sean McAllister, co-counsel and criminal defense attorney

# # #

[Courtesy of Drug Policy Alliance]

For Immediate Release: November 5, 2007
For More Info: Tony Newman, (646) 335-5384 or Tamar Todd (510) 593-4908

California State Supreme Court to Hear Landmark Medical Marijuana Employment Discrimination Case on Tuesday

Gary Ross, Fired After Testing Positive for Medical Marijuana, Despite Using Off-Hours and in Accordance with California Law

Leading Public Health Organizations File Amicus in Support of Gary Ross; Outcome May Affect Thousands of Working Californians Who Use Medicine to Relieve Chronic Pain

On Tuesday, November 6, 2007, the California Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc., a case in which a lawful medical marijuana patient was fired by his employer after testing positive for medical marijuana he used during off-hours in accordance with his doctor’s recommendation for the treatment of severe pain.

The case concerns Gary Ross, who treats his chronic pain and muscle spasms from a military injury with physician-recommended medical marijuana in compliance with California law. Mr. Ross provided the company with documentation of his legal status as a medical marijuana patient but was fired after eight days on the job because he tested positive for THC in a pre-employment drug test. Mr. Ross filed suit alleging wrongful termination but two lower courts sided with the employer, holding that the company did not discriminate against Mr. Ross based on his disability and chosen treatment.

“The livelihoods of thousands of working Californians who are using medical marijuana in full compliance with state law are at stake in this case,” said Tamar Todd, staff attorney at the Drug Policy Alliance.

Mr. Ross is represented by Joe Elford of Americans for Safe Access, who will be arguing that case in front of the California Supreme Court on Tuesday. The Drug Policy Alliance filed an amicus (friend-of-the-court) brief in support of Mr. Ross on behalf of leading national and state public health organizations, including the American Pain Foundation, the American Medical Women’s Association, the Lymphoma Foundation of America, the American Nurses Association, the California Nurses’ Association, the AIDS Action Council, the National Women’s Health Network, Doctors of the World – USA and the Gay Men’s Health Crisis.

The brief argues that patients should not be forced to choose between the best course of treatment or employment, and outlines the sound evidence that marijuana is medically appropriate treatment for chronic pain and other serious medical conditions. Signatories to the brief represent a powerful contingent of medical and public health organizations that represent a broad class of patient-employees.

“These leading health organizations recognize the need for patients to be able to follow their doctors’ advice for pain relief and treatment without fear of being fired from their jobs for doing so,” said Todd.

Oral argument is scheduled for November 6, 2007 at 9 a.m., in the California Supreme Court‘s Capitol courtroom, Stanley Mosk Library and Courts Building, 914 Capitol Mall, Sacramento.