Last week's California Supreme Court decision upholding the ability of employers to fire employees who test positive for marijuana even if they are patients has shone a spotlight on an increasingly contested grey area created by the disjuncture between state and federal policies toward medical marijuana. With last week's decision, California's more than 150,000 medical marijuana patients now face renewed insecurity on the job. But 11 other states also have medical marijuana laws, and patients are equally at risk of job loss in most of them.

the infamous ruling

"There are several states -- California, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Rhode Island -- that specify that patients cannot be punished by professional licensing boards, and New Mexico and a number of other states have language like 'not subject to penalty in any manner,'" she said. "In Washington, it says 'the people shall not be denied any right or privilege.'"

But whether such language really means patients are protected from being fired for testing positive on a drug test is likely to be sorted out only by court cases or legislation. Better to get that explicit protective language written into the law in the first place, suggested Jesse Stout, executive director of the Rhode Island Patient Advocacy Coalition (RIPAC).

"We did get specific employment protections written into the law, as well a protection from discrimination in terms of enrolling in schools and leasing property," said Stout. "This happened because we went to our patients and asked them what they thought, and they said they wanted marijuana treated like any other medicine."

While Rhode Island advocates had to take other measures out of the bill to ensure passage, employment protections were not controversial. "They weren't a problem," Stout said.

As a result, Rhode Island's 600 medical marijuana patients are among the best protected in the country when it comes to employment protection. And they don't have to rely on the courts or the legislature to provide protection after the fact.

In California, on the other hand, the Supreme Court has settled matters -- at least for now -- with its ruling last week. In that decision, the Court found 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 their use does not affect their job performance.

In that case, Gary Ross, whose doctor recommended medical marijuana for chronic back pain resulting from an injury incurred while serving in the Air Force, was hired by Raging Wire as a systems engineer in 2001 and was required to take a drug test as a condition of employment. He provided the company with a copy of his doctor's recommendation, but the company fired him a week later because of a positive test result.

Ross sued, alleging that the company violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) by not accommodating his disability. He also argued that the company fired him in violation of public policy because the Compassionate Use Act legalized medical marijuana in the state.

But in siding with employers, the state high court said the state's Compassionate Use Act protected users only from criminal prosecution. "Nothing in the text or history of the Compassionate Use Act suggests the voters intended the measure to address the respective rights and duties of employers and employees," wrote Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdeger for the majority. "Under California law, an employer may require pre-employment drug tests and take illegal drug use into consideration in making employment decisions."

Additionally, Werdeger noted, even though medical marijuana is legal under state law it remains illegal under federal law, and "the FEHA does not require employers to accommodate the use of illegal drugs."

Justice Joyce Kennard was scathing in her dissent. The decision was "conspicuously lacking in compassion," she wrote. "The majority's holding disrespects the will of California's voters." The voters "surely never intended that persons who availed themselves" of the medical marijuana act "would thereby disqualify themselves from employment," Kennard said.

She wasn't the only one. "This was an atrocious decision that generated a scathing dissent," said Joe Elford, legal counsel for the medical marijuana defense group Americans for Safe Access, who argued the case for Ryan. "When California voters passed a law ensuring the right of ill Californians to use marijuana, they didn't expect people to be fired for exercising that right."

"This is a decision is based on tortured logic designed to lead to an absurdly narrow reading of the law," said Bruce Mirken, San Francisco-based communications director for MPP. "The court is claiming that California voters intended to permit medical use of marijuana, but only if you're willing to be unemployed and on welfare. That's ridiculous on its face, as well as cruel, as Justice Kennard rightly observed in her dissent."

If the California Supreme Court has slapped patients in the face, at least one legislator is prepared to seek redress in Sacramento. In a press release the same day, San Francisco Democratic Assemblyman Mark Leno announced he would introduce legislation protecting medical cannabis patients' right to employment.

"Today's California Supreme Court ruling strikes a serious blow to patients' rights," stated Leno. "In the coming weeks I will introduce legislation that secures a medical cannabis patient's right to use their doctor recommended medication outside the workplace. Through the passage of Proposition 215 in 1996 and SB 420 in 2004, the people of California did not intend that patients be unemployed in order to use medical marijuana."

If in California the battle over the employment rights of medical marijuana users will ultimately be decided in the legislature, in Oregon, the state with the second highest number of medical marijuana patients, some 16,000, the legislative battle is already in its second year. But instead of legislation seeking to protect patients' rights, Oregonians are faced with competing proposals to instead protect the rights of employers to fire those patients.

Last year, a bill that would essentially have allowed employers to discriminate against medical marijuana patients handily passed the state Senate before dying in committee in the House on the last day of the session. This year, in what is supposed to be a limited special session that lasts only through February, legislators are again seeking to provide cover for employers.

"They are trying to get a watered-down version of last year's bill through," said Leland Berger, an attorney and one of the leaders of Voter Power, the group behind the 1998 passage of the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act (OMMA).

With the special session not yet underway, the bills are currently in the form of "legislative concepts." A hearing was held last week to introduce the competing bills, which would protect employers from lawsuits filed by medical marijuana cardholder employees fired for positive marijuana tests.

Along with Oregon's panoply of medical marijuana advocacy groups, the ACLU of Oregon was a staunch supporter of patients rights' last year, and is back at it again this year. "We oppose both of these bills and any like them for a number of reasons," said Andrea Meyer, legislative director for the ACLU of Oregon, who has been working legislators on the issue. "First, we don't think they're necessary or effective. They talk about impairment, but most employers rely on urinalysis testing to determine impairment, and urinalysis doesn't measure impairment. We know that marijuana metabolites can stay in the system for up to 30 days after ingestion, but that has no correlation with impairment," she said.

"This sort of legislation discriminates against medical marijuana cardholders," Meyer continued. "Oregonians voted to enact a medical marijuana law so people could lawfully obtain marijuana in almost the same manner as any other medicine, and we don't think patients using marijuana should be treated any differently than patients using codeine or morphine or amphetamines," she said.

"We believe in a safe workplace, and we think when an employee is impaired for whatever reason -- emotional distress, under the influence of alcohol or lawful medications or illegal drugs, illness -- the employer has the legal authority to take action," Meyer said. "But we aren't any safer when an employee relies on a urinalysis to determine whether someone is a hazard in the workplace."

The federal government's refusal to recognize medical marijuana is a key part of the problem, said Meyer. "If marijuana could be prescribed like any other controlled substance, I don't think employers would be suggesting it should be treated differently. The fact that the federal government proscribes it gives employers the excuse. What all this says is that we need to change the Controlled Substances Act and make medical marijuana available by prescription," she argued.

Barring that unlikely event, it will be up to the states to protect the employment rights of their medical marijuana patients. "The California Supreme Court decision is an ill omen," said ASA's Elford. "Every one of the medical marijuana states should pass legislation to protect patients, but I'm afraid that's not going to happen."

A step toward victory turned to ashes for the broad coalition pushing for repeal of the Higher Education Act's (HEA) drug provision (also known as the "Aid Elimination Penalty") last week as, for the second time this year, key Democratic politicians refused to push it ahead. Now, the only chance to achieve repeal this session will come in conference committee, thanks to a possible tactical error by the bill's author.

Bobby Scott offers his short-lived HEA amendment this month

The Aid Elimination Penalty bars students with drug convictions from receiving federal financial aid for specified periods of time from their conviction dates. As originally written by Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN), it punished students for any infraction in their past. But last year, under pressure from a broad range of educational, religious, civil rights, and other groups organized into the Coalition for Higher Education Act Reform (CHEAR), Souder amended his own law so that it now applies only to offenses committed while a student is in school and receiving aid.

Under the provision, more than 200,000 students have been denied financial aid. An unknown number have been deterred from even applying because they believed -- rightly or often wrongly -- that their drug convictions would bar them from receiving aid.

Instead of going for repeal, as key Democrats had promised, the committee heard and adopted two amendments to the provision by its author, Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN), which are actually seen by advocates as likely to be positive steps. One would require schools to inform enrolling students in writing about the existence of the penalty. Another would loosen a clause in the law that currently allows students to regain their eligibility for financial aid by completing a drug treatment program, by allowing them to just pass two randomly-scheduled drug tests administered by a treatment program.

The dispute over the Aid Elimination Penalty wasn't limited to Capitol Hill committee hearings. In a move to the blunt the efforts of the penalty's foes, Souder sent out a Dear Colleague letter where he accused the 500 groups that belong to CHEAR of being "drug legalizers," an attack that did not go unnoticed.

"I wanted to make you aware of an important provision in the current law that is facing assault by a small but determined coalition of drug-legalization groups," Souder wrote in the November 1 letter. "Before you are bombarded by the talking points of such groups, I wanted to make sure everyone has the facts straight," he wrote.

Taking umbrage at Souder's characterization of their organizations, 16 groups responded with their own letter to Souder, asking him to retract his statement and requesting a meeting with him to explain directly why they oppose his law. "We, the undersigned organizations, would like to assure you that the coalition supporting repeal of the Aid Elimination Penalty ranges far beyond 'drug-legalization groups,' said the letter. "Last week, over 160 organizations signed a letter to Education & Labor Committee Chairman George Miller and Ranking Member Buck McKeon calling for full repeal, bringing the total number of groups in opposition to the penalty to more than 500. These organizations represent a broad range of interests, including the areas of addiction treatment and recovery, civil rights, college administration and admissions, criminal justice, legal reform and faith leaders. The overwhelming majority of signatories of the letter to Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon do not endorse drug legalization. As just a small sampling of such organizations, we, the undersigned, want to make clear that opposition to the [anti-drug provision] is not in any way dependent on support for broad drug legalization."

The signatories to the letter were the American Federation of Teachers, the American Friends Service Committee, the Coalition of Essential Schools, College Parents of America, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, Friends Committee on National Legislation, International Nurses Society on Addictions, the National Association of Social Workers, National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, National Education Association, National Women's Health Network, National Youth Rights Association, Therapeutic Communities of America, the Union for Reform Judaism, the United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries, the United Methodist Church-General Board of Church and Society, and the United States Student Association."

Souder didn't respond to that letter, but he did lash out again, this time at the Capitol Hill newspaper The Politico, whose Ryan Grim had been writing about the conflict. In a letter published in the The Politico complaining about the coverage of him calling people drug legalizers, Souder resorted to the very same tactic. "Your readers ought to know that Grim was previously employed by the Marijuana Policy Project, a drug legalization group," Souder wrote. "Grim is hardly an objective reporter." However, he did not contest any of the facts Grim reported. Grim's biography, including his past employment, is available at The Politico's web site.

Souder has clearly shown himself to be a dogged defender of his creation. If only the Democrats had shown the same fortitude in fighting to repeal it, advocates complained. "It's disheartening that a huge chorus of experts in substance abuse and education, as well as tens of thousands of students are calling for repeal, and Congress still hasn't listened," said Tom Angell, director of government relations for Students for Sensible Drug Policy, one of the point groups in the campaign.

Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance, was less diplomatic. "By not changing this counterproductive policy, Democrats are saying that tens of thousands of students should be kicked out of college and denied an education," he said. "The American people have moved beyond the drug war hysteria of the 1980s, but many Democrats still don't realize this," said Piper. "They're afraid reforming draconian drug laws will make them look soft on crime, even though polling shows that voters are tired of punitive policies and want change." Democrats had "chickened out," he said.

In the House committee last week, Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) spoke eloquently about the injustice of the HEA drug provision, but then withdrew his amendment to kill it, noting that the Chair was not prepared to hear amendments that would have financial implications.

"Denying students aid for drug-related charges is simply bad policy," said Scott. "It increases long-term costs to society. It unfairly targets poor and minority students -- minority students because they are traditionally profiled for drug offenses, and poor students because those are the ones that need financial aid to attend school. It only does drug offenses. It doesn't do anything against armed robbery, rape or arson. And so it's somewhat bizarre in its application and it creates a double jeopardy for students who have already paid their debt to society."

Scott then asked that a list of the more than 500 organizations supporting repeal be entered into the congressional record, and then he withdrew his motion. "Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, as you've indicated, you're not considering amendments that would have to be scored financially and because of that, Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw this amendment at the end of the debate, because we do not have an offset."

Then, after Chairman Miller -- to advocates' consternation -- congratulated Souder for his persistence in scaling back the law, Souder introduced the pair of amendments mentioned above. "Without objection, both of these amendments will be accepted," Miller said, accepting them without having written copies before the members. "It's just a testimony to the extent to which we trust Mr. Souder's word here."

While activists are disheartened -- to put it mildly -- by the performance of the Democrats, they still see some faint hope for action later this session, and it could come because Souder, by introducing his amendments, will open the bill to discussion in conference committee. "Souder may have screwed up here," said SSDP's Angell. "Because the House version now has language modifying the penalty, that automatically makes it a topic for the conference committee."

While activists want outright repeal, they are pleased with this year's Souder amendments. "If Congressman Souder keeps working year after year to keep chipping away at his aid elimination penalty, he will end up doing our work for us," said Angell. "We encourage Souder in his continuing effort to scale back his own creation."

In an effort to build support for retaining his pet project, the Higher Education Act's drug provision, Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) sent a Dear Colleague letter around Capitol Hill. In that letter he accused the more than 500 academic, professional, religious, civil rights, addiction and recovery, and other organizations supporting the call to repeal the provision of all being drug legalizers.

While there's nothing wrong with being a "legalizer," the vast majority of those organizations do not fall into that category. Now, Souder is being called on it.

The drug provision, also known as the "Aid Elimination Penalty," denies financial aid for specified periods to students with drug convictions. It originally applied to any drug conviction in the student's past, but with Souder's support -- perhaps in order to save it from a growing chorus of critics -- it was amended last year to apply only to offenses committed while a student enrolled in school.

With consideration of repealing the law pending in the House Education & Labor Committee, Souder sent a "Dear Colleague" letter reading:

"I wanted to make you aware of an important provision in the current law that is facing assault by a small but determined coalition of drug-legalization groups," Souder wrote in the November 1 letter. "Before you are bombarded by the talking points of such groups, I wanted to make sure everyone has the facts straight," he wrote.

But some of the groups Souder called drug legalizers wanted to get the facts straight themselves. In their own letter to Souder, 16 of those organizations asked him to retract his statement and requested a meeting to explain to him directly why they oppose his law.

"We, the undersigned organizations, would like to assure you that the coalition supporting repeal of the Aid Elimination Penalty ranges far beyond 'drug-legalization groups,' said the letter. "Last week, over 160 organizations signed a letter to Education & Labor Committee Chairman George Miller and Ranking Member Buck McKeon calling for full repeal, bringing the total number of groups in opposition to the penalty to more than 500. These organizations represent a broad range of interests, including the areas of addiction treatment and recovery, civil rights, college administration and admissions, criminal justice, legal reform and faith leaders. The overwhelming majority of signatories of the letter to Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon do not endorse drug legalization. As just a small sampling of such organizations, we, the undersigned, want to make clear that opposition to the [anti-drug provision] is not in any way dependent on support for broad drug legalization."

The signatories to the letter were the American Federation of Teachers, the American Friends Service Committee, the Coalition of Essential Schools, College Parents of America, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, the International Nurses Society on Addictions, the National Association of Social Workers, National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, National Education Association, the National Women's Health Network, the National Youth Rights Association, Therapeutic Communities of America, the Union for Reform Judaism, the United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries, the United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society, and the United States Student Association."

While some signatories and key organizers of the Coalition for Higher Education Act Reform might be called "legalizers," as the above list makes clear, you don't have to be a legalizer to understand the counterproductive impact of Souder's law.

News will be posted on DRCNet shortly about the outcome of amendments offered in the Ed/Labor Committee late Wednesday night.