Walmart fires employee with inoperable brain tumor for legally using marijuana outside of work

Joseph Casias has sinus cancer and an inoperable brain tumor and takes medical marijuana, which is legal in Michigan. He was fired from the Michigan Walmart where he had been working for the last five years after he failed a drug screening test there.

At his doctor's recommendation, Casias says he legally uses medical marijuana to ease his pain.
"It helps tremendously," he says. "I only use it to stop the pain. To make me feel more comfortable and active as a person."
During his five years at WalMart, Casias says he went to work every day, determined to be the best.
"I gave them everything," he says. "110 percent every day. Anything they asked me to do I did. More than they asked me to do. 12 to 14 hours a day."
But last November, Casias sprained his knee at work. Marijuana was detected in his system during the routine drug screening that follows all workplace injuries. Casias showed WalMart managers his state medical marijuana card, but he was fired anyway.

Walmart fires medical marijuana patient for using medical marijuana (Thanks, Jason!)

Mark Frauenfelder is the founder of Boing Boing and the editor-in-chief of MAKE and Cool Tools. Twitter: @frauenfelder. Come and hear Mark speak at the ALA conference in Chicago on July 1.

MORE: Action

More at Boing Boing

The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek

Hackers prepare for first "national holiday" in their honor

hicks

The headline should read “Wal Mart fires employee with cancer and inoperable brain tumor for legally using marijuana outside of work”.
- Mark Frauenfelder
  
  I agree! Headline changed.
Anonymous

Walmart violated Michigan law here, fully and completely, and can be sued in local court. Since Walmart does do business in the state, they are respobsible for following the law, regardless of their national level policies. Michigan is also an at-will state, so Walmart cannot be forced to reinstitute the fired employee, but they can be forced to pay damages, bqack salary, and unemployment. In short, Walmart does not dictate the law – the state and federal governments do. (And yes, there still are some discrepencies between federal law and state laws on the subject, but until they are settled legally, the *state* law rules.)
demidan

I feel for sorry for the guy, anyone with the balls to work and try to support himself in his medical condition should be lauded not fired for a little relief. This story turns out to be another indictment of modern America, try hard, fail and don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Chris O

Here’s the YingYang:

1. This poor guy sues and it evolves into a Supreme Court case testing the precedence of Federal over State law in matters concerning Federally controlled substances.

2. WMT looses because the Court decides that States should be able to determine this for themselves, and Feds can only regulate inter-state trade. (Conservative court might lean towards loosening Federal regulatory power?)

3. WMT has a good cry, pays our guy, settles up with the attorneys/courts, and then promptly launches its plan to sell medical Marijuana throughout its pharmacy network in all the states that have legalized it.

4. All the Mom & Pop Medical Marijuana places collapse at the local level as people flock to WMT when they realize they can fill their prescription, p/u snacks, get movies, save money, live better…..
adamnvillani

Walmart was morally wrong but legally within their rights for doing this. Unfortunately, there’s still no such thing as legal marijuana in the U.S., no matter what the states say. If it were legal, they would not be able to do this, since it would be an ADA violation. They still shouldn’t do it, because the ban on marijuana — ESPECIALLY the ban on medical marijuana — is bad, bad policy.
Kevin Kenny

@Chris O #23

The Supreme Court has already decided that the States cannot determine drug policy for themselves, but that the Commerce Clause gives the Federal Government absolute power. If John Doepossesses a material that Richard Roe trades across state lines, Doe is engaging in interstate commerce in the view of the (2005) Court.
- Chris O
  
  Thanks Kenny, and there you have it; yet another kooky theory falls victim to the facts.
IronEdithKidd

Upon realizing that this poor guy was likely sent to the ass-hats at Concentra for post-injury testing, I understand why a prescribed medication was reported to the employer. I hesitate to name what Concentra does as incompetence because it strikes me as calculated and deliberate. I will call it intentional malpractice instead.
Anonymous

With more and more states passing laws for the uses of medical marijuana this is something not only Wal-Mart needs to address but all businesses that test. What if had been any other legal medication given for pain, would he have been fired? I would agree that you should not be intoxicated while at work if you could endanger yourself or others, although I do not think this was the case.
breeze

Even though state law gives some protection medicinal patients, due to federal law, in almost every ruling judges have decided in favor of the employer. Employees that test positive on a drug test have very little protection from firing. With a solid precedent from a number of other firing cases, most judges will continue to side with the employer unless the law changes.

I found this presentation from Green Streets and Chuck Passaglia helpful, as it takes a case by case look at judicial decisions on medical marijuana in the workplace and how the law is currently interpreted for employers, managers, and employees that are medical marijuana patients: http://my.brainshark.com/Waiting-to-Exhale-Managing-Medical-Marijuana-in-the-Workplace-424219265?tx=amb_bb
Anonymous

For the record and not to sound like I’m against medical marijuana, but there’s no such thing as LEGAL medical marijuana. Some states have said it’s legal, but they have no authority to do so. Only the FDA can do that, and they haven’t.
arbitraryaardvark

You’ve covered the incident, but not the resulting boycott.
A modest suggestion: if you (boingboing reader) have bought stuff from walmart recently, this would be a good time to bring it back for a refund, and explain why.
As it happens I’m going to be driving by this walmart later this week. If I stop in, does anybody have an questions for management, if they’ll give me an interview?
dbarak

Fired for drug use. What if the drugs were antibiotics?

Okay, fired for illegal drug use… but he had a legal prescription.
Anonymous

Walmart: “you don’t need a brain tumor to work here, but it helps ! :)”
Chris Tucker

To all those “WalMart Rules OK!” posters:

“Kiss the shiny, shiny boots of leather” is a Lou Reed song.

Unthinking, obsequious kowtowing to “The Rules” is repulsive, especially when the CANCER PATIENT in question is not violating Michigan law.
Anonymous

@24 – Raich does not say that states cannot determine drug policies for themselves, but that congress has the power to regulate wholly personal medical marijuana cultivation. Cannabis consumption, possession, transportation, and cultivation is legal for patients with doctors recommendations in California, yet still prohibited by the Controlled Substances Act.
If #14′s comment is correct than walmart’s actions may be illegal under Michigan law. In California we had a case, Ross v RagingWire, where a patient failed a drug test and the court held that the employer could fire him even though he was not violating California law. Other states (Michigan according to #14) may pass statutes to prevent this from happening. We’ve unsuccessfully tried to pass this sort of statute in California.
Walmart would want this case to be tried under Federal law because they would surely win in that case, although I think it would be a case of first impression so who knows.
Anonymous

The irony of drug testing is this: Say I have a scrip for oxycodone for pain, and I get tested. A doctor from the drug testing place will call and say “So, is there any reason why you tested positive for opiates?” And I’d say “yah, I have a scrip and I’ll show it to you”. After the doc verifies the scrip, he’d send a negative screen result to my employer and they’d have no clue I was using oxy, even on the job. On the other hand, if I smoke some weed over the weekend and test positive, the doc calls me and since there’s no “reason” other than smoking weed, my employer gets a positive result, lose my job, and have to go to rehab in order to get it back.

BTW, this scenario is based on federal DOT drug screen requirements for people who hold a commercial driver’s license. So, the guy in that triple trailer next to you can legally take oxy while he’s driving, but if he smokes weed on his day off, he loses his license. Clear as mud??
Anonymous

This man stated he never used marijuana before or while at work, only after work. Marijuana metabolites can stay in your system for weeks after using pot. Would he have been fired if he took a vicodin after work for his pain and tested positive the next day or two? If we are going to admit that marijuana can be medicine then we need to treat it like any other medicine. Reefer Madness lives large at Walmart. Compassion, not so much. My family and I will be boycotting Walmart until Mr.Casias is returned to his former position. I suggest there may be enough cannabis users in America who are outraged with Walmart that we just may affect their bottom line. Join me?
ImprovidentLackWit

I would like to see how W*lmart would respond to a Stoner’s boycott.

In the end, the money WILL talk.
- Anonymous
  
  I want a job at your Hospital!!
danfan

It’s unfortunate that BoingBoing seems to attract so many Ayn Rand douchebags.
cymk

@ IronEdithKidd,

And here I always thought it was willful stupidity coupled with minimum wage slaves whose desire for a paycheck barely exceeds the apathy for their job.

@Chris Tucker,

See my post at #62, considering both laws are valid its going to take a court to sort out. Technically walmart is in the wrong, as the recent ruling on medical marijuana says people like Mr. Casias cannot be reprimanded (I think being fired can be counted as a reprimand) for using the drug under the new law. The old employment laws should be updated to reflect this new MM law.
dculberson

I’m sure the drug test was prompted by their Worker’s Compensation claims administrator. Nowadays, if someone is injured on the job, they can force a drug test in order to establish whether the person was using any drugs while they were injured. At least in Ohio, if they test positive, it is assumed that the presence of the drug (which includes alcohol, BTW) shows that the injury was due to the employee’s action or negligence rather than an unsafe condition at the work place, so Worker’s Compensation will not pay the claim. In Ohio, you can fight that decision, but it’s up to the injured worker to prove that their drug usage did not cause the injury, and not the other way around. This is called “rebuttable presumption.”

Now, here’s the catch: in Ohio at least, it’s written so that this presumption is based upon the presence of “alcohol or a controlled substance not prescribed by the employee’s physician.” (emphasis mine.) So it’s conceivable that, depending on Michigan’s laws, the employee might be able to fight it.
AirPillo

He didn’t get fired for taking medical marijuana. He got fired for getting injured at work.

Qualifying for worker’s compensation is a deadly sin to an employer. You will get canned for it if they find an excuse.
adamnvillani

I am not a lawyer, much less one in the state of Michigan, but upon further contemplation, I think that if the state of Michigan had its own equivalent of the ADA, then Wal-Mart could be found in violation of that. I have no idea if Michigan has such a law on its books.
- cymk
  
  The key to that would be proving that having cancer or an inoperable brain tumor as a disability, and if Mr. Casias is proven to be disabled, then Walmart has no case. According to one law, Walmart is well within its rights to fire an employee who violated company policy: “in Michigan, employees are presumed to be “at will.” At-will employees may be terminated for any reason, so long as it’s not illegal.”
  
  On the other hand you have another law stating that Mr. Casias cannot be fired for medical marijuana use: “Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act…”
  
  I think this case is the thing supreme courts were designed for, setting precedents when you have two conflicting laws. My only how is that Mr. Casias wins and walmart gets knocked down a few pegs.
Deidzoeb

Another way to look at this is that Walmart has a policy of second-guessing and over-ruling the medical treatment of its employees.

PS – macemoneta for the win!
Rindan

Drug laws are a crime in it of themselves. Drug laws against marijuana while we accept alcohol defy all sanity and reason.

…that said…

States have been pretty systematically stripped of their rights. I can’t even remember the last time a major law was overturned due to violation of the 10th. The “interstate commerce” power of the federal government is so horribly twisted abused that it means that the federal government pretty much has unlimited power over the states. In this particular case, as morally criminal as it was, this guy was violating federal law. I am pretty sure that as morally reprehensible as it is, Walmart is on very safe legal grounds.
- MythicalMe
  
  The 55 MPH speed limit comes to mind. The use of highway funding was to be withheld for states that did not uphold the federally mandated law.
  
  However, the 10th amendment was effectively abolished by the civil war. The southern states tried to secede from the union because the federal government violated the 10th amendment by abolishing slavery. Had the southern states taken their complaint to the Supreme Court, it’s possible the ruling would have gone to the south. However, slavery wasn’t the only issue and war was inevitable.
  
  Personally I dislike the Wal-Mart business model and would love to see them taken down a peg or two over this issue.
  - Brainspore
    
    The southern states tried to secede from the union because the federal government violated the 10th amendment by abolishing slavery.
    
    It’s been a while since I took American History but I’m pretty sure the Emancipation Proclamation was signed after the South tried to secede from the Union.
Anonymous

Walmart is wronge and should pay. Concentra is doing me wrong by putting restrictions on me because of medical marijuana, even tho the dr that prescribed it and my surgeon both gave work releases and return to work recommendations.. They will also pay, alot……… The law states clearly that there is no action that can be taken against a legal patient…. If I have to do it alone, big biz and their cohorts will get the message that the drs. know more than they do.
IronEdithKidd

Thanks Mocenoeta for reproducing the pertinent language of the MI statute. Walmart broke Michigan law by firing this guy and should be taken to full task for the callous firing of a cancer patient.

This is just another in a mile-long list of reasons to shop anywhere, but Walmart.
Anonymous

perhaps a company with a better social awareness will employ this man.were i an american employer i would do so instantly.
Xenu

If you can work at Wal-Mart without blowing your brains out — and you’re NOT on drugs — that’s when they should fire you. Because you’re obviously deranged.
Phlip

Now if only there were a Child Labor test for WalMart products…
anansi133

Yesterday it occurred to me that the real obsticals to legalized marijuana are Big Pharma and Big Tobacco. Until Big Pharma can oligopolize medical marijuana, and Big Tobacco can do the same for recreational use, then they will fight any loosening of the current law.

Once they can corner the market, they’ll be all about reform. And then so too will be our bought and elected officials.

If the real objections have no connection to public health or safety, then this all makes so much more sense.
igpajo

I’m not sure I see anything terribly wrong with this story. Walmart has a policy against drug use. Doesn’t matter one bit that the drug was prescribed to him legally. He should have known there was this policy in place. Walmart is within their rights to fire him. I feel for the guy because he’s out a job and in a bad way physically, but I can’t chastise Walmart, who I’m not a huge fan of btw, for firing him.
Driving is a major part of what I do and if my doctor prescribed a medication that impaired my ability to drive safely, I wouldn’t fault my employer for telling me I couldn’t operate their vehicle anymore.
Just don’t find this story all that shocking.
- Antinous / Moderator
  
  It’s no different than firing an employee for using insulin. It’s a violation of ADA.
- Anonymous
  
  “Walmart has a policy against drug use.”
  
  So walmart should also fire anyone who’s prescribed prozac,tylenol with codeine or prescription strength Ibprofin as well? The marijuana was legaly prescribed,just like all prescription meds.
- Anonymous
  
  You must be management at Walmart.
- Mark Frauenfelder
  
  If he came to work impaired I would agree with Walmart’s decision. But Walmart did not fire him for being impaired at work.
- dragonfrog
  
  You know those return policies that say “void where prohibited by law” – yeah, that. Just because Walmart has a policy, it doesn’t mean they get to enforce all parts of it in places where those parts would be illegal.
  
  Look at it this way – what would you think if he had taken legally bought, over-the-counter codeine+aspirin tablets before bed to help him sleep despite back pain? For several days after, he would test positive for opiates – would you support Walmart if they had fired him over that?
  
  In Michigan, where taking marijuana can be part of the overall condition of a cancer patient, firing him for marijuana use is equivalent to firing him for having cancer. Void where prohibited by law.
  - dbarak
    
    “void where prohibited by law”
    
    I thought that meant I should take a crap wherever I wanted… ; )
- cinemajay
  
  While I agree that Wal-mart was within their rights to do so, it’s also a sign of why they are such a terrible company. Any entity that exercises policy out of pure “it’s in the rule book” dictum isn’t fit for success in business–much less garner sympathy–if they can’t adapt to changing conditions/environment or satisfy their own needs to retain staff.
  
  My guess is they were looking for an excuse to drop him from the payroll and/or whatever meager health benefits they were paying (if any).
  
  Wal-mart might be too big, but it certainly deserves to fail and let more nimble/responsive companies feast on it’s corpse.
- sabik
  
  I’m not sure I see anything terribly wrong with this story. Walmart has a policy against drug use. Doesn’t matter one bit that the drug was prescribed to him legally.
  
  What? Your employer knows better than your physician what drugs you need to take when?
jamesmusik

They could rightfully fire someone for coming to work on a variety of legal prescription medications that impair as well, so I don’t really see the problem here.
- lasttide
  
  No one said he was high at work. Unlike many drugs, marijuana is detectable in urine tests for as long as 6-8 weeks. This is simply an attempt by Wal-Mart to get out of paying worker’s comp for an injury and then unemployment benefits for the firing.
  - cymk
    
    More than likely he wasn’t high at work, but finding traces of THC in his system tells Walmart corporate that he is a deviant and is not to be trusted, hence fired.
    
    Technically the test should have come back negative anyways; when you go for drug tests they ask what prescribed medications you are taking, presumably so they can be screened out from your test results or ignored when your results come back (I guess it would depend on who did the drug test and their testing procedures). The only drug testing company I can think of off the top of my head here in Michigan is Concentra, but it has been years since I had a job that required a drug test and I don’t recall any procedures they had other than asking what medications I was on at the time.
    
    My only guess, whatever company that does the drug test sent the results back to Walmart, they saw the results even though the THC should have been flagged to be ignored because of his prescription, and said “your high, GTFO.”
Cupcake Faerie

Slavish adherence to orders – which must be followed at all times, mein fuher! Vee ver jus follwing zee orders!!!
Anonymous

Could Someone tell me why Walmart needs to know if their employee uses drugs? Its understandable if you are a policeman, soldier, or work in public transport for example – but Walmart? I work for a Local Authority in the UK and the Drug Policy runs pretty much along the lines of as long as it doesn’t interfere with your work do what you will. The second you let it affect your work thenlife gets a bit more tricky. Seems far more sensible to me.
Anonymous

This just makes me so sad that someone with an inoperable brain tumor is spending their last days working at Walmart.

You know when people say ‘if you were going to die tomorrow, what would you do today?’ No one has ever said ‘go put in 12 hours at Walmart’.
- MichaelRN
  
  Reply to anon at #42:
  
  I work with terminally ill patients. A few of the things that are very important to my patients are maintaining a sense of purpose, autonomy and dignity. Each patient defines for themselves what constitutes purpose, autonomy and dignity. For many, continuing to work, whatever that work may be, fulfills these needs.
  
  By going to work, Mr. Casias is essentially standing up to the illness, and saying, “my life is worth living.” Another cancer patient might have given up under the same circumstances.
  
  Just because working at Walmart is not your cup of tea does not mean that it was a bad thing for Mr. Casias.
Volker

We should give Walmart a medal for their vigilance. Without their untiring support, we would be loosing the war on drugs.
Anonymous

Look on the bright side. It’s not like he lost his employer-provided health insurance.
Kevin Kenny

Of course, the employee has admitted violating Federal law, which trumps Michigan’s law permitting medical marijuana. (So the Supreme Court held in Gonzales v Raich 545 U.S. 1 [2005].)

I refrain from commenting on the justice or wisdom of the Federal law. I merely observe that Wal-Mart found it prudent to fire an employee who freely admitted to violating it.
Silveradept

Comment to #3 and #4:
Well if that is the case, then anyone on any also legally prescribed drug should be subject to this rule and fired if found through a drug test.
Anonymous

I worked at WalMart for a summer. I actually had an argument with my hiring interviewer regarding their drug policy. Not that I planned on doing any drugs while working there, but I was quite vocal about how I felt that WalMart had no business telling me what I could and could not do in my free time while they considered me an employee. I explained that as long as I didn’t allow my outside work activities to effect my performance during the hours WalMart paid me to be there, then I would do whatever I wanted. I mean c’mon, the policy was like saying you’re not allowed to do any drugs but if you were to stay up all night and come to work lethargic, tired and possibly hung over, that’s a-ok. I was still hired despite my open criticism of the policy so I will never side with them for firing someone who didn’t. This poor guy didn’t actually break the policy anyway.
jimkirk

Always low prices. Always.
mrgoldenbrown

Apparently the real headline here is that pot is finally legal in the US! Or was this all happening in some other Michigan?
Blaven

Looks like I have a new reason to boycott Walmart.
Jason Rizos

Lots of questions will need answering.

One, does Wal-Mart fire narcotic-prescribed employees for failing drug tests?

Two, was this an incident-related drug test or just a random test?

Three, did Wal-Mart fire him over a concern of his impairment or for his non-compliance with Federal Law. That is, is Wal-Mart willing to go on the record and denounce Medical Marijuana as a legitimate treatment for cancer patients?

Mark my words, this case will be win-win for the medical marijuana community because it will AT LEAST force the hand of a major (majorest) US employer to define how medical marijuana can/could be used by patients who are also employees.

The problem with both citizens and lawyers is that we just don’t have established precedent for this sort of thing in a court of law.
Anonymous

Igpajo: Wal-Mart has a policy against illegal drug use. The legality in this case is in question. This is a sick person whose health care you may now end up paying for. That cool with you? I think Wal-Mart’s health provider should pick up the tab. Employees are free to use drugs prescribed by their doctor at their place of employment as long as they do not impair performance.

Kevin Kenny: So now Wal-Mart has taken over as the judicial system in this country as well? It’s their job to prosecute people who disobey the law? Really? This in addition to Wal-Mart’s ability to override a doctor’s view of what’s best for their patient and govern employee morals outside of work? I think Wal-Mart should be illegal!

As Mark said, this person was not fired for being intoxicated or behaving badly on the job. I don’t think drug tests should only be allowed with due cause and I do not consider a knee injury due cause. No evidence he was acting stoned here.

Note: I am a former medical marijuana user who is not using at present. I told every doctor I had (quite a few) that I used and not one ever advised me to quit.
Anonymous

I work at a hospital and half the staff comes in there on Xanax, Vicodin, etc. But the government approves of those so it’s OK.
macemoneta

From: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(qqdpjnfuv4sxkmbe3rkmnuvw))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-333-26424

A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana, and, if the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility. Any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots shall also be allowed under state law and shall not be included in this amount.
johnphantom

“Any entity that exercises policy out of pure “it’s in the rule book” dictum isn’t fit for success in business”

Problem is that people (especially those who work for Walmart, including the executives) are generally too stupid to have thoughts, and need to have a book tell them what to do, if they are even capable of reading.
- cinemajay
  
  Ain’t that the truth!
Leslie

I don’t understand this. I and several members of my family take psychostimulants to treat ADHD and when one of us has had to submit to drug testing we took a copy of our prescriptions with the results and that was the end of it. Why is marijuana different? If he had been taking Tylenol 3 for pain would he have been dismissed?
igpajo

Just wanted to say my earlier comment was pretty hastily thought out and I hadn’t taken the time to really consider alot of the gray areas. This isn’t really a subject I knew a lot about before this and hadn’t really about the conflicts. Thanks for the criticism. It’s helped me rethink my original black and white opinion. Still not quite sure where I stand, but MichaelRN’s testimony above really has me leaning towards siding with the employee on this one.
WorkingDead

Drug use policies have a lot to do with insurance premiums. WalMart has to have a drug testing policy in the event of injuries or they wont be able to get insurance.
Elite Hacker

Walmart was within their rights. And while I’m all for legalizing Mary Jane, there are countless reasons why firing someone who tested positive isn’t an entirely bad idea. Should the decision be automatic, not in my opinion. Discretion and the employee’s history should be taken into account before making the call.
- Anonymous
  
  WALMART is In VIOLATION of Michegan State Law :per macemonia:
  From: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(qqdpjnfuv4sxkmbe3rkmnuvw))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-333-26424
  
  A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana, and, if the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility. Any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots shall also be allowed under state law and shall not be included in this amount.
Anonymous

This blurb also fails to mention that he was their Associate of the Year in 2009. We’re talking about one of their _most valued_ employees, so there’s no question that the drug impaired him at work in any way.
Anonymous

Michigan law states that a registered user canâ€™t be subject to arrest, prosecution OR PENALTY IN ANY MANNER OR DENIED ANY RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE INCLUDING ACTION BY A BUSINESS. Later in the law it states â€œnothing in this act shall be construed to require an employer to accommodate the ingestion of marijuana in any workplace or any employee working while under the influence of marijuana.â€ Is simply allowing a patient to consume their prescribed medicine ONE TIME in a 30 day period an accommodation? When I think of an â€˜accommodation for ingesting marijuana in any workplace, or working under the influence,â€™ I interpret this to say that you are not allowed to eat brownies at your desk, hit the bong in your car on your break, or before work. Essentially, you canâ€™t come to work intoxicated, or get intoxicated during the workday. BUT I DO NOT INTERPRET THIS LANGUAGE AS STATING THAT YOU CAN BE FIRED JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE CONSUMED MARIJUANA IN THE LAST 30 DAYS AS YOUR DOCTOR SUGGESTED. I guess it just depends on how persuasive your attorney is, and how biased the judge is.

Johnny Green
http://www.theweedblog.com
Anonymous

i wonder what walmart would do if this were a walmart relative or an executive’s relative?