[The_Wonka]

when applying for a job, usually they ask you to take a drug test. well, being a patient, this causes issues. do you tell them that you are a patient? will they still hire you? or will they ask you to leave? should you lie and get something to clear out your system? what is standard procedure?

[sdfriend]

as far as i know a doctors rec means nothing and it is totally up to the employer whether to take patient status into consideration.

hi Wonka!....i don't really know the legalities of it...BUT i can tell you my opinion.....keep your use of MMJ PRIVATE.....i reccomend that before taking any drug test you clean out your system, there have been many previous threads with feedback on different products...hope that helps

You know, to be quite honest I have no idea what the legal issues are, since it's state law that allows MMJ, and it's a state labor law that prohibits discrimination in employment.

I can tell you that if they decide not to hire you, it would be really, really difficult to prove discrimination on MJ, to the point where it wouldn't be worthwhile.

I've been dealing with the Board of Wage and Labor regarding my last employer, and even though I had a pretty much open and shut case (AND my employer didn't defend themselves) it's a pain in the arse dealing with the state beaucracry. Just today I got a legal judgement against them, and I really wonder how long it will take for me to collect.

Basically, my advice would be to just steer clear of companies that drug test. ESPECIALLY large corporations that do so (like Blockbuster). Go for jobs in organizations that don't really care. I've had to drug test before, and it really sucks.

[Phil8Me]

Originally Posted by lil_missy74

hi Wonka!....keep your use of MMJ PRIVATE.....i reccomend that before taking any drug test you clean out your system...

Much good info is provided in this thread so far. An employment applicant will not likely prevail when challenging this legal issue. Abstinence or substitution will insure MMJ won’t affect your employment eligibility. I wish this were not the case.

[YESON215]

from personal experience i know that if a employer has a zero free drug policy and they do drug test they will not hire you even if you show your rec they have the option of not hiring you regardless of our standing as patients . my advice dont give more info then asked or needed if you have to drug test and can clean your system for 30 days more power to you but if not than their are still some companies out their who dont drug test

[Lucas Jackson]

This is a current case going on in the courts for the subject. I believe the Supreme Court of CA has yet to hear the case and make any final decisions, but here is the latest info I could find:

Calif. Supremes Hear From Friends in High Places on Employee's Marijuana Use
**** McKee
The Recorder
August 17, 2006

Eight days after accepting a systems administration job with Sacramento's RagingWire Telecommunications Inc. in 2001, Gary Ross was fired for testing positive for marijuana.

The 43-year-old father of two admitted he smoked pot at home for back pain, but explained it was legally prescribed by his doctor under the state's Compassionate Use Act. His new bosses backed their decision, however, by citing federal law that still criminalizes marijuana.

Five years later, the dispute shows no sign of losing steam as an employment discrimination suit filed by Ross awaits a full hearing by the California Supreme Court. Although oral arguments haven't been set, a host of high-powered amici curiae have already stoked expectations with hard-hitting briefs on both sides of the issue.

Their arguments could go a long way in helping the court decide whether Ross' state-approved treatment regimen trumps an employer's right to discharge employees for violating federal law.

While the state Supreme Court has held that the Compassionate Use Act -- approved by voters in 1996 -- provides an affirmative defense for using marijuana as medicine, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared medical necessity no exception to the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Last week, 10 state and national medical organizations and two well-regarded disability rights groups took up Ross' cause by filing two separate briefs in which they argued RagingWire violated the state's Fair Employment and Housing Act by firing Ross for following doctor's orders.

In addition, five state legislators took the highly unusual step of filing a third brief, claiming that a 2003 bill they authored was meant to require employers to accommodate off-duty, off-premises pot use by employees with valid prescriptions.

All three briefs were filed -- at the request of Ross' attorneys -- to counter opposing arguments submitted earlier by RagingWire's own heavyweight amici.

Sacramento's conservative Pacific Legal Foundation filed papers in late July maintaining state law can't force employers to retain workers whose judgment could be impaired by drug use.

And two other groups -- the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and the Western Electrical Contractors Association Inc. -- pointed out in separate briefs that employers could lose certain state and federal funds or contracts if they condone pot use by employees.

Both the trial court and Sacramento's 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled in Ross' case that employers aren't required to retain workers who use federally banned drugs.

Jamerson Allen, a partner in Jackson Lewis' San Francisco office who represents RagingWire, said Monday he couldn't comment about the amici without his client's approval. He never called back.

But Joseph Elford, chief counsel of Oakland-based Americans for Safe Access, who is co-counsel for Ross, said the amici's participation proves the case involves an issue "that resonates nationally."

Elford was especially pleased that the legislators had taken a stand because they authored Senate Bill 420, which three years ago clarified when employers are permitted to prohibit medicinal pot use by employees.

In their brief, former Sen. John Vasconcellos and current Assembly members Mark Leno, Loni Hancock, Jackie Goldberg and Paul Koretz said the legislation was meant to let individuals smoke pot at home, while giving employers the power to banish it from the workplace.

"We believed that the voters did not intend for the Compassionate Use Act to apply only to unemployed medical cannabis patients," Oakland solo practitioner Robert Raich wrote on their behalf, "but to all qualified patients, including those who could be productive members of the workforce."

Ross' medical amici -- among them the American Medical Women's Association, the California Nurses Association and the Berkeley-based Drug Policy Alliance -- argued a variation of the legislators' theme.

Daniel Abrahamson, director of legal affairs for the DPA, accused RagingWire of improperly intruding into a doctor-patient relationship and forcing Ross to choose between his job and medical treatment.

The disability rights amici -- Protection & Advocacy Inc. and Equal Rights Advocates -- made the further argument that the 3rd District's decision would enable employers to deny jobs to medicinal pot users without showing there would be any adverse impact on their businesses.

However, Deborah LaFetra, principal attorney for the PLF, said in briefs that there's definitely a measurable impact on businesses. Arguing for RagingWire, she said it has been proven that marijuana impairs smokers' cognitive abilities, which exposes employers to greater liability.

"History abounds with cases of employers found liable," she wrote, "because their employees were driving vehicles, operating heavy equipment or otherwise performing tasks made more dangerous by their being under the influence of alcohol or drugs."

The high court might also be swayed by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority's warning that public agencies could be denied federal and state grants if they don't prohibit pot use.

"If there is going to be a catastrophic loss of funding for these agencies," Santa Clara VTA Assistant General Counsel Richard Katzman wrote, "then that decision should be out in the open for the Legislature or the electorate" to decide.

How much weight the high court will give the amici arguments in Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications Inc., S138130, isn't possible to gauge, but the justices count on them for a third-party view of the issues.

At the very least, the amici have given the court a lot to think about.


Hope that helps. Some think the Supreme Court is set to overturn this, though.

Great post, this is why I love WeedTRACKER.

You rock, rep coming your way.

[SensiGirl]

Originally Posted by WildWill

You know, to be quite honest I have no idea what the legal issues are, since it's state law that allows MMJ, and it's a state labor law that prohibits discrimination in employment.

I can tell you that if they decide not to hire you, it would be really, really difficult to prove discrimination on MJ, to the point where it wouldn't be worthwhile.

I've been dealing with the Board of Wage and Labor regarding my last employer, and even though I had a pretty much open and shut case (AND my employer didn't defend themselves) it's a pain in the arse dealing with the state beaucracry. Just today I got a legal judgement against them, and I really wonder how long it will take for me to collect.

Basically, my advice would be to just steer clear of companies that drug test. ESPECIALLY large corporations that do so (like Blockbuster). Go for jobs in organizations that don't really care. I've had to drug test before, and it really sucks.

So what do you think about my situation ???

I worked for a big Corporate Company and 3 1/2 weeks later they let me go (for thc of course) ...after another 2 weeks of them investigating the issue they decided not to have me return because I should have told them about my doctors' rec when I applied...then told me to re-apply in Jan (haven't yet,which is why i would love some feedback) thing is ...if I re-apply and they dont hire me isnt that discrimination since they had hired me and had me working there for 3 1/2 weeks and let me go not because of my work habits but because of the pre- employment drug test failed.?????

I am wondering cause I think It'd be discrimination, since they hired me for my skills and I was obviously what they were looking for as far as work qualities are concerned for the 3 1/2 weeks I was there...and since they said I should of showed them my rec if I do that now and they deny me my job back...It'd be for MMJ......all insight would be greatly appreciated

Originally Posted by WildWill

Great post, this is why I love WeedTRACKER.

You rock, rep coming your way.

I agree..

Problem for us if our current employer receives federal money if they all start drug testing we may find it tough to get employment or for that matter keep employment.

Honestly? After reading the article above, they and seeing is they already let you go once, I doubt that they would re-hire you. The interium time period is probably them giving you time to de-tox so that you can pass the test a second time. But I don't know really.

If you do get turned down, you will have an uphill battle to fight, one that will ultimately cost you more time and energy than it's worth. Yes, it's discrimination, but because the law isn't codified at this point, and the test case is still out there pending (and it will probably not end in favor of MMJ) you'd be entering into a situation that would be tenuous at best.

And besides, do you REALLY want to work for that company anyway? If they're that unfriendly to MMJ?

I've been lucky enough to have past jobs where medicating wasn't an issue. In fact, way back when I worked for hotels, the rumor started going around that the corporate office was going to start drug testing. Good thing they didn't since they would have had to fire the ENTIRE hotel staff, INCLUDING the general manager (whom I know for a FACT smoked, because I smoked with him several times).

[SensiGirl]

Originally Posted by WildWill

Honestly? After reading the article above, they and seeing is they already let you go once, I doubt that they would re-hire you. The interium time period is probably them giving you time to de-tox so that you can pass the test a second time. But I don't know really.

If you do get turned down, you will have an uphill battle to fight, one that will ultimately cost you more time and energy than it's worth. Yes, it's discrimination, but because the law isn't codified at this point, and the test case is still out there pending (and it will probably not end in favor of MMJ) you'd be entering into a situation that would be tenuous at best.

And besides, do you REALLY want to work for that company anyway? If they're that unfriendly to MMJ?

I've been lucky enough to have past jobs where medicating wasn't an issue. In fact, way back when I worked for hotels, the rumor started going around that the corporate office was going to start drug testing. Good thing they didn't since they would have had to fire the ENTIRE hotel staff, INCLUDING the general manager (whom I know for a FACT smoked, because I smoked with him several times).

That's Why I work for The Journal for the education of MMJ Now---thing Is they paid me soooo well I've considered re-applying knowing that they are going to deny me but I am very aware a suit might be the next step in this type of situation....just wanted feedback to see what my odds are...Thank You so much ...but I must Say I like Working for the Journal...It's A very MMJ Atmosphere

420 Is always a party here!!

[kusher]

god i'm glad that i work for a company that dosen't care about me medicating, just as long as i don't do it on thier prop. or time. i work in a machine shop running c.n.c. lathes. been there 25 yrs.medicate every day never had an accident. no problems. highest paid worker there. i talk to my boss about mmj and he's cool with it. he does not use pot at all, but he's cool with it still. fuck i love my job.

[ssh]

If you can somehow convince your doc to give you a prescription for marinol IN ADDITION to a rec for MJ then you could tell your employer the positive is because of a federally legally prescribed drug and I think it would be much harder for them to discriminate against you in that case.

[SensiGirl]

True But Does marinol Really do the Same thing That MMJ Does to Allieviate pain???

Originally Posted by SensiGirl

That's Why I work for The Journal for the education of MMJ Now---thing Is they paid me soooo well I've considered re-applying knowing that they are going to deny me but I am very aware a suit might be the next step in this type of situation....just wanted feedback to see what my odds are...Thank You so much ...but I must Say I like Working for the Journal...It's A very MMJ Atmosphere

420 Is always a party here!!

Are they hiring? I have a degree in English from UCLA!

[kusher]

that might be a good idea.

I'm gonna move this to the "What's Going On" forum, BTW - it's more of a general question than a co-op specific question.

[ssh]

Originally Posted by SensiGirl

True But Does marinol Really do the Same thing That MMJ Does to Allieviate pain???

Of course not, that's why you'll medicate with whole MJ yet claim a positive is from pill form fda approved crap. :)

[SensiGirl]

Originally Posted by ssh

Of course not, that's why you'll medicate with whole MJ yet claim a positive is from pill from fda approved crap. :)

So do you think I can get Marinol Prescibed What is it suppose to really do for people prescibed it???

[SensiGirl]

Originally Posted by WildWill

Are they hiring? I have a degree in English from UCLA!

We are looking for someone who is quarkexpress knowledgeable and can do Lay out.... Let me know what skills you got I am the Managing Editor here!!

Hmm...more of a writer than an editor, unfortunately. I'll have to forward you my resume.

[labrat]

if yur loking four a gaud riter let meno,i hav a degre frum RATGERS!! piece lab rat !

[Phil8Me]

Originally Posted by SensiGirl

We are looking for someone who is quarkexpress knowledgeable and can do Lay out (2 words).... Let me know "what skills you got" I am the Managing Editor here!!

I get real tan when I do lay out - tee hee

[SensiGirl]

Originally Posted by WildWill

Hmm...more of a writer than an editor, unfortunately. I'll have to forward you my resume.

If we ever need more writers ...I promise you will be the first person I hit up