TRENDS IN DRUG USE BY SARAH ASHBY, PSYCHEMEDICS CORPORATION
Colorado and Washington Legalize Marijuana: The Basics
I
n November, Colorado and Washing- ton passed state initiatives by vote to legalize the recreational use of mari-
juana. Washington’s “Initiative 502,” now on the books as RCWA 69.50.4013, went into effect on Dec. 6, 2012, and Colorado’s “Amendment 64,” now C.R.S.A. Const. Art.18, §16, will go into effect on Jan. 5, 2013. Both new laws regulate and tax marijuana sales, and make it legal for an individual twenty-one or older to use or possess marijuana. Both laws also prohibit public use. Te dust has yet to setle around the new
legislation, and there will be an adjustment period as Colorado and Washington refine their frameworks for regulation and taxa- tion. However, even at this early stage, the continuing federal prohibition and certain medical marijuana cases provide guidance to the drug testing industry.
What the new laws mean for colleges and universities Many colleges and universities receive
federal funding, and the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act puts certain institu-
tions at risk of losing that funding if they knowingly and willingly allow illegal sub- stance use on campus. As a result, universi- ties and colleges are unlikely to liſt their bans on marijuana use. Further, the new state laws only legalize
use for individuals twenty-one and over, so for most students in Colorado and Wash- ington, marijuana use would remain illegal under both state and federal laws.
Employers can look to medical marijuana cases for policy guidance Te law has generally favored employer
policies in cases involving employees who relied on state medical marijuana laws to challenge their terminations. Courts have pointed out that the Colorado and Washington medical marijuana statutes 1) do not require employers to accommodate use, and 2) only protect authorized users from criminal prosecution. Te statutes do not restrict employers from taking disciplinary action, including termination, because of positive drug tests resulting from medical marijuana use. Te court made these points in this year’s
landmark case, Casias v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al, 695 F.3d 428 (6th Cir. 2012). Mr. Casias was a Wal-Mart employee who had a prescription and registry card permiting him to use marijuana for head and neck pain following sinus cancer treatment. Aſter an on-the-job injury to his knee, he was given a standard drug test in accordance with Wal-Mart’s drug policy. Wal-Mart did not honor Mr. Casias’s registry card and he was terminated for his marijuana-positive result. In his suit against Wal-Mart, he contended that the Michigan medical marijuana statute prevented Wal-Mart from disciplining him because he was a card holding, “qualifying patient” under the statute. Mr. Casias also
34 datia focus winter 2013
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50