Dangerous Court Ruling.

Court: Medically legal or not, smoke pot and face firing
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/24/court.medical.marijuana/index.html

'The Sacramento-based company said its no-tolerance policy applies to all workers, since potential "abuse of drugs and alcohol" could lead to "increased absenteeism, diminished productivity, greater health costs, increased safety problems, and potential liability to third parties," according to the company's lawyers.

Ross' job performance was not at issue in the case.'

The part that concerns me stems from the company's assertion that greater health costs could be grounds for termination as does the sentence 'Ross's job performance was not an issue in the case.'

Now I have mixed feelings on medical marijuana but generally am in favor of it. What concerns me here is less about the marijuana aspect of the story and more that greater health costs and (the potential for) increased absenteeism are grounds for firing an employee. As you all know I have Crohn's disease, I do cost health insurance more than the average person and were my condition to deteriorate it would certainly impact the number of days I called out, potentially in excess of my personal and sick days. This is important because the company had not experienced an increase in Ross absenteeism, only, it saw an indicator that it might experience an increase.

A company can not be left to decide what state approved drug treatments it will honor and which ones it will not. I understand how their are certain implications and difficulties inherent in discussing medical marijuana, but this claim establishes a precedence that a company can fire an employee based on the implications of his medical needs. Bare in mind, this was a California State Court, not a federal court, so federal statutes aren't at issue. The prescription was in aline with all aplicable state laws. The justification for termination was not performance based.

A justice on the case wrote: "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 Werdegar. "Under California law, an employer may require pre-employment drug tests, and take illegal drug use into consideration in making employment decisions."

But I take issue with this. His drug use was legal in the state in which he was living and working and the company he works for is based in the same state where medical marijuana use is legal. What use is a medical treatment if its use is grounds for termination? Take for instance another case: ...a pot patient from Oakland, California, who has a variety of medical conditions, including a brain tumor. Angel Raich had her pot confiscated and was not allowed to use it while her case was appealed.
Should these people be forced to choice between treating their symptoms and their job? And does this set a precidence where a company can screen for other conditions based on perscription drugs found in the employee's system and terminate those employees if they are a higher risk for absenteeism and or increase health costs?