Posts tagged ‘medical marijuana’

March 15, 2011

This nations marijuana policy‏

For what has been Two-hundred plus years, this nation has sustained a very reliable system of checks and balances that from time to time has been subjected to regulation, reform, as well as policy chance as far as regulations are concerned. All which allow this nation to address the attentions of one of the largest social groups that will ever be sustained in one place.

As we have entered into a new age of time and management as a society ideas are often taken into more of an appealing role than before as the capabilities of an individual are not so limited as technology as some what exceeded the limitations of control. Technological advances that allow people the option to becoming more adaptive to certain situations that might not be expected of them under considerations of survival, work, and leisure.

As far as the current system of checks and balances the same rules have applied since the initial spawning of the idea of bringing forth a federal system of government that takes on the role of a paternal instinct of protection of the smaller cities, regulation of income, as well as the simple introduction of new ideas that may become a justifiable law to being issued into the current theory of ethical capabilities and actions of the people of this nation.

With this has come the change of numerous laws and policies that have brought this nation to the stead fasting conglomerate known as of now. So no longer are women not allowed to the attentioning and addressing of matters that men were only allowed such as voting and holding major roles in a political society as held primarily by men, no longer is it illegal to smoke in public in small town Yorkshire Mass., no longer are we subjected to outstanding import taxes on the finer leisure items of the past such as tobacco, tea, and coffee. We have adapted to the change that has come with the introduction of social groups and ethnic backgrounds that a free nation would and could offer.

March 15, 2011

state law concerning marijuana possission

Possession of 20 grams or less of marijuana is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $1,000. Possession of greater than 20 grams of marijuana is a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000.

The delivery of 20 grams or less of marijuana for no consideration is a misdemeanor and is punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $1,000. Sale, delivery or cultivation of any other amount up to 25 pounds is a felony and punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000.

Sale, delivery or cultivation of greater than 25 pounds is considered trafficking, and all trafficking offenses have mandatory minimum sentences. For less than 2,000 pounds or less than 2,000 plants, there is a mandatory minimum sentence of three years and a fine of $25,000. For less than 10,000 pounds or less than 10,000 plants there is a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years and a fine of $50,000. For 10,000 pounds or 10,000 plants or greater, the mandatory minimum sentence is 15 years in prison and a fine of $200,000.

Any sale or delivery occurring within 1,000 feet of a school, college, public park, public housing, daycare center, or church is punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a fine of $10,000.

The possession of paraphernalia is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.

Conviction of a drug related offense also requires suspension of the offender’s driver’s license for at least six months but not longer than two years.

Possession
20 g or less misdemeanor 1 year $1,000
More than 20 g felony 5 years $5,000

March 9, 2011

Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc. and Assembly Bill 2279 (California)‏

Case law in two of these states (California and Oregon) has determined that a private employer may still terminate an employee for failing a company drug test, even if that employee is authorized under state law to use cannabis medicinally.

On January 24, the California Supreme Court ruled that an employer can fire a medical marijuana patient for a positive drug test, even if the patient is using medical marijuana legally under state law.

The ruling did not affect California’s medical marijuana laws, but clarified that the laws do not cover employment discrimination. The Court was unwilling to extend the law in a way that it felt was not explicitly stated in the Compassionate Use Act and its implementing legislation.

The case, Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc., concerns Gary Ross, who treats his chronic pain and muscle spasms from a military injury with physician-recommended medical marijuana in compliance with California law. Mr. Ross provided the company with documentation of his legal status as a medical marijuana patient but was fired after eight days on the job because he tested positive for THC in a pre-employment drug test. Mr. Ross filed suit alleging wrongful termination but two lower courts sided with the employer, holding that the company did not discriminate against Mr. Ross based on his disability and chosen treatment. The California Supreme Court affirmed the lower court decisions.
How effective is the infamous urinalysis?

Employees are prohibited from reporting to work or working while under the influence of alcohol and/or other drugs that adversely affect the employee’s ability to safely perform his or her job duties.
Among the reported 75 million Americans over age 26 who report having used cannabis, more than 70 percent are employed full-time. Many of these individuals are subject to random workplace drug testing. Urinalysis remains the most popular means of drug detection available in the United States, particularly in workplace drug testing programs. Courts generally look upon urine specimen collection as a relatively non-invasive practice, and there are national standards for urine testing in place as well as national certification programs for laboratories performing forensic urine drug testing.

However, standard urinalysis tests for cannabis, in their current form, are not suitable for detecting acute cannabis impairment or recent cannabis use. A fact, that has been brought about because the procedure only detects the presence of inert drug metabolites (compounds produced from chemical changes of a psychoactive substance in the body, but they are not necessarily psychoactive themselves), not the psychoactive parent compound THC.

Presently, no dose-concentration relationship exists correlating cannabinoid metabolite levels to cannabis impairment, nor does a positive test result provide an employer with any indication as to whether the substance may have been ingested while their employee was on the job.(Norml Website) As an objection to the Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc., what can an employer do if a person is practicing the safe-regards of consumption based on the previous noted researched facts and statements concerning the legal regards of marijuana and working besides thrashing out it’s power in an non-effective procedure known as termination?

A suggestion might imply that if wage considerations can be noted as a resolve to influencing a positive economic balance, then, considerations should, be made to bring forth a resolve to an out dated policy and practicing procedure in detecting harsh, harmful, and illegal substances as stands, Urinalysis.

Assembly Bill 2279

Assembly Bill 2279 would ban employment discrimination against patients who use medical cannabis in compliance with the rules and regulations of marijuana medicinal policies under California law. Employees who possess a physician’s approval to use medicinal cannabis should possess similar workplace protections as do those workers prescribed other prescription drugs — many of which are far more impairing than marijuana. In many cases, marijuana is as a superior substitute for other, more dangerous FDA-approved prescription drugs whose use is protected.

As measures are resolving to conclude a reasonable means for considering an adjustment to drug testing policy in the regards to a work place how may Florida be considered when exposure of this matter is expected and expressed?

March 7, 2011

Drug Testing Does not Work!

Drug testing of any kind, including for cause or suspicion, is not a significant predictor of marijuana use or any other harmful drug usage detection known.

Companies which use Factor 1000, an impairment testing system, find that drug and alcohol use are not the most common reasons for accidents; rather, severe fatigue and illness are more common.

One reason drug testing is not used by some employers is the cost. One electronics manufacturer estimated that the cost of finding each positive result was $20,000. After testing 10,000 employees he only found 49 positive results. A congressional committee estimated that the cost of each positive in government testing was $77,000 because the positive rate was only 0.5%.

An Oklahoma study found that a questionnaire was able to accurately detect 94 out of 100 drug abusers. The questionnaire was also useful in detecting alcohol abusers, something drug tests fail to accomplish.

Most types of drug tests fail to detect alcohol abuse – the most commonly abused substance among Americans – and are most likely to detect marijuana use since the active ingredient in marijuana stays in the body’s system longer than any other illicit substance. Therefore, drug tests often fail to identify people who are using more powerful, more addictive and more dangerous drugs like methamphetamine or cocaine, which exit the body’s system in a matter of hours or days.

March 3, 2011

Shafer Commissions’ Redemption

In an act to repel the current marijuana laws that are in placed prohibiting states to claim individual practices to influence a regulated taxable medicinal program, there has been a critical point that has been over looked by the federal government which my just validate the drastic push by numerous states as of now to not only decriminalize marijuana but legalize it. As reform is considered, the Controlled substance act which schedules those controlled substances to be examined and given a classification has determined that marijuana be decriminalized in small amounts in the early 70’s under the assumption of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 established the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse—known as the Shafer Commission after its chairman, Raymond P. Shafer—to study marijuana abuse in the United States.

Even though we are seeing big gains as of now with Hawaii passing a bill within the Senate last year which would decriminalization marijuana which caused the governor to becoming hostile, or for instance within the state of California, Rep. Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) is not reintroducing his legalization bill (ASSEMBLY BILL No. 390), but has introduced Assembly Bill 1017, which would keep marijuana growers out of prison by reducing the offense from a felony to a misdemeanor. These are the exact advances that are to be considered as a conclusion of the referral to decriminalize marijuana due to it harsh and excessive efforts to discourage use and possession.

Are the efforts over-due knowing that Shafer as stated that “The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only ‘with the greatest reluctance” was part of an omnibus reform package designed to rationalize, and in some respects to liberalize, American drug policy?

Since the actual prohibition act the was enacted in 1937 which contributed to the drug testing policies to track marijuana usage, but also stated that the Act did not itself criminalize the possession or usage of hemp, marijuana, or cannabis however it did include a penalty and enforcement provisions to which marijuana, cannabis, or hemp handlers were subject. A violation of these procedures could result in a fine of up to $2000 and five years’ imprisonment. It would be increases in the amount of those in possession and the younger attraction of smokers that brought forth an enforcement act that would further criminalize all those in possession, cultivators, and dealers alike as threats to society and the greater good.

Vital points when the reformation of individual state policies are considered when reflected against the federal assumption of how marijuana is viewed and classified and a scheduled drug with abusive qualities and damaging characteristics associated with the over-all usage rather medicinal or as a social common. Since the actual criminalization of the drug there has been no valid observation of the drug that would consider that marijuana be deemed a harmful and dangerous substance.

March 1, 2011

The Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act‏

The following is an introduction of a bill that has been introduced to the California legislation to progressively innovate marijuana into the state income for the purpose of taxation.

Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act.

An act to add Section 22394.1 to, and to add Chapter 14.5
(commencing with Section 25400) to Division 9 of, the Business and
Professions Code, to amend Section 68152 of the Government Code, to
amend Sections 11014.5, 11054, 11357, 11364.5, 11370, 11470, 11479,
11488, 11532, 11703, and 11705 of, to add Division 10.3 (commencing
with Section 11720) to, and to repeal Sections 11358, 11359, 11360,
11361, and 11485 of, the Health and Safety Code, to add Part 14.6
(commencing with Section 34001) to Division 2 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code, to amend Sections 23222 and 40000.15 of the Vehicle
Code, and to amend Section 18901.3 of the Welfare and Institutions
Code, relating to marijuana.

The Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act has been introduced by Tom Ammino, a member of Calfornias 13th district of the state Assembly, in the efforts to gain a revenue of some sort from allowing the aspects of his hand written bill to give the response of a state in which marijuana carries the same limitations of sales as alcohol and tobacco.

As efforts to decriminalize marijuana from caring the same aspect of that of a drug that promotes violent or criminal behavior. In this cause it is not the euphoric state and the behavior while impaired rather than that of the commonness and that direct characterization brought forth by having a common nature that has legislators, lobbyist, and average citizens expressing the fact that marijuana is as average and common as tobacco and alcohol under modern day concept of the law and the limitations of adaptation of laws.

To describe marijuana/cannibus on a federal substance, federal law, classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug, implying that it has a high potential for abuse making it illegal to posses. Thus it prohibiting the possession, usage, purchase, sale, and/or cultivation of marijuana.

It seems as the commonness of marijuana becomes apparent some states and local governments have established laws attempting to decriminalize cannabis. Although it must be known that the decriminalization approach is only to aid the progression of medical marijuana as an basis of understanding. In 1974 Dr Robert DuPoint, the White House drug czar, began to publicly support decriminalization of cannabis, although he later changed his mind due to the fact of time spent with prisoners that were heroin addicts changed his mind upon his notice that drug addictions are public health problems. During his employment as drug czar the understanding of the euphoric states that drug carry were still being tested and possessed, so for him to consider the commonness marijuana has in relation to any addictive theory and bringing one to become aggressive and irrational in behavior does expect health threats as a response, a response that should bring forth adaptive signs as any addictive drug has. Although several U.S.-based advocate groups seek to modify the drug policy of the United States to decriminalize cannabis.

October 21, 2009

Now, to change the drug screening policy Mr. President

Recently, The president made it a federal policy to not arrest those that are in state compliance with state policies in which detail marijuana as being legal for those that have been prescribed by a licensed physican. Wow. Since the 1930’s a move as such has been lobbied upon by tose of interest in Washington.

Currently there are 13 states that allow marijuana to be prescribed and used by those that have doctors permission to aid in the effects taken on by ailments such as cancer or diabetes. Now those people may smoke thier pot in peace with-out the fear of being arrested for possession as Mr. Obama ordered that these people are in compliance with state laws and are not the drug war risks that have plauged this nation for some time now.

Since marijuana is now semi decriminalized, shouldn’t we now make the move to allow marijuana to be a part of the drug screening process for these people as an attempt of employment may now be considered for those that are medical marijuana patients? It is almost a legally prescribed substance that if a patient were screened while on marijuana it should pass as that of a medicinal function rather than to be viewed as the harmful substance of the past. This effort to change the drug screening policy might be the most effective in the push to bringing this substance to becoming a legal medicinal substance.