marijuana<\/a><\/strong> and his employment with DISH TV was terminated.\u00a0 He went to court to get remediation.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe ruling is interesting in that it uses \u201cplain language\u201d in making the determination. There is a statute in Colorado that is for \u201clawful activities\u201d. The term \u201clawful\u201d refers to activities are that are lawful under both state and Federal Law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Because the use of marijuana for medicinal or recreational purposes is lawful in accordance with state law but not lawful in accordance with Federal law, the use of marijuana is not protected by the statute allowing the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes within the state of Colorado.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What are the implications for employees and employers in light of this decision? Employers should continue to put strong language in their policies regarding the use of marijuana and consequences of a positive drug test for marijuana. This is in essence, a \u201cgreen light\u201d for those employers who desire to maintain a strong drug free workplace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the state of Colorado, employees who use marijuana for medicinal or recreational purposes have some tough choices to make. Do these employees continue to use marijuana? More importantly, and can they expect to remain employed if the employer has a strong drug free workplace program?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Of course there is the option of another voter initiative that would redefine the lawful activities statute to make it applicable only for Colorado state law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Of course the Cannabis Therapy Institute viewed this ruling with the following statement:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThis is a sad day for Colorado medical marijuana patients, who have now have no protection for off-duty use of medical or recreational marijuana,\u201d the Cannabis Therapy Institute said in a statement. \u201cPatients have no protection for their use of medical marijuana as far as employment goes. The lesson is \u2014 just because a ballot initiative purports itself to be in favor of patients or \u2018legalization\u2019 of medical marijuana, doesn\u2019t mean that it actually protects patients.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What will happen next is largely unknown but employers should very closely review their policies. If companies operate in multiple states and ae confronted with a variety of marijuana laws, the policy for each state will have to be reviewed and adjusted to meet the legal requirements of each state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Readers should take note of the final paragraph in the decision that reads:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Having decided this case on the basis of prohibition under federal law, we decline to address the issue of whether Colorado\u2019s Medical Marijuana Amendment deems medical marijuana \u201clawful\u201d by conferring a right to such use.\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\nEmployers should take swift action and review drug free workplace programs to insure that medical and recreational marijuana issues are addressed. What is your company policy on this subject? Let your employees know your stance on medical and recreational marijuana use. Understand your State\u2019s laws on marijuana and stay tuned as this issue continues to create new employer challenges. This is a good win for employers and the momentum stays on the side of the rights of an employer to operate as a drug free workplace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is planned to do a series of articles on the issue of medical and recreational marijuana<\/strong><\/a> along with the new emerging information about medical marijuana.<\/p>\n\n\n\nRobert C. Schoening<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
…Colorado Medical Marijuana Use Not Upheld!…Huge Win for Employers Rights to a Drug Free Workplace In a long awaited ruling, the Colorado Supreme Court today ruled that the termination of former DISH TV Network employee was in accordance with existing law.\u00a0 The ruling was 6-1 stating that DISH had the right to fire Mr. Brandon […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":52085,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"none","_relevanssi_hide_post":"","_relevanssi_hide_content":"","_relevanssi_pin_for_all":"","_relevanssi_pin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_unpin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_include_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_exclude_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_no_append":"","_relevanssi_related_not_related":"","_relevanssi_related_posts":"50870,51391,50858,50868,50901,51354","_relevanssi_noindex_reason":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50971"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=50971"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50971\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/52085"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50971"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50971"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50971"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}