Friday, May 3, 2013
PAIN PILLS take another star.
University of Oklahoma
football player Austin Box died from an accidental mix of powerful drugs,
according to the Oklahoma Medical Examiner's office.oma
A toxicology report performed on Box, who died May 19 after collapsing
at a friend's house, revealed Box had five separate pain-killers and an
anti-anxiety drug in his system at the time the 22-year-old football player
died. The toxicology report said the University of Oklahoma player had the
following drugs in his system: oxymorphone, morphine, hydrocodone,
hyrdomorphone and oxycodone and the anti-anxiety drug alprazolam in his system. The Oklahoma Medical Examiner's office said
the probable cause of Box's death was pulmonary edema and aspiration pneumonia
that likely was the result of mixed drug toxicity.
Box was found unconscious in an El Reno, Oklahoma home in May. He was
taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead. A 911 call to police from
J.T. Cobble, a friend of Austin Box, told police, He takes pain pills, and he's
not responding to me.
The parents of Austin Box released a statements that read:
There is no greater pain than the loss of a child, the statement from
his parents said. The pain is intensified by knowing that the death of your
child could have been prevented.
It is with much sadness; we look back and see that recently Austin had
turned to other methods of managing his pain. Methods that we hope if others
are employing, they will see this tragic accident as a message and think about
the consequences. Our greatest regret is that Austin did not feel he could
share his pain with those who loved him, and those he touched. He chose to
suffer in silence rather than to feel he let someone down, or hurt his family.
Posted By: STS First @ 11:20:02 AM
Monday, April 29, 2013
•HR 1635 IH
1 SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION
OF APPROPRIATIONS.
PLEASE NOTE: THE NUMBERS INSIDE THE TEXT REFER TO LINE NUMBERS IN THE ACTUAL PROPOSAL.
Click
here to get your copy OF THE COMPLETE PROPOSAL COMPLIMENTS SAPAA.
2 (a) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out the purposes of this Act.
4 (b) LIMITATION ON USE.—Funds
appropriated under this Act may not be used for
international travel.
113TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION H. R. 1635
To establish the National
Commission on Federal Marijuana Policy.
IN THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
APRIL 18, 2013
Mr. COHEN (for himself, Mr. POLIS, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. FARR, and Mr.MORAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary, and in
addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means,
Financial Services, and Foreign Affairs, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To
establish the National Commission on Federal Marijuana Policy.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National
Commission on Federal Marijuana Policy Act of
2013’’.
6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
7 Congress finds the following:
•HR 1635 IH
1 (9) The Federal Government must
reconcile its 2 prohibition of marijuana with the
laws of the States 3 where marijuana is legal for some
purposes and the 4 likelihood that more States will
follow in this path.
5 SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT.
6 There is established a commission to
be known as the 7 National Commission on Federal
Marijuana Policy (in this 8 Act referred to as the ‘‘Commission’’).
9 SEC. 4. DUTIES.
10 The Commission shall undertake a
comprehensive re11 view of
the state and efficacy of current policies of the 12 Federal Government toward marijuana
in light of the 13 growing number of States in which
marijuana is legal for 14 medicinal or personal use, including—
15 (1) how Federal policy should
interact with 16 State laws that make marijuana legal
for medicinal 17 or personal use;
18 (2) the cost of marijuana prohibition
and poten19 tial State and Federal regulation of marijuana, as 20 well as the potential revenue
generated by taxation
21 of marijuana; 22 (3) the impact of Federal banking and
tax laws
23 on businesses operating in compliance
with State 24 laws related to marijuana;
•HR 1635 IH
1 (4) the health impacts, both benefits
and risks,2 related to marijuana use, and in
comparison to alco3 hol and tobacco use; 4 (5) the domestic and international
public safety 5 effects of marijuana prohibition and
the impact that 6 regulation and control of marijuana
has on public 7 safety; 8 (6) the impact of marijuana
prohibition on 9 criminal justice, including any
racial disparities, and 10 the collateral consequences of
prosecution for mari11 juana possession, including lack of access to hous12 ing,
education, and employment; 13 (7) recommending the appropriate
placement of 14 marijuana in the schedule of the
Controlled Sub15 stances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.); and 16 (8) the effects of marijuana
prohibition or fu 17 ture regulation and control of marijuana on inter18 national
relationships and treaty obligations.
19 SEC. 5. MEMBERSHIP.
20 (a) NUMBER AND APPOINTMENT.—The
Commission 21 shall be composed of 13 members
appointed as follows: 22 (1) Five individuals appointed by the
President, 23 one of whom the President shall
designate as a co24 chair of
the Commission. VerDate Mar 15 2010 00:18
Apr 26, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6652
Posted By: STS First @ 3:11:51 PM
Friday, April 26, 2013
Colorado appeals court upholds firing for off-duty marijuana use
Kathleen Lavine | Denver Business Journal
The Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center in Denver, home of the state Court of Appeals.
Colorado employers are within their legal rights to fire marijuana users, even though it’s legal under state law, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled Thursday in a case about a former Dish Network Corp.employee terminated for using medical marijuana off-duty.
In a ruling that bears more weight in light of Colorado voters approving Amendment 64 legalizing marijuana use and possession by adults 21 years and older, the majority of the appellate court judges ruled Dish Network was justified in firing Brandon Coats, a quadriplegic, for using medical marijuana during his off-duty time.
The dismissal was (and is) allowed by Colorado law, the court ruled.
“Because activities conducted in Colorado, including medical marijuana use, are subject to both state and federal law ... to be ‘lawful’ in Colorado, it must be permitted by and not contrary to both state and federal law,” the ruling states.
It was signed by Chief Judge Janice Davidson and Judge Monica Márquez. Judge John Webb offered a dissenting opinion.
> DBJ Special Report: Marijuana in Colorado
Though Dish (Nasdaq: DISH) won the ruling that the firing was upheld, it lost in its efforts to make Coats pay its attorneys fees.
Coats filed his claim under Colorado’s Lawful Activities Statute, arguing Dish had no cause to fire him because he only used marijuana in his off-duty time, never was under the influence at work and never possessed any on Dish Network’s premises.
“While we agree that the general purpose of [Colorado Lawful Activities Statute] is to keep an employer’s proverbial nose out of an employee’s off-site, off-hours business, ... we can find no legislative intent to extend employment protection to those engaged in activities that violate federal law,” the ruling states.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse Proposal Goes to White
House
By Oliver Patton
The Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration is getting closer to proposing a rule that
would create a national clearinghouse for drug and alcohol test results.
The
proposal, long sought by trucking interests, has been in the works since 2009.
Tuesday the Office of Management and Budget reported that the proposal is in
line for White House vetting, a process that could take several months.
The industry
will have a chance to comment on the proposal when it is published. Last year’s
highway law gave the agency until October 2014 to post a final rule.
Details are
not available, but in general the proposal will call for carriers to query the
clearinghouse when screening applicants for driving job, and annually after
they are hired. The proposal is likely to permit third-party services to do the
searches.
Posted By: STS First @ 10:45:17 AM
Monday, April 1, 2013
Phoenix sees increase
in drug-related
DUI offenses
By Kelly Kleber* Our
thanks to Jann Kornmann for bringing this to our attention.
As the percentage of
alcohol-related driving under the influence offenses continue to decrease in
Phoenix, the number of drug-related driving offenses have increased in recent
years. Driving under the influence (DUI)
is the act of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or
drugs including illegal drugs, medical marijuana and prescription medication.
Phoenix Police
Department Sgt. Trent Crump attributes the rise in DUI arrests to a combination
of stricter enforcement and more people abusing illegal and prescription drugs. Arizona has several hundred officers trained
to recognize the symptoms of drug impairment, Crump said. Officers are better trained now to pinpoint
someone impaired by a substance other than alcohol, compared to only a few
decades ago.
Alberto C. Gutier,
Arizona Governor’s Office of Highway Safety (GOHS) director, says the increase in drug-related DUI arrests can also be attributed
to the availability of prescription drugs.
Although the percentage
of total DUI arrests has decreased, the number of drug-related DUI arrests has
significantly increased, Gutier said. The
GOHS reported that the number of DUI arrests decreased by 13 percent in 2012
from 2011. Meanwhile, the number of drug-related DUI arrests increased by 12
percent, increasing the overall DUI arrests to 14 percent.
A significant factor
contributing to the increase in total DUI arrests in Phoenix in 2011 was due to
driving under the influence of drugs, which included arrests for driving under
the influence of medical marijuana, illegal drugs, and prescription
medications, even if the pills were dispensed legally. One of the primary reasons for the increase
in drug-related DUI arrests is because many people who are pulled over for this
offense are not aware that driving under the influence of medical marijuana or
prescription drugs is illegal, Crump said.
• Kelly Kleber is a junior at the Walter Cronkite School of
Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University.
Posted By: STS First @ 11:56:17 AM
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Posted By: STS First @ 3:44:51 PM
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
First legal challenge to marijuana amendment in Colorado
If it is legal to use marijuana on your own time, can your employer fire you for smoking it off duty? That’s a question that the Colorado Court of Appeals is being asked to answer in the case of Brandon Coats, the Denver Postreported on Monday.
Coats is a former Dish Network telephone operator and medical-marijuana patient who was fired after testing positive for pot, even though there was no evidence he was impaired on the job. Coats has MS and uses the drug to fight symptoms of the disease.
Colorado's Lawful Off-Duty Activities Statute prevents employers from firing workers because of the legal things those employees do outside the office — such as smoking cigarettes, for instance — as long as those activities do not conflict with the employees' work.
While Coats' case concerns medical-marijuana law, it is drawing extra attention after the passage of Amendment 64, which legalized marijuana use for everyone age 21 and older in Colorado. Coats says it is against state law to fire someone for doing something off duty that is legal.
The heart of the case is how to balance two rights: Making sure the workplace is safe and protecting employees’ rights under Amendment 64.
Previous cases have found that medical-marijuana patients do not have a right to cannabis under Colorado law. Coats' case, though, asks a different question: Whether or not the protection under the Lawful Off-Duty Activities Statute extends to marijuana use that is legal under Colorado law but illegal under federal law.
If the court rules against Coats, roughly 100,000 medical-marijuana patients in Colorado "would likely face immediate termination or become unemployable," said Coats' attorney, Michael Evans.
But attorneys for Dish Network argue that marijuana's federal status makes it ineligible for protection because all use of marijuana is illegal under federal law.
Vance Knapp, an attorney for the Denver firm Sherman & Howard who specializes in employment law, doesn't see language in Amendment 64 that said: "Nothing in this section is intended ... to affect the ability of employers to have policies restricting the use of marijuana by employees," as crystal clear when it comes to off-duty use. "I think there is some wiggle room," he said.
Still, Knapp expects the Court of Appeals — which has not indicated when it will rule on the case — to side with Dish Network.
"As long as it's illegal under federal law," he said of marijuana, "it cannot, by definition, be lawful."
Amendment 64, the initiative that legalized limited possession and retail sales of marijuana in Colorado, passed in 34 of Colorado’s 64 counties. Statewide, 1.36 million voters cast their ballot for the amendment.
Monday, December 3, 2012
DOT
OFFICE OF DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICY AND COMPLIANCE NOTICE
Recently, some states passed initiatives to permit use of
marijuana for so-called "recreational” purposes.
We have had several inquiries about whether these state
initiatives will have an impact upon the Department of Transportation’s
longstanding regulation about the use of marijuana by safety‐sensitive transportation employees –
pilots, school bus drivers, truck drivers, train engineers, subway operators,
aircraft maintenance personnel, transit fire‐armed security personnel, ship captains, and pipeline emergency
response personnel, among others.
We want to make it perfectly clear that the state
initiatives will have no bearing on the Department of Transportation’s
regulated drug testing program. The Department of Transportation’s Drug and
Alcohol Testing Regulation – 49 CFR Part 40 – does not authorize the use of
Schedule I drugs, including marijuana, for any reason.
Therefore, Medical Review Officers (MROs) will not
verify a drug test as negative based upon learning that the employee used
"recreational marijuana” when states have passed "recreational
marijuana” initiatives.
We also firmly reiterate that an MRO will not verify a
drug test negative based upon information that a physician recommended that the
employee use "medical marijuana” when states have passed "medical
marijuana” initiatives.
It is important to note that marijuana remains a drug
listed in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. It remains unacceptable
for any safety‐sensitive
employee subject to drug testing under the Department of Transportation’s drug
testing regulations to use marijuana.
We want to assure the traveling public that our
transportation system is the safest it can possibly be.
Jim L. Swart
Director
Office of the Secretary of Transportation
Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance
Department of Transportation
December 3, 2012
Posted By: STS First @ 12:25:32 PM
Friday, November 9, 2012
|
|
State and Single Issue Charts Updated to Reflect
Marijuana Laws
New marijuana laws and how they affect workplace drug
testing.
On November 6, 2012, Massachusetts passed a new medical marijuana law.
The Massachusetts state law chart as well as the Medical Marijuana
State by State chart have been updated to reflect this new legislation.
The same day, Colorado and Washington both passed recreational
marijuana laws. Each state's respective State Law Chart has been
updated to show these changes. Log on to StateDrugTestingLaws.com
to access these new charts!
|
|
Posted By: STS First @ 12:14:47 PM
Friday, June 22, 2012
In a case
recently decided by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, it was ruled
that the ADA did not protect the use of medical marijuana. The plaintiffs
obtain medical marijuana through collectives located in Costa Mesa and Lake
Forest, California. These cities, however, have taken steps to close medical
marijuana dispensing facilities operating within their boundaries. Concerned
with the possible shutdown of the collectives they rely on to obtain medical
marijuana, the plaintiffs brought this action in federal district course
alleging that the cities' actions violate Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination in the provision of public
services. In the ruling, it was stated "We also acknowledge that California
has embraced marijuana as an effective treatment for individuals like the
plaintiffs who face debilitating pain. Congress has made clear, however, that
the ADA defines illegal drug use by reference to federal, rather than state,
law, and federal law does not authorize the plaintiffs' medical marijuana use.
We therefore necessarily conclude that the plaintiffs' medical marijuana use is
not protected by the ADA."
Read the full ruling at DATIA
Posted By: STS First @ 7:56:38 AM
