This is, no doubt, terrifically wrong and unjust. An outstanding young man already trying to live with an inoperable brain tumor is willing to go to work, but Wal-Mart won't let him:

Wal-Mart worker fired over medical marijuana - Careers- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35913492/ns/business-careers)

If possession of Marijuana, even for medical use, is illegal, then Wal-Mart is just in their actions... Regardless of the person's condition. If, however, it is NOT illegal for medical use, then, I am on the fence. He could have used it at home only.

Wal-Mart's internal policies are enforceable to the extent that they comply with federal and state law. I'm no expert on Michigan law, but the way the article reads, Wal-Mart is prohibited for discriminating against an employee because they have the card allowing them to purchase marijuana. It seems to stand to reason that this law would also contemplate protecting the employee for actually using said card to purchase marijuana and use it, but the article is silent on what I think is a crucial question.

And then there's another interesting issue -- since marijuana possession and use is prohibited by federal law, does that federal law supersede Michigan law when it comes to workplace discrimination? Solving that question will require lots of trees and ink and billable hours.

I suspect Wal-Mart's motives here are more to save itself from the exorbitant cost of treating this employee's illness. Their H.R. was more than likely looking for any out they could find and this is one of those things.

Now this guy's only choice is to take it in the shorts, shut up and die, or find a lawyer who'll represent him.

Looks like the article is gone from the site. Exactly how is this a workplace discrimination issue and not purely one of violation of the law? If Wal Mart or ANY other company has a law prohibiting an employee from being under the influence of illegal drugs and the employee comes to work under the influence, it should be within their right to let the employee go. States are passing the medical pot laws but it is still illegal under federal law. Therefore, if Wal Mart knowingly let this person work under the influence and this person injured himself - or others at work while under the influence, it seems Wal Mart would bear some liability.

Looks like the article is gone from the site. Exactly how is this a workplace discrimination issue and not purely one of violation of the law? If Wal Mart or ANY other company has a law prohibiting an employee from being under the influence of illegal drugs and the employee comes to work under the influence, it should be within their right to let the employee go. States are passing the medical pot laws but it is still illegal under federal law. Therefore, if Wal Mart knowingly let this person work under the influence and this person injured himself - or others at work while under the influence, it seems Wal Mart would bear some liability.

Normally, I would agree with what you wrote. However, in Michigan it is legal to use this for pain as this man did for his brain tumor, which Wal-Mart knew he was treating aggressively. He carried the "legal" card. It's probably no different (from a safety angle) than somebody coming to work after taking a Vicodin or Percocet that they've been given for pain. In Michigan, it's all the same. To me, this is actually a matter of states' rights and since they have the "non-discrimate" statute, then it looks like Wal-Mart may have goofed in admitting this is why they fired him.

Normally, I would agree with what you wrote. However, in Michigan it is legal to use this for pain as this man did for his brain tumor, which Wal-Mart knew he was treating aggressively. He carried the "legal" card. It's probably no different (from a safety angle) than somebody coming to work after taking a Vicodin or Percocet that they've been given for pain. In Michigan, it's all the same. To me, this is actually a matter of states' rights and since they have the "non-discrimate" statute, then it looks like Wal-Mart may have goofed in admitting this is why they fired him.

It may seem no different than after a Vicodin or Percocet to you and me - but Percs are pretty powerful (I've had a few). The real point is that despite what Michigan may say, it is still illegal per federal law. If a 3rd party were injured by this person while Wal Mart knew he was under the influence of a federally illegal drug, Wal Mart could probably get the snot sued out of them. To me, it looks like Wal Mart and other employers are between a rock and a hard place and some law firm(s) is going to make a ton of money off of this case because Wal Mart doesn't know what to do.

It may seem no different than after a Vicodin or Percocet to you and me - but Percs are pretty powerful (I've had a few). The real point is that despite what Michigan may say, it is still illegal per federal law. If a 3rd party were injured by this person while Wal Mart knew he was under the influence of a federally illegal drug, Wal Mart could probably get the snot sued out of them. To me, it looks like Wal Mart and other employers are between a rock and a hard place and some law firm(s) is going to make a ton of money off of this case because Wal Mart doesn't know what to do.

A lot to think about with this. I can see this one going a long way in the courts if for no other reason than, as you mentioned, lawyers will be making some big bucks. I'm guessing Wal-Mart buckles and pays him a big severance/settlement to make it all go away.

Some people who use medical marijuana are definately not seriously impaired by it. For instance, legal federal medical marijuana patient Irvin Rosenfeld smokes 10 to 12 joints a day. He has been caught on camera smoking a joint while driving to work. Yet, apparently he gets in no trouble from the cops over it. It's no secret that for breaks at work he goes outside to smoke joints. Yet, he is able to serve as vice president of a stock brokerage firm in Florida. To be fair and safe, I suppose workers on medical marijuana will have to be cleared by some sort of sorbriety test. People aren't gonna react the same way to various drugs.

Some people who use medical marijuana are definately not seriously impaired by it. For instance, legal federal medical marijuana patient Irvin Rosenfeld smokes 10 to 12 joints a day. He has been caught on camera smoking a joint while driving to work. Yet, apparently he gets in no trouble from the cops over it. It's no secret that for breaks at work he goes outside to smoke joints. Yet, he is able to serve as vice president of a stock brokerage firm in Florida. To be fair and safe, I suppose workers on medical marijuana will have to be cleared by some sort of sorbriety test. People aren't gonna react the same way to various drugs.

Good points, Bunt.

Some people who use medical marijuana are definately not seriously impaired by it. For instance, legal federal medical marijuana patient Irvin Rosenfeld smokes 10 to 12 joints a day. He has been caught on camera smoking a joint while driving to work. Yet, apparently he gets in no trouble from the cops over it. It's no secret that for breaks at work he goes outside to smoke joints. Yet, he is able to serve as vice president of a stock brokerage firm in Florida. To be fair and safe, I suppose workers on medical marijuana will have to be cleared by some sort of sorbriety test. People aren't gonna react the same way to various drugs.

True, SOME people can handle it. Others? Notsomuch. If workers are getting high, they're less likely to be motivated, more likely to experience on the job injuries and much more likely to steal. Are there exceptions? Sure, but the exceptions exist because there's a rule.

I'm with Walmart on removing him from working with heavy equipment, but not with firing him altogether.

I don't understand. Why is it presumed that a person on medical marijuana would be likely to steal?

I don't understand. Why is it presumed that a person on medical marijuana would be likely to steal?

Talk about a huge leap in logic. JEEEEZ.

Sorry for the leap. I guess Midtowner actually said "much more likely."

This is more a matter of public relations and preserving WalMart's rep than any REAL judgement on whether this employee was a hazard to the company or the public. Too many folks are willing to believe the hype about marijuana being a nuisance to the community instead of it being a useful tool in battling more than a couple of diseases and/or conditions. It actually does more to fight cancer than a hundred boxfuls of pink ribbons and overpriced pink clothing but THAT isn't talked about as much as gateway drugs and the mythical pushers on the schoolyard. My wife got a death sentence in the early 90's of inoperable cancer. Instead of putting herself in the hands of the local oncologist(who said she'd die with the treatment or without), she chose to go home. We left Oklahoma for her seaside home with a nice supply of marijuana and spent the next few months walking on the beach, eating and drinking and medicating her with many, many joints. After being there for a while, and NOT being dead or even in any distress, she went to an oncologist there. The cancer's path was evident but the mutant cells were no longer viable or even present. The doctor was pleasantly surprised and curious at the sudden and unexplained recovery. We chose NOT to disclose what WE felt was the remedy so as to not cause the doctor to be ethically conflicted for NOT turning us in.

People can abuse anything. The current problem with prescription pain killers is evidence of that. There will always be those that choose to live their life in a stupor rather than be productive citizens. We cannot and should not continue to criminalize a very helpful plant because some people will choose silver Krylon over food. It's NOT the same thing and never will be!

True, SOME people can handle it. Others? Notsomuch. If workers are getting high, they're less likely to be motivated, more likely to experience on the job injuries and much more likely to steal. Are there exceptions? Sure, but the exceptions exist because there's a rule.

I would be far more concerned with reflex times, personally. There's a lot of large equipment in the backrooms of most of your major retailers.

There was supposedly a research study done, probably by the government or on government money, that tested drivers on alcohol, marijuana and nothing. The ones on marijuana did best. They seemed more determined not to knock over cones than the other drivers. But the study disappeared.

There was supposedly a research study done, probably by the government or on government money, that tested drivers on alcohol, marijuana and nothing. The ones on marijuana did best. They seemed more determined not to knock over cones than the other drivers. But the study disappeared.

Mysterious men in Black Helicopters came in the dark of night and stole the results of the study.

Hammondjam- what a great story and that is awesome about your wife. the only part i was confused about, is, what exactly would the doctor have turned you in for?


and referring to bunty's post, i was saw a british tv program where they tested a guy on a road course sober, let him smoke a joint, then retested, and he did better.
wasn't anything real scientific or complicated, but it is what it is.

Hammondjam- what a great story and that is awesome about your wife. the only part i was confused about, is, what exactly would the doctor have turned you in for?

The doctor in question might have had negative opinions about the type of "green" treatment regimen that my wife followed. Sometimes, decisions meant to be ethically correct are spawned from such opinions. We're still in the times where a plant gets more attention than the corruption of our food supply. We didn't think sharing our idea with the doctor would be a worthwhile risk at the time. I'm not a lawbreaker by nature and I'm not one that prefers inebriation over sobriety. I just disagree with the illegality of a medically useful plant.

Massive doses of gamma radiation was what got the ball started for my wife long ago. I found it odd that they chose it as a treatment option when it appeared to be THE END.

im all for it man.

There was supposedly a research study done, probably by the government or on government money, that tested drivers on alcohol, marijuana and nothing. The ones on marijuana did best. They seemed more determined not to knock over cones than the other drivers. But the study disappeared.

A study which looked at effects in the 12-72 hour window would find the opposite. That is my one and only concern.

I've yet to see anybody still affected by marijuana 12 hours later.

A study which looked at effects in the 12-72 hour window would find the opposite. That is my one and only concern.



And why is that?

I've yet to see anybody still affected by marijuana 12 hours later.

I could hardly believe it while listening to Michael Savage on KRMG Friday evening refer to marijuana as being very dangerous medically and as a biohazard. Savage has one of the most popular radio talk shows. So if too many people want to take him seriously, then just trying to get medical marijuana legalized in Oklahoma may be harder than some people may think.

Hammondjam- what a great story and that is awesome about your wife. the only part i was confused about, is, what exactly would the doctor have turned you in for?


and referring to bunty's post, i was saw a british tv program where they tested a guy on a road course sober, let him smoke a joint, then retested, and he did better.
wasn't anything real scientific or complicated, but it is what it is.


YouTube - Drugs and Driving (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CftiA7Caug)

haha. nice

Savage is just another inciting blowhard like many of the other talk show folks. Unfortunately, if you package it right and use the correct buzzwords, many Americans will not only believe it but will take off work to go out and be activists for or against whatever the radio gods say. Our current health care situation is more than enough proof of that.

I find it funny that he, like any good neocon, constantly gripes about big government but at the same time wants our government to intrude, judge and put away offenders in the war on drugs....no matter how many billions it costs. Medical marijuana has gotten the attention of one of our country's biggest contributors to presidential elections. Monsanto(creator or Agent Orange, DDT and RoundUp) now wants to get permission to research marijuana(meaning genetically alter it) so they can patent it and sell it. If such a government buddy wants it that bad, wouldn't you think that there MUST be some merit to using it? Wouldn't you also surmise that once this happens, the threat of home invasion by paramilitary thugs will disappear? Funny how it is that contributions of money lessens the threat to our country by this "demon weed".