Ethical Dilemmas

INTRODUCTION
1. What is the title of your article and the primary issue in this article?
• My article, “Legal Use of Marijuana Clashes With Job Rules”, focuses on the case of Brandon Coats of Denver, Colorado, who uses medicinal marijuana at night to ease his agonizing muscle spasms. His job is now in jeopardy due to his company’s drug-testing policy.
2. In what publication and when was the article published? What kind of publication is this (e.g., local newspaper)?
• This article was published in the nationally popular newspaper (that also has online access), The New York Times on September 7, 2014.
3. Provide a summary of the article.
• Brandon Coats has been tormented by excruciating muscle spasms since he was paralyzed in a car accident

when he was sixteen. Coats started using medicinal marijuana (legally) in 2009 to find relief from his muscle spasms. He reports that he mainly used this medicinal treatment at night and it had not affected his job performance. Despite his medicinal marijuana card, and the state’s acceptance of recreational use, he was fired from his company due to the corporation’s drug screening policy. He is now suing Dish Network, his former employer, for being discriminated against for the medicine he needs to live a normal life. This suit will potentially have larger, national implications for all citizens of the United States who need medicinal marijuana to alleviate symptoms of their disease or disorder and their ability to procure a job. On the other hand, this lawsuit may spearhead the fight for medicinal marijuana users to have the right to retain a job while remaining under his or her present therapeutic regimen.
4. Who is the target audience of this article? How do you know?
• The target of this article is the general population since it is published in a widely circulated newspaper that has online access.
5. Is the article written at an appropriate level of understanding for its intended audience? How do you know?
• Since it is available online to any person in the population it would be impossible to write at a level at which every citizen could understand. However, I think it is at an appropriate level that most adults would be able to comprehend, especially those that are avid newspaper readers.
6. Who are the stakeholders involved in the issue being discussed?
• The stakeholders involved in this issue are directly Dish Network and potentially all companies in the United States and their right to drug screen workers.
7. How and why are they involved?
• If the court rules in Coats’ favor, companies would not be able to enforce a drug-free workplace.

BACKGROUND

1. Describe the GENERAL practice or issue of the article (e.g., what is the practice of importation and reimportation?)
• The general issue of this article is state law vs. company policy on medicinal marijuana use.
2. What is the history of this issue? How long has this been an issue or a problem, and how has it been dealt with?
• Medicinal marijuana use conflicting with business drug-testing policies has been a battle since the Compassion Use Act of 1996 first legalized it in California in 1996. States can protect medicinal patients from state level police, but the patients are still at risk of federal prosecution. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) specifically stated that business were not obligated to make special accommodations for an employee using medicinal marijuana, such employees do not fall under the coverage for employees with disabilities. In the past, some employees have had their career terminated for over stepping their company’s policy, even though it is therapeutically recognized in that state.4 On the federal level, Americans with Disabilities Act also does not provide assistance to those who use medicinal marijuana, because it is still classified as Schedule 1.5
• However, more recently (in 2012) Connecticut’s medical marijuana law sanctioned businesses’ right to enforce a drug-free workplace and take disciplinary action if any employee attends work while intoxicated on marijuana, alcohol, or any other drug.

Furthermore, it prohibits employers from firing, discriminating against, or not hiring candidates because they are medical marijuana users or caregivers. Exceptions include businesses that receive federal funding and are required to drug screen.6
• There is a history of multiple court cases in which the medicinal use of marijuana has not been deemed a valid defense. 12
3. What recent media attention has been given to this GENERAL practice or issue? (Be specific)
• There is currently a “CBD Scandal” in which Medical Marijuana Inc. is suing many businesses for publishing its preliminary lab results, which revealed obvious levels of toxic solvents in the company’s product. This investigation was initiated after multiple complaints from patients of illness after using HempMeds.7
4. What is the incidence or prevalence of the occurrence of this practice or issue locally and/or nationally?
→ I could not find any recent data on “medical marijuana” prevalence in the workplace. “An estimated 6.4 percent, or 7.3 million, of full-time workers reported use of marijuana during the past month.”9 It is not recorded how many of them were medicinal users rather than

recreational.

5. What arguments, if any, are posed by the proponents and opponents or this practice or issue? If there are no arguments posed, please indicate why.
• Proponents feel as though people with the certain diseases that are treated with medical marijuana are discriminated against in the workforce.
• Opponents say that they do not want a high workforce because in many professions it could be costly or dangerous. They also believe that their rights are protected because it is federally illegal, and this regulation would overrule state law. Additionally some companies that are federally regulated would lose their contracts.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

1. Which law(s)/statute(s) or regulation(s) is the issue in your article held to?
• Marijuana is classified as a Schedule 1 drug which is incongruent with many state’s laws about medicinal or recreational marijuana use. Many state laws authorize medical marijuana or even recreational use, even though this is in direct violation of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.
2. Which of the four types of laws we talked about in class is the law you mentioned above (Constitution, statutory law, administrative law, common law)? How do you know?
• The Controlled Substance Act (CSA) is a Statutory Law, more specifically a federal statute. It is a federal statute because the CSA is a provision of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse, Prevention, and Control Act of 1970 passed by Congress and finalized into law by President Nixon.
• Similarly, each of the 23 states that have legalized medicinal marijuana use did so via Statutory Law although this is classified as a state statute, and therefore is surpassed by the federal statute.
3. What specific entity created the above law/statute or regulation? How did they create it?
• The 91st US Congress and President Nixon created the Controlled Substance Act by including it in Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Control Act of 1970. Each state’s legislature creates its own state statutes regarding the matter for the state’s vote to approval.
4. Describe the law/statute or regulation you mentioned above and include the overall purpose of this law.
• The Controlled Substance Act initiated the 5-schedule classification system for drugs. Marijuana is currently classified as a Class 1 drug. Schedule is assigned with regards to the drug’s potential for abuse and accepted therapeutic use in the United States.11
5. What entity (or entities) enforces the law/statute or regulation that you described above?
• The Drug Enforcement Agency enforces the Controlled Substance Act.
• State level officers are not permitted to persecute medical marijuana users if its use is in accordance with that state’s law. However, the federally run DEA remains capable of raiding dispensaries in states where it is legalized, because federally it remains a Schedule 1 drug, which makes it illegal.
6. What, in general, is the purpose of this entity?
• The purpose of the Drug Enforcement Agency is to enforce the rules set forth by the Controlled Substance Act and any other federal drug statutes.
7. How does this entity enforce the law/statute or regulation that you described above? (Be specific) How was enforcement described in this article, if at all
• If found with Schedule 1 drugs, you may face prison time, and must serve at least 85% of it. The amount of illegal substance and prior convictions is taken into account when deciding the punishment. The minimum punishment for this offense could be probation for 1-12 months.12

ARTICLE ANALYSIS (This section may be written in the first person)

1. How credible is the information that is presented in this article, and how can you tell?
• I feel that this article’s information was credible, since it is a major newspaper, and because the article included quotes from the defendant in the case as well as others.
2. Does the publisher and/or printer of the article have any conflicts of interest or political leanings/affiliations? How do you know? If yes, does it affect the angle of the paper? Why?
• I do not feel as though the publisher has any conflicts of interest because the article was unbiased for the most part. I do not think it was intended to sway the public’s opinion in one way or the other.
3. If a patient brought this article to you and expressed concern over the article/issue and/or asked for your advice, how would you respond? (Be careful to educate the patient in a balanced way, and not provide your opinion)
• I would tell the patient that the article is no cause for concern on her part. The article only affects people that use Schedule 1 drugs, which are illegal. The court case will not affect her from being able to use any of the drugs she already obtains from the pharmacy.
4. How does the issue in this article affect pharmacy practice, pharmacists, and patients?
• This issue in this article is a “foot-in-the-door” if you will, towards acceptance of marijuana use if the defendant is successful. This could possibly lead to more research into the field of medicinal marijuana and potential for discovering new therapeutic uses. If the case is lost, like many previously have been, it will not create an implication for pharmacy or pharmacists. It would only be an implication for patients using medicinal marijuana and their search for employment.