Source: https://nationalparalegal.edu/MedicalMarijuana.aspx
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 13:42:56+00:00

Document:
There is only one exception permitting use of a Schedule I drug. A Schedule I drug may be legally used only in connection with Government-approved research projects.11 Other drugs included in lesser schedules can be dispensed and prescribed for medical use.12 The federal government uses three different mechanisms to regulate the use of Schedule I drugs like marijuana: (1) federal statutes, (2) cases heard in the federal courts, and (3) administrative regulations of various federal agencies.
As mentioned earlier,31 the three conditions for Schedule I classification are (1) no currently accepted medical use, (2) high potential for abuse, and (3) lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision.32 The quandary that has enveloped marijuana’s classification as a Schedule I drug involves whether or not marijuana has a currently accepted medical use.
Federal statute dictates that "except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally ... to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance."33 Correspondingly, all states have adopted measures criminalizing the manufacture, distribution, and possession of marijuana.34 Recently, however, numerous states have enacted legislation permitting medical use of marijuana and a few states have even legalized possession of small amounts of marijuana for recreational use.
Proponents of medical marijuana use are not satisfied that Marinol is an effective substitute for marijuana, however. Many patients have countered that smoking marijuana, rather than ingesting THC in a pill form, provides significantly better relief for pain and nausea.45 Others have cited difficulties in taking the pill orally46 , while others have objected to the effects of a single immediately acting dose of Marinol as opposed to the gradual effects accomplished by smoking marijuana.47 An additional obstacle to Marinol’s ability to serve as a marijuana replacement has been its high cost compared to marijuana.48 Therefore, many patients eligible for a regimen including Marinol have resorted to the illegal use of marijuana, often with the approval of their doctors.49 These benefits favoring marijuana over Marinol are important weapons in claims that marijuana use is medically necessary for patients qualifying under state medical marijuana programs.
Another interesting complexity with the ramifications of medical marijuana use and the workplace involves the Americans with Disabilities Act.66 To establish a prima facie claim of discrimination under the ADA, a discharged employee must prove (1) that he has a disability, (2) that he was qualified for the job from which he was discharged, and (3) that his discharge was the result of his disability.67 In cases involving medical marijuana use, the question arises as to whether an employee has a disability under the ADA. Certainly, afflictions like cancer and glaucoma would likely be considered disabilities by the ADA. But the analysis in these cases generally centers on specific language in the ADA that excludes users of illegal drugs.
Since marijuana use is still considered illegal by both the federal government, it seems clear that marijuana users, even those registered through a state’s medical marijuana program, may be excluded from ADA protection under 42 U.S.C. § 12114(a).78 This issue has not yet been decided by the courts, and may ultimately be decided based on a choice of competing interpretations of the ADA.
Under a “competing federal interests” theory, the federal government’s need to keep marijuana illegal in all cases would compete with the ADA’s right to provide relief for a person “handicapped” by diseases such as cancer and glaucoma. While marijuana proponents could point to federal acceptance of known pain relievers such as morphine, the federal government would likely counter by asserting that these “handicapped” individuals could properly be treated with Marinol. Given these compelling arguments on both sides, it seems likely that any court decision will be appealed and the United States Supreme Court may ultimately be asked to decide whether medical marijuana use is permitted under the ADA.
Labor lawyers have questioned whether an employee with an otherwise qualifying disability may claim the right to use marijuana under the Americans with Disabilities Act.79 Federal case law thus far has supported an employer’s right to discharge an employee for marijuana use, even if that employee were disabled according to the ADA.80 The ADA excludes from its protection “any employee or applicant who is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs”.81 The ADA recognizes an employer’s right to test for drug use82 and to prohibit illegal drug use in the workplace.83 Again, the federal government’s refusal to declassify marijuana as a Schedule I drug makes it likely that ADA protection will not be afforded to employees terminated for medical marijuana use.
1a a1 LL.M. 2008, Beasley School of Law, Temple University. J.D. 2001, Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada Las Vegas. B.B.A., Management Information Systems, Texas Tech University, 1982.
4 Grinspoon v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 828 F.2d 881, 884 (1st Cir. 1987). (The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act can be found at 21 U.S.C. § 355).
7 21 U.S.C.S. § 812(b)(1)(A)-(C).
10 Id. (In Grinspoon v. Drug Enforcement Admin., supra note 7, the First Circuit articulated that this public safety concern related to the potential for abuse and unlawful dissemination to the public at large).
11 21 U.S.C.S. § 823(f).
12 21 U.S.C.S. § 829.
13 Allison L. Bergstrom, Medical Use of Marijuana: A Look at Federal & State Responses to California's Compassionate Use Act, 2 DEPAUL J. HEALTH CARE L., Fall, 1997, at 158.
14 Marty Bergoffen & Roger Lee Clark, Hemp as an Alternative to Wood Fiber in Oregon, 11 J. ENVTL. L. & LITIG. 119, 120 (1996) [hereinafter Bergoffen & Clark].
16 LESTER GRINSPOON, M.D. & JAMES BAKALAR, MARIJUANA, THE FORBIDDEN MEDICINE 5-6 (1993).
18 Bergoffen & Clark, supra note 14.
19 Marijuana Tax Act, 21 U.S.C. § 4741 et seq., repealed by the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C. § 801.
20 Bergoffen & Clark, supra note 14.
21 21 U.S.C. § 176(a), repealed by the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C. § 801.
23 Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969).
28 21 U.S.C. §§ 801-904.
30 See id. §§ 822-823, 872.
31 21 U.S.C.S. § 812(b)(1)(A)-(C).
33 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1).
34 Roger A. Hoffman, MARIJUANA AS MEDICINE 38 (1982). See also Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 16 (1969).
35 Denial of Marijuana Scheduling Petition, 54 Fed. Reg. 53767, 53773 (1989).
36 See National Org. for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) v. Ingersoll, 497 F.2d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1974); National Org. for Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 559 F.2d 735 (D.C. Cir. 1977); National Org. for the Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Drug Enforcement Admin. & Dept. of Health Educ. & Welfare, No. 79-1660 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 16, 1980); Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 930 F.2d 936 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 15 F.3d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 1994); United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop. & Jeffrey Jones, 121 S. Ct. 1711 (2001).
37 15 F.3d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
39 Id. at 1135. (quoting Final Order, 57 Fed. Reg. 10,499 (Mar. 26, 1992)).
42 47 Fed. Reg. 10082-83 (1985).
45 Plaintiff’s Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Conant v. McCaffrey, 172 F.R.D. 681 (N.D. Cal. 1997) (No. 97-0139). (This case is also noteworthy in that the court held that the government is permanently enjoined from (i) revoking a physician's DEA registration merely because the doctor recommended medical marijuana to a patient based on sincere medical judgment and (ii) from initiating any investigation solely on that ground. This injunction applied whether or not the physician anticipated that the recommendation would be used by the patient to obtain marijuana in violation of federal law.).
46 47 Fed. Reg. 10082-83 (1985).
50 Justice Breyer did not participate in Oakland Cannabis Buyers because his brother, Charles Breyer, was the U.S. district court judge who issued the original decision that rejected the defendant’s, Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, claim that its members could rely on a defense of “medical necessity” since they alleged that marijuana provided the only source of relief for their ailments.
51 United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop. & Jeffrey Jones, 121 S. Ct. 1711, 1718 (2001).
53 121 S. Ct. 1711 (2001).
66 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.
67 Zenor v. El Paso Healthcare System, Ltd., 176 F.3d 847 (5th Cir. 1999); See generally Robertson v. Neuromedical Ctr., 161 F.3d 292, 294 (5th Cir. 1998); Burch v. Coca-Cola Co., 119 F.3d 305, 320 (5th Cir. 1997); Robinson v. Global Marine Drilling Co., 101 F.3d 35, 36 (5th Cir. 1996).
68 Zenor, 176 F.3d at 853.
74 Zenor, 176 F.3d at 853.
76 Id. (citing Vida v. El Paso Employees' Fed. Credit Union, 885 S.W.2d 177, 182 (Tex. App. 1994)).
78 42 U.S.C. § 12114(a). (“Qualified individual with a disability. For purposes of this title, the term ‘qualified individual with a disability’ shall not include any employee or applicant who is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs, when the covered entity acts on the basis of such use.”).
79 See Marijuana Ballot in California Raises Questions Over Testing, DRUG DETECTION REPORT, Sept. 20, 1996 (considering whether a doctor’s recommendation of marijuana as a treatment regimen would serve as a legitimate medical excuse for a positive drug test).
80 Collings v. Longview Fibre Co., 63 F.3d 828, 832-33 (9th Cir. 1995). (employer’s termination of employees who used, sold, and purchased marijuana on company property was upheld on the basis that the discharge was the result of misconduct, not the employees’ claims of disability).
81 42 U.S.C. § 12114(a).
82 See id. § 12114(b), (d).
83 See id. § 12114(d) (2).

References: § 12114
 v. 
 § 355
 § 812
 v. 
 § 823
 § 829
 § 4741
 § 801
 § 176
 § 801
 v. 
 § 812
 § 841
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 12101
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 12114
 v. 
 § 12114
 § 12114
 § 12114