A blog about Politics.
|
Can I ask a serious question... about dating. Proposition 5. A DANGEROUS Proposal Proposition 6. The Safe Neighborhoods Act AB-2279... No, I don't think so. The plight of the rainforest. New bumper sticker... NO on the recall! Remember Angel Raich... As in Raich vs Ashcroft? Marijuana isn't addictive huh? Check out Celebrity Rehab. Dont buy the "medical marijuana" lie. July 06 August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
AB-2279... No, I don't think so.
california legislature
—2007–08 regular session
Introduced by Assembly Member Leno (Coauthors: Assembly Members Berg, Hancock, and Saldana) February 21, 2008 An act to amend Section 11362.785 of, and to add Section 11362.787 to, the Health and Safety Code, relating to medical marijuana. legislative counsel AB 2279, as amended, Leno. Medical marijuana: quali and primary caregivers: employment discrimination. Existing law, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, provides that a patient or a patient marijuana for personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician is not subject to conviction for offenses relating to possession and cultivation of marijuana. Existing law requires the State Department of Public Health to establish and maintain a voluntary program for the issuance of identi personal medical purposes, and to their primary caregivers, if any. Existing law states, however, that these provisions do not require any accommodation of any medical use of marijuana on the property or premises of any place of employment or during the hours of employment. 97 This bill, notwithstanding existing law, would declare it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person in hiring, termination, or any term or condition of employment or otherwise penalize a person, if the discrimination is based upon the person patient or primary caregiver, except as speci authorize a person who has suffered discrimination in violation of the bill to institute and prosecute a civil action for damages, injunctive relief, and any other appropriate equitable relief, as speci would provide that it would not prohibit an employer from terminating the employment of, or taking other corrective action against, a person who is impaired on the property or premises of the place of employment, or during the hours of employment, because of the medical use of marijuana. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 123456789 SECTION 1. Section 11362.785 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read: 11362.785. (a) Nothing in this article shall require any accommodation of any medical use of marijuana on the property or premises of any place of employment or during the hours of employment, except as provided in Section 11362.787, or on the property or premises of any jail, correctional facility, or other type of penal institution in which prisoners reside or persons under arrest are detained. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a person shall not be prohibited or prevented from obtaining and submitting the written information and documentation necessary to apply for an identi jail, correctional facility, or other penal institution in which prisoners reside or persons under arrest are detained. (c) Nothing in this article shall prohibit a jail, correctional facility, or other penal institution in which prisoners reside or persons under arrest are detained, from permitting a prisoner or a person under arrest who has an identi for medical purposes under circumstances that will not endanger the health or safety of other prisoners or the security of the facility. 97 AB 2279 123456789 (d) Nothing in this article shall require a governmental, private, or any other health insurance provider or health care service plan to be liable for any claim for reimbursement for the medical use of marijuana. SEC. 2. Section 11362.787 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read: 11362.787. (a) Notwithstanding subdivision (a) of Section 11362.785, and except as provided in subdivision (c), it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person in hiring, termination, or any term or condition of employment or otherwise penalize a person, if the discrimination is based upon either of the following: (1) The person primary caregiver. (2) The person person is a quali de premises of the place of employment or during the hours of employment, as required by Section 11362.785. (b) A person who has suffered discrimination in violation of subdivision (a) may institute and prosecute in his or her own name and on his or her own behalf a civil action for damages, injunctive relief, and any other appropriate equitable relief to protect the peaceable exercise of the right or rights secured. (c) (1) Paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) shall not apply when an employer employs a person in a safety-sensitive position. (2) For purposes of this section, a safety-sensitive position means a position in law enforcement, as de of Section 13951 of the Government Code, or a position in which medical cannabis-affected performance could clearly endanger the health and safety of others. A safety-sensitive position shall have all of the following general characteristics: (A) Its duties involve a greater than normal level of trust, responsibility for, or impact on the health and safety of others. (B) Errors in judgment, inattentiveness, or diminished coordination, dexterity, or composure while performing its duties could clearly result in mistakes that would endanger the health and safety of others. (C) An employee in a position of this nature works independently, or performs tasks of a nature that it cannot safely 97 — 1234567 be assumed that mistakes like those described in subparagraph (B) could be prevented by a supervisor or another employee. (d) Nothing in this section shall prohibit an employer from terminating the employment of, or taking other corrective action against, a person who is impaired on the property or premises of the place of employment or during the hours of employment, because of the medical use of marijuana.
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2279 Legalizers just keep pushing and pushing.. When are we going to stop them? AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 14, 2008 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 2, 2008 8 comments from 6 users
1
posted by
MostlyRussky
on Jun 21, 2008 at 01:53 PM
What exactly about this bill needs to be stopped? posted by
Linda2
on Jun 21, 2008 at 02:33 PM
1. Anyone close to the so called "medical marijuana" issue can tell you that literally anyone can buy a medical recommendation for any reason. More often then not, no medical explanation is needed. Several years a go for instance, recommendations went for 250 bucks, today it's 100 or less. With so many people abusing/taking advantage of ridiculous laws like Prop 215, which gives the green light to anyone who wants to get high, employer's must not be forced to cater to any drug users. Employer's must maintain the right to fire/not hire anyone testing positive for marijuana regardless of a medical recommendation. A medical recommendation for pot these day's is a joke. However, if a person with a recommendation is well enough to work, then doesn't it make sense that they should also be well enough to no longer "need" pot? The abuse of Prop 215 is disgusting. But,,we need to remember that was the goal from the beginning. It's alway's been about smoking pot without consequence. Everytime we give in to one of these childish whims, we chip away the barriers that we put in place to protect our safety. posted by
sfinboston52
on Jun 21, 2008 at 04:38 PM
Lets forget about life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and let's control everyone whom we don't agree with. posted by
MostlyRussky
on Jun 21, 2008 at 04:51 PM
Granted, your post of the text of the bill is a bit botched and hard to read, but I don't see anything about having to let someone who's high continue to work. In fact, the last three lines you posted say that there's nothing prohibiting an employer from terminating a worker who is "impaired." So what's the big deal? As for your statement that a person who needs medical marijuana for an illness shouldn't be well enough to work, you obviously haven't been reading any news about the U.S. economy. People will do whatever it takes to keep their jobs--for the income of course, and for any health insurance benefits they might receive as well. Americans go to work sick all the time because they have to. posted by
JesusSmokedABowl
on Jun 22, 2008 at 09:26 AM
Hey cuteness, still as beautiful as ever. posted by
royal12136
on Jun 23, 2008 at 06:22 AM
It is true that the bill does not prohibit the employer from terminating an employee for being impaired. What is the legal definition of impaired? If an employee is cross eyed falling down drunk, who we would all agree is definitely impaired, then an employer has a legal basis for termination or discipline. However, if an employee partakes of marijuana before coming to work, who is to say he is not impaired? Will this employee being operating machinery, equipment, or dealing with sensitive information? This bill does allow for the denial of marijuana usage for ‘safety sensitive’ positions; but the bill puts a caveat in where if the employee does not work alone and the supervisor or other employees could protect the impaired employee from harm to self or others, then it is perfectly acceptable to be under the influence of marijuana. Who is to say that the employee who is supposed to be taken care of the impaired employee is not also impaired? In an environment where errors in judgment, inattentiveness, or diminished faculties can endanger others, one does not need to be worrying if the employee next to them is impaired. The smoking of marijuana is the least effective, and most harmful, way of receiving any medical benefits from the active constituents of cannabis. However; smoking, drinking, inhaling, and eating of cannabis produces the best ‘high’ compared to taking a pill that has had the psychotropic properties removed from the drug. One can make the conclusion that most ‘patients’ just want to get high which is fine, but not at my work.posted by
randomfactor
on Jun 23, 2008 at 07:19 AM
I'll have to call my state representatives and tell them I support this legislation. posted by
Linda2
on Jul 5, 2008 at 04:57 PM
Sorry for the delay in response. I was in Pismo.
Thankfully though, I believe the Governor will veto this ridiculous bill.
1
Our readers recommend: |
