I was reading the decision tonight, out of sick curiousity and because I am procrastinating writing a paper on which my graduation rests......lol!
Anyway, here is an exerpt from the opinion.....'Nothing in the Attorney General's opinion addresses that question, and the commissioner erred in finding an answer in the Attorney General's opinion to a question that the Attorney General never addressed.' Does anyone see how awkard the phrasing of this statement is? For some reason, this cracked me up. Not even a Supreme Court Justice is immune from a run/on or fragmented sentence. [at page 17]. I actually had to read that sentence several times to make sure I understood what was being stated here.
To break this down, the Supreme Court today ruled on an important issue.
1). Employers can fire someone for m.j. use, even if the person holds a medical maurijuana card. The Court interpreted the federal controlled substance statute, and two Oregon statutes to interpret that federal law trumps state law. And because mj is an illegal sustance as defined by Congress, it is a illegal substance per the accomodation statute in Oregon.
2) Employers do not have to allow an employee to smoke m.j. on the job, even if the hold a medical m.j. card.
In both cases, the employer does not have to accomodate, or carve out a special exception because an employee has a medical card. The court seems to be saying that illegal, means illegal, contrary to what our Oregon AG says.
I have to wonder what the fall out will be for those who have these cards? And what the fallout will be for the medical m.j. movement in Oregon.