Students subjected to student drug testing programs in school are no less likely to report consuming illicit drugs, tobacco, or alcohol than their peers, according to survey data published online in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence.

An international team of researchers from the United States, Israel, and Australia assessed the impact of school drug testing programs on a nationally representative sample of 943 high school students.

Investigators reported that the imposition of such programs had no positive impact on males’ self-reported drug use. Student drug screening programs were associated with minor reductions in females’ self-reported drug history, but only among women who attended schools with ‘positive’ environments. By contrast, investigators found that the enactment of drug testing programs in ‘negative’ school environments were most likely to be associated with “harmful effects on female youth.”

Authors reported, “[C]onsistent with previous research, students in schools that conduct drug testing do not report less substance use. … In total, the results indicate that, to the extent drug testing is effective, it is primarily for female students in schools with positive climates.”

They concluded: “The current research expands on previous findings indicating that school drug testing does not in and of itself deter substance use. Indeed, drug testing appears to be particularly ineffective for female students in negative climate schools, which tend to have higher substance use rates and thus are in most need of effective substance prevention programs. Interventions that improve school climate may have much greater efficacy. Thus, our findings indicate that drug testing should not be undertaken as a stand-alone substance prevention effort and that improvements in school climate should be considered before implementing drug testing.”

Previous studies assessing the impact of student drug screening programs, including a 2010 study by US Department of Education, have similarly failed to report that drug testing deterred student drug use.

More than one-fifth of US high schools impose some form of student drug testing, according to data compiled by the US Centers for Disease Control.

NORML’s fact-sheet, ‘Just Say No to Random Student Drug Testing,’ is available here.

Off-the-job medical marijuana use does not bar firing: Wash. high court
via BusinessInsurance.com

The ruling stemmed from the case of a woman who suffered from migraines that caused chronic pain, nausea, blurred vision and sensitivity to light, according to court documents. She said conventional medications did not provide relief.

In June 2006, a doctor provided her a document authorizing marijuana possession for medical purposes, and about four months later TeleTech offered her a customer service job contingent on the results of a drug screening test.

The employer learned of her drug test results about the same time the plaintiff began training for the job and terminated her. The company’s drug-use policy does not make an exception for medical marijuana use, court records show.

… On appeal to the Washington Supreme Court, the woman argued that because the medical marijuana law explicitly does not require employers to accommodate pot use “in any place of employment,” it implicitly requires accommodation for use outside the workplace.

But eight justices agreed with lower courts and found that MUMA broadly protects a personal decision to use medical marijuana, but does not address impediments to doing so, such as an employer’s drug policy.

The case is Roe v. Teletech Customer Care Management LLC. The majority’s argument essentially comes down to this: “Washington courts have recognized that MUMA’s purpose is to protect the rights of qualifying patients to use medical marijuana in accordance with the advice and supervision of their physicians. … Washington court decisions do not recognize a broad public policy that would remove any impediment to medical marijuana use or impose an employer accommodation obligation.” You can read the Court’s decision here.

Though disappointing, the Court’s 8-1 decision upholding an employer’s right to arbitrarily discriminate against medi-pot users is frustratingly predictable. In 2010, the Oregon Supreme Court made a similar ruling in Emerald Steel Fabricators Inc. v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, finding that an employee who uses marijuana in accordance with state law is nonetheless “engaged in the illegal use of drugs” and may be fired for his or her off-the-job conduct. And In 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled in Ross v. Ragingwire Telecom that: “California’s voters merely exempted medical users and their primary caregivers from criminal liability under two specifically designated state statutes. Nothing in the text or history of the Compassionate Use Act suggests the voters intended the measure to address the respective rights and obligations of employers and employees.”

In short, the west coast Courts have issued patients a classic Hobson’s Choice: ‘Use your medicine in compliance with state law but don’t seek gainful employment,’ or ‘Work, but refrain from using the medicine that most effectively alleviates your pain and suffering.’ The ‘choice,’ of course, is really no choice at all. It’s discrimination — plain and simple.

Further, it remains painfully obvious — to virtually everyone but the Courts — that employers lack any legitimate justification to sanction anyone for their off-the-job use of cannabis, much less legally authorized patients. As NORML Outreach Coordinator Russ Belville recently blogged — in a story picked up by the Colorado Independent and other media outlets — rising rates in the number of legal marijuana users is not associated with increased incidences of workplace accidents. In fact, just the opposite result is shown to be true.

Finally, scientific studies have consistently reported workplace urine testing programs are a poor method for identifying employees who are under the influence, and do not significantly reduce job accident rates. Writing recently in the journal Addiction, Investigators at the University of Victoria in British Columbia reviewed 20 years of published literature pertaining to the efficacy of workplace drug testing, with a special emphasis on marijuana – the most commonly detected drug. They found: “[I]t is not clear that heavy cannabis users represent a meaningful job safety risk unless using before work or on the job; urine tests have poor validity and low sensitivity to detect employees who represent a safety risk; drug testing is related to reductions in the prevalence of cannabis positive tests among employees, but this might not translate into fewer cannabis users; and urinalysis has not been shown to have a meaningful impact on job injury/accident rates. … Urinalysis testing is not recommended as a diagnostic tool to identify employees who represent a job safety risk from cannabis use.”

So why are the courts still affirming one set of rules for pharmaceutical users and another set of rules for herbal cannabis patients?

Update: June 19, 2011…Florida Governor Scott Backs Down, Suspends His Executive Order For A Massive State Drug Testing Scheme

On May 31, 2011, unpopular Florida Governor Rick Scott signed a bill that mandates all those seeking public assistance through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (commonly known as welfare) to pass a drug screen. Those that fail the test will not be eligible for benefits for one year. The law will become effective on July 1.

Furthermore, the law requires those seeking assistance to pay for the cost of the screening. The expense can be recovered if the applicant qualifies for benefits. If you fail the test though, tough luck: your money belongs to the state. Those who are denied may designate another person to receive the benefits on behalf of their children, but they must also pass a drug test.

In justifying his signature, Governor Scott stated that it is “unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction.” So instead of supporting effective treatment and prevention, the law will implement a costly and ineffective means to try and deter drug use. Not to mention the law is most likely completely unconstitutional.

A Michigan law similar to this one was struck down in 2000 and affirmed in 2003 by the 6th Circuit. Michigan lawmakers had enacted a law allowing for suspicion-less searches of welfare recipients. A class action lawsuit was brought by applicants alleging that these drug tests violated the Fourth Amendment. The applicants won.

Although the Supreme Court has recognized certain situations in which a suspicion-less drug test is allowed (including testing railroad employees, customs agents whose line of work causes them to be directly involved with drug interdiction, and high school athletes and other students involved in extracurricular activities), the testing under the Florida law does not seem to further a special need of the government which outweighs the privacy interest of the individual. In order to demonstrate this special need, the state generally must show that public safety is in jeopardy. The Michigan government made the argument that drug use put children at the risk of abuse and neglect, but this argument was rejected by the district court. (It could be argued that the denial of benefits is more detrimental to public safety than not testing potential recipients). Testing welfare recipients for drug metabolites does nothing to further public safety, and therefore the government will most likely fail to meet the strict test set forth by the Supreme Court.

Those convicted of drug trafficking charges are already ineligible to receive welfare. Even if you can justify this by saying that they cause harm to communities, this new law places the focus on users. Legal challenges are expected and should come down in favor of the applicants, although with the Supreme Court’s recent Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, if the case were to rise that high there may be cause for concern.

*          *          *

Editor’s note: 1) Isn’t it interesting how elected politicians like Rick Scott (often with no legislative hearings at all) are so quick to want to control the living habits of poor citizens who receive state funding, but they never insist on drug testing requirements to issue state funding and grants to rich land developers, corporations, business executives, professional sports team owners or religious leaders–just the poor?

2) Looks like Governor Scott may have more than ideological reasons to push the state of Florida into using taxpayers’ money on massive drug testing programs for welfare recipients and state employees…as reported in the Palm Beach Post in March:

“Floridians deserve to know that those in public service, whose salaries are paid with taxpayer dollars, are part of a drug-free workplace,” Scott said in a statement. “Just as it is appropriate to screen those seeking taxpayer assistance, it is also appropriate to screen government employees.”

Until last week, Scott’s communications office in Tallahassee had ignored repeated requests for comment on the potential for a conflict of interest. On Friday, as national media began to call as well, the office issued this response:

Any perception that the governor’s business interests pose a conflict of interest with his health policies are “baseless and incorrect,” said Scott’s deputy communications director, Brian Hughes.

Privately, one Scott official acknowledged that every time the governor discusses health policy, his urgent care business would be “the elephant in the room.”

Shortly before he was inaugurated, Scott’s lawyers met with attorneys at the Florida Commission on Ethics. Subsequently, they moved his Solantic holdings into a revocable trust in his wife’s name, making her the controlling investor in the privately held company. No public records were created from the ethics meeting.

During the election campaign, he had estimated the worth of his Solantic holdings at $62 million. Jacksonville-based Solantic has 32 clinics statewide, including two in Palm Beach County, and plans rapid growth and an eventual initial public offering, according to company documents.

Suffolk University Law Professor Marc Rodwin, author of several books on conflicts of interest in medicine, said the movement of Scott’s ownership to his wife’s trust was insufficient to eliminate the ethical issues.

“He owned the company and transferred it into his wife’s name,” Rodwin said. “It’s a conflict of interest.”

[The following blog post was submitted to the NORML Women's Alliance by Anna Diaz.  NORML's commentary appears in italics below.]

Urinalysis, the most common form of non-impairment drug testing, unfairly targets marijuana consumers because it screens for the presence of inert byproducts that may be detectable for days, weeks, or even months in former users. This is a discriminatory policy that sanctions individuals who may have consumed cannabis at some previous, unspecified point in time, while most other forms of illicit substance use to go undetected. Further, most marijuana consumers are responsible, hard-working Americans.  NORML believes that it is arbitrary and counterproductive to single these people out for punishment simply because they fail a urine screen.

By: Anna Diaz

NORML Women’s Alliance Steering Committee

Oregon NORML, Co-Founder

I am a Latina, a forty-year cannabis consumer, a medical cannabis patient and a single mother who has had to use public assistance more than once.  In 2011, Oregon and three other states have introduced bills that would require drug testing for people receiving public assistance.  I am writing to present my unique perspective on this issue, and why individuals should oppose any type of legislation that would require drug testing for all applicants looking to receive state services such as food stamps or unemployment benefits.

Many groups oppose this type of legislation including the ACLU, various associations of health professionals and, not surprisingly, organizations that assist women and children in need.  One in five Oregonians receive state services.  Currently, 79% of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits – formerly food stamps — in Oregon are awarded to households with minor children.  65% of the children receiving those benefits live in single parent households.  Most of these single parents are women.

The ACLU position states, “Drug testing welfare recipients as a condition of eligibility is a policy that is scientifically, fiscally, and constitutionally unsound.”

Michigan is the only state to attempt to impose drug testing of welfare recipients – a policy that was struck down as unconstitutional in 2003. The ACLU challenged the mandatory drug-testing program as unconstitutional, arguing that drug testing of welfare recipients violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. The case, Marchwinski v. Howard, concluded when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision striking down the policy as unconstitutional.

Further, studies show that welfare recipients are no more likely to use drugs than the rest of the population.  70% of illicit drug users are employed.  The ACLU also cites research showing that drug testing is an expensive and ineffective way to uncover drug abuse.

OR NORML's Madeline Martinez (with award) and Anna Diaz with NORML founder Keith Stroup, Esq.

This is an expense our state cannot afford under any circumstances.  The average cost for drug testing in Oregon is $44.00 a person.  According to the Oregon Department of Human Services, there were 361,300 households (682,000 people) receiving SNAP benefits in February 2010.   The caseload is expected to increase until it peaks at 398,000 cases (760,000 people) in April 2011.  That is a 10 percent increase from February 2010.  Even if only one test were administered per household, the cost of drug testing would be roughly $17 million dollars.

While there are several reasons to oppose this type of legislation in all four states, there is one reason that is very unique to Oregon. Oregon is the only state that has a medical marijuana program.  The problem is that the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act does not protect patients who also receive public assistance.  Should this bill pass, many of us would be ineligible for services just because we are legally using our medicine.

The ACLU is right. Drug testing welfare recipients as a condition of eligibility is unsound on all levels for everyone, including taxpayers.  It discriminates against medical cannabis patients, is a waste of money, and will hurt single parent households, which in turn, hurts our children.

Please send a message to the Oregon Legislature and ask them to oppose any type of drug testing legislation.  It only takes a few minutes, and you can do it right now.  Here is an example of what you can say to get you started:

“Please oppose any legislation that incorporates drug testing as a part of the law.  Our state cannot afford the expense, and these bills discriminate against disabled medical marijuana patients.”

]]> http://blog.norml.org/2011/02/03/drug-testing-state-services-applicants-%e2%80%93-it%e2%80%99s-just-wrong/feed/ 56 http://blog.norml.org/2010/11/11/norml-thanks-america%e2%80%99s-military-veterans/ http://blog.norml.org/2010/11/11/norml-thanks-america%e2%80%99s-military-veterans/#comments Thu, 11 Nov 2010 15:44:59 +0000 Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director http://blog.norml.org/?p=4668 A recent phone call from a returning serviceman from Afghanistan pained by the recent suicide of a fellow Marine who was given a dishonorable discharge after failing a drug test for cannabis, along with his own harassment from Veteran Administration officials and medical personnel who ‘didn’t get the memo’ for his lawful, physician-recommended use of medical cannabis to help cope with his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) was a harsh and bitter reminder of the tribulations facing military personnel who’re still falling victim – both while serving and post service – to America’s longest war—the federal government’s 73-year-old war against adult cannabis consumers.

For the support of Vietnam vets in the early 1970s embracing NORML’s important advocacy work…

U.S.S. Inchon Sailors In 1978 Showing NORML's Colors and Logo!

To today’s Iraq and Afghanistan military personnel…

NORML thanks the men and women of America’s all-volunteer armed forces for their commitment and sacrifices made for the country’s safety, prosperity and freedom…

Air Force, Army, Marines, Navy and Coast Guard…Thank You ALL!

September 12, 2010

by Dale Gieringer (Dale Gieringer is director of California NORML)

Opponents of marijuana legalization complain that Proposition 19 could endanger workplace safety. Employers, such as Ed Rullman of the Best Western Hilltop Inn in his Aug. 15 Op-Ed, object that Proposition 19 has a clause protecting employees against discrimination for private, adult use of marijuana. However, this is qualified by an important provision protecting employers’ right “to address consumption that actually impairs job performance.”

Why then should Proposition 19 be a problem for employers? Because they want to test employees for behavior that doesn’t affect job performance by using the inherently flawed and inaccurate technology of urine testing.

Contrary to popular misconception, urine tests don’t measure the active presence of marijuana in the system, but rather non-active chemical by-products that linger for days or weeks after any impairing effects have faded. Urine testing routinely flags the most harmless, weekend use of marijuana, while completely ignoring the No. 1 cause of drug abuse, alcohol.

Urine testing is therefore a highly unreliable indicator of impairment or job fitness. In fact, it is perfectly possible to be high as a kite and still pass a urine test with flying colors because marijuana doesn’t show up in the urine until hours after smoking. Such problems can be avoided by other, more accurate screening methods, such as blood tests, which detect the active presence of drugs in the system, or the field sobriety checks used by law enforcement in DUI stops.

But aren’t urine tests still helpful in protecting workplace safety? Scientific evidence for this is conspicuously lacking. Urine testing has never undergone the kind of rigorous FDA “safety and efficacy” studies that are required for other medical devices and drugs.

Numerous studies have found that subjects who test positive for marijuana are no more accident-prone, and in some instances even safer, than those who don’t.

A recent expert review by the Canadian Center for Addictions Research recommended against use of drug urinalysis, concluding that “urinalysis has not been shown to have a meaningful impact on job injury/accident rates.”

A study of high-tech companies found that drug testing was associated with reduced productivity, apparently because it undermines worker morale and trust. Drug urinalysis may thus be an indicator of sloppy management by large corporations who exercise poor oversight over workers.

Until recent years, it would have been laughable to suppose that American workers should be forced to submit urine samples to prove their job worthiness. The U.S. is alone among developed countries in regarding urine testing as a routine practice. In the Netherlands, where marijuana is legally available to all adults, drug testing is hardly used, yet workplace safety is substantially better than in the U.S.

The bottom line is that marijuana residues in urine pose no risk to workplace safety. In many cases, it is even preferable to let employees use marijuana for medical purposes at home so as to help avoid pain and other problems that can impair their performance.

Of course, there may exist situations where some kind of drug testing is useful in protecting workplace safety. If so, Proposition 19 specifically permits it. In no case would Proposition 19 override existing federal drug testing rules, anymore than did Proposition 215.

In general, however, Proposition 19 would benefit countless workers — pot users and non-users alike — by sparing them the degrading indignity of submitting to intrusive, misleading urine tests that have no bearing on job fitness.

Like many medical marijuana users, Kristin Redeen needed additional prescription medications for her severe chronic pain. For seven years she had been treated at a private pain clinic in the Central Valley, where a doctor maintained her on Percocet, a semi-synthetic opioid. One day Kristin was unexpectedly asked to submit a urine sample.  

“They already knew about my medical marijuana use,” says Kristin, who contacted California NORML. “I didn’t think I was doing anything wrong.”

When the test  came back, Kristin was informed that the clinic would no longer renew her prescription because she had tested positive for an illegal controlled substance. Her doctor at the clinic cited legal concerns, claiming –falsely– that DEA regulations forbid giving prescription narcotics to users of marijuana or other illegal drugs.

Kristin was cut off from her Percocet and began suffering seizures. She finally found a physician who was willing to prescribe her another opioid, Vicodin, but only at low doses insufficient to relieve her constant pain.

Kristin is one of a growing number of medical marijuana patients discriminated against by pain clinics. “I must have heard of 25 cases this year,” says Doug Hiatt, an attorney in Washington state. “It’s Jim Crow medicine.”

NORML has received a surge of complaints within the last six months.  Many medical marijuana users report that they can’t find a clinic willing to take them on.  Others, like Kristin, have been abandoned by clinics that suddenly adopted aggressive drug-screening policies.

Clinics say they are legally compelled to drug-test chronic pain patients so as to avoid liability for overdoses and diversion of prescription drugs, particularly opioids such as oxycontin –which have nothing to do with cannabis.

Chronic pain patients have good reason to object to being denied medical access to cannabis. Chronic pain is the leading indication for medical cannabis use, accounting for 90% of the patients in Oregon’s medical marijuana program.   More than 60 studies have shown cannabinoids to be effective in pain relief, according to a compilation by the International Association of Cannabis Medicine which includes four controlled studies of smoked marijuana by California’s Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research.

Studies indicate that cannabis interacts synergistically with opioids in such a way as to improve pain relief [1, 2].    California medical cannabis specialists consistently report that patients are able to reduce use of opioids –typically by 50%– when they add cannabis to their regimen.  Cannabis can therefore be seen as a gateway drug leading away from opioid addiction.  Nevertheless, patients are being pressured to stop using cannabis if they want to get prescription opioids.

To their dismay, patients have to pay for the drug tests at their own (or their insurers’) expense.   Carol, a chronic pain patient who had been treated for seven years by the same clinic without any testing, reports that she was billed $325 for a urine screen. The balance of the bill, which totaled $1,601, was paid by her insurer.

Carol says her doctor told her that “the DEA requires him to drug test all his clients, that he has no choice, it is the law.”

In fact, there is no law requiring clinics to drug screen patients for marijuana.   “It’s BS,” says Hiatt.  Not a single case is known in which pain doctors have been sued or prosecuted for allowing medical marijuana use along with opiates.

Prosecutors have argued that marijuana might be obtained on the illicit market in trade for  prescription drugs, though such a scenario seems implausible in medical cannabis states. “It’s unwarranted paranoia,” says Gregory Carter, MD, one of the few practicing pain experts who recommend marijuana in Washington.

Given that cannabis is notably less toxic and addictive than other prescription narcotics,  it seems highly ironic that pain clinics are discouraging its use.  The prejudice against marijuana has nothing to do with medical science, but rather with political and legal pressures to crack down on prescription drug use. Non-medical use of prescription drugs has recently emerged as the nation’s number-one drug problem du jour.

A new government report, ominously entitled the “National Prescription Drug Threat Assessment,” reported 8,500 deaths in 2005 from prescription pain relievers (mainly opioids), more than double the 2001 total. “Diversion and abuse of prescription drugs are a threat to our public health and safety – similar to the threat posed by illicit drugs such as heroin and cocaine,” warned Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske.

The Pain Specialists’ Meeting
The 2009 American Pain Society Convention in San Diego included a panel on “Cannabinoids in Pain Management,” chaired by Dr. Mark Ware of McGill University. Dr. Andrea Hohmann, an expert on stress-level analgesia from the University of Georgia, presented evidence from rodent studies which showed that cannabinoids suppress nociceptive processing through both the CB1 and CB2 receptors, and that endocannabinoids, including 2-AG and anandamide, help suppress pain.

Donald Abrams, MD, of the University of California at San Francisco, discussed his studies showing that inhaled marijuana significantly reduced neuropathic pain experienced by HIV patients.  Cannabinoids and opioids interact synergistically on separate but parallel pain receptors, Abrams said. He is conducting another study on combined use of cannabinoids and opioids, preliminary results of which appear promising.

Dr. Ware discussed studies involving the variety of cannabinoid medicines available in Canada, which include dronabinol, Sativex, Nabilone, and herbal THC. All of them have demonstrated efficacy in pain relief.  Cannabis is now recognized as a “third line” agent for neuropathic pain in Canada.  Noting that that its adverse effects are mild to moderate, Ware concluded that “cannabinoid analgesia is the real thing.”

During the question session, your correspondent asked why it was that, in light of evidence that cannabis was so useful in pain therapy, there appeared to be an upsurge in drug testing to prevent its use.  The panelists could offer no explanation.

We moved on to the exhibition hall, where drug testing companies were conspicuously displaying their wares.  Their exhibits showed how well their products could monitor usage of opiates.  The exhibitors seemed surprised when we told them that their products were being used against medical marijuana.

One of the more sophisticated exhibitors was Ameritox, which boasted panels for distinguishing a dozen different opioids plus numerous sedatives, tricyclic anti-depressants, barbiturates, and stimulants as well as “drugs of abuse,” among them marijuana.  Their saleswoman seemed surprised to hear that the Ameritox test was being used to screen out medical marijuana patients.  She said that clinics could easily order the screens without the marijuana if they wanted.
Another company boasted how their test could be administered at the doctor’s office, thereby allowing the doctor rather than the lab to collect the bill.

Finally, we spoke to a legal expert on pain medication, Ms. Jennifer Bolen, a former prosecutor turned defense attorney, who has a useful website devoted to the subject:
www.legalsideofpain.com.

Ms Bolen pointed to three recent developments that have increased the pressure to conduct drug screening of pain patients.  First,  pain doctors have suffered a string of stinging legal judgments for over-prescribing opioids to patients who subsequently overdosed. One notable example involved Dr. Thomas Merrill of Florida,  whose life sentence was sustained by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals last year.

This February, a prestigious panel of the American Pain Society issued “New Guidelines for Prescribing Opioid Pain Drugs” which counsels that “diligent monitoring of patients is essential. “ The report specifically recommends periodic drug screens for chronic opioid patients at risk for aberrant drug behavior, though it doesn’t mention cannabis.

Lastly,  under  legislation that took effect this year, the FDA has new authority to require pharmaceutical companies to implement “risk management” programs to prevent consumer drug misuse.

Medical cannabis patients have no easy remedy to the current drug testing onslaught. In the absence of dire bodily harm, malpractice suits are of no avail.  In general, pain clinics have no legal obligation to treat anyone.  They commonly require patients to sign contracts allowing them to conduct drug screening at will.  Nonetheless, patients may have good grounds to complain to their state medical boards.  This is particularly the case where they have been abandoned by their doctors after being made dependent on prescription narcotics.

The ultimate recourse is to educate doctors, many of whom remain woefully ignorant of the literature on medical marijuana and chronic pain.  At the APS convention we encountered a distinguished pain specialist from San Diego, who joked about having enjoyed the marijuana muchies with his son,  but averred that he wouldn’t let his patients use it, on the grounds that it wouldn’t be useful, and anyway smoked medicine is bad for the lungs. Like most convention attendees, he had missed the panel on medical cannabis, where Dr. Abrams had discussed the use of smokeless vaporizers.

Still,  good physicians should be open to persuasion from patients. Cynthia, a severe chronic pain patient. had frequented the same clinic for 10 years when she was confronted with a surprise urine test.  In addition to prescription opiates, she had been using medical marijuana, though her recommendation was four years out of date.   The test cost her $100  and her insurer $500 more.

On finding her positive for marijuana, her doctor informed her that she would have to reduce her cannabinoid level to zero.  After a heart-to-heart  talk, in which she explained to him how she had been able to reduce her opiate use to minimal levels thanks to medical cannabis, her doctor relented. “I feel really lucky,’ says Cynthia,  “You have to feel out the doctor. We have a special relationship.  I don’t think he plans to do this with all his patients.”

REFERENCES
[1] Lynch and Clark, “Cannabis reduces opioid dose in the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain,” Journal Pain Symptom Management, (2003) 25(6) 496-8.

[2[ Narang et al., 2008 Efficacy of dronabinol as an adjuvant treatment for chronic pain patients on opioid therapy, J Pain. Mar;9(3):254-64.

From O’Shaughnessy’s, Summer 2009
To order this 52-page, all-content, no-jive publication, send $5 to p.o. box 490, Alameda, CA 94501. O’S is available in bulk to physicians, collectives, cooperatives and reform groups for $1/copy for free distribution to patients and interested citizens.

By Dale Gieringer, Ph.D, Director, California NORML

California NORML has recently heard increasing reports that Marinol patients are being drug tested and denied employment for use of marijuana. In particular, we have heard from legal Prop. 215 patients who were denied jobs despite presenting Marinol prescriptions after being re-tested specifically for marijuana. Until recently, Marinol and marijuana were indistinguishable on the standard drug tests, so that patients with a Marinol prescription had a valid medical excuse under federal law for testing positive for marijuana.

However, special testing techniques have been developed that make it possible to distinguish the two by testing for non-standard cannabinoids that appear in marijuana but not Marinol. Until recently, these tests were expensive and rarely used except in high-profile criminal cases. However, it appears that they are now being routinely used by certain laboratories in cases where Marinol use is claimed. In particular, we have heard reports of such testing being used to disqualify Marinol-using Prop 215 patients by the transportation industry and by Walmart.

California NORML has accordingly altered its drug testing information to warn against relying on Marinol RXs as a screen for marijuana use: http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/testing.tips.html

There is of course no valid scientific or health justification for allowing patients to use Marinol but not marijuana. The only purpose is to enforce compliance with the law. It is a tribute to the power and influence of the drug testing industry that they have prevailed in foisting the costs of this unnecessary and obnoxious procedure on employers.

California NORML, 2215-R Market St. #278, San Francisco CA 94114

(415) 563-5858 / www.canorml.org

That is story #1 as there are no federal laws that ban ‘detoxification’ products.

However, more oddly in my view is the reported confiscation of the unreleased DVD ‘A/K/A Tommy Chong’. How is that possible? Even if Tommy (a member of NORML’s Advisory Board) agreed in his 2005 plea bargain on federal paraphernalia charges to ‘not profit from his past criminal activities’ it seems unlikely to me federal confiscation of otherwise First Amendment-protected speech and expression could possibly be legal. Especially, on the heels of Tommy already publishing a best-selling book detailing his nine month incarceration in federal prison, the humorous and insightful ‘The I Chong: Meditations From The Joint’.

So, if I understand correctly, the federal attorney who first prosecuted Tommy in 2005, Mary Beth Buchanan, authorized some of these raids and the confiscation of the Chong DVDs, which are about…well, her prosecution of Tommy and his resulting incarceration.

OK…

The news stories are starting to roll in, confirming the raids:

WKRC Cincinnati (video)
http://www.local12.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=27876@video.wkrc.com

WKRC Cincinnati (article)
http://www.local12.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=06471fa4-66f2-4ffe-8
ddf-8c7630326bad

Cincinnati Enquirer
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080508/NEWS0103/805080
348

Cincinnati BizJournal
http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2003/05/12/story5.html

WCPO Cincinnati (ABC)
http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=21a0f8d7-8f48-46e0-9c9b
-998532376f59

Marijuana.com
http://www.marijuana.com/drug-war-headline-news/99213-oh-actor-tommy-chong-c
laims-link-fbi-raids.html

Drugpolicycentral.com
http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/article/local127830.htm

420ideas.com
http://420ideas.com/oh-actor-tommy-chong-claims-link-to-fbi-raids/

The medical records will show that he died due to complications associated with massive liver failure. He would have likely survived longer if he received a timely organ transplant but was denied access because he followed his physician’s recommendation, used medical cannabis during his treatments for liver disease, therefore testing positive for THC metabolites and rather than receive the gift of a potentially longer life—instead doctors at the University of Washington deferred to federal prohibition laws and mores, handing Tim a death sentence.

There are no pharmacological or physiological reasons why Tim Garon, or any medical marijuana patient, should logically be denied access to life-saving or life-enhancing organ transplants.

In my view, commonsense and humanity were completely lacking here on the part of the doctors who denied Tim and his family a chance at a continued life together.

For the better part of ten years NORML (and the ACLU’s Drug Litigation Project) have been 1) monitoring increasing numbers of medical patients denied access to organ transplants for the singular reason that they test positive for cannabis and 2) researching litigation and legislative options to compel organ banks to stop discriminating against medical patients who use cannabis, most especially in states where medical marijuana patients are supposed to be protected by state laws.

Today’s weather in Seattle calls for cloudy and dark weather. That is hardly unusual for this time of year up there, but on this day, the clouds will be particular dark…notably the ones hanging over the doctors at the University of Washington who decided earlier this week to sacrifice Timothy Garon on the altar of pot prohibition rather than treat him like an ailing brother or a sister, wife or child.

Would these doctors really deny organ transplants to a loved one that tested positive for cannabis? I think not.

Read a previous article about Tim Garon’s plight.  View a moving news account of Tim and his family.  Finally, go to NORML’s online advocacy system and send a prewritten letter to your member of Congress in favor of HR 5842, a bill that would end the federal government’s war on patients.