I am a resident of California, and suffer from a degenerative corneal
disease whcih causes severe nausia and head ahces when any light is
exposed to my eyes. Two medical doctors recomened I use medical
marijuana to relieve these symptoms. I recently graduated from
College, and am in the proicess of seeking full time employment. My
question is, if I apply for a company that requires a pre-drug test
screening, and I bring documentation showing that I use marijuana as
RECOMENDED by a medical doctor, does the lab doing the testing put
down a NEGATIVE or POSITIVE for the test?

A postive test. The "reason" you are using marijuana would not negate
the fact that your urine tested positive. Some doctors "recommend" a
glass of wine to some patients, but that doesn't excuse you from
driving under the influence. See what I mean?

Is that the answer you are seeking?

tutuzdad-ga

I'd think that the lab would put down positive if you tested postiive
for Marijuana.  It's not the lab's responsibility to determine if you
are rightfully or wrongfully taking it, just whether it's in your
system.  But definitely discuss it with the company involved, it
probably depends on which company as to whether they would accept it.

Look for a company that would not employ you /without/ a positive drugs test.

Thanks for the response. That seems rather unfair AND descriminatory.
As some people with certain conditions take, for example, steroids, or
OTHER medications, that might show up as a POSITIVE on a test. Arent
people about to take a urine test allowed to disclose to the test
administrator certain medical treatments they are engaging in that
would otherwise show a POSITIVE on the test, when they are not ABUSING
any type of drugs, but rather engaging in LEGAL treatments that their
doctor recomends? And arent those treatments, that are recomended by a
doctor, considered confidential? Furhtermore, wouldnt it be
descrimination for an eomplyer to decide on hiring somene based off of
their medical treatment options recomneded to them by a doctor?
Thanks!
-PM

The point of the test is not to make moral judgments. The test
determines the presence or absence of a substance which may affect job
performance or safety. Marijuana taken for medical reasons does not
magically lose its ability to impair reflexes and judgment.

Tutu, I see what you mean, but because I use medical marijuana does
not mean I would use it in the work place (even though, under
California state law, that is allowed and legal, as long as It's not a
danger to my work environment). Marijuana can stay in someones system
for up to 2 months. I would be foolish to show up to a test
intoxicated, on alcohol or anything else for that matter, but. My
concern is being discriminated against because of a drug I take,
recomended by my doctor, legal under Proposition 215 and SB 420, which
will stay in my system for a while, even thoguh I am only
"intoxicated" for an hour or so when I take it, at home, in a safe
environment. Proposition 215 has been around since 1996, and I STILL
can't find any clear cut answers as to weather or not I am protected
from descrimination while seeking eomployment from employers who
require a pre-screening drug test. I have had several friends who, due
to injuries, have had to go on steroids (perscribed by a doctor of
course), and other treatments that, would they be seeking eomployment,
would have caused a POSITIVE in a pre screening drug test. That hadly
seems legal to me that a company can discriminate against someone who
is taking medication that is, quite frankly, none of the employers
business to know about in the first place. I appreciate any insight or
answers you can provide.
-PM

Someone who is not employed yet is not affected by employment
discrimination.  There is no entitlement to employment per se, so a
private firm may decide to hire or not hire someone based on any
number of factors that might be a strong basis for an employment
discrimination case were they applied in making decisions after the
hire.

Legal protections against hiring discrimination are much more
circumscribed.  Rather than focus on the drug test, I would focus on
searching for an employer who is willing to make reasonable
accomodation for your disability (painful aversion to strong(?)
lighting).  That would go a long way toward putting your state-allowed
(but federally prohibited) cannabis therapy in a favorable context.

Give folks a chance to do the right thing, and often they'll surprise
you by rising to the occasion!

best wishes,
mathtalk-ga

I hope my comment above did not sound too harsh. I have considerable
sympathy for the position you're in. I once flunked a pre-employment
drug test (for a job as a computer graphics artist) because I had
prescription painkillers in my system. Without the painkillers (which
were lawfully prescribed), I would have been unable to work. But I
think my prospective employer was within his rights in not wanting a
person under the influence of opiates on his staff. The reason for the
opiates wasn't in question here; nobody thought I was a heroin addict.
But there are inevitable side-effects from certain drugs, and the
presence of those side-effects in a frequent user may be incompatible
with some kinds of work. It was my opinion that my performance was not
impaired by the drug, but obviously my prospective employer didn't
want to take a risk.

I think the key issue here is "recommended". If you have a positive
test result because of a "medical recommendation" (that you could
chose to follow on your own volition), its possible that this loophole
would allow a potential employer to choose not to hire you on that
basis. If the marijuana was legally "prescribed", however, you may
indeed be protected to some degree.

This wouldn't be much different that applying for a job and telling
your interviewer that your doctor recommended that you sleep 3 hours
every afternoon for medical reasons. He does not HAVE to overlook that
fact or hire you in spite of it and also provide you with a bed. This
is not a reasonable provision he makes for his other employees and
probably not one he must make for you - even though your doctor
"recommends" it.

These may be legally untested waters.

tutuzdad-ga

A Sacramento Superior Court judge has recently ruled that a man using
doctor-prescribed marijuana has no right to sue his former employer
for firing him. I think the argument that one cannot be denied
employment because of his use of "medically recommended" marijuana is
extremely weak at best.

tutuzdad-ga

Sorry - here's the link
http://www.mpp.org/CA/news_2975.html

Thank you ALL for your responses. They have been most helpful. Thanks
especially to that link to the court ruling. I think the judge is
incredibly stupid and willingly ignorant of what medical marijuana
really is and who it helps, but those are personal opinions ;-) In a
state where, mandadted by state law, every county must set up a
registration and identification system for medical marijuana users, it
seems unfathomable that employers, who operate in this state, can
discriminate against people for legaly obtaining a doctors
recomendation for medicinal marijuana, something that is NONE of the
eomplyers business in the first place, and something that is allowed
and protected under state law. I guess I'll have to do wha tI can to
change those conflicting and painfuly ignorant policies. Thank you all
again for your responses. I'd appreciate any more information any of
you might stumble across.
-PM

Well if this keeps up then we will never find out if it's of any long
term benefit to MS suffers or other groups claiming to derive benefit
from cannabis....
http://www.hempster.com/index.php?main_page=more_news&news_id=20