Federal “Legalization” of Marijuana?

The Wall Street Journal is reporting today that a bill will be introduced in the House that would effectively end the federal prohibition of marijuana. The bill, co-sponsored by Democrat Barney Frank (Mass.) and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul (Tex.) would “limit the federal government’s role in marijuana enforcement to cross-border or inter-state smuggling, allowing people to legally grow, use or sell marijuana in states where it is legal,” according to a press release. The press release went on to state that the bill would allow states to legalize, regulate and tax marijuana.

As I have written about in this blog, the federal prohibition of marijuana has caused increasing confusion and conflict in the states that have passed bills allowing use and distribution of medical marijuana. Arizona has delayed implementation of its Medical Marijuana Act, and has sued the U.S. Department of Justice seeking clarification on the issue. New Jersey has also threatened to delay implementation of its medical marijuana law. The Wall Street Journal article can be found here.

More Litigation Over Medical Marijuana Act

Last week, the Arizona Department of Health Services (DHS) was sued by two medical marijuana dispensary applicants over delays in the state’s application process. As discussed in an earlier post, the DHS has suspended the dispensary application process pending an outcome to the litigation initiated by the State of Arizona against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), seeking to clarify the DOJ’s stance on enforcement of federal laws prohibiting marijuana use, possession and distribution. The dispensary application process was set to begin on June 1. The plaintiff’s claim that the pending suit between Arizona and the DOJ does not excuse the state’s duty to timely enact and implement the Medical Marijuana Act (MMA), which was approved by voters last November. DHS has already licensed nearly 3,800 caregivers and qualified patients, who are allowed to grow their own medical marijuana.

In other medical marijuana news, Gilbert police have conducted 2 raids in the past week targeting medical marijuana patients and caregivers. The first raid occurred last week at the home of a medical marijuana patient, after police received a tip that the patient was in possession of marijuana that had been purchased illegally (as opposed to grown himself, which is permitted under the MMA). That was followed by a police raid on Thursday of the Medical Marijuana Advocacy Group. The group is accused of running a store where qualified patients and caregivers were purchasing marijuana from eac other. The Phoenix New Times has articles about the raids here and here.

Arizona Sues U.S. Department of Justice Over Medical Marijuana

Last week, Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice, seeking clarification on whether compliance with Arizona’s Medical Marijuana Act (the Act) provides protection from prosecution under federal drug laws. The Act, commonly referred to as Prop. 203, was approved by Arizona voters last November. The Act makes it legal under state law to possess, use and distribute marijuana for medical purposes provided certain licensing and other regulations are followed. However, as I have written about before, it remains a felony under federal law to use, possess or distribute marijuana.

The lawsuit asks a federal judge to determine whether compliance with the Act protects medical marijuana users in Arizona from prosecution under federal law. The lawsuit was prompted by a letter issued by the U.S. Attorney for Arizona, which reminded state officials that marijuana remains illegal under federal law and that criminal prosecutions of users, distributors and those who aid in use or distribution are still possible. [Read more...]

Arizona House of Representatives Passes Bill Regarding Employees’ Use of Medical Marijuana

In an earlier post I discussed how Arizona’s Medical Marijuana Act (the Act) could impact the traditional employer-employee relationship. Others in the business community expressed similar concerns, and as a result the Arizona House of Representatives recently passed House Bill 2541. HB 2541, sponsored by Representative Kimberley Yee, seeks to protect employers from the Act’s anti-discrimination provisions. As I explained in my previous post, the Act potentially exposes an employer to wrongful termination and/or discrimination lawsuits if the employer takes disciplinary action against a medical marijuana user. [Read more...]

State Bar Releases Ethics Opinion on Medical Marijuana Act

Last week the Arizona State Bar’s Committee on the Rules of Professional Conduct released its opinion on the issue of attorneys advising clients under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (the Act). The Act raises professional responsibility issues for attorneys because the sale or use of marijuana remains a felony under federal law. Advising a client with respect to the sale or use of medical marijuana, even though legal in the state, could potentially be viewed as assisting a client in the commission of a crime. The State Bar previously informed its members that it would not take disciplinary action against attorneys who advise clients under the Act, pending a formal ethics opinion. Now, with the Arizona Department of Health poised to release its final regulations implementing the Act at the end of this month, the State Bar’s opinion gives attorneys much needed guidance on how to best serve clients in this developing area of the law. [Read more...]

Will Prop 203 Alter the Employer-Employee Relationship in Arizona?

A recent ruling by a federal court in Michigan may foreshadow the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act’s (the Arizona Act) impact on the traditional employer-employee relationship. The Michigan court dismissed a wrongful termination claim brought by an employee who was terminated by Wal-Mart after testing positive for marijuana during a company drug test. The employee admitted he used marijuana outside of work for medical purposes, and had properly obtained a registry card to use marijuana under Michigan’s Medical Marijuana Act (the Michigan Act). The employee argued that the Michigan Act prohibited private employers from terminating employees who used marijuana in compliance with the Michigan Act. The court ruled against the employee, holding that the Michigan Act does not regulate private employment, but merely protects qualifying patients from criminal prosecution or other disciplinary actions taken by the state. The court’s full opinion can be found here. [Read more...]