Latest

In the latest blow to medical marijuana rights, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that employers can fire workers who test positive for the drug, even when it is used under a physician's advice. "Nothing in the text or history of the Compassionate Use Act suggests the voters intended the measure to address the respective rights and duties of employers and employees," wrote Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar in the 15-page opinion. "Under California law, an employer may require pre-employment drug tests and take illegal drug use into consideration in making employment decisions...The Compassionate Use Act does not eliminate marijuana's potential for abuse or the employer's legitimate interest in whether an employee uses the drug." The decision is on line here: http://drugsense.org/url/NDVd3p20lJ "The majority's holding disrespects the will of California's voters, "wrote Justice Joyce L. Kennard, whose dissent was joined by Justice Carlos R. Moreno, calling the decision "conspicuously lacking in compassion." The voters "surely never intended that persons who availed themselves" of the medical marijuana act "would thereby disqualify themselves from employment," Kennard wrote. Thus five of the seven justices - who will never face a drug test - showed their contempt for the people of California. Daily newspapers throughout California, as well as major national newspapers, covered the story. Please write letters to the editor to your local newspapers giving your views about the decision. A sample of the coverage may be found at this link: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/RagingWire ********************************************************************** Style guides for writing effective letters to the editor are available at MAP's Media Activism Center: http://www.mapinc.org/resource/#guides ********************************************************************** Please Send Us a Copy of Your Letter Please send copies of your letters to the sent letter list ([email protected]) if you are subscribed, or email a copy to [email protected] if you are not subscribed.

Florida: "Slow Going" Registration Efforts May Keep Hundreds of Thousands of Eligible Voters from Polls As the election year heats up, so do the emotions of hundreds of thousands of Florida citizens who expected to register to vote after the state's clemency board last year moved to make voting easier for non-violent offenders. "It's a slow process. It's slow going," said Muslima Lewis, an attorney with the ACLU and director of the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition. "Individuals who were initially very encouraged in April of last year are now seeing that it's taking them a bit longer and with this being an election year people are getting more and more impatient." As a result of the efforts of Gov. Charlie Crist - whose election platform included rights restoration of formerly incarcerated individuals - about 45,000 individuals' rights have been restored since April. There remain, however, approximately 900,000 individuals who continue to wait to find out if their rights have been restored. In fact, 130,000 of those citizens are still waiting for their cases to be reviewed and have been told the process will take several months to a year, according to NPR's "All Things Considered." "That's very problematic," Lewis continued. "We are concerned about whether folks will actually be getting on the rolls in time to vote in November." The ACLU and other organizations continue to sponsor seminars to educate and register formerly incarcerated individuals. Alabama: "Let My People Vote" The Rev. Kenneth Glasgow this week visited several jails in Alabama to register inmates by today's voter registration deadline. During his "Let my people vote" registration campaign, which began on the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, Glasgow brought voter re-instatement and registration forms for inmates to fill out, the Dothan Eagle reported. "Today, there are four times the amount of our people behind bars than the time Martin Luther King led the civil rights movement here in Alabama, but voter registration goes beyond just that. There's no better day to address this struggle than on his birthday," Rev. Glasgow, coordinator for the Alabama Alliance to Restore the Vote said. The state's primary is Feb. 5. Last year, Glasgow's registration efforts collected more than 10,000 applications. Prior to 2006, formerly incarcerated individuals who committed crimes of 'moral turpitude' were banned from voting. In 2006 Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Robert Vance Jr. ordered voter registrars in Alabama counties to register former offenders unless legislation was signed stating otherwise and until 'moral turpitude' was defined. Additional coverage by the Montgomery Advertiser reported that county jail inmates are allowed to vote absentee, but it's up to the inmates to fill out the application. For more coverage, see the Enterprise Ledger. National: Presidential Candidates Should be Pressed by Reporters on Voting Rights In the Columbia Journalism Review's new series "Eight Questions Reporters Should Ask," Todd Gitlin explains the need for his column by saying: "My goal with this series is to highlight questions that, to my mind and to the best of my research, the press has not asked (or at least not asked often or insistently enough)." As a result Gitlin feels journalists should ask of presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama the following question: Nearly five million Americans-some 2% of the American electorate-cannot vote today because they have been convicted of felonies. In this regard the US is unusual among the world's democracies, which think that the rights of citizenship should be restored once a felon has served his or her sentence. Do you agree that former felons should regain the right to vote? - - - - - - Help The Sentencing Project continue to bring you news and updates on disenfranchisement! Make a contribution today. Contact Information - Email: [email protected], Web: http://www.sentencingproject.org

[Courtesy ACLU of Florida] The Florida Rights Restoration Coalition (FRRC) is organizing a two-part mobilization in Tallahassee in support of restoring the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of people with past felony convictions in Florida who have completed their sentences. Your presence in Tallahassee is critical to furthering our continuing progress toward comprehensive clemency reform and our goal of removing the voting ban from Florida’s Constitution. On February 28, we seek to mobilize 40-75 citizens to Tallahassee for the February 28th Board of Executive Clemency meeting. On April 1, FRRC plans to mobilize 500-1000 individuals for a rally and related events. We Need a Commitment from You & Your Organization! The success of this effort depends on commitments from you and your organization. We ask that you and your organization let us know how many people you or your organization can mobilize for either or both of the events on February 28 and April 1. We especially need your help mobilizing individuals for the April 1 rally. Everyone who supports ending Florida’s civil rights ban is welcome and encouraged to attend. We extend a special invitation to those who are directly impacted by Florida’s civil rights ban. If you, or someone you know, have been affected by Florida’s voting ban, come to Tallahassee and make your voices heard! Make the decision today to support this historic event and let us know how many people you can bring to the event. For additional information please call La Rhonda Odom at 786-363-2718. The time is always right to do what is right. ~Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. La Rhonda Odom Racial Justice Project Associate ACLU of Florida 4500 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 340 Miami, FL 33137 (786) 363-2718 (phone) (786) 363-1020 (fax)

[Courtesy of Americans for Safe Access] For Immediate Release: January 24, 2008 Contact: ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford (415) 573-7842 or ASA Media Liaison Kris Hermes (510) 681-6361 CA Supreme Court Denies Medical Marijuana Patients' Right to Work Advocates to call on state legislature to prevent discrimination Sacramento, CA -- The California Supreme Court ruled against medical marijuana patient Gary Ross today in his fight against employment discrimination. In a 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court claimed that Ross could not rely on the Fair Housing and Employment Act or the state's medical marijuana law to prevent discrimination at the workplace. The Court did indicate in its decision that the state legislature had not adequately clarified employment rights of medical marijuana patients. "Obviously, we are very disappointed by today's decision," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel of Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the medical marijuana advocacy organization that argued the case. "However, we remain hopeful that the legislature will come to the aid of patients by preventing the sort of discrimination that is likely to occur from such a decision." The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Joyce L. Kennard, stated that the ruling "has seriously compromised the Compassionate Use Act, denying to those who must work for a living its promised benefits." Despite a clearly worded amicus "friend of the court" brief filed in support of Ross in July 2006 by all of the original co-authors of SB 420 (state legislation that helped to define the rights of medical marijuana patients), the Supreme Court failed to believe that it was the intent of the entire legislature. Advocates assert that they will seek a different response from the state legislature in the form of a bill introduced in the next few weeks. Gary Ross, a 45-year old disabled veteran and a medical marijuana patient living in Carmichael, California, is at the forefront of a landmark employment case, with significant ramifications for patients in California and across the country. Ross was fired in September 2001 for failing an employer-mandated drug test while working as a systems engineer for RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc. "All I am asking is to be a productive member of society," said plaintiff Gary Ross. "I was not fired for poor work performance, but for an antiquated policy on medical marijuana,” continued Ross. “This practice allows employers to undermine state law and the protections provided for patients.” Ross's physician recommended cannabis for chronic back pain that resulted from injuries sustained during his military service. But Ross's employer, RagingWire Telecommunications, refused to make an exception to its policy of terminating anyone testing positive for marijuana. Ross filed suit after he was fired in 2001, arguing that RagingWire illegally discriminated against him because of his condition. However, a Sacramento Superior Court, and then the Third Appellate District Court both rejected his argument. In October 2005, ASA appealed to the California Supreme Court on behalf of Ross. Strong public support has been shown for Ross and the plight of California patients to seek and maintain employment. Since it began recording instances of employment discrimination in 2005, ASA has received hundreds of such reports from across California. Companies that have either fired patients from their job, threatened them with termination, or denied them employment because of patient status or a positive test for marijuana, include Costco Wholesale, UPS, Foster Farms Dairy, DirecTV, the San Joaquin Courier, Power Auto Group, as well as several construction companies, hospitals, and various trade union employers. Further information: Today's California Supreme Court decision: http://www.safeaccessnow.org/downloads/Ross_Ruling.pdf Photo of Gary Ross: http://safeaccessnow.org/img/original/Ross_pic3.jpg Legislative-based amicus brief: http://www.safeaccessnow.org/downloads/ross_legislative.pdf Review legal briefs and more about the Ross v. RagingWire case here: http://www.safeaccessnow.org/Ross