Maybe it was the snow and ice that kept them away. Or, maybe it was the $5,000 plus buy-in that made so many medical marijuana dispensary owners shy away from applying for their Denver operating licenses on Monday.

Whatever the reason, only 26 applicants showed up on opening day at the office of excise and licenses to make application to legally dispense medical marijuana – and six of those were turned away for inadequate paperwork.  20 applicants out of some 450 holders of dispensary sales tax licenses.

All of a sudden, it doesn’t quite sound like the wild west anymore.  The deadline for applying is March 1, so anyone serious about supplying cannabis will need to hurry.

According to the Denver Post, “The application includes a background check with fingerprinting.  Owners pay a $2,000 application fee, the cost of background checks and a $3,000 annual license fee, and must not have been convicted of a felony or served a felony sentence in the last five years.  If the application is denied, the $3,000 license fee will be refunded.”

Some dispensary owners may be re-thinking their commitment based on legislation that is currently flying through the statehouse that will establish yet another layer of bureaucracy (a marijuana licensing authority) and an additional slate of yet-to-be-determined fees. The Colorado Statesman reports that “The Massey-Romer medical marijuana bill would establish an 18-month moratorium on new marijuana business while allowing existing operations to transition over the same period into non-profit health centers subject to rules modeled on the state’s liquor code.”

So, in addition to $5,000 worth of Denver fees and sales taxes plus state fees and taxes, Denver dispensary owners would have to pay lawyers to rework their corporate documents to comply with nonprofit requirements.

Patients may want to consider buying up a supply soon because it looks like the price of medicine is going to go way up.

More

Continue Reading

In a monumental decision this weekend the Obama administration is changing the governments course on federal marijuana laws.  According to the Associated Press:

Federal drug agents won’t pursue pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers in states that allow medical marijuana, under new legal guidelines to be issued Monday by the Obama administration.

This puts many U.S. Employers and the U.S. Government as an employer in an ethical quandary.  Many employers use extensive background screening services such as EmployeeScreenIQ to screen potential candidates.  As part of this process substance abuse testing may be included.  Many employers use the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) drug free workplace policies as a standard.  With fourteen states already allowing medical marijuana one can only wonder how these employers are supposed to react to these new policies.

This blog is not intended to start a “for or against” type of debate but more so to see how employers will react to the news.  In Ohio we don’t have medical marijuana but its gaining momentum.  Ohio is has great incentives for employers to create drug free workplaces.  Should it pass here it could create a tidal wave of questions from employers!

Feds to Issue New Medical Marijuana Policy

WASHINGTON – Federal drug agents won’t pursue pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers in states that allow medical marijuana, under new legal guidelines to be issued Monday by the Obama administration.

Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state law.

The guidelines to be issued by the department do, however, make it clear that agents will go after people whose marijuana distribution goes beyond what is permitted under state law or use medical marijuana as a cover for other crimes, the officials said.

The new policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration, which insisted it would continue to enforce federal anti-pot laws regardless of state codes.

Fourteen states allow some use of marijuana for medical purposes: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

California is unique among those for the widespread presence of dispensaries — businesses that sell marijuana and even advertise their services. Colorado also has several dispensaries, and Rhode Island and New Mexico are in the process of licensing providers, according to the Marijuana Policy Project, a group that promotes the decriminalization of marijuana use.

More

Continue Reading

Do you remember the Onterrio Smith scandal?  You know, the one where he was caught with “The Original Whizzinator” at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and subsequently suspended by the Minnesota Vikings for the entire 2005 season?  I’m sure it’s coming back to you now!

It turns out Mr. Smith left this piece of NFL history behind in a storage locker somewhere in Minnesota and it was put up for auction.  And yes, there was a buyer.

It’s true what they say:  One man’s trash really is another man’s treasure.

And the buyer of the ‘Whizzinator’ is…

A sports bar owner in Mankato revealed himself Sunday as the purchaser of “The Original Whizzinator,” and he said he intends to use the device that made Onterrio Smith infamous to raise the profile of his own establishment.

“I want to be the new training camp headquarters for the Vikings,” said Matt Little, the owner of Buster’s Sports Bar & Grill in Mankato.

The Whizzinator will be encased in glass at his bar’s memorabilia section next to jerseys of two Twin Cities sports superstars, Adrian Peterson and Justin Morneau.

Little recalled his reaction when he heard the Shakopee Auction Center was going to sell the device, which Smith was caught possessing at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport in May 2005.

“I thought, ‘You got to be kidding me,’ ” Little said.

But Little, who had a prior engagement, was determined to take ownership of the device, recruiting a purchaser and giving him a $1,000 budget.

Little had someone place the winning bid of $750 for him Friday night at the Shakopee Auction Center.

Now Little wants to reunite the Whizzinator with its original owner.

“I got a guy who knows Onterrio, so we want to do a reunion,” he said. “How classic would that be?”

— Sean Jensen, Pioneer Press – August 31, 2009

NOTE: The makers of “The Original Whizzinator”, George Wills and Robert Catalano, are due to be sentenced in federal court on October 8, 2009.  They are charged with conspiring to defraud the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the federal agency that oversees federally mandated drug testing programs.  Both face up to eight years in prison and/or hefty fines for manufacturing and selling the device via their company website.

Continue Reading

A new study conducted by the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp) shows that roughly 75% of the companies polled conduct pre-employment drug tests, urine testing being the most common type of screen performed.  And it’s not just those workers in safety sensitive positions being screened.  The study indicates that 84% of the respondents stated that workers, no matter what the position or job responsibility, are fair game to be tested for drugs and/or alcohol.

With many employers having their pick of the employee litter, we will be seeing background screening and drug testing policies and procedures become much more stringent. 

Looking for a Job? Prepare to be Drug Tested

i4cp Study: Most Companies Drug Test, Especially During Pre-Employment

Seattle, WA, July 28, 2009 –(PR.com)– If you’re looking to land a job in today’s economy, you’ve got a much better chance if you’re drug free, suggests a new study by the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp). The study found that three-quarters of companies polled have a drug screening policy, and almost all of those with a program say that pre-employment screening is the most common type.

A full 95% of companies that screen employees for drugs do so prior to hire; increasing to 100% in organizations with 10,000 or more workers. Seventy percent test when there is “reasonable suspicion” of drug use, 62% test following an employee accident, and 41% say they do random testing.

Among companies that do pre-employment drug screening, the largest share (47%) require that the test be conducted within four days of the applicant’s acceptance of a position, while 30% say it can be done at any time before the new employee’s start date.

More

Continue Reading

The North Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that a school board who required its districts’ drivers and teachers to submit to random drug and alcohol screening violated its employees privacy.  I couldn’t disagree more with this judgement.  I believe the safety of the students attending school in that district should be of the utmost priority and the school board should have the ability to determine how to best handle that responsibility.  Additionally, I think this ruling sets a very bad precedent that can be used against  any employer who requires drug and alcohol testing as a condition of employment.

One reason given for the judge’s decision:  ”There is also a complete want of evidence that any student or employee has ever been harmed because of the presence of ‘a detectable amount of illegal drug or alcohol’ in an employee’s body.”

Just because it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it won’t.  And with this court’s ruling, it now has an even better chance.  A very poor decision.

Court Rejects Random Employee Drug Testing

By Jeff Gorman, Courthouse News Service – June 17, 2009

(CN) – A North Carolina school system violated its employees’ rights by forcing them to submit to random drug and alcohol testing, the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled. The court cited privacy concerns and the lack of evidence that anyone has been harmed by a “detectable amount” of drugs or alcohol in an employee’s system.

Susan Jones and the North Carolina Association of Educators sued the Graham County Board of Education to challenge the policy, which required drivers to submit to random testing and required all employees to pass “an alcohol or drug test” as a condition of employment.

The testing policy became even stricter in December 2006, when all employees became subject to random testing. The employees sued five months later.     

The trial court ruled for the school board, but Judge Stephens reversed the decision on the grounds that it violated the state Constitution’s ban on unreasonable searches.

“We are unable to conclude from this record,” Stephens wrote, “that any of the board’s employees have a reduced expectation of privacy by virtue of their employment in a public school system.     

“There is also a complete want of evidence that any student or employee has ever been harmed because of the presence of ‘a detectable amount of illegal drug or alcohol’ in an employee’s body.” 

Read the case summary here.

Continue Reading

A study conducted by Quest Diagnostics, a leading provider of substance abuse screening services for U.S. employers, shows that employees testing positive for cocaine has significantly declined over the past 20 years.  Since 1988, the positive rate of cocaine use among employees has dropped 10%.  Barry Sample, Director of Science and Technology for the Employer Solutions division of Quest attributes the decline in cocaine use to more employers conducting pre-employment and random drug testing.

While cocaine use is down, the study also illustrates that amphetamine use is up, as well as use of drugs belonging to the benzodiazepine family.  Benzodiazepines are commonly prescribed for anti-anxiety, pain and insomnia, among others.  The study does not indicate whether this rise is a result of abuse or a valid diagnosis by a doctor.

Job-Related Drug Tests Show Progress, Mostly

By Shirley S. Wang, The Wall Street Journal – May 6, 2009

Fewer U.S. employees and job applicants appeared to be using cocaine in 2008 compared with 2007, but slightly more used amphetamines, according to new drug testing data from Quest Diagnostics, a large provider of employer drug testing services in the U.S.

Also, in recent years, more employees tested positive for use of certain prescription drugs, like benzodiazepines, which are anti-anxiety medications, and oxycodone, a type of painkiller. But it’s not clear from the data whether individuals are appropriately using these drugs appropriately or abusing them, according to Barry Sample, director of science and technology for the employer solutions division of Quest.

Overall, Quest’s rate of positive drug tests primarily for illegal substances has continued to decrease steadily over the last 20 years. Positive urine drug tests decreased to 3.6% in 2008 from 13.6% in 1988.

The detection of cocaine use declined to 0.41% of the 5.7 million samples in 2008, a 29% decline from 2007. Amphetamine or stimulant use rose slightly for the third in a row, which Sample says could be related to users switching from methamphetamine to different stimulants, including medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Overall, 3.6% of pre-employment tests and 5.3% of random tests came back positive, Quest said. For individuals who knew that a drug test could be coming, the positive screening rates were 1.7% in pre-employment tests and 1.4% in random testing, suggesting that drug testing discourages drug use, according to Sample. Quest conducted 7.3 million urine drug tests in 2008.

“While we’re encouraged by some of these declines we’re seeing, it really is reflective to a large extent that these employers conduct employee screening in the first place,” Sample told the Health Blog.

Continue Reading

Riddle:  What do you get when you combine four men, traffic violations, synthetic urine kits and an admission that the fake urine is to be used to try and beat employment drug tests?

Answer:  Arrested.

Fake pee lands four in jail in Friendswood

By Chris Paschenko, The Daily News – May 3, 2009

One similar kit purchased for $30 by The Daily News contains a 2-ounce bottle of yellow, odorless liquid with a strip thermometer attached, a hand warmer, rubber band and directions on how to give a “sample.”

Had the men admitted the fake urine was for medicinal purposes or intended as some kind of joke or twisted fetish, they might have been spared the indignity of handcuffs, a jail cell and scrounging up $1,000 bail.

But these four men, police allege, willingly offered the one explanation that violates the Texas health and safety code, constituting a Class B misdemeanor charge.

“Folks taken into custody told us they had to falsify a drug test based, most cases, on their places of employment,” Friendswood Police Chief Bob Wieners said.

More

Continue Reading

As Michigan’s medical marijuana law takes full effect next month, sufferers of chronic pain and other ailments cheer while police predict problems!

Well this one is sure to get a lot of comments!  This is an issue that employers have been seeing in California for several years now.  The purpose of this post is not to debate the merits of legalizing marijuana. The point begs the question; what does an employer do?  Most employers now run background checks as part of their pre-employment screening process.  Many employers utilize substance abuse testing or ‘drug screening’ as part of that process.  If pot becomes legal, what does an employer do?  Keep in mind, if a state legalizes its use, Federal Law still overrules it. See excerpt below and full article following:

And, despite the imprimatur of legality from the state of Michigan, there is nothing in the law to protect medical marijuana patients from being dismissed by their employer for using marijuana.

Ron Stephens lost his job in 2007 after a urine test detected marijuana. Stephens, 50, suffers from depression and a chronic neck disorder that limits his neck, shoulder and arm movements. He’s undergone a spinal fusion operation, has lost the use of his right hand and cannot sit for more than 10 or 15 minutes. He spent a decade taking prescribed painkillers, including Vicodin, Percocet, and the synthetic narcotic methadone, which he took for two years.

“Somehow it was OK for me to show up for work with all those drugs in me,” said Stephens, who asked that his hometown not be identified. “Marijuana carries such a stigma. It’s so … stupid.”

Full Story

Continue Reading

One of Peru’s top courts has ruled that workers cannot be fired from their jobs if they are drunk at work.  One of the Court Justices stated that as long as the employee hasn’t hurt or offended anyone, being under the influence of alcohol while on the job is okay.  This ruling has government officials very worried, and rightly so!  I guarantee it is only a matter of time before someone gets hurt or killed because of this irresponsible decision. 

You can’t fire me, I’m drunk!

Reuters – January 14, 2009

LIMA (Reuters) – Peru’s top court has ruled that workers cannot be fired for being drunk on the job, a decision that was criticized by the government on Wednesday for setting a dangerous precedent. 

The Constitutional Tribunal ordered that Pablo Cayo be given his job back as a janitor for the municipality of Chorrillos, which fired him for being intoxicated at work. 

The firing was excessive because even though Cayo was drunk, he did not offend or hurt anybody, Fernando Calle, one of the justices, said on Wednesday. 

Calle said the court would not revise its decision, despite complaints from the government. 

“It’s not a good idea to relax rules at workplaces,” said Labor Minister Jorge Villasante. 

Celso Becerra, the administrative chief of Chorrillos, a suburb of Lima, denounced the ruling. 

“We’ve fired four workers for showing up drunk, and two of them were drivers,” he said. “How can we allow a drunk to work who might run somebody over?” 

(Reporting by Marco Aquino; Writing by Terry Wade; Editing by Dana Ford)

Continue Reading

The duo responsible for creating the ‘Whizzinator’, a prosthetic device intended to help people beat drug tests, have plead guilty to conspiring to defraud the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the federal agency that administers federally mandated drug testing programs.  Robert Catalano and George Wills, owners of Puck Technology, face up to eight years in prison and/or a hefty fine for manufacturing and selling the device via their company website.  They are due to be sentenced in February 2009.

This should hopefully serve as a wake up call to other companies out there selling products that claim to help people beat a drug test.  You don’t mess with the feds!

Men who sold ‘Whizzinator’ admit to federal charges

By Paul Walsh, Star Tribune – November 26, 2008

The two people behind the Original Whizzinator, a urine-cleansing gizmo that helped a onetime Minnesota Viking running back and other men cheat on drug tests, have pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges in Pittsburgh.

Robert Catalano and George Wills, who owned online-based Puck Technology, entered their pleas Monday for conspiring to defraud the federal agency that administers federal workplace drug testing programs.

The California men are scheduled to be sentenced in February and face up to eight years in prison, a $500,000 fine or both.

In April 2005, the Vikings’ Onterrio Smith was caught at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport with a Whizzinator.

The device, which was available in five flesh colors and sold for $150, included a prosthetic penis attached to an undergarment resembling a jock strap. It connected to a pouch containing dehydrated urine. Water was added to the pouch and a heat pack could be attached to keep the urine close to body temperature.

“Black Hawk Down” star Tom Sizemore was similarly busted earlier that same year.

Continue Reading