Dope is not a new topic. In Florida, we await November to see if the people will constitutionally de-criminalize dope. The vehicle for this effort is Amendment 3, and it was cleared for the November ballot by the Florida Supreme Court, according to the USA Today network. They refer to this as "recreational weed." Of course, there is no medical purpose to weed, so "recreational" is all it could be. But wait, stay tuned (see further below).
For other points about dope, see Edibles and Illness (November 2023); and Dope and Heart Disease (March 2024). There are many links in the Heart Disease article. Back in 2021, I addressed the decriminalization challenges and noted that there is a fair amount of disinformation out there about ganja. See Decriminalizing Marijuana (May 2021). There, I recount some examples of unfortunate people who lost jobs because they partook of the dope and ignorantly believed it was "legal."
Of course, marijuana is not "legal" anywhere in the United States. The Federal government has frustrated enforcement of the ban on dope, leading the Federal authorities to look the other way as people illegally sell it on virtually every street corner. States, in turn, have decriminalized the drug on the foundation of "medicinal use," though it is listed as a Schedule I Drug, meaning that the Federal Government considers it "to have no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse."
There is some very deep hypocrisy in that. If it is so dangerous, why is the Federal Government ignoring the mass production and retailing of Mary Jane? If there is no reason for the Federal Government to enforce its laws against this stuff, why doesn't it own up to this and simply re-classify or legalize weed? The Associated Press (AP) announced this week that the Drug Enforcement Agency will reclassify, but weed will remain a "controlled substance."
The report claims it will move from Schedule 1 (where we find "heroin and LSD") to Schedule III (with "ketamine and steroids"). This is said to be a recognition of the "medical uses of cannabis." The AP story also uses the "L" word repeatedly in referring to the actions of various states in decriminalizing dope.
Time and again, as noted in the linked articles, people have lost jobs. Often this occurs when they are hurt at work and sent for a drug test. They test positive and are not surprised. The surprise comes when they are informed that weed is illegal and that there are two outcomes:
- the employee's workers' compensation claim is denied on the premise that the dope caused the accident.
- The employee is separated from employment on the premise that marijuana is illegal.
The hue and cry is often "but its legal." And no, Virginia, it is not. But "the news says it is!" That is too true. A simple Google search will locate lots of examples. I have attended many seminars at which reasonably intelligent speakers have both exalted the benefits of dope and parrotted the "legal" adjective. They take real umbrage when you point out that they are wrong (in fairness, who doesn't).
So, Florida will soon have a choice. The good folks at Ballotpedia are helping to feed the disinformation, trumpeting that the proposed Florida amendment would "legalize marijuana."
The headline at Politico says similar. As this initiative is pending, there is an intriguing case that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will take up. The appeal is being pursued by a company called Oxymoron Inc. (not really, it is actually "Medical Marijuana Inc.,"), which might be pretty close. The company has been producing and marketing products that are derived from or based upon dope.
The case involves a worker who was suffering from chronic pain. He self-medicated with a "CBD-rich medicine” marketed by Oxymoron Inc. Apparently, the advertisements were clear that the product was "hemp-based," but also promised that it "did not contain THC, the active ingredient in marijuana."
Well, believe it or not, the worker used this "medicine" and then "failed a drug test and lost his job." He is relying on "the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act," which is shorthanded "RICO." It was passed to "go after mobsters and others." In case you missed that, let's slow it down. It is a law that was passed to use against people operating criminal enterprises (like manufacturing and selling something that is illegal?).
This is a civil lawsuit and the worker is seeking damages. He believes that the advertisement and denials of THC content were misleading. He is seeking actual damages (what he lost in being fired) and alleges that under RICO he should "get three times the amount of actual damages and attorney’s fees."
The Oxymoron, Inc. group asked a court to dismiss the lawsuit. It sought dismissal of the suit. The District Judge, however, concluded that the loss of work is a "business" loss within the meaning of RICO.
To what extent may this impact the growth, production, and marketing of weed? Is it likely that SCOTUS will conclude that it is appropriate for the producer and marketer of this illegal substance to face consequences for its representations? More importantly
Will those manufacturers potentially face damage if a dopey driver gets fired for an auto accident? What of the dopey business owner who loses a contract due to some Federal Drug-Free Workplace provision? What about if someone loses their job due to lung cancer from the "harmless" weed? And, what of the doctors who are marketing or recommending the ganja? Are they innocent and appropriate, or might a plaintiff name the dope doctor as a co-conspirator?
Do weed producers have liability insurance to protect them from the threat of damages based upon misrepresentation or mistake?
If there are civil damage awards under the auspices of RICO, might a prosecutor somewhere elect to take a RICO shot at criminal charges?
The topic is intriguing. The emotions around Canibus run high. The grass folks will likely be watching this case as it progresses. It is possible that Disney's dwarfs might describe the outcome. Will it be
- Sleepy,
- Happy,
- Grumpy,
- Doc, or
- Dopey?