(Crossposted from Medical Cannabis: Voices from the Frontlines, the blog of Americans for Safe Access. I work for Americans for Safe Acces.)

Yesterday, ASA’s chief counsel, Joe Elford, and I traveled to Sacramento to attend the Assembly Labor Committee hearing on AB 2279, ASA’s medical marijuana employment rights bill. AB2279, which protects the rights of hundreds of thousands of medical marijuana patients in California from employment discrimination, was introduced in February by Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) and co-authored by Assemblymembers Patty Berg (D-Eureka), Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) and Lori Saldaña (D-San Diego). The bill reverses a January California Supreme Court decision in Ross v. RagingWire. Joe argued argued the case before the court.

We met Gary Ross, the plaintiff in Ross v. RagingWire, outside the hearing room in the Capitol. We were all excited about the hearing and felt good about our chances of passage. Last week, we passed a major hurdle by clearing the Judiciary Committee on a 6-3 vote. We’ve also secured the support of several prominent groups, including the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the National Lawyers Guild, and several HIV/AIDS advocacy organizations.

After sitting through discussions of several other labor bills, Chairman Sandre Swanson called for AB 2279 to be heard. Assemblymember Leno stepped down from his committee seat to speak about the merits of the bill. He spoke about the intent of the voters when passing Proposition 215 and the intent of the legislature when passing SB 420 – clearly, they intended for patients to have the right to work. Mr. Leno also clarified that AB 2279 does not cause employers to violate federal law and preserves the rights of employers to take action against employees that come to work impaired or consume medical marijuana at the workplace.

Gary Ross spoke next, focusing on his injury sustained while serving our country in the military and how medical marijuana has helped him deal with continuing pain and spasms. He also explained that marijuana has made him a better employee – since it relieves his pain, he is absent from work less frequently. Gary urged the committee to vote yes to spare other California patients the ordeal he has gone through.

Joe Elford followed, explaining the decision in the Ross case and why he thought the Supreme Court had made the wrong decision. He also explained that hundreds of thousands of patients rely on medical marijuana and should be allowed to work, an opinion shared by SEIU and AFSCME, which represent nearly a million workers in the state. Lastly, Lanette Davies, who is an executive member of the California Chamber of Commerce and is involved with the League of Women Voters, voiced her support for the bill as an employer who has employed medical marijuana patients.

Our opposition followed, spouting the same misinformation we heard from them at the Judiciary Committee hearing. A representative from the Chamber of Commerce explained that while the Chamber was not opposed to medical marijuana, the medical use of marijuana is still illegal under federal law. She also said that employers currently are allowed to employee medical marijuana patients, but they should have the choice of whether they want to do so based on whether this fits with their “workplace culture”.

Next, a representative from the National Federation of Independent Business voiced his concerns about the bill. He stated that testing for impairment on the job would be difficult and employees could still come to work impaired. He argued that if a medical marijuana patient was impaired and caused an accident, the employer would be held liable and would have to provide worker’s compensation. After he spoke, a representative from the California Manufacturing and Technology Association briefly voiced his opposition to the bill.

After the testimony was heard, Chairman Swanson asked committee members if they had any questions. Ira Ruskin asked a brief question about the amended language from Judiciary Committee, and John Laird (who sits on both the Judiciary and Labor committees) responded that it was his proposed amendment and the new language satisfied his previous concerns.

Swanson then took his turn to grill the opponents. He asked the rep from the National Federation of Independent Business whether he had any statistics or examples of accidents medical marijuana patients had caused. Our opponents could not even come up with one example. (As a side note, this interchange made me proud that Swanson represents me and my district in the Assembly.)

In his closing testimony, Leno hammered this point home even further. He told the opponents that they needed to be more proactive if they were to continue opposing the bill (his staff has been open to meeting with them and negotiating language), and that the opponents’ reasoning had become circular. Proposition 215 was passed in 1996, and the opponents still couldn’t come up with even one example of a workplace accident caused by a medical marijuana patient. Leno concluded by asking the committee members to consider the intent of Prop 215 and urged them to vote for the bill because the alternative is that medical marijuana patients could become unemployed and wards of the state.

The committee passed the bill, on a 6-2 party line vote. The next stop is the Assembly Floor. We have a ways to go before securing employment rights for California medical marijuana patients, but at least now, we’re one step closer.

(Crossposted from Medical Cannabis: Voices from the Frontlines, the blog of Americans for Safe Access. I work for Americans for Safe Acces.)

Yesterday was a historic day for the medical marijuana movement. SJR 20, a resolution that calls for an end to DEA attacks on California’s medical cannabis patients and providers, cleared the California Senate Health Committee.

Unsurprisingly, the votes came down on party lines. One Republican Senator stated that there is a pill that patients could use instead of smoking marijuana. Committee Chairwoman Sheila Kuehl responded that a pill did exist (Marinol), but that it is too strong for many patients. It’s good to know that many of our state representatives are well educated on this issue and willing to stand up for patients and providers.

Californians have good reason to rejoice about this win. The resolution, authored by Senator Carole Migden, not only calls on the DEA to leave patients and providers alone, but further calls on the President and Congress to enact federal legislation to end the raids. If passed, this will be the first time in U.S. history that a state legislature has denounced the DEA’s interference in state laws and tactics used against medical cannabis patients and providers.

(Crossposted from Medical Cannabis: Voices from the Frontlines, the blog of Americans for Safe Access. I work for Americans for Safe Acces.)

Yesterday, I joined advocates and providers in Sacramento to call on the State Board of Equalization to protect an important source of revenue – $100 million in sales tax collected annually by medical marijuana dispensaries.

After waiting through half a dozen unrelated tax cases to be heard before the board, I testified, explaining how this tax revenue is in danger, due to increased federal interference in the state medical marijuana program. In 2007 alone, the DEA raided more than 50 medical marijuana providers, and they embarked on a new strategy, sending more than 300 letters to landlords of dispensaries, threatening property owners with criminal prosecution and asset forfeiture. I also described reactions from elected officials – ranging from a statement by US House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers questioning the DEA’s tactics to State Senator Carole Migden’s introduction of SJR 20, which calls for an end to federal interference and urging Congress and the President to establish policy consistent with the compassionate use laws of California.

I concluded my comments with a plea that would be echoed by all of the following advocates, asking the BOE to work with the Governor and state legislature to protect this source of state revenue, which has become increasingly vital to our state’s fiscal health in the face of budget cuts to important state programs.

Dale Gieringer of CA NORML spoke next, highlighting the amount of sales tax and income tax dispensaries contribute. He also discussed the problem of the DEA seizing assets from dispensaries. For example, the “Compassion Center for Alameda County paid $3 million in sales taxes before it was closed by the DEA on October 30th. In the process of seizing CCAC’s bank account, the DEA stopped a $348,078.49 bank transfer to the Board of Equalization, which the CCAC had transmitted just before the raid.”

Next, half a dozen current and former dispensary operators spoke about their experiences of DEA harassment. Lisa Sawoya, former director of Hollywood Compassionate Care in Los Angeles, explained that she had gladly paid sales tax to the state. But in July of 2007, her landlord – who had previously been very supportive – received a threatening letter from the DEA. Sawoya agreed to shut down the dispensary at the end of July, and her landlord subsequently called the DEA to tell them of the agreement. Then, on July 25th – days before she was set to close – eight DEA agents stormed into the dispensary, holding guns to employees heads, and seizing all of the money and medicine at the facility.

Bill Pearce, former director of River City Patients’ Center in Sacramento, explained that he too had willingly paid taxes – to the the tune of $700K over three years to the BOE and another $250K to the IRS and Franchise Tax Board. When the DEA raided him on September 26, 2007, they seized all of his assets, leaving him with nothing to support himself and his family, let alone to pay his legal bills.

Four other dispensary operators from Berkeley, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, and Santa Rosa, told their stories of DEA harassment, and explained that though they continue operating their dispensaries, they live in fear. Their landlords could evict them at a moment’s notice, or worse, the DEA could raid them, seize their assets, and they could face federal charges.

All of the BOE members seemed to listen closely, and I could hear exclamations from those seated in the audience who had not been aware of this dire situation. After we spoke, BOE Member Betty Yee addressed the Board, conveying the sense of responsibility and obligation she felt on this issue. She expressed her concern, not only for the tax revenue generated by dispensaries, but also for the patients who depend on these facilities for access to their medicine. She urged the BOE to work with state officials to ensure protection of dispensaries from DEA attacks, echoing the statements she made in a recent opinion piece co-authored by Senator Migden.

I left the meeting feeling that we had been listened to and that the BOE may take further steps to protect our community.