Medical Marijuana not within the Protection of the ADA: the Federal Controlled Substance Act Prevails
Monday, May 21, 2012 at 5:24PM The Ninth Circuit has held that use by disabled Californians of marijuana for medically supervised pain relief under state law was prohibited by federal law and thus came within the illegal-drug exclusion of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Plaintiffs used marijuana to treat their pain under the supervision of their physicians; their medical use of marijuana was allowed under state law, but prohibited by the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
The cities in which plaintiffs lived had taken steps to close marijuana dispensing facilities that operated within their boundaries, one by ordinance and the other by public nuisance action. Plaintiffs were concerned about the possible shut-down of the collectives on which they relied for marijuana.
Plaintiffs sued the cities, alleging that their actions violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), since 42 U.S.C. §12132 prohibits discrimination in the provision of public services to any “qualified individual with a disability.” Plaintiffs also alleged that conventional medical services, drugs, and medications had not alleviated the pain caused by her impairment and that she had thus obtained a physician’s recommendation to use marijuana to treat her pain.
The court found that James medical marijuana use necessarily was not protected by the ADA because the ADA defines “illegal drug use” by reference to federal rather than state law and the former does not authorize James’ medical marijuana use.
The cities correctly interpreted the language of §12210(d)(1) – which excepts from the illegal-drug exclusion the use of a drug taken under supervision by a licensed health care professional or other uses authorized by the CSA or other federal law – under which James’ state-authorized medical marijuana use was not excepted because it was not authorized by the CSA or another provision of federal law, although the language of the provision lacked plain meaning and its legislative history was inconclusive.
Further, the statutory context revealed the intent of Congress to define “illegal use of drugs” by reference to federal rather than state law. The CSA is explicitly mentioned twice in §12210(d)(1) and §12210(d)(2) provides that the term “drug” means a controlled substance as defined in the CSA.
As to the legislative history, the ADA was passed in 1990 and there was no reason for Congress to have anticipated later changes in state law – such as California’s 1996 statute – that facilitated professional supervision of drug use that federal law did not permit. In any event, there was a long-standing, strong federal policy against the use of medical marijuana outside the limits of federal law itself.
The court found nothing in the legislative history to suggest that Congress intended to extend ADA protection to state-authorized but federally prohibited uses of marijuana that fell outside a comprehensive federal regulatory regime. Neither did anything in the ADA or its history suggest that Congress sought to exclude from the definition of illegal drug use such drug use as was sanctioned by state law but unauthorized by federal law.
James v. Costa Mesa
Reader Comments (1)
This is really nice to see a lot of people loves there work and services.