Gross McGinley LLP

Blog Disclaimer

Blog Disclaimer

This Blog is intended for educational and informational purposes and intended to only provide you with a general understanding of the law, not to provide any legal advice, including on the subject of the Blog. Laws that may pertain to this Blog will vary by jurisdiction, and the information on this blog may not apply to you. The content within this Blog is not intended, and should not be construed, in any way to be legal advice and thus you should not rely on any information provided in the Blog as legal advice. You should consult with appropriate legal counsel concerning any issues for which legal advice may be needed. Your review or use of the Blog and the content therein is not intended to create, and does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Please contact us if you have any questions about a Blog or would like more information, but, by contacting us, no attorney-client relationship is formed between you and Gross McGinley, LLP, including the Blog author. Do not send any confidential information to Gross McGinley, LLP or the authors of the Blog without first speaking to one of our lawyers and receiving our permission to provide confidential information. Unsolicited confidential information sent to us may not be subject to an attorney-client privilege and may not be treated as confidential. This Blog is not published for advertising or solicitation purposes. Gross McGinley, LLP disclaims all liability to all persons for any claim, loss, liability or any damages that may arise in connection with the Blog and any content or information contained in the Blog. Even though we strive to create our Blog content based on our current understanding of the law, we cannot and do not guarantee that the content and information in the Blog is current, accurate, or complete. Gross McGinley, LLP owns the copyright in the Blog, which is protected by federal and state laws, including copyright laws. The Blog cannot be altered or modified in any way. A copy of the Blog may be used and printed only for personal, educational, informational and noncommercial purposes. The Blog cannot be used for any other purpose without the express permission of Gross McGinley, LLP.

Marijuana Law – Why We Can’t Clear the Air

Written by: and on December 17, 2019 | Category: Blog | Tags: ,

Other than the fact that all marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug under the Controlled Substances Act, and illegal at the federal level, there is nothing simple and straight forward about marijuana law in Pennsylvania (or in any part of the country) right now. From law enforcement to business owners, there is a struggle to understand what is legal as courts and agencies are hard-pressed to keep up with the legalization of marijuana and the conflict between state and federal laws.

On April 6, 2016, Pennsylvania passed the Medical Marijuana Act (the “Act”) which legalized the use or possession of medical marijuana in the Commonwealth. By February 15, 2018, medical marijuana was available for distribution at Pennsylvania dispensaries for patients who meet certain requirements. Specifically, the patient has to have one of seventeen enumerated “serious medical conditions,” receive certification from a practitioner to acquire the marijuana from an approved dispensary in Pennsylvania and be in possession of a valid identification card issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Health at any time they are in possession of medical marijuana. The patient must also be under the ongoing care of the practitioner who issued the certification during any in-person visit to the dispensary. There is no reciprocity between the states, meaning that a patient must have a Pennsylvania certification to get medical marijuana from a Pennsylvania dispensary.

The Act confirms that medical marijuana may only be dispensed as a pill, oil, topical form (including gel, creams or ointments), vaporization or nebulization, tincture or liquid. Smoking marijuana is not permitted by the Act. Likewise, marijuana in edible forms, such as brownies, is illegal unless it is done to aid ingestion by the patient – the medical marijuana cardholder. Despite these clear designations and protections under the Act for the legalized use of medical marijuana in Pennsylvania, the rest of the state’s legislation remains unchanged.

Criminal defense challenges

Recently in the case of Commonwealth v. Barr, the Honorable Maria L. Dantos of the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas granted the Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence that claimed the search of a vehicle by the police was improper since it was based upon the smell of burnt and raw marijuana through the open window of the vehicle and a passenger in the vehicle possessed a medical marijuana card. In his defense, the Defendant produced an expert who testified that the odor of ingesting medical marijuana with a vaping pen was the same as the odor of smoking regular marijuana from an unlawful source. The arresting officer admitted she was not aware that the odor was the same. In rendering the decision, Judge Dantos highlighted that this search and subsequent arrest of the Defendant for possession of marijuana (amongst other charges) demonstrated the “clear disconnect between the medical community and the law enforcement community” with regard to the legalization of medical marijuana and found that the smell of marijuana alone does not provide law enforcement with probable cause to conduct a search.

Workplace challenges

This decision raises many questions for business owners and their interactions with their employees. For instance, what happens when an employer encounters an employee who smells of marijuana but shows no evidence of any other impairment? Will the smell of marijuana be enough to create the reasonable suspicion needed to demand a drug test? Will the smell of marijuana potentially place an employer on notice of a possible disability? Does the employer have to give the employee the opportunity to provide a legitimate medical reason for smelling of marijuana before it can take any employment action? How do the answers to these questions change when the employee is in a safety-sensitive position? There is little, if any, guidance from the courts on these scenarios; however, applying the reasoning in the Barr case, the smell test, alone, is likely not enough for an employer to take adverse employment action against its employee.

As these types of decisions continue to be made, the legal landscape surrounding marijuana law and use in Pennsylvania will only evolve. Where do we go next?

This content was originally published in the Fall 2019 edition of Network Magazine

Attorney Loren Speziale regularly collaborates with business owners and human resource professionals, providing legal guidance and risk management assistance with regard to personnel issues.

A former district attorney, Attorney Sarah Hart Charette has an extensive background in trial preparation and litigation. She strives to provide clarity to her clients who are often simply confused and overwhelmed by the legal process.

Next Previous
View All Attorneys
View All Practice Areas
View Blog