The driver, Douglas Horn, sued the maker of a product advertised as THC-free under a federal racketeering law, saying he had suffered a business injury.

https://archive.ph/SHCVE

The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that a truck driver fired for failing a drug test after using a product which was falsely advertised to be free of THC may sue the manufacturer under a federal racketeering law.

In a 5-to-4 decision, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court sided with Douglas Horn, the driver, in a decision that could make it easier for people to sue companies under a federal racketeering statute that was originally aimed at fighting organized crime.

Justice Barrett wrote that the product’s manufacturer, a company called Medical Marijuana Inc., was fighting a battle with that plain language of the racketeering law.

“That is a battle it cannot win,” she wrote.

The case turned on a narrow question: whether Mr. Horn, could satisfy a requirement imposed by the law, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, to show that he had been injured in his “business or property.”

Justice Barrett was joined in the majority with the court’s three liberal justices, along with Justice Neil M. Gorsuch. Justices Clarence Thomas filed a dissent, as did Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh who was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

The case, Medical Marijuana Inc. v. Horn, No. 23-365, started after Mr. Horn, who suffered from accident-related chronic pain, came across an article in High Times, a magazine that covers the business and culture of marijuana, concerning a product called Dixie X. The article said it was rich in CBD, a component of hemp that does not produce the high associated with marijuana, but contained “0 percent THC,” the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis.

After using Dixie X, which the manufacturer has called a wellness product, Mr. Horn failed a drug test and was fired. Suspecting that the product was to blame, he bought another bottle and had it tested. The testing company found that it contained THC and refused to mail it back to Mr. Horn, fearing penalties under federal drug laws.

Mr. Horn sued under RICO, a law that was initially aimed at organized crime and allows an award of triple damages to plaintiffs who can show, among many other things, that the defendants’ racketeering activity injured them in their “business or property.” That phrase, the Supreme Court has previously said, excludes suits for personal injuries.

Mr. Horn said three defendants — Medical Marijuana Inc., Dixie Holdings and Red Dice Holdings — had engaged in a pattern of racketeering carried on through an enterprise that included mail and wire fraud.

A federal trial judge dismissed the suit, saying that Mr. Horn’s injury was personal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit disagreed, saying that “the phrase ‘business or property’ focuses on the nature of the harm, not the source of the harm.”

I'm a simple minded guy. He bought and used the product advertised as "THC-free", got drug tested at work and got fired because he failed the test. It wasn't THC-free, after all. Can some legal expert explain to me what the problem is? Why did this case have to go all the way to SCOTUS?

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
I'm a simple minded guy. He bought and used the product advertised as "THC-free", got drug tested at work and got fired because he failed the test. It wasn't THC-free, after all. Can some legal expert explain to me what the problem is? Why did this case have to go all the way to SCOTUS?

Because of stupid people or those with an axe to grind. In the case of military we are pretty well screwed with this situation as we can’t test positive for anything. If we bought something advertised as such we may have an argument, but we’d likely lose. If we buy over the counter overseas we are cooked. Gotta be extremely careful.

I put a gabapentin out for the dog last month. Took my morning pills (allergy and crazy meds) then couldn’t find the dog’s pill. I was so nervous I took it some how. Turns out I didn’t but would have been a discharge as it’s 100% zero tolerance.

Bottom line Q, to answer your question. It’s a lack of common sense and understanding, or unwillingness to understand simple situations.

Some lawyer wanted to make a name for himself.

As far as I am concerned, operating a vehicle that can weigh in the neighborhood of 80,000 pounds under the influence of any medication that can impair your mind/body is a recipe for disaster. I would personally seek termination of any employee of mine that possessed a CDL and was found with any impairment drug in their system… I often warned my personnel about THC shampoos. Don’t do anything that may jeopardize your employment. Just my two cents.

quote:

as it's 100% zero tolerance

I beg to differ. I was on a courts martial board where a service member popped positive for THC. The UCMJ conditions for conviction were 1) he had marijuana in his system and 2) he knowingly took it. The prosecution conclusively proved the first but failed to prove the second condition and it was a unanimous not guilty verdict by all of us.

quote:

Originally posted by OttoSig:
I put a gabapentin out for the dog last month. Took my morning pills (allergy and crazy meds) then couldn’t find the dog’s pill. I was so nervous I took it some how. Turns out I didn’t but would have been a discharge as it’s 100% zero tolerance..

Even if you had accidentally taken the gabapentin, you would be just fine. Work place drug testing does not test for such med as SOP. I haven't been a Medical Review Officer for a very long time, but drugs that are routinely tested are the opiates, cocaine, THC, PCP, benzodiazepines, iirc. If some other drug is suspect, they have to specifically request for it.

Non pot heads read High Times?

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by OttoSig:
I put a gabapentin out for the dog last month. Took my morning pills (allergy and crazy meds) then couldn’t find the dog’s pill. I was so nervous I took it some how. Turns out I didn’t but would have been a discharge as it’s 100% zero tolerance..

Even if you had accidentally taken the gabapentin, you would be just fine. Work place drug testing does not test for such med as SOP.

Thanks Q, as to the UCMJ. I understand the instruction. My experience is that Sailors have little chance to prove their innocence. Regardless, I don’t wanna take the chance.

quote:

Originally posted by nukeandpave:
Non pot heads read High Times?

Yeah my first thought.

If Kagan, Sotamayor, and Brown are supporting you then it's time to rethink your position.

quote:

Originally posted by Lineman101:
I often warned my personnel about THC shampoos.

Goggle wasn't any help. What is THC shampoo supposed to do?

I love poppy rolls and poppy kringels(pastry filled with a poppy paste). But the whole time I was a CDL driver I would not touch them, I was not taking a chance. Numerous people have shown a false positive after eating them.

Drug tests are not equal in accuracy nor are all of them observed. It is not unusual for false postives to show up or a lab tech to mix up the samples. There are quite a few products that will produce a false result

quote:

Originally posted by OttoSig:


Bottom line Q, to answer your question. It’s a lack of common sense and understanding, or unwillingness to understand simple situations.

Bottom line, the reason it has to be that way because somewhere, sometime a Lance corporal went home , smoked a bunch of weed with his high school classmates, came back to base, pissed hot, and said “Gunny, I swear the CBD shampoo I used said THC free”.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by Lineman101:
I often warned my personnel about THC shampoos.

Goggle wasn't any help. What is THC shampoo supposed to do?

I believe it would be an excuse as to why you failed a drug test that checks hair samples.

The company I work for received these CBD Products for distribution to various businesses. Every shipment was sampled and tested for THC content since distribution of THC could be a serious problem. Not a single shipment passed the test. Not a single pkg went out of the building. Believe me they tried.

I would think that a hair follicle test from somewhere other than the head would determine a more reliable percentage of THC in the body other than those from a scalp exposed to thc supposedly from a hair care product. If the concentration is the same, then I think it’s safe to assume the guy was imbibing when company policy forbade use of cannabis. It would be impossible for hair follicles from around the body to have equal concentrations if he wasn’t.

quote:

Originally posted by nukeandpave:
Non pot heads read High Times?

Maybe he just reads it for the articles?

I don’t think this article did a very good job of explaining what the issue was that the SC was even ruling on. From what I can tell it had basically nothing to do with the company lying about THC in its product. The ruling was about whether this dude losing his job constitutes a harm to him personally or to his business and property. This was procedural stuff, and not any sort of ruling on whether he should win or not, just whether he is allowed to make a RICO claim as part of his defense.

- Bret

quote:

I haven't been a Medical Review Officer for a very long time, but drugs that are routinely tested are the opiates, cocaine, THC, PCP, benzodiazepines, iirc. If some other drug is suspect, they have to specifically request for it.

^^^^^^^^^^^
I am quite familiar with drug testing.There are testing kits that are pure dipstick and are very unreliable, while others generally a blood test are extremely accurate. It is a developing field. I personally know a physician who runs a huge drug testing program. The newer tests can find alcohol several days out while others are limited to a few hours.