with the caveat that I am by no means a lawyer, I'm under the impression that private companies can still dictate standards of conduct at their workplaces. For instance, even though alcohol is legal, Boeing forbids drinking on company property. Amazon, otoh, has sponsored beer busts on some Friday afternoons. I'm pretty sure that if Workplace X said pot would still be tested for and against company policy, they could.
No big pot growers and distributors in Oregon will vote for legalization. They would lose their overpriced business.
Me too, but it seemed like a good way to pump money into the local economy, same with the casino measures.
That was kind of my thought on how it work also but there is a major grey area. How much power does your employer have to dictate your personal time, especially if you are engaging in legal behavior during your personal time.
If you work for a private company that does govt. work and requires clearance, you might be subject to blood tests, drug tests, etc.
what about a State of Washington government job with no clearance or safety concerns? I could see them not even wasteing the money on that portion of the test.
Current Oregon law says that, if you are working for a public agency, it is REQUIRED that your company have, and enforce, a drug testing program. Oh, and I voted yes, too. It's safer than booze. Go Blazers
how did it lose? was there some crazy bullshit scare tactic ads on tv that swung all the sheep to vote against it?
The DEA threatens banks which have bank accounts held by legal California marijuana stores. So the marijuana stores have cash lying around in lieu of bank accounts. So they get robbed. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...tes-bankingbre8a71jx-20121108,0,6697243.story
no...I never saw an ad for or against it. maybe that's why it failed, not enough ads. otherwise I don't understand how it failed
Sure! I'll show you where to lie down. From Spud's nonexistant twitter account: Spud@Twitter.com: Starting Hummer now. #speedbump