I was just getting ready to post this article! Now... I can see how some business leaders may be concerned regarding the provision in SQ788 that doesn't allow you to get fired if you take a drug test and have marijuana in your system. It could potentially scare away national employers. BUT... let's be honest. Most national employers don't want to come here BECAUSE of our political culture.

Seeing articles like this just "lights my fire" to be even more aggressive in spreading awareness about SQ788.

For whatever reason it doesn't seem like people in Oklahoma really understand where most of the country is on this issue in 2018. It's not the late 1980s anymore. With it being legal in so many places, a lot of private employers are no longer testing for marijuana. 29 states have medical marijuana and 9 have recreational. Why are so many people here acting like this is some unheard of, groundbreaking thing like it was when California legalized it in 1996? Why is this state completely oblivious to the fact that 61% of the population of the US supports full legalization and support for medical marijuana is over 80%?

Most Oklahoma legislators and business leaders are acting like its 1989 and we are at the height of Reefer Madness hysteria.

For whatever reason it doesn't seem like people in Oklahoma really understand where most of the country is on this issue in 2018. It's not the late 1980s anymore. With it being legal in so many places, a lot of private employers are no longer testing for marijuana. 29 states have medical marijuana and 9 have recreational. Why are so many people here acting like this is some unheard of, groundbreaking thing like it was when California legalized it in 1996? Why is this state completely oblivious to the fact that 61% of the population of the US supports full legalization and support for medical marijuana is over 80%?

Most Oklahoma legislators and business leaders are acting like its 1989 and we are at the height of Reefer Madness hysteria.

Well, the source of some of the problem is like this. I still can't believe it, but my friend who grew up in Jackson County(Altus) says there are some people there who haven't so much as traveled outside the county before.

I think it's more true that many Oklahomans haven't traveled outside the state much and haven't been exposed much to how the more enlightened, politically advanced world operates.

Well, the source of some of the problem is like this. I still can't believe it, but my friend who grew up in Jackson County(Altus) says there are some people there who haven't so much as traveled outside the county before.

I think it's more true that many Oklahomans haven't traveled outside the state much and haven't been exposed much to how the more enlightened, politically advanced world operates.

I also have personal anecdotal evidence of this from some people, and agree...

I also have personal anecdotal evidence of this from some people, and agree...

Same here. Even more common is to never leave the state except maybe to Dallas once per decade if even that. If that is your reality and you also aren't a big Internet user, you may be completely oblivious to what things are like outside Oklahoma. It's hard to believe in 2018 you could still have this but it's more common than you'd think. Millennials are generally more aware of the broader world and I think that's a big reason this generation is so progressive compared to baby boomers on social issues. Even my conservative friends for the most part are fine with legal weed, gay marriage, etc. They may support Trump on the economy, but they are libertarian on social issues. This is why I think that if we can make it as a society another 20 years or so, the culture war will fizzle out. We'll have legal weed, nobody will care about gay marriage, separation of church and state will be understood, etc. The fire and brimstone Christian nationalism will still have its niche but it won't be enough to control states and major political parties.

I'm glad this story doesn't complement your belief that Oklahoma is pretty much a Christian Right theocracy: https://nondoc.com/2018/03/01/senate-ledbetter-immorality-tied-shootings/

On the other matter, I think we're lucky SB1120 passed only by 6 to 5 and had its title struck. So it is subject to change and will have to be approved again before moving to the full Senate. Sen. Yen is the only sponsor of SB1120, which helps some. So to me, it's too early to have a defeatist attitude.

SB1120 at first glance barely passed today 21 to 20 in the full Senate. But wait! Vote was too close!! Needed 25 votes to pass!?? Yen can apparently bring it back to the floor another day to try for more votes!! How they govern at the state capitol is sometimes confusing! But to explain, senate bills require a simple majority to pass which is 25. But when too many senators don't vote, which was 7 in this case, a majority may not possible in a close vote. Now as I understand it, Yen has 3 days to make changes, lobby for more votes and resubmit his bill, if he so desires.

Please keep this thread updated in case I miss it. I am glad to hear it has died. Hopefully it isn’t resurrected as you said it could be.

Please keep this thread updated in case I miss it. I am glad to hear it has died. Hopefully it isn’t resurrected as you said it could be.

I don't know if I would say it died just yet. Knowing these people they won't let it die. They will try to keep this thing alive and use any trick they can to do it. When it's officially dead then we can do a little dance:pink_elep and get to passing the vote.

https://twitter.com/AaronBrilbeck9/status/974370682044903424?s=20

http://www.news9.com/story/37733547/report-president-trump-considers-pruitt-for-attorney-general

If this happens, legal weed is over nationwide. He's a bit more of a "Jesus Warrior" than Jeff Sessions, if that's even possible.

http://www.news9.com/story/37733547/report-president-trump-considers-pruitt-for-attorney-general

If this happens, legal weed is over nationwide. He's a bit more of a "Jesus Warrior" than Jeff Sessions, if that's even possible.
Wouldn’t get confirmed. Not a chance. Too many R senators from weed legal states.

I don't know if I would say it died just yet. Knowing these people they won't let it die. They will try to keep this thing alive and use any trick they can to do it. When it's officially dead then we can do a little dance:pink_elep and get to passing the vote.

As was earlier posted, SB1120 was resubmitted this afternoon and got enough votes to pass. Next stop for approval is in a House committee. But the house has a regulatory bill HB3468 for medical marijuana soon up for a vote. Some supporters of SQ 788 approve of it.

Wouldn’t get confirmed. Not a chance. Too many R senators from weed legal states.

I wouldn't be so sure. Their desire to see Mueller fired and the Russia investigation ended may be of higher priority than protecting legal weed.

HB1120 was resubmitted this afternoon and got enough votes to pass. Next stop for approval is the House.

Yeah there is pretty much no way this doesn't pass. I knew SQ 788 was too good to be true for Oklahoma.

I wouldn't be so sure. Their desire to see Mueller fired and the Russia investigation ended may be of higher priority than protecting legal weed.

I promise you it's an extremely high (haaa) priority for Cory Gardner (R-Colorado) who is chair of the Republican Senate Committee. He has enough influence and stroke too sink Pruitt. He has been holding up Sessions' appointments after Sessions' flip flopped.

Yeah there is pretty much no way this doesn't pass. I knew SQ 788 was too good to be true for Oklahoma.

I don't want to get hopeless too soon. I hope the House won't vote on SB1120 and, instead, approve of their own HB3468 as good enough. It is not as restrictive as SB1120. But then would the Senate pass it? I don't know.

As was earlier posted, SB1120 was resubmitted this afternoon and got enough votes to pass. Next stop for approval is in a House committee. But the house has a regulatory bill HB3468 for medical marijuana soon up for a vote. Some supporters of SQ 788 approve of it.

The lesser of two evils. They will kill this if it's the only thing they get done. Prob the most important item on the agenda for a lot of these folks.

They want weed illegal forever so they can keep sending folks to prison and keep the courts tied up. That is how many of them make their money.

They want weed illegal forever so they can keep sending folks to prison and keep the courts tied up. That is how many of them make their money.

I think it goes back to the old saying "Fundamentalism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”

For legalization in Oklahoma, my prediction is take the year that whatever bordering state legalizes last (Kansas, Texas, Arkansas, Missouri), add 20 years and that's when Oklahoma will legalize.

I'm curious, and will eventually look it up, but does anybody know off the top of their head how different SB1120 is from the other states' bills/laws that have legalized MMJ? I'm guessing drastically, just because, for one example, SB1120 doesn't include "smoking" as an acceptable delivery method, and that just can't be in other states' bills/laws.

HB3468 passed the House today 51 to 29. This bill calls for the establishment of a Cannabis Commission and helps build regulatory and implementation structures that SQ788 lacks. Some SQ788 supporters seem to like it, since they think it will get SQ788, if passed, up and running without much delay.

It will be interesting to see how SB1120 and HB3468 conclude. What will Rep. Ritze, chairman of the Public Health Committee do with SB1120, if he gets it? He was the one who saw to it that the Ten Commandments monument was placed outside the state capitol. He was one of the 29 who voted against HB3468.

HB3468 passed the House today 51 to 29. This bill calls for the establishment of a Cannabis Commission and helps build regulatory and implementation structures that SQ788 lacks. Some SQ788 supporters seem to like it, since they think it will get SQ788, if passed, up and running without much delay.

It will be interesting to see how SB1120 and HB3468 conclude. What will Rep. Ritze, chairman of the Public Health Committee do with SB1120, if he gets it? He was the one who saw to it that the Ten Commandments monument was placed outside the state capitol. He was one of the 29 who voted against HB3468.

Hopefully my rep voted for it, I'll have to look for the votes, don't seem to see them yet. It appears that SB1120 and HB3468 are fairly different bills - SB1120 defining conditions, patient/doctor/dispensary/etc. rules, and HB3468 defining the governing structures, agencies and commissions. Have to read them deeper, but that's my first impression, so they could both co-exist, maybe...

Legislators don't need to continue to blow smoke up our asses--cut with the stuffings of turkey dressing disguised as Medical marijuana; put the legalization all in one package of marijuana (cannabis oil, medical & recreational use) to a vote.


https://www.americanhempoil.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/cannabisoil.jpg https://d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/styles/content_image_smaller/public/joints_shutterstock-52960849.jpg?itok=_lbXHRPl http://balkans.aljazeera.net/sites/default/files/styles/d8/public/zz1jzty4mmyyztaxyzcxmwu3odgxotbhmzy4ndq2ywyxzq.jpg ?itok=pDaM5B5w


Think about the revenue our state would benefits from legalization; also be prepared to deal with the vices that accompany legalization.

I'm voting yes, we need the additional revenue & related jobs (farms & law enforcement).

Wake up Oklahoma, illegal weed has been distributed throughout our state for years--we haven't benefited from the revenue. The more you suppress its use, the more the price of the product goes up and the bootleggers get tax free revenue.

Lawmakers pass bills to regulate medical marijuana ahead of ballot measure: http://kfor.com/2018/03/16/lawmakers-pass-bills-to-regulate-medical-marijuana-ahead-of-ballot-measure/

Look at Senator Yen, he looks higher than a Georgia pine.

Wake up Oklahoma, illegal weed has been distributed throughout our state for years--we haven't benefited from the revenue. The more you suppress its use, the more the price of the product goes up and the bootleggers get tax free revenue.

Lawmakers pass bills to regulate medical marijuana ahead of ballot measure: http://kfor.com/2018/03/16/lawmakers-pass-bills-to-regulate-medical-marijuana-ahead-of-ballot-measure/

Look at Senator Yen, he looks higher than a Georgia pine.

Yen is a disgrace to his own profession for trying to mislead people by saying that SQ788 does the same as legalize rec marijuana.

Hopefully my rep voted for it, I'll have to look for the votes, don't seem to see them yet. It appears that SB1120 and HB3468 are fairly different bills - SB1120 defining conditions, patient/doctor/dispensary/etc. rules, and HB3468 defining the governing structures, agencies and commissions. Have to read them deeper, but that's my first impression, so they could both co-exist, maybe...

Rep. Mickey Dollins, whose district is in SW Oklahoma City, has said he will vote no, if SB1120 comes to him. He voted yes on HB3468. He cosponsored a successful bill to okay growing industrial hemp in Oklahoma as it relates to the federal program. From hearing him talk on other issues, he seems to be a brighter than usual legislator. He's a believer in the saying that, "Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come." He sees Oklahoma as not there yet on a number of issues.

Yen is a disgrace to his own profession for trying to mislead people by saying that SQ788 does the same as legalize rec marijuana.

This X2. Seems like with HB3468 passing with such a large margin that perhaps SB1120 is much less likely to pass since it creates so many conflicts. We shall see. With all the attention on the teacher strike, I'm hoping that 788 and associated legislation will fly under the radar without as much strife. Contact your Reps & Senators to voice support!

Yen is a disgrace to his own profession for trying to mislead people by saying that SQ788 does the same as legalize rec marijuana.

I can promise you that I will vote for someone besides him come election time. Hopefully residents will see through his BS and get rid of him.

What bchrist02? Oklahoma isn't on this top 5 list. https://herb.co/marijuana/news/state-legalize-last

What bchrist02? Oklahoma isn't on this top 5 list. https://herb.co/marijuana/news/state-legalize-last

I really think its a crapshoot determining who will legalize it last, especially when talking about the most regressive Bible Belt states. I've seen other lists that do include Oklahoma. Bottom line is it's probably at least a generation away from happening. The current crop of legislators and the voter base that supports them is going to have to fade into the sunset. Once Millennials pull more weight in politics (both in voter turnout and representation) then I think legalization will stand more of a chance. By that point, somewhere between 30-40 states will probably be legal as well so people (hopefully) see that it isn't the end of the world.

Here is an update on current legislation regulating SQ 788(copy and pasted from Oklahomans for Cannabis Facebook Page):


LEGISLATIVE UPDATE:
Currently there are 2 bills trying to make their way through the legislative process to further define specific regulations once 788 passes. Yen’s SB1120 and Jordan’s HB3468. Neither one of them has passed yet.(3468 could be heard in committee soon, so action is needed- read below.)

Yen’s SB1120 is abhorrent and completely undermines the language of 788. Some main points: it creates a very small list of medical qualifications and will leave out many people from even being able to get a medical marijuana card. It doesn’t allow veterans with PTSD or children with epilepsy to be able to use medical cannabis, even with the recommendation of doctors. It severely limits the ability to open a dispensary or growing operation and doesn’t allow home growing whatsoever. Prices for medical marijuana will be set by the regulatory agency. This is merely scratching the surface of issues with this bill. It is vital for you to voice your opposition against Senator Yen’s SB1120 to your legislators.

However, J.P. Jordan’s HB3468 is completely different. It protects the original language of 788. There isn’t a list of qualifying conditions, so even rare disease patients can have access. Pediatric use is permitted with the recommendation of two doctors, indoor home growing is available with a personal production license. Licenses for dispensaries, growing operations, manufacturers and testing labs are not limited and are each set at a low $2500 license fee. Instead of putting oversight with a regulatory agency, like the Department of Health, 3468 would create the Oklahoma Cannabis Commission to oversee the medical marijuana program in Oklahoma. The seats of the commission will be comprised of doctors, law-enforcement officers, accountants, etc. Thankfully, we secured that five of the seats would at least need to be represented by Oklahomans in the industry who have licenses for dispensaries, growing operations, etc. This will ensure that patients and business owners have proper representation on the commission.

The current governor will appoint the first seats, then the new governor will appoint the seats of the licensed business owners. While appointed positions are not our ideal choice, this will allow implementation of the program much faster than if the seats were to be elected (could possibly add another year or two to the process). At the end of the day, the core language of 788 is protected, and the commission will not be able to change that. So the important facets already established are going to remain the same.

For these reasons, we hope to see HB3468 pass and SB1120 fail. 1120 already seems to be dead with little support, but 3468 might have trouble getting through if not enough support is behind it. Please touch base with you legislators and show your support for Jordan’s HB3468. It is supposed to be on the schedule today, if not sometime this week. If it is not heard this week, session will be closed and there will likely need to be a special session conducted once 788 passes. At that time, the legislature will need to meet to create a bill for regulation of 788. There are many unknowns with that outcome, so we would prefer to see 3468 to be passed now instead of the alternative.

To get this to happen, we need you to Contact the Majority Floor Leader Senator Greg Treat. Politely ask him to have HB3468 moved to be heard on the senate floor so it will not be stalled.

Here is Senator Treat's E-Mail and phone number. If the voicemail is full, email him! Get it in writing.

Senator Greg Treat
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Rm. 418
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405) 521-5632
Treat@oksenate.gov
Executive Assistant: Janet Muller

- https://www.facebook.com/voteyeson788/posts/996786067152465

Just a few links included:

How to find your legislators: http://www.oklegislature.gov/FindMyLegislature.aspx

OR Text your zip code to 520-363-3014 and it will send you their numbers!

Read the text of HB3468 here: http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2017-18%20ENGR/hB/HB3468%20ENGR.PDF'

Read the text of SB1120 here: http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2017-18%20ENGR/SB/SB1120%20ENGR.PDF

I also asked on that same Facebook post if they plan on addressing these concerns from the Chamber of OKC CEO who came out against SQ 788


Our concern with SQ 788 (medical marijuana) is as the proposition exists, it is very detrimental to employers because they would have no legal recourse against employees using recreational marijuana that would impair them at work. That would create huge liabilities for employers. We support medical marijuana but we do not support recreational marijuana due to impact on employers and this proposition is recreational marijuana.

- http://newsok.com/okc-central-chat-transcript-april-6-2018-with-special-guest-roy-williams/article/5589859

What he said is a valid concern but he lost me when he said he doesn't support recreational weed. Never the less, his concern is still valid about the employers having recourse I am curious if there are plans to address this as it would be nice to have support from the city for this bill. Does anyone know the position the city government of Tulsa is on this?

I also asked on that same Facebook post if they plan on addressing these concerns from the Chamber of OKC CEO who came out against SQ 788



What he said is a valid concern but he lost me when he said he doesn't support recreational weed. Never the less, his concern is still valid about the employers having recourse I am curious if there are plans to address this as it would be nice to have support from the city for this bill. Does anyone know the position the city government of Tulsa is on this?

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see why people think this. Here's what SQ788 says about employers:

SECTION 6. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section
425 of Title 63, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
A. No school or landlord may refuse to enroll or lease to and may not otherwise penalize a person
solely for his status as a medical marijuana license holder, unless failing to do so would imminently cause
the school or landlord to lose a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations.
B. Unless a failure to do so would cause an employer to imminently lose a monetary or licensing
related benefit under federal law or regulations, an employer may not discriminate against a person in
hiring, termination or imposing any term or condition of employment or otherwise penalize a person
based upon either:
1. The person's status as a medical marijuana license holder; or
2. Employers may take action against a holder of a medical marijuana license holder if the
holder uses or possesses marijuana while in the holder's place of employment or during
the hours of employment. Employers may not take action against the holder of a medical
marijuana license solely based upon the status of an employee as a medical marijuana
license holder or the results of a drug test showing positive for marijuana or its
components.

You can read more here: https://yeson788.com/sq-788

If they test positive at work: no recourse.

If they are impaired at work: same recourse as they have now.

That's my understanding, and I don't have an issue with that.

My concern is something I don't know.... how long can you test positive for after smoking?

I read that as basically having to catch them in the act. At least as far as I've ever been told, you are basically going to test the same 12 hours after smoking as you will ten minutes after. And in fact THC stays in your system for a month or more. So if you have no recourse based on testing, you are going to have to literally witness consumption. This is really concerning for someone who hires people to operate equipment, drive conveyances, etc., because it opens the door to people doing so while under the influence, which holds incredible liability for the employer and for the public in general.

They responded to me on Facebook and said it isn’t an issue because Oklahoma is a right to work to state which makes sense to me.

I read that as basically having to catch them in the act. At least as far as I've ever been told, you are basically going to test the same 12 hours after smoking as you will ten minutes after. And in fact THC stays in your system for a month or more. So if you have no recourse based on testing, you are going to have to literally witness consumption. This is really concerning for someone who hires people to operate equipment, drive conveyances, etc., because it opens the door to people doing so while under the influence, which holds incredible liability for the employer and for the public in general.

It's going to take time for people to get comfortable with the idea that Cannabis can be freely consumed outside of work. Alcohol is legal, easily available, far more impairing than cannabis ,and is even sometimes consumed by folks at work. Heck, even a bus driver or heavy machinery operator would generally be allowed to drink off duty with enough buffer time between drinking and working. Most people are able to handle this temptation responsibly and not drink on the job. Why should cannabis consumption be treated any differently? There are already rules in place to punish those who are intoxicated at work. Cannabis is safer (by a huge huge margin), less intoxicating, has little to no physical side effects and doesn't produce hang over effects nearly as significant as alcohol (many people do no experience any hang over effect). Hopefully people will become comfortable over time with the idea of an employee enjoying a joint or an edible outside of work. Until then, I guess cannabis users will have to wait until there is a more accurate test if they choose to work at a job with a strict drug policy.

The problem is you can test for alcohol and be fairly accurate and find out if someone was drinking at work (say at lunch). I don't know if it's possible with Marijuana. Someone smoking a bowl at midnight before work shouldn't be terminated or treated like they're under the influence.

I read that as basically having to catch them in the act. At least as far as I've ever been told, you are basically going to test the same 12 hours after smoking as you will ten minutes after. And in fact THC stays in your system for a month or more. So if you have no recourse based on testing, you are going to have to literally witness consumption. This is really concerning for someone who hires people to operate equipment, drive conveyances, etc., because it opens the door to people doing so while under the influence, which holds incredible liability for the employer and for the public in general.

This also presents unbalanced standard as drugs like cocaine, heroine, and methamphetamines rarely test positive in a urine test for a casual user. So you could have a casual user have a coke party on a Friday night and test clean on Monday. Or a casual user smokes a perfectly legal MJ cigarette on a Friday and tests positive 3 weeks later. There’s also the poppy seed defense, the Zantac defense, and a small handful of other successfully litigated false positive defenses for the more hardcore drugs. There have been advances in mouth swabs for delta 9 THC (the compound that produced mind altering effects) rather than the thc metabolites that stay in your system for up to months depending on your metabolic rate/age/weight etc. The mouth swabs are supposed to detect if you consumed thc within the last 2-8 hours, but they are not universally reliable yet.

They responded to me on Facebook and said it isn’t an issue because Oklahoma is a right to work to state which makes sense to me.

Sounds like a bunch or worry warts trying to find something to worry about.

I read that as basically having to catch them in the act. At least as far as I've ever been told, you are basically going to test the same 12 hours after smoking as you will ten minutes after. And in fact THC stays in your system for a month or more. So if you have no recourse based on testing, you are going to have to literally witness consumption. This is really concerning for someone who hires people to operate equipment, drive conveyances, etc., because it opens the door to people doing so while under the influence, which holds incredible liability for the employer and for the public in general.

I think the solution is for employers that have a zero tolerance policy on cannabis to be up front about that. Many employers these days are refusing to hire tobacco smokers and if that is the case, they typically say that in their job description. Why couldn't they do the same for cannabis?

To me, this is just another BS excuse to keep it illegal. The real reason it isn't legalized is the trifecta of Big Pharma, the private prison industry, and the Christian Right.

Sounds like a bunch or worry warts trying to find something to worry about.

It also means that they can fire you for any illegal reason they want, as long as they put something else on the paperwork.

There really is no need to worry about testing. Fire someone for being under the influence if they are under the influence.

How do businesses deal with employees who show up to work drunk or smelling of alcohol? Do they all keep a breathalyzer in their office, or do they take them to employee health for a blood alcohol lab draw? Or do they document that they smelled like alcohol and were unable to perform their job at that time because they were impaired?

I think the solution is for employers that have a zero tolerance policy on cannabis to be up front about that. Many employers these days are refusing to hire tobacco smokers and if that is the case, they typically say that in their job description. Why couldn't they do the same for cannabis?

Because if the SQ passes, saying "we don't hire medicinal cannabis users" would be like saying "we won't hire antidepressant users" or "we won't hire statin users". You can't discriminate against someone using a legitimate medical treatment protected by law.

But we don't even have to look at alcohol for how to deal with this. Opioids already fall under this procection, and you will test positive for them even if you are not currently impaired by them. If I take a valid lortab after work, and then report back 12 hours later, I will test just as positive as the guy who shot up fentanyl in the parking lot before coming into the building. The guy who isn't impaired at work won't have a problem, and the guy who is doped up at work will quickly be found out. If you test positive on a random drug test you show your valid prescription for whatever you tested positive for, or you get fired. If you are impaired at work, you get fired. It's pretty simple stuff.

If the company is large enough and has an established HR and policy, if they suspect someone is drunk they will send them to the lab, typically. If they can tell someone is impaired they may just warn them based on that.

If the company is large enough and has an established HR and policy, if they suspect someone is drunk they will send them to the lab, typically. If they can tell someone is impaired they may just warn them based on that.

When I was management for a fast food chain, if someone on the clock was suspected of illegal drug use or alcohol intoxication, they were either escorted to a local lab facility for a urinalysis, or a district/regional manager would have the employee use a saliva swab test similar to the Alere iScreen OFD. They also had a similar swab to test for blood alcohol concentration. Any positive result without a satisfactory explanation would result in immediate termination.

I think some people posting here are missing the point entirely (other than jerrywall). If it were truly legal I personally would not want to terminate a legal user any more than I’d want to terminate on Monday the guy who had beers on the golf course on Saturday afternoon). So long as it’s legal I’d prefer that what he does on his own time is not my business. Especially if it’s medical.

But under no circumstances can a responsible company have either type of user intoxicated and driving a forklift, or a bus, or whatever. Problem is unless you catch them in the act, you can’t tell the guy who smoked yesterday afternoon from the guy who smoked today at lunch. If you suspect someone came back from lunch drunk (smelling of alcohol, whatever) a company sends them for a test immediately. If they’re intoxicated, they’re fired. But that won’t work with weed.

Also, there is liability. If someone crashes the bus or drops a pallet off of the forklift they get tested. If The company was allowing them to work under the influence, the company has liability. But the company can’t tell if someone smoked over the weekend, or at lunch.

This isn’t an imaginary problem, or the territory of “worry warts,” it’s a real issue that will face employers, and already IS a problem in states where weed is legal, according to articles like this one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/05/17/companies-need-workers-but-people-keep-getting-high/?utm_term=.de1a9ae8ab84

But, if you bother to click on that article you will also see that even in states where it is legal companies are still testing - especially those who could have employees operating equipment, etc., - and those companies are simply maintaining a zero tolerance to weed. Federal law seems to be protecting the employers taking this position, in part because its use is still actually illegal, from a federal standpoint.

That's why I was thinking that comparing it to policies about say, Lortab, might be a better comparison.

A drug test is going to pop positive for opiates, regardless of popping them at work or popping one the evening before. I don't know if either opiates or cannabinoids have any reliable quantitative tests out there that could be used to determine acute intoxication.

Are there legal prescription drugs that would cause a positive result in a drug screen? Or have they gotten more accurate. I remember when poppy seeds could cause a false positive but I thought I'd heard they've gotten more accurate.

I also asked on that same Facebook post if they plan on addressing these concerns from the Chamber of OKC CEO who came out against SQ 788



What he said is a valid concern but he lost me when he said he doesn't support recreational weed. Never the less, his concern is still valid about the employers having recourse I am curious if there are plans to address this as it would be nice to have support from the city for this bill. Does anyone know the position the city government of Tulsa is on this?

But make no doubt about it, the Chamber of Commerce is all wrong to think SQ788 is the same as rec marijuana. This is because I have never heard in other states where using rec marijuana required a doctor's approval. If an employee without a med. marijuana doctor's approval comes to work high on marijuana, the employer would have just as much right to fire the employee as one who came to work drunk.

Under SQ 788, employers may take action against a holder of a medical marijuana license holder if the holder uses or possesses marijuana while in the holder's place of employment or during the hours of employment.

I think some people posting here are missing the point entirely (other than jerrywall). If it were truly legal I personally would not want to terminate a legal user any more than I’d want to terminate on Monday the guy who had beers on the golf course on Saturday afternoon). So long as it’s legal I’d prefer that what he does on his own time is not my business. Especially if it’s medical.

But under no circumstances can a responsible company have either type of user intoxicated and driving a forklift, or a bus, or whatever. Problem is unless you catch them in the act, you can’t tell the guy who smoked yesterday afternoon from the guy who smoked today at lunch. If you suspect someone came back from lunch drunk (smelling of alcohol, whatever) a company sends them for a test immediately. If they’re intoxicated, they’re fired. But that won’t work with weed.

Also, there is liability. If someone crashes the bus or drops a pallet off of the forklift they get tested. If The company was allowing them to work under the influence, the company has liability. But the company can’t tell if someone smoked over the weekend, or at lunch.

This isn’t an imaginary problem, or the territory of “worry warts,” it’s a real issue that will face employers, and already IS a problem in states where weed is legal, according to articles like this one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/05/17/companies-need-workers-but-people-keep-getting-high/?utm_term=.de1a9ae8ab84

But, if you bother to click on that article you will also see that even in states where it is legal companies are still testing - especially those who could have employees operating equipment, etc., - and those companies are simply maintaining a zero tolerance to weed. Federal law seems to be protecting the employers taking this position, in part because its use is still actually illegal, from a federal standpoint.
So then it should really be a non issue. Until the federal government and CDC or FDA comes out and declares marijuana of medicinal value and people can be prescribed it with no other drug having the benefits cannabis has, live and let live. If you're an employer who has personal beliefs against marijuana or simply doesn't want the liability then as BChris said be up front and there shouldn't be any issues. After all, Oklahoma is a right to work state, so you can be fired with no reason given?

Well, it’s not personal beliefs. Personally, my beliefs are pretty liberal (or more properly small “L” libertarian) when it comes to weed. I have no problem with it, really. I say legalize it and tax it, just like we do booze.

But as an employer I’d be forced to be intolerant even in a legal marijuana environment because my emoloyees could harm others if working when high, and unlike booze, a drug test isn’t a reliable way to tell me if an employee smoked an hour ago or two days ago. When it comes to booze, I’d happily buy my employee a beer, after work of course.

For the record, I would probably partake in a recreational state (even though I probably wouldn’t do it if it involved ID scanning, as it is still totally illegal from a federal perspective and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if federal enforcement began again based on political winds).

BUT even though I’ve had several opportunities in places like Oregon and Colorado, I haven’t. The reason for this is that I drug test prospective employees and would not hire someone who tested positive, and would fire a current employee who did same. I don’t want to be a hypocrite. Doesn’t mean I’m against weed though.

I understand I respect employers rights to do that. I don't like the Chamber of Commerce for OKC president telling people they don't support this initiative because employers have no recourse which doesn't seem to be true.

Having lived in CO for several years now with recreational pot allowed, there haven't been a huge number of publicized problems with it - - especially since they have closed the majority of loopholes associated with the original NORML law.
As I've said before, the biggest issue left open is the one of still-pervasive illegal grow houses that have shown up all across the area including affluent neighborhoods. These illegal gow houses are homes, often large ones, that are rented out to growers who fill them with plants, grow lights and ventilation. The people growing the pot are often associated with crime organizations and are armed and dangerous. The houses are easy for neighbors to spot because they gjve off the smell of skunk. There is often other illegal activity in the houses such as hash oil or meth cooking.
The authorities can shut them down and arrest those working the operations but home owners can simply plead ignorance - then, a month later, the house is full of pot again. Suspicions are then the house owner is lart of the growing operation. This is still being considered on how to handle by the state.
Finally, the issue of employment and pot. There are the obvious ones, like operating heavy machinery under the influence. But there are many other cases where all of you, even the users of you out there must ask yourself honestly. Would you want your financial advisor under the influence? would you want your CPA? Your doctor or surgeon? Nurse? Pharmacist? Your Uber driver? Airplane pilot? Architect or engjneer? Rocket scientists? The point is, there must be laws allowing employers to forbid the use and/or be under the influence of pot even if it had been days prior.
Otherwise, I've concluded that for many/most other jobs, legality hasn't been a big problem. And, I am areal proponent of medical pot legality as long as a Doctor prescribes AND A PHARMACY DISPENSES. Otherwise, CO's time as a medical pot only state proved it is a joke. A handful of Doctors will prescribe 90% or more of the licenses and the vast majority of users will be white males between ages 20 and 40.

Having lived in CO for several years now with recreational pot allowed, there haven't been a huge number of publicized problems with it - - especially since they have closed the majority of loopholes associated with the original NORML law.
As I've said before, the biggest issue left open is the one of still-pervasive illegal grow houses that have shown up all across the area including affluent neighborhoods. These illegal gow houses are homes, often large ones, that are rented out to growers who fill them with plants, grow lights and ventilation. The people growing the pot are often associated with crime organizations and are armed and dangerous. The houses are easy for neighbors to spot because they gjve off the smell of skunk. There is often other illegal activity in the houses such as hash oil or meth cooking.
The authorities can shut them down and arrest those working the operations but home owners can simply plead ignorance - then, a month later, the house is full of pot again. Suspicions are then the house owner is lart of the growing operation. This is still being considered on how to handle by the state.
Finally, the issue of employment and pot. There are the obvious ones, like operating heavy machinery under the influence. But there are many other cases where all of you, even the users of you out there must ask yourself honestly. Would you want your financial advisor under the influence? would you want your CPA? Your doctor or surgeon? Nurse? Pharmacist? Your Uber driver? Airplane pilot? Architect or engjneer? Rocket scientists? The point is, there must be laws allowing employers to forbid the use and/or be under the influence of pot even if it had been days prior.
Otherwise, I've concluded that for many/most other jobs, legality hasn't been a big problem. And, I am areal proponent of medical pot legality as long as a Doctor prescribes AND A PHARMACY DISPENSES. Otherwise, CO's time as a medical pot only state proved it is a joke. A handful of Doctors will prescribe 90% or more of the licenses and the vast majority of users will be white males between ages 20 and 40.

I agree with this.

For recreational, employers should be able to have a zero-tolerance policy and test for it but they should be required to disclose it. That way, employees know the risk if they decide to toke up and they work for an employer that has a zero-tolerance policy and it prevents people from being blindsided and losing their job. For medical, it's a little more complicated.

Anyways, I thought the OKC chamber was pro-medical but anti-recreational?

Having lived in CO for several years now with recreational pot allowed, there haven't been a huge number of publicized problems with it - - especially since they have closed the majority of loopholes associated with the original NORML law.
As I've said before, the biggest issue left open is the one of still-pervasive illegal grow houses that have shown up all across the area including affluent neighborhoods. These illegal gow houses are homes, often large ones, that are rented out to growers who fill them with plants, grow lights and ventilation. The people growing the pot are often associated with crime organizations and are armed and dangerous. The houses are easy for neighbors to spot because they gjve off the smell of skunk. There is often other illegal activity in the houses such as hash oil or meth cooking.
The authorities can shut them down and arrest those working the operations but home owners can simply plead ignorance - then, a month later, the house is full of pot again. Suspicions are then the house owner is lart of the growing operation. This is still being considered on how to handle by the state.
Finally, the issue of employment and pot. There are the obvious ones, like operating heavy machinery under the influence. But there are many other cases where all of you, even the users of you out there must ask yourself honestly. Would you want your financial advisor under the influence? would you want your CPA? Your doctor or surgeon? Nurse? Pharmacist? Your Uber driver? Airplane pilot? Architect or engjneer? Rocket scientists? The point is, there must be laws allowing employers to forbid the use and/or be under the influence of pot even if it had been days prior.
Otherwise, I've concluded that for many/most other jobs, legality hasn't been a big problem. And, I am areal proponent of medical pot legality as long as a Doctor prescribes AND A PHARMACY DISPENSES. Otherwise, CO's time as a medical pot only state proved it is a joke. A handful of Doctors will prescribe 90% or more of the licenses and the vast majority of users will be white males between ages 20 and 40.
That is how it was in California before recreational took place. You could get a card just by saying you had anxiety and that was all there was to it. They'd say okay and give it you. Not that I'd know. :rolleyes:

Anyways, I thought the OKC chamber was pro-medical but anti-recreational?

The Chamber of Commerce CEO said he supported medical but came out against 788 because in his view it was recreational but first said his primary concern was with the employment issue. It seems to me now, he isn't that wild about the whole thing at all.

I think some people posting here are missing the point entirely (other than jerrywall). If it were truly legal I personally would not want to terminate a legal user any more than I’d want to terminate on Monday the guy who had beers on the golf course on Saturday afternoon). So long as it’s legal I’d prefer that what he does on his own time is not my business. Especially if it’s medical.

But under no circumstances can a responsible company have either type of user intoxicated and driving a forklift, or a bus, or whatever. Problem is unless you catch them in the act, you can’t tell the guy who smoked yesterday afternoon from the guy who smoked today at lunch. If you suspect someone came back from lunch drunk (smelling of alcohol, whatever) a company sends them for a test immediately. If they’re intoxicated, they’re fired. But that won’t work with weed.

Also, there is liability. If someone crashes the bus or drops a pallet off of the forklift they get tested. If The company was allowing them to work under the influence, the company has liability. But the company can’t tell if someone smoked over the weekend, or at lunch.

This isn’t an imaginary problem, or the territory of “worry warts,” it’s a real issue that will face employers, and already IS a problem in states where weed is legal, according to articles like this one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/05/17/companies-need-workers-but-people-keep-getting-high/?utm_term=.de1a9ae8ab84

But, if you bother to click on that article you will also see that even in states where it is legal companies are still testing - especially those who could have employees operating equipment, etc., - and those companies are simply maintaining a zero tolerance to weed. Federal law seems to be protecting the employers taking this position, in part because its use is still actually illegal, from a federal standpoint.


I believe that article is referencing Recreational MJ for the most part. Big difference between MMJ and recreational.

^^^^^^^
You’re correct that the main point of the article is how tough it is to find employees who can pass drug tests in recreational use states. But in doing so it also underscores the points I’m making, which is that marihuana use (even medical) is not protected by employment law, and that owing to the length of time MJ stays in your system employers have a difficult time discerning who is high right now vs who smoked over the weekend or whatever, so even in recreational states most employers just have strict no-tolerance policies.

For the record, companies which have employees operating heavy equipment, driving conveyances, or using motor/technical skills that impact public safety also can test for and deny employment to people who use legally-prescribed opioids, etc.

^^^^^^^
You’re correct that the main point of the article is how tough it is to find employees who can pass drug tests in recreational use states. But in doing so it also underscores the points I’m making, which is that marihuana use (even medical) is not protected by employment law, and that owing to the length of time MJ stays in your system employers have a difficult time discerning who is high right now vs who smoked over the weekend or whatever, so even in recreational states most employers just have strict no-tolerance policies.

For the record, companies which have employees operating heavy equipment, driving conveyances, or using motor/technical skills that impact public safety also can test for and deny employment to people who use legally-prescribed opioids, etc.

I'm sure that someone will come up with a test that can measure the amount of THC is in a persons system at any point in time. I don't see why that would be an impossible task. If there is a need for it some co. will come up with an accurate test and make a fortune.

I'm sure that someone will come up with a test that can measure the amount of THC is in a persons system at any point in time. I don't see why that would be an impossible task. If there is a need for it some co. will come up with an accurate test and make a fortune.

Cannabix has created a "breathalyzer" for weed:
http://www.cannabixtechnologies.com/

I'm sure that someone will come up with a test that can measure the amount of THC is in a persons system at any point in time. I don't see why that would be an impossible task. If there is a need for it some co. will come up with an accurate test and make a fortune.

Don't the current tests already do that? And the problem isn't determining the amount of THC in a person's system, it's whether or not they're impaired by that amount at the time of the test, isn't it? And that's where it starts to get messy... Other states have most likely figured some part of this out, so we need to follow their leads, not try to figure it out ourselves.