SUMMARY: House Bill 2939, Sponsored by Senator GIROD; Representative GILLIAM, Relating to drugs in the workplace. Expands ability of employer to prohibit use of medical marijuana in workplace.

STATUS:

02/02 (S) Introduction and first reading. Referred to President's desk.

02/09 (S) Referred to Commerce and Workforce Development.

HB 2939 and HB 427 (both are fire'em all bills) have been assigned to the House Commerce and Workforce Development. This committee is chaired by a good friend of ours, Diane Rosenbaum and includes Floyd Prozanski another friendly voice. There are two other D's on the committee so we may have some luck bottling up these two outrageously discriminatory bills. Let all of these folks know why these bills should not be heard or defeated if heard.

Commerce and Workforce Development

Membership:
Diane Rosenbaum, Chair ( sen.dianerosenbaum@state.or.us )
Chris Telfer, Vice-Chair ( sen.christelfer@state.or.us )
Larry George ( sen.larrygeorge@state.or.us )
Laurie Monnes Anderson ( sen.lauriemonnesanderson@state.or.us )
Floyd Prozanski ( sen.floydprozanski@state.or.us )

Staffing:
Jeremy Sarant
Pam Marshall

Here is a link to HB 2939:   http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measures/HB0400.dir/HB02939.intro.html

-Steve
----
well, no.

Washburn wasn't. Washburn was a patient and the Oregon Supreme Court held his was not a disability recognized by the ODA or the ADA.

The legal definition of disabled, under the Oregonians with Disabilities Act is read in lockstep with the federal definition under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). That is one of the decisions the Oregon Supreme Court made in Washburn.

The lead US Supreme Court Case defining disabilities for purposes of the ADA is /Sutton v. United Airlines /where the Court held that a person is not disabled under federal disability law if a mitigating measure will alleviate an otherwise substantial limitation to a major life activity. (There, eyeglasses for near sightedness)

The Court of Appeals decision in /Emerald Steel/, relied on by Mike and others in support of the notion that the use of medical cannabis by OMMA patients is not 'unlawful'. The Court in /Emerald Steel/ ruled that the company had failed to preserve any issues for appeal which is to say that nothing in the opinion is binding or controlling on anybody or any issue.

The problem, of course, is that unlike disability acts, laws relating to the medical use of therapeutic cannabis are not read in lockstep. Federal law prohibits the use of medical cannabis. The US Supreme Court has ruled that medical necessity is not a defense to an effort by the federal government to enjoin the distribution of medical cannabis (/US v. OCBC/) and that Congress acted within its authority under the commerce clause in criminalizing the wholly intrastate cultivation, possession and distribution of medical cannabis. (/Raich v Gonzales/).

Whether the existing OMMA provision regarding employment violates the ADA (and the ODA) is an interesting question, however, and one left unresolved by /Washburn /and /Emerald Steel/. It is not a thing which can be fixed by rule change, however. It will take statutory change.

How to reconcile all this with the Federal Drug Free Workplace Act is where things get really sticky, however.

How is an employer who contracts with the Federal government, and whose contract requires a drug free workplace, supposed to comply with that contract provision, if, as Mike suggests, enforcement of the OMMA provision excusing the employer from accommodating onsite use violates the ADA and the ODA?

Lee Berger, Portland

"How is an employer who contracts with the Federal government, and whose contract requires a drug free workplace, supposed to comply with that contract provision, if, as Mike suggests, enforcement of the OMMA provision excusing the employer from accommodating on site use violates the ADA and the ODA?"

I think this is the best question posed on this discussion and the root of their (AOI's group) concerns. In addition to this being a thinly veiled attack on a lifestyle choice, this issue highlights the stark conflict between the federal governments views on cannabis and the reality of the drug.

Impairment is the underlying issue and is addressed in AOI's bill, I believe that once again Oregon can be on the forefront of change by shifting to an impairment based test versus archaic UA's that only provide a sense of safety.

In my meetings with legislators who were in support of AOI's bill, liability was the resounding theme-whether it's the liability of firing, or their perceived liability of MMJ patients in the work place. The resounding solution to their concerns and ours is Impairment Testing. For further information and to print out MAMA's "Choose Real Safety" go to: http://www.mamas.org/publish.html.

Now is the time to contact your representatives and tell them that we need to CHOOSE REAL SAFETY in the work place to protect everyone on the job.

Thanks for keeping an eye on this Lee,

Daniel