How To Get Your Card in Oregon, USA. How To Get Your Card elsewhere in the USA, and around the World, also.

Welcome to MERCYs Legislation Station, the Medical Cannabis Resource Center Legislation Info index page
  Home   |   About   |   Contact   |   Donate   |   GuestBook   |   Action   |   Library   |   OMMA   |   Biz   |   Links   |   News   |   Legislation   |   Events   |   Calendar   |   Orgz   |   MERCY-TV   |   The MERCY Gift Shop   >>

[ Also this Session >     S.B.294   |   S.B.397   |   S.B.717   |   S.B.772   |   S.B.1085   |   H.B.2485   |   H.B.2693   |   H.B.2695   |   H.B.3457   |   H.B.5077   |   Legis Issues Home page   ]
MERCYs H.B.2693 page

MERCYs' public info on House Bill 2693 as well as any related Issues.
Got a related item? Also Bulletin Board so you, too, can add to the body of knowledge.

[ This Bill >     Summary   |   Status   |   Details   |   Analysis   |   Letter Examples   |   Links   |   Bulliten Board   |   e-Mail   ]

Protect medical marijuana patients' right to work

H.B. 2693 Heads to House Vote

Oregon's medical marijuana patients could soon fear losing their jobs for going to work sober.  You read that right. H.B. 2693-2 - which is moving to the House floor - would allow employers to fire medical marijuana patients simply for having marijuana metabolites in their system.   They need not even be actually under the influence to lose their jobs.  We need your help to stop this reckless legislation in its tracks.

Please take a moment to urge your representative to vote against H.B. 2693-2.  Contact your rep and demand an end to this contempt and disregard for Oregon Medical Marijuana Program participants.  HB 2693 was intended to insure the protection of patients’ rights under the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act, but has been changed to make employment more difficult for those who legally use cannabis as medicine in Oregon.

This bill would make it very hard for a medical marijuana patient to find or keep employment.  We urge you to call or write your Representatives and let them know how you feel about this bill.  You may want to let and Senator know as well.

The clear intent of this law is to overrule Washburn v. Columbia Forest Products, Inc., 197 Or App 104 (2005), and allow employers to discriminate against medical cannabis patients simply by virtue of their status as patients.

This bill has passed out of House Judiciary with a do pass recommendation on June 17.  This is a House bill, the Judiciary staff is waiting for the return of the fiscal impact statement from the fiscal office and when it arrives, the bill will be sent to Speaker's office for scheduling for a floor vote.  So all this means that we have a chance and to write more letters

We suggest everyone let the House know we don't like it one bit.  If it passes the House we hope to stop it in the Senate but trying to stop it in the House is certainly worth a letter and a call.  Plus it will give us a warm-up in case it (unlikely) gets a Senate hearing.

Let's take this opportunity to kill this bill before it reaches the Senate.  Send a letter to the House and when/if it passes the House on a Party line vote; then work to kill it in the Senate.

Communications with our House friends allow that they would not gauge the flow of anti-2693 comments as anywhere near compelling attention the issue- basically if there is not enough mail for them to notice it, it is not enough mail.

We really do think we had better get our anti-2693 message out in numbers that get their attention- for comparison, last session Jeff Kruse's aide Diane allowed that on some days every call to her office was one opposing 2939.  That is the kind of input which gets the right output!

This bill needs to be kicked down right there in the House.  Please start kicking and help kill this bill.

Thanks!

The folks at the MERCY Center.

the Text

Attached are the dash2 amendments to 2969. for those unable to open *.pdf files it amends 475.340, thusly:

Currently the statute reads:

475.340 Limitations on reimbursement of costs and employer accommodation.

Nothing in ORS 475.300 to 475.346 shall be construed to require:

(1) A government medical assistance program or private health insurer to reimburse a person for costs associated with the medical use of marijuana; or

(2) An employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any workplace.

[1999 c.4 §16]

The proposed amendment would make it read

475.340 Limitations on reimbursement of costs and employer accommodation.

Nothing in ORS 475.300 to 475.346 shall be construed to

(1) Require a government medical assistance program or private health insurer to reimburse a person for costs associated with the medical use of marijuana;

(2) Require an employer to:

(a) Accommodate the medical use of marijuana regardless of where the use occurs;

(b) Allow an employee or independent contractor to possess, to consume or to be impaired by the use of marijuana during working hours; or

(c) Allow any person who is impaired by the use of marijuana to remain in any workplace.

(3) Preclude or restrict an employer from establishing or enforcing a policy to achieve or maintain a drug free workforce.


Click here for current text.  The bill in its original version (which was later gutted and stuffed with amendments) can be found in links section.

WHAT THE MEASURE DOES:  Provides that having evidence of marijuana in ones system qualifies as medical use of marijuana.

(-2)  Deletes provision that defines the medical use of marijuana to include having evidence of marijuana in ones system.   Clarifies that employers are not required to accommodate the use of medical marijuana, regardless of whether it happens.  Provides that employers are not required to either allow an employee or independent contractor to possess, consume, or be impaired by the use of marijuana during working hours, or allow any person who is impaired by use of marijuana to remain in any workplace.

BACKGROUND:  Currently the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act (OMMA) provides that employers are not required to make accommodations for the medical use of marijuana at the workplace.  The scope of the employer accommodation statute was addressed in a recent Court of Appeals decision, Washburn v. Columbia Forest Products, Inc., 197 Or App 104 (2005).  In that case the Court of Appeals held that medical use of marijuana does not include an employee's positive urine test because that does not fit the definition of "use" in the OMMA.  Unlike testing for alcohol use, there is not a test that can positively identify whether an individual is under the influence of marijuana.  A urine test only indicates that an individual has used marijuana within the past 30 days.  Therefore, in order for the non accommodation statute to apply an employer must show that an employee used marijuana at the work place.   Obviously, this would include the situation where the employer observes the employee using marijuana, but would more likely be based on subjective observable factors indicating that an employee is impaired.

HB 2693 removes the slim protections that medical marijuana patients have when seeking or keeping employment.  For many medical marijuana patients their use of medical marijuana is the only thing that makes it possible for them to work at all.  If what little protections they have are eliminated, as HB 2693 will do, then we might as well add the use of medical marijuana to the list of things that constitute disability for the purposes of determination of disability for acceptance by state or federal disability programs.

H.B. 2693-2 was originally a benign bill that sought to clarify provisions related to the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program (OMMP).  It has since been amended to expand Oregon law and allow employers to discriminate in employment decisions based on a medical marijuana patient's actions outside the workplace.

*  Currently, an employer is not required to accommodate the use of medical marijuana "in any workplace."

*  H.B. 2693-2 states that an employer is not required to accommodate the use of medical marijuana "regardless of where the use occurs."   It goes on to restrict the use of medical marijuana "during working hours," and prohibits employees from being "impaired" on the job.   The bill concludes that nothing in the OMMP restricts an employer from maintaining a "drug free workforce."

These broad and undefined terms could render any trace of marijuana in the system as grounds for dismissal.  We need your help to stop the House from adopting these extremely vague standards.

The intent of H.B. 2693-2 is to overturn the Oregon Court of Appeals' decision in Washburn v. Columbia Forest Products, Inc.  In a carefully considered opinion, the court held that simply having evidence of marijuana use in one's system is not use of marijuana "in any workplace."  A contrary ruling would eliminate the right of medical marijuana patients to work, which is exactly what H.B. 2693-2 intends to do.

Protect the right of medical marijuana patients to work, and tell your representative to vote against H.B. 2693-2.

Thank you and please take a moment to pass this message along to your friends and family in Oregon, so they too can speak out in defense of the rights of medical marijuana patients.

Let's kill H.B. 2693-2

Talking Points

WHAT THEY SAY

----- Original Message -----
From: Rep Flores
Sent: 6/23/2005 4:04:31 PM
Subject: RE: Just Say NO to House Bill 2693

This is a bill that is meant to protect workers who are employed in dangerous environments.  It is not meant to allow for a cleansing of the workplace as you stated.  Marijuana is a drug that we do not have much information or guidance on regarding dosage and side effects.  The intent is for employers who feel their workers would be in harms way while exposed to this drug to allow them to protect them and their other workers.

Under current law they are not able to do this and it would help them keep the workplace safe.

Sincerely,

Peter Coyl
Legislative Intern
Rep. Linda Flores

----- Original Message -----

Thank you for contacting my office and letting me know your thoughts about House Bill 2693.  I appreciate your input, and will rely on it when deciding how to vote on bills relating to the issue of medical marijuana.  I have documented your opinion along with a copy of your email in my bill file for House Bill 2693.

We will add your email address to our list serve for our email newsletter.  The newsletter will keep you informed about WHAT is happening in the legislature, and attempt to explain WHY.

Thanks again for taking the time to get in touch with me and share your input.  Please feel free to contact our office anytime.

Melissa P. White
Chief of Staff
Representative Kelley Wirth
503-986-1416
Fax 503-986-1561

----- Original Message -----
From: Rep Rosenbaum
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 12:57 PM
Subject: RE: Please KILL HB 2693!

Thank you for writing to the Represenative regarding HB2693. Rep. Rosenbaum opposes the amendments to HB2693.  She will be voting no when this bill hits the House floor.

Please feel free to contact this office with any comments or questions you may have on this or any other issue.  Receiving such comments assists in understanding the concerns of citizens in district 42.

Sincerely,

Regan Gray, staff to
Diane Rosenbaum
State Representative
House District 42

POINTs

  • The point should be driven home that, as written, 2693 (-1 and -2) are descriminatory as written; while testing for "impairment" in the workplace might be acceptable, there are currently no tests that would test for "impairment", only "past use".



  • It would ok insurance companies to deny employment coverage, which would make an employer, even though the employer is ok with a mmj patient using his/her medicine on the employees own time away from the work environment, terminate because there would be no insurance coverage.  Basically, if this passes, I am out of a job and would no longer be able to cover the expenses of my volunteer work.



  • The Social Security Administration takes its cue from state disability criteria when determining whether a person is eligible for SSI or SSD.  If the Oregon legislature makes it impossible for a medical marijuana patient to be gainfully employed in a legal occupation then it should make it possible for those patients not already receiving subsistance payments from Social Security to qualify for them.   Because, without a legal method for patients to support themselves, the only recourse they will have is to either be homeless and starving or break the law.  If one is truly in support of a safe, law abiding society then either HB 2693 should be defeated or state disability criteria should be altered to allow medical marijuana patients to provide for themselves legally.

ANALYSIS

Click here for an analysis of HB 2693-1 prepared by volunteer activist Dr. Rick Bayer; MD, FACP (Thank you, sir!).   There is an MS Word version, has been scanned for viruses, and should attach as a .doc file.  If you double-click on the hyperlinked .doc file, and have MS word on your computer, it should open.  A suggestion is to save it to your desk top and for peace of mind, virus scan it one more time (even though the testimony has no macros).  See Links section (below) for DOC and PDF versions.

A more conventional attachment is available if you email him (and ask nicely!).  He has taken some trial cases he was involved in and rewritten this with copious footnotes to show that HB 2693 has no basis in science.

For a general legislative background about zero tolerance policies, we recommend Paul Armentano's article below because it deals specifically with items addressed within the bad bill.
---------
NORML's new, comprehensive report on "drugged driving," drug testing, and DUID legislation is now available online at http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6492, or try the PDF VERSION at: http://www.norml.org/pdf_files/NORML_You_Are_Going_Directly_To_Jail.pdf

Please feel free to access this resource on any and all topics related to drug testing, per se laws, DUID, etc., and feel free to contact him directly with any questions, comments, or feedback.

contact:
Paul Armentano
Senior Policy Analyst
NORML | NORML Foundation


LTL (Letters-To-yer-Legislator) Examples -

Example #1

Dear Representative,

I am writing to you with great concern regarding the attempted restuffing of H.B. 2693 and the unfairness of the proposed amendments from Chairman Krieger.

I am the volunteer lobbyist for medical marijuana issues in the legislature.  My legislative involvement with the subject of medical marijuana extends back to 1993 when Sen. Frank Roberts introduced SB 865, which I authored and which contained many of the key features found in our current Oregon Medical Marijuana Law.  I interact with hundreds of OMMP registrants every year fielding complaints or providing information about OMMA.  I am an early registrant in the OMMP and have also had the unfortunate experience of losing a twenty year, national EPA award winning career in wastewater treatment due to an employers "Drug Free" policy.  My views are, therefore, based upon experience, not conjecture.

You will hear, I am certain about the supposed problems with safety and productivity associated with marijuana use and the need therefore to essentially eliminate the possibility that Oregonians who are lawfully registered with the OMMP and lawfully using a medicine appropriate for their needs, could ever gain or keep employment in most sectors of the job market.  I would suggest that an examination, even cursory, of the instances where an OMMP registrant, a person who was clearly using marijuana, was denied either a job or continued use of their medication in order to gain or keep a job, would reveal significant evidence that the very basic premise for the need of the amendments was faulty.

Specifically, there have been no instances, of the many which I have been acquainted with, where the employee encountered problems with a "Drug Free" policy due to triggering the "reasonable suspicion" clause common to such policies- the one main exception being the recent case involving an odor of marijuana on the person.  There have been no instances of testing being required due to an accident and revealing medical marijuana use.  No, indeed, the vast majority of instances involving OMMP registrants having employment jeopardized came from the employee volunteering the information, either in conjunction with random urinalysis or in a wholly voluntary statement, made in the painfully mistaken belief that it was safe to do so because of marijuana's recognized status as medicine.

So while it is clear that in some respects OMMA muddles the situation regarding "Drug Free" work places it is an extraordinarily unfair act to "clarify" the situation by essentially denying OMMP registrants the right to work, an act especially ironic given that for many, it is only the medicine which allows them the ability to work at all.

I submit that the main danger to the success of "Drug Free" policies posed by OMMP registrants who continue to work side by side with other workers, is that the inability to discern between the two groups without an intrusive urinalysis to determine employee suitability, gives rise immediately to a needed question as to the real effectiveness of this sort of intrusive testing.   The largest study ever done regarding drug tested and non tested population, complied by the Federal Government using high schools showed no difference in drug use levels between those two populations.  I submit that it an identical situation regarding employees and registrants of the OMMP.

Please vote down the proposed amendment. Thank you for your attention.

Respectfully,
Xxxxx Xxxx

Example #2

Dear Representative,

Given all that has happened this week it is perhaps easy to momentarily overlook the business at hand.  In this context that business is, of course, HB 2693.

I do appreciate that, at this point in the session especially, the press of time often precludes finishing all hearings in one sitting and therefore the last hearing was truncated such as to allow only the proponents to address the issue.  Given no unforeseen circumstances, I am certain that you will be able to give those who have concerns with the proffered amendments ample time for clarifying those concerns.  Given your history of support for OMMP registrants and their problems as relayed to me by Mr. Matson, I am certain that you will find their concerns immediately understandable.

In brief, the problem with the amendments is simply that they put all employed OMMP registrants at risk of losing their livelihood at any moment for the sole reason that the only medication which allows them to work as equally productive (and I submit equally safe) workers among others is treated significantly unlike and unequally to any other medication taken by any other worker to achieve the same ends concerning whatever affliction they may suffer.

If there is a need to clarify the relationship between OMMP registrants and any "Drug Free" policy of any employer, the proffered amendments go the absolute opposite direction from that which any fair clarification should go.  Please do not vote for these amendments.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Thank you for you attention. Sincerely,
Xxxxx Xxxx

Example #3
Subject: Please vote NO on HB 2693
Sunday June 19, 2005
To: Oregon House of Representatives

Dear Representative,

The gut and stuff version of HB 2693 (not the version on the legislative website) passed out of the House Civil Law subcommittee is unacceptable as written because working disabled persons must sometimes take medication.  HB 2693 is a mean-spirited extremist sort of legislation and must be defeated because:

1.  The gut and stuff of HB 2693 is not based in science.  Cannabis and cannabis-based (cannabinoid) products are superior to placebo and about equal to codeine in pain management.  But because of differing side effects, they are sometimes medically necessary - particularly as an alternative to opioids and anti-inflammatory medications.  The duration of impairment measured after one marijuana cigarette is 3 or 4 hours.  There is no consistent evidence showing impairment or increase risk of accidents fours hours or more after smoking a marijuana cigarette.

2.  The gut and stuff of HB 2693 is not what Oregon voters passed in 1998 as The Oregon Medical Marijuana Act says "marijuana should be treated like other medicines".

3.  There is nothing in HB 2693 that will diminish impairment in the workplace.  But, there is language that makes it impossible for patients to hold a job because of firing for presence of inactive urine metabolites.  Oregonians tend to disapprove of obvious discrimination against sick and disabled persons.

4.  Registration in the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program should never be sole cause for termination of employment nor should inactive urine metabolites for a registered patient be sole cause for termination.

Perhaps more moderate solutions exist that do not discriminate against disabled Oregonians but HB 2693 must be defeated.  Very many voters will be watching your vote to see if you care about sick people and their families.  Please support patients who need to work by voting down HB 2693.

Thank you for considering my testimony.

Sincerely,

Xxxxxx X. Xxxxx, MD

Example #4

Dear Representative,

I am writing to you with great concern regarding the restuffing of hb 2693 and the unfairness of the proposed amendments from Chairman Krieger.  Should we have the misfortune that 2693 leaves the Judiciary Committee and is sent to the full House for your consideration, the only fair thing to do is to vote down the bill.

I am the volunteer lobbyist for medical marijuana issues in the legislature.  My legislative involvement with the subject of medical marijuana extends back to 1993 when Sen. Frank Roberts introduced SB 865, which I authored and which contained many of the key features found in our current Oregon Medical Marijuana Law.  I interact with hundreds of OMMP registrants every year fielding complaints or providing information about OMMA.  I am an early registrant in the OMMP and have also had the unfortunate experience of losing a twenty year, national EPA award winning career in wastewater treatment due to an employers "Drug Free" policy.  My views are, therefore, based upon experience, not conjecture.

You will hear, I am certain about the supposed problems with safety and productivity associated with marijuana use and the need therefore to essentially eliminate the possibility that Oregonians who are lawfully registered with the OMMP and lawfully using a medicine appropriate for their needs, could ever gain or keep employment in most sectors of the job market.  I would suggest that an examination, even cursory, of the instances where an OMMP registrant, a person who was clearly using marijuana, was denied either a job or continued use of their medication in order to gain or keep a job, would reveal significant evidence that the very basic premise for the need of the amendments was faulty.

Specifically, there have been no instances, of the many which I have been acquainted with, where an employee encountered problems with a "Drug Free" policy due to triggering the "reasonable suspicion" clause common to such policies- the one main exception being the recent case involving an odor of marijuana on the person.  There have been no instances of testing being required due to an accident and revealing medical marijuana use.  No, indeed, the vast majority of instances involving OMMP registrants having employment jeopardized came from the employee volunteering the information, either in conjunction with random urinalysis or in a wholly voluntary statement, made in the painfully mistaken belief that it was safe to do so because of marijuana's recognized status as medicine.

So while it is clear that in some respects OMMA muddles the situation regarding "Drug Free" work places, it is an extraordinarily unfair act to "clarify" the situation by essentially denying OMMP registrants the right to work, an act especially ironic given that for many, it is only this medicine which allows them to work at all.

I submit that the main danger to the success of "Drug Free" policies posed by OMMP registrants who continue to work side by side with other workers, is the known inability to discern between the two groups without an intrusive urinalysis to determine employee suitability.   Such a situation would give rise immediately to a needed question as to the real effectiveness of this sort of intrusive testing.  The largest study ever done regarding drug tested and non tested populations, compiled by the Federal Government using high schools showed no difference in drug use levels between those two populations.  I submit that it is a similar situation regarding registrants of the OMMP and the other non-registered employees regarding their relative safety and productivity.

Please vote down HB2693 should have an opportunity. Thank you for your attention.

Xxxxx Xxxx

Example #5

Dear Representative,

HB 2693 removes the slim protections that medical marijuana patients have when seeking or keeping employment.  For many medical marijuana patients their use of medical marijuana is the only thing that makes it possible for them to work at all.  If what little protections they have are eliminated, as HB 2693 will do, then we might as well add the use of medical marijuana to the list of things that constitute disability for the purposes of determination of disability for acceptance by state or federal disability programs.

The Social Security Administration takes its cue from state disability criteria when determining whether a person is eligible for SSI or SSD.   If the Oregon legislature makes it impossible for a medical marijuana patient to be gainfully employed in a legal occupation then it should make it possible for those patients not already receiving subsistance payments from Social Security to qualify for them.  Because, without a legal method for patients to support themselves, the only recourse they will have is to either be homeless and starving or break the law.   If one is truly in support of a safe, law abiding society then either HB 2693 should be defeated or state disability criteria should be altered to allow medical marijuana patients to provide for themselves legally.

Sincerely, Xxxxxx Xxxx

Example #6

Dear Representative,

The drugs normally prescribed by doctors for my condition cause weight gain and bowel disorders as well as drowsiness and disorientation making it nearly impossible to work at anything but the least complicated tasks.

Now because I can use marijuana I am able to get up in the morning and function fairly well.  My mind and reflexes are as sharp as ever and I challenge anyone to test my ability to think, reason and perform marketable tasks.  Having an OMMP card does not make you incapacitated, it makes it so you want to live and work again.

With legal access to marijuana I am better able to function in a more normal way and feel better able to work.  Knowing my capability and ability to learn, I know I can do many things far less complex and painful than repairing a car.  However if HB2693 is passed it will preclude my ability to have any kind of a job, even one as menial as turning hamburgers for "fast food" stores

Don't let intolerant prohibitionists destroy peoples already fragile lives, kill HB2693!

Sincerely,

X. Xxxx Xxxxx

Please email yours or enter in the Bulletin Board.


NOTEs and HISTORY

from the Leg web site re: the House Judiciary:
Office: 354 Phone: 503-986-1750
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judiciary Subcommittee On Civil Law
Date: Friday-June 17
Time: 8:30 A.M.
Room: 357

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IS CONVENING TODAY AT 8:30 A.M.  THEREFORE, THE COMMITTEE WILL NOT BE MEETING UNTIL AFTER ADJOURNMENT OF THE FLOOR SESSION.  Since the committee will not meet till the 8:30 floor session is over, which is estimated to be around 10:00am and so the committee will likely start around 10:00-10:30.

Public Hearing and Possible Work Session

HB 2693 Modifies provisions related to possession of medical marijuana by authorized person.

Staff respectfully requests that you submit 15 collated copies of written materials and that they be presented at the time of your testimony.


House Republicans Further Attack Oregon Medical Marijuana Patients
Bill to Legalize Employment Discrimination for Patients Appears

House Republicans show continued contempt and disregard for the health and well being of Oregon citizens registered in the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program, as demonstrated by the gutting and stuffing of HB 2693.  Intended to insure the protection of patients’ rights under the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act, pages 2-4 of the bill have been removed and replaced with changes making employment more difficult for those who legally use cannabis as medicine in Oregon.

The bill, being heard by the House Judiciary Committee Monday at 8:30 in Hearing Room 357,adds having marijuana in the person’s system to the definition of use of medical marijuana, and creates an anti-medical marijuana protection for employers which allows an employer to treat a doctor-recommended therapeutic cannabis patient as a criminal in violation of work place ‘protocol’.

According to House Republicans, employers need not accommodate the medical use of marijuana in the workplace nor be precluded from maintaining a drug free work place, further demonstrating a refusal on the part of House Republicans to recognize medical marijuana as a safe medicine rather than a dangerous, illegal drug.

This bad bill arrives on the heels of HB5077, which passed the House this week, and is likely to pass the Senate soon, which transfers nearly a million dollars in funds from the OMMP to DHS to help balance the budget.  This will likely result in the Department of Human Services raising registration fees for sick and suffering Oregonians registered in the program.

Laird Funk, Volunteer Lobbyist for medical marijuana issues and an early registrant in the OMMP, knows well the problems facing OMMP registrants.  He lost his national award-winning career in wastewater management due to a “Drug Free” policy crafted by his employer.  Mr. Funk said in regards to HB2693’s re-stuffing,

“The main problem posed to employers by the existence of medical marijuana-using employees is not that of the supposed danger of such persons in the workforce or their relative productivity.  It is that allowing known marijuana users to continue working has the real possibility of quickly undermining the claim that marijuana users do represent a safety or productivity problem by demonstrating that they do not at all differ from non-users.  Such a demonstration would require that the invasive process of determining employee suitability through urinalysis be reconsidered regarding its utility, an embarrassing concept for the current drug warriors pushing these attempts at demonizing marijuana users.”

“Marijuana should be treated like other medicines.  Impairment resolves when the main psychoactive component of marijuana, THC, returns to low blood levels at 3 to 4 hours after smoking marijuana.  Urine testing does not prove impairment ­ it only proves recent use.  Registration in the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program should never be sole cause for termination of employment.” said Dr. Rick Bayer.

contact info:

Richard E. Bayer, MD
(503) 292-1035 voice
(503) 297-0754 fax
ricbayer@comcast.net

Click here for Press Release.  Those who feel med mj patients should keep a job or drive a car need pay attention to HB 2693 and show up Monday, 6/13.

Summary: There is a real need for the folks on our side come in their standard mode of polite and sincere input.  Hearing Room 357 is a smaller venue that the A-F rooms we have been in- has the acoustics of a tomb, but don't let that bother you- it's a good place to bury 2693.  Thanks for all who have been preparing for this and those who will be over the weekend.

It is not impossible that the bill could be made to seem so unfair that the majority support does not occur.  The likelihood of that is increased by the number of concerned Oregonians the subcommittee hears from over the weekend and on Monday morning.  Phone calls to those members offices starting just before 8:00 am will draw some attention to the issue even as they try to read email and get to the hearing.

So please folks, take a minuet to drop a note to the members.  Here is the membership of the committee hearing 2693, Please take the time to write a polite letter of concern to these folks about the bill.  It wouldn't hurt to have a bunch of mail to read on the way to the hearing (Mon., 6/6).

Civil Law Subcommittee Membership:

Robert Ackerman, Chair
Party: D District: 13
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1413
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE., H-389, Salem, OR, 97301
Email: rep.robertackerman@state.or.us
Website: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ackerman

Linda Flores
Party: R District: 51
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1451
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE., H-287, Salem, OR, 97301
Email: rep.lindaflores@state.or.us
Website: http://www.leg.state.or.us/flores

Bill Garrard
Party: R District: 56
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1456
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE., H-484, Salem, OR, 97301
Email: rep.billgarrard@state.or.us
Website: http://www.leg.state.or.us/garrard

Kelley Wirth
Party: D District: 16
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1416
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE., H-479, Salem, OR, 97301
Email: rep.kelleywirth@state.or.us
Website: http://www.leg.state.or.us/wirth

Staffing:
Sam Sears
Staff Counsel
Judiciary Committee
503.986.1489

Status:

02/28 (H) - First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk.

03/03 (H) - Referred to Judiciary.

03/04 (H) - Assigned to Subcommittee On Criminal Law.

Details: HB2693 is By Representative MARCH -- Relating to medical marijuana.  Modifies provisions related to possession of medical marijuana by authorized person.  Originally required Department of Human Services to adopt rules for growing and cloning of medical marijuana.

Submitted on behalf of the Stormy Ray Foundation it originally removed the mature plant specification for possessing one ounce.

An employer oriented rep from the first hearing has managed to arrange for SR's bill in the house, HB2693 to be gutted and stuffed with language which makes it the "No Patient Keeps a Job" Act.   Hearing is next Monday (6/6), 8:30 am,in hearing room 357.  Be there!!  Pack the room!   Let that committee know they are wrong- We have no friends at all there, so let them know who they are dealng with.   We can prepare the senate for it, but pissing on it next Monday can not hurt.

Click here for the current -1 text.   The original text of this bill should be at: http://www.leg.state.or.us/05reg/measures/hb2600.dir/hb2693.intro.html


As you can see, if one is a productive, employed member of society who happens to use a specific herbal remedy, ONE WILL BE ROYALLY SCREWED!

This amendment would violate Oregon's statutes regarding disabilities, and the Labor Department's ruling that 'reasonable accommodations' apply to medical cannabis users.

More letters, emails, & phone calls are needed, to both the House and Senate here in Oregon ... tell them to kill HB 2693!!


Questions?  Comments?   Need some info?   Got some info?   E-Mail us or visit the Bulletin Board for further comments on this bill -or- to post your own.


Link Summary:

For reference, etc.

  the H.B.2693 Bulletin Board  

Enter the NotePad! Make a comment, ask a question, see below for examples.   NOTE: Edit yourself before clicking on the [Leave Your Comments] tab, what you type is what you get!   If you wish to have an entry deleted, communicate with the webster thru the tool at the bottom.

Who are you:
Where are you from:
What would you like to say:


  Comments  
Sunday, March 12 at 03:12 AM:
Dave M. from wrote:
"Did This Pass??"

No, it did not - thanks to lots of calls and other lobbying by plain ol' regular folks. They will try it again, however, so be vigilant!

Some thots on a couple Areas that need more focus and orgainzation -

- Parents, et al, to show leadership in an area where med mj patients will never lose their kids.

- How about an educational forum or published paper?

- What about med mj, pregnancy, and lactation issues? How about women's' health educational forum

- an educational forum this fall on some internal medicine

- the science marijuana and impairment.

- keeping employed; job security for med mj patients

- those who rent

- growing, etc.

- pharmacology and medicine (and history of the OMMA)

what's yours?

[an error occurred while processing this directive]   Maintain an Entry or Give us FeedBack     |  

To change or delete an entry above, or to send a message to the webster instead of posting it, use this tool.

Who are you?
e-mail address:
Request:
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[ This Bill >     Summary   |   Status   |   Details   |   Analysis   |   Letter Examples   |   Links   |   Bulliten Board   |   e-Mail   ]

[ Also this Session >     S.B.294   |   S.B.397   |   S.B.717   |   S.B.772   |   S.B.1085   |   H.B.2485   |   H.B.2693   |   H.B.2695   |   H.B.3457   |   H.B.5077   |   Legis Issues Home page   ]
  Home   |   About   |   Contact   |   Donate   |   GuestBook   |   Action   |   Library   |   OMMA   |   Biz   |   Links   |   News   |   Legislation   |   Events   |   Calendar   |   Orgz   |   MERCY-TV   |   The MERCY Gift Shop   >>

Comments, questions and suggestions? E-mail the Webster To communicate ideas, changes or requests for further information about these pages -or- for compliments, complaints or to report broken links with the web site in general, you can eMail the Webster.   Also, feel free to visit the Guestbook and leave a note.
You are visitor # 3997!     (since 1/8/2007)  Thanx for stopping by. Tell your friends. Tell your enemies!   This page ( /legis/2005/HB2693.html ) was last modified on:  Sunday, 14-Jan-2007 09:32:23 PST

click here to return to the
Click here to go to the Medical Cannabis Resource Center Home page
Center home page

This site ...
Hosted by Drug Policy Central
... Empowerment Tools - of, by and for the People!