Drug Free Workplace Legislative Work Group Contact Info

[Jetson]

I made some phone calls this morning and got the contact information. Let's try to find out more about who they are. I used to work in the capitol and know how to get information. If they are lobbyists, they are required to register with Standards and Practices, but as far as I can tell, they have not registered.

Drug Free Workplace Legislative Work Group
Dan Harmon
503-221-8851


It turns out that Dan Harmon works for Hoffman Construction. They must be a lobbying organization. If they are not registered with Standards and Practices, we should be making complaints to the Government Standards and Practices Commission. They could not find them in their database.

These are the folks that recommeded SB465 to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Dan Harmon is the Vice President of Hoffman Construction.

[PDXnQ8]

Oh yes.... They make everyone who steps foot on their site to carry a clean pee card. No matter if you are carrying a clipboard or not. If I get hurt, my company deals with me not them, it's crazy.

[Jetson]

Dan Harmon states that they are not lobbyists, but are a loose coalition of businesses and organizations. However, the definition of a lobbyist is someone or a group that tries to influence legislative action, and they have done so in writing. I believe they are likely acting as lobbyists within the definition and should have to register with the Government Standards and Practices Commission. The definition gets pretty specific, but it is hard to imagine they are outside the scope of the registration requirement.

[grammychronic]

http://w3.workdrugfree.org/displaycommon.c...barticlenbr=337 (http://w3.workdrugfree.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=337)
ONA hosts a seminar, march..

Medical Marijuana & Other Employer Substance Abuse Legislative Inititatives: A Mid-Session Update March 29, 2007,
..and other substance abuse????? inferring my medicine is "substance abuse" too?

check out the brochure!
oregon med labs again amongst others....i say this is a marketing program cleverly designed to get the attendees to pay for the "infomercial"

[grammychronic]

dan harmons name is also listed on the brochure
http://w3.workdrugfree.org/associations/30...final_press.pdf (http://w3.workdrugfree.org/associations/3019/files/forum%20flyer112KOJ-07_final_press.pdf)

[grammychronic]

http://w3.workdrugfree.org/associations/30...lMJ_flyer10.pdf (http://w3.workdrugfree.org/associations/3019/files/MedicinalMJ_flyer10.pdf)

Oregon’s Medical Marijuana Act was designed for seriously ill individuals. There are now over 14,000
medical marijuana cardholders, many of whom are employed full-time. Conflicts arise between medical
marijuana use and company drug-free workplace policies, which are designed to enhance safety
and productivity by reducing the effects of employee substance abuse.

♦ Jerry Gjesvold, Employer Services Manager, Serenity Lane Treatment Center.
jerry has been a busy little beaver...serenity lane again....

[Alphakronik]

I think this bill may have flaws big enough to shut it down with only one good public lawsuit. Yesterday I called both my Sinators for the Hillsboro area, and they both are voting yes on this 465 bill. When I asked them if the law also would include other impairing medicines such as Oxycontin, Oxycodone, Vicodin, Trazadone, Ativan, ect, they both said no, that wasn't in the plans. I then got no response from either of them when I then asked "So you only are singling out a specific medicine to discriminate against?"

Now, with that being said, I have both Sinators sending me their "definitions" of impaired, as this may come into play early in the laws life if needed. Without proving judgemental imairment without measure is nearly impossible to do, and if the correct expert is used to accurately testify that urinary analysis is not a proven method of any accuracy.

Now in english:

We get this scientist dude to come to our defense, paid for by a good lawyer who likes to make money. He basically explains that piss tests don't mean crap as far as testing "impairment", due to the fact that we all know, THC and other cannabinoids store differently in all people based upon metabolism and body fat content.

Unless they can come up with a way to test this accurately, they have no solid way to define impaiment, and therefore may leave a legal loophole open to the point to get it seen in front of a lower court, and possibly if needed, the state supreme.

Also, If I read this bill correctly, it doesn't say you can't use at home, just no where in the workplace. Can someone show me differently? I just read the copy that Mama Sandee sent to me.




alf

[grammychronic]

I think this bill may have flaws big enough to shut it down with only one good public lawsuit. Yesterday I called both my Sinators for the Hillsboro area, and they both are voting yes on this 465 bill. When I asked them if the law also would include other impairing medicines such as Oxycontin, Oxycodone, Vicodin, Trazadone, Ativan, ect, they both said no, that wasn't in the plans. I then got no response from either of them when I then asked "So you only are singling out a specific medicine to discriminate against?"

Now, with that being said, I have both Sinators sending me their "definitions" of impaired, as this may come into play early in the laws life if needed. Without proving judgemental impairment without measure is nearly impossible to do, and if the correct expert is used to accurately testify that urinary analysis is not a proven method of any accuracy.

Now in english:

We get this scientist dude to come to our defense, paid for by a good lawyer who likes to make money. He basically explains that piss tests don't mean crap as far as testing "impairment", due to the fact that we all know, THC and other cannabinoids store differently in all people based upon metabolism and body fat content.

Unless they can come up with a way to test this accurately, they have no solid way to define impaiment, and therefore may leave a legal loophole open to the point to get it seen in front of a lower court, and possibly if needed, the state supreme.

Also, If I read this bill correctly, it doesn't say you can't use at home, just no where in the workplace. Can someone show me differently? I just read the copy that Mama Sandee sent to me.
alf[/b]

(2) Require an employer to:
(a) Accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any workplace[.] regardless of where the
use occurs;


the blue text is eliminated and replaced by the red text...that means if you pee positive, even if you have a med card and you only medicate at home, you are assumed "impaired" and will be held accountable under the employers "reasonable drug policy".
the thing is that employers are already firing people under ORS:475.340.
there is also a bill this session to "clean up" the adjudication process for unemployment benefits...fail a UA? no UI!