To get a job at Woodworkers Source, potential employees must pass a drug test.

There's a good reason for that, said Keith Stephens, owner of the Scottsdale- based lumber-supply business: “Many, many businesses, including mine, have a certain element of risk. In my case it’s driving a forklift loaded with heavy material and being in the shop with chop saws,” said Stephens, 72, of Paradise Valley.

If Arizona voters legalize marijuana for recreational use through a ballot measure poised to appear on the November ballot, Stephens worries it would become more difficult to find qualified workers.

Stephens, who employs more than 30 people and whose company did $6 million in sales last year, is part of what is quickly becoming a united front of businesses, CEOs and commerce and tourism groups against legalizing the drug that is still prohibited by federal law.

In addition to making it more difficult to recruit workers, they argue legalization could lead to increased workplace-safety problems, higher worker- compensation costs and reduced productivity and make Arizona less appealing for prospective employers.

“I don’t want them hurt ... I don’t want the liability," Stephens said of his employees, "and I want them to be able to properly take care of our customers.”

Regulating marijuana like alcohol

The Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol proposes to set up a system to regulate and tax cannabis. Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska and the District of Columbia have already legalized recreational marijuana. The campaign has submitted 258,582 signatures to state election officials in an effort to qualify for the ballot; officials are working to verify the campaign has gathered enough valid signatures even as some opponents filed suit this week to keep it off the ballot.

Under the proposed Arizona initiative, adults 21 and older could carry up to 1 ounce of marijuana, grow plants in their homes and buy marijuana from licensed stores.

“It purports to 'regulate marijuana like alcohol,' but the problem is you can test for alcohol with a breathalyzer ... but you can't do marijuana the same way.”

The initiative does not authorize employees to work while impaired, nor does it require employers to allow possession or consumption of marijuana at work. Currently, employers are allowed to observe impairment and record it before they terminate or discipline employees for suspected marijuana use. Under the measure, employers would be allowed to maintain drug-free policies.

But the measure provides no standards for what constitutes impairment by marijuana. And state law also offers no standard.

“It purports to ‘regulate marijuana like alcohol,’ but the problem is you can test for alcohol with a breathalyzer ... but you can’t do marijuana the same way,” said Julie Pace, an employment attorney.

Complicating any effort to create such a definition is the fact that marijuana metabolites can remain in users' systems for weeks after the marijuana high wears off.

“It’s not like there’s a certain limit or a cut-off and HR knows what to do, because it stays in the system for so long,” Pace said, making it difficult for employers to determine level of impairment while at work.

She offered an example: This week she got a call from a Phoenix company asking whether it could reject a newly hired forklift driver who tested positive for marijuana. Based on the test, it was difficult to determine when the employee last used marijuana.

"That's the problem," Pace said.

Legal marijuana: Pros and cons

Concerns 'far-fetched'

But J.P. Holyoak, chairman of the pro-legalization campaign, said business’ concerns are “far-fetched” and accused the Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry, which has railed against legalization, of stoking fears.

Holyoak pointed to last year’s Colorado Supreme Court ruling that said a business could fire an employee for using medical marijuana — even when not on the clock and adhering to state law.

“If an employer has a zero tolerance (for drugs), that is fine. If employers want a drug test, great, that’s an employer’s right to do that.”

Holyoak also noted that Forbes in 2015 named Denver the best in the country for business climate, touting a diverse economy and educated workforce. He added the initiative does not affect employers’ drug-testing policies.

“If an employer has a zero tolerance (for drugs), that is fine,” Holyoak said. “If employers want a drug test, great, that’s an employer’s right to do that.”

He added: "To say that this is going to be some type of a huge problem, when we have another state almost next door to us and we’ve never heard of it being an issue, seems like a far-fetched idea to me."

Colorado reported 15.2 percent of residents 18 and older had used marijuana in the past 30 days, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, which relied on data from 2013 and 2014. That’s up from prior-year data, where usage was 12.9 percent.

A survey released by drug-testing company Quest Diagnostics in 2014 found Colorado’s marijuana-positivity test rates increased 20 percent between 2012 and 2013 while Washington’s increased 23 percent. That’s compared with the 5 percent average increase among the U.S. general workforce in all 50 states, according to the company. Both states were experiencing increases in marijuana-positivity rates before legalization at the end of 2012, according to the company said.

Businesses see concerns

Steve Sanghi, chairman and CEO of Chandler-based Microchip Technology Inc., said legalization would be detrimental to Arizona’s workforce and society overall. Sanghi said his company employs about 2,000 people in Arizona and 14,000 worldwide.

“I would never move my business from Arizona to Colorado today and wouldn’t expand the business in Colorado because of the problems they’re having.”

The company operates a facility in Colorado Springs, and he said “the management there is continually reporting large number of problems with the employees,” namely failed drug tests, productivity and absenteeism.

“I would never move my business from Arizona to Colorado today and wouldn’t expand the business in Colorado because of the problems they’re having,” Sanghi said. “If Arizona passes this law, that would be a significant problem, then we’ll become anti-Arizona and we wouldn’t expand our manufacturing presence here.”

Mark Minter, executive director of the Arizona Builders Alliance, said his members are concerned about safety issues, particularly in an industry where it’s critical to be alert and sober while on the job.

“We’re concerned about increased use in the workforce, we’re concerned about being able to run a drug- and alcohol-free workplace so that people are safe and people don’t get injured, or killed or maimed in the workplace.” Also, members who do work for the federal government are required to comply with federal regulations, which include maintaining drug-free workplaces.

Those concerns are fueling opposition efforts from the business community. Opponents, led by the Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry, have raised more than $640,000 for their efforts. Donors include Randy Kendrick, wife of Diamondbacks owner Ken Kendrick; U Haul; and homebuilders.

Sanghi said his company donated $25,000 to the anti-legalization campaign after getting a “personal call from” Republican Gov. Doug Ducey about the measure.

Marijuana-legalization supporters, meanwhile, have raised about $2.2 million for their effort. Their funding relies largely on the Marijuana Policy Project — which has worked to legalize marijuana in states across the country — and medical marijuana dispensaries and other businesses that would reap the financial benefits of recreational legalization.

“We’ve seen quite a bit from the construction industry ... as well as the agricultural industry,” Holyoak said, adding that some tourism-related businesses also support the measure.

If marijuana is legalized for recreational use in Arizona, restaurant owner Len Combs said he will treat potential impairment of marijuana the same way he would alcohol or any other substance.

“If they get out of work after 5, and get high or drunk, there’s nothing I can do to stop that — if it’s legal, it’s legal,” Combs said. “Do I want it in the workplace? No. But I don’t want alcohol in the workplace, either.”

"...if it’s legal, it’s legal,” Combs said. “Do I want it in the workplace? No. But I don’t want alcohol in the workplace, either.”

Good for him, I agree.

Nice job of missing the entire point of the article.

Holyoak pointed to last year’s Colorado Supreme Court ruling that said a business could fire an employee for using medical marijuana — even when not on the clock and adhering to state law.

“If an employer has a zero tolerance (for drugs), that is fine. If employers want a drug test, great, that’s an employer’s right to do that.”

If something is legal, it is a dubious proposition that an employer can have an enforceable zero tolerance policy for off-duty engagement in the legal activity.

Could an employer enforce a zero-tolerance policy for alcohol?

Could an employer enforce a zero-tolerance policy for ambien (with a prescription) or cough syrup?

Of course, the Colorado Supreme Court found that using medical marijuana was unlawful activity and not protected.

Coats v. Dish Network, 2015 CO 44 (15 Jun 2015)

¶1 This case requires us to determine whether the use of medical marijuana in compliance with Colorado's Medical Marijuana Amendment, Colo. Const. art. XVIII, § 14, but in violation of federal law, is a "lawful activity" under section 24-34-402.5, C.R.S. (2014), Colorado's "lawful activities statute." This statute generally makes it an unfair and discriminatory labor practice to discharge an employee based on the employee's "lawful" outside-of-work activities. § 24-34-402.5(1).

¶2 Here, petitioner Brandon Coats claims respondent Dish Network, LLC ("Dish") violated section 24-34-402.5 by discharging him due to his state-licensed use of medical marijuana at home during nonworking hours. He argues that the Medical Marijuana Amendment makes such use "lawful" for purposes of section 24-34-402.5, notwithstanding any federal laws prohibiting medical marijuana use. The trial court dismissed Coats's complaint for failure to state a claim after finding that medical marijuana use is not "lawful" under Colorado state law. Coats appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed.

¶3 In a split decision, the majority of the court of appeals held that Coats did not state a claim for relief because medical marijuana use, which is prohibited by federal law, is not a "lawful activity" for purposes of section 24-34-402.5. Coats v. Dish Network, LLC, 2013 COA 62, 1 23, 303 P.3d 147, 152. In dissent, Judge Webb would have held that section 24-34-402.5 does protect Coats's medical marijuana use, because the term "lawful" as used in the statute refers only to Colorado state law, under which medical marijuana use is "at least lawful." Id. at 1 56, 303 P.3d at 157 (Webb, J., dissenting).

¶4 We granted certiorari and now affirm. The term "lawful" as it is used in section 24-34-402.5 is not restricted in any way, and we decline to engraft a state law limitation onto the term. Therefore, an activity such as medical marijuana use that is unlawful under federal law is not a "lawful" activity under section 24-34-402.5. Accordingly, we affirm the opinion of the court of appeals.

“If they get out of work after 5, and get high or drunk, there’s nothing I can do to stop that — if it’s legal, it’s legal,” Combs said.

If it is medical or recreational marijuana, it's unlawful activity, it's unlawful activity. The Colorado Supreme Court so ruled.

The article should have just said that.

If it is medical or recreational marijuana, it's unlawful activity, it's unlawful activity. The Colorado Supreme Court so ruled.

Not in states where marijuana has been legalized.

The article should have just said that.

Apparently the blatant hypocrisy of the DEA and SCOTUS is not on your radar.

The only reason the DEA exists is to help facilitate the importing of drugs by the Federal Government and as a protection racket for Big Pharma.

*****

Well-known researchers at the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS have published an editorial in the Canadian Journal of Public Health, saying that doctors are ignoring legitimate studies on the use of cannabis to treat a host of conditions.

Thomas Kerr, Julio Montaner and Stephanie Lake argue that medical cannabis should be used instead of opioids for neuropathic pain, but this is being stigmatized by the fact that medical cannabis is not approved by Canadian regulators.

“The evidence supporting the therapeutic use of cannabis is actually much stronger than the use of other drugs that are used to treat the same conditions and it also seems, in many cases, that cannabis has a more favourable side-effect profile,” said Dr. Kerr. “Opioids are killing people right now. There is no association with cannabis and mortality, and yet North America is in the midst of, really, what is a public-health emergency associated to opioid overdose deaths.”

Why, exactly, is the maker of a highly addictive and deadly drug attempting to thwart the legalization of an amazingly beneficial plant? They want that market for themselves.

“They want to be able to push their far more addictive, far more harmful and far more dangerous opioid drugs,” JP Holyoak, chair of the committee pushing Prop 205, a bill that would legalize marijuana in Arizona, told the Arizona Capitol Times.

According to a study that looked at 17 states with medical cannabis laws in place, researchers “found that the use of prescription drugs for which marijuana could serve as a clinical alternative fell significantly, once a medical marijuana law was implemented.”

***

The Supreme Court is not God, no matter how much you worship it.

The Supreme Court is not God, no matter how much you worship it.

SCOTUS is not God, but SCOTUS rules on laws that are enforced no matter how much you detest them.

If it is medical or recreational marijuana, it's unlawful activity, it's unlawful activity. The Colorado Supreme Court so ruled.

Not in states where marijuana has been legalized.

Just when hard working Brandon Coats thought it was legal in Colorado, the state supreme court let him know that his state-licensed use of medical marijuana in Colorado, at home, on his own time, was unlawful activity. His case was lost and so was his job. The Colorado Supreme Court opinion was handed down on June 15, 2015.

In 2009, he registered for and obtained a state-issued license to use medical marijuana to treat painful muscle spasms caused by his quadriplegia. Coats consumes medical marijuana at home, after work, and in accordance with his license and Colorado state law.

Coats v. Dish Network, 2015 CO 44 (2015), paragraph 5 at page 5.

Perhaps Brandon Coats listened to some half-wit bullshit artist like you. Hey man, it's legal! Hey man, you're fired.

it's legal!

That is what the government players say; they even say what is not legal. How do we keep up with these charlatans?

Business owners do not like legalized marijuana

They're employees not slaves.