Quote Originally Posted by HighPopalorum
6A is absolutely necessary. Employers cannot be expected to allow their employees to get high on the job. Schoolbus drivers? Air traffic controllers? This is a necessary reassurance to business groups like the CoC that legalization does not mean there is a right to get high while at work, and that state law will not interfere with private contracts w/r/t drug testing etc. I'm ok with all this.

6B is just an affirmation of existing law. Not needed, I agree.



6D, like 6A, is just a re-affirmation of private property rights. I don't think it's necessary, but I approve.

Although there's nothing specific, I would prefer the bit about the excise tax taken out. It isn't a deal-breaker, but I'm not a fan of excises, particularly sin taxes. I sin a lot.
6B covers use outside of work use as well. There ARE MANY employers in Colorado that make exception for use because of legality now, and more to follow. We don't need to affirm drug war hysteria. the PUC covers school bus drivers, etc.
6D - property rights? What does the contents of someone's pockets or backpack on a campus or at a hospital have to do with protecting property rights? No smoking laws or the right to restrict open use on privately owned property should suffice.

excise tax? I really don't care. those that wanted a retail model have been using this carrot on a stick for awhile, and it may lead to more legalization. I have no problem with tax on recreational commercial mj as long as folks retain a right to provide for themselves.