NOTHING IN THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO REQUIRE AN EMPLOYER TO PERMIT
OR ACCOMMODATE THE USE, CONSUMPTION, POSSESSION, TRANSFER, DISPLAY,
TRANSPORTATION, SALE OR GROWING OF MARIJUANA IN THE WORKPLACE OR TO AFFECT
THE ABILITY OF EMPLOYERS TO MAINTAIN EXISTING POLICIES RESTRICTING THE USE OF
MARIJUANA BY EMPLOYEES.
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.

THING IN THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO ALLOW DRIVING UNDER THE
INFLUENCE OF MARIJUANA OR DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED BY MARIJUANA OR TO SUPERSEDE
EXISTING LAWS RELATED TO DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF MARIJUANA OR DRIVING
WHILE IMPAIRED BY MARIJUANA, NOR SHALL THIS SECTION PREVENT THE STATE FROM
ENACTING AND IMPOSING PENALTIES FOR DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF OR WHILE
IMPAIRED BY MARIJUANA.
6B is just an affirmation of existing law. Not needed, I agree.

NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PROHIBIT A PERSON, EMPLOYER, SCHOOL,
HOSPITAL, DETENTION FACILITY, CORPORATION OR ANY OTHER ENTITY WHO OCCUPIES,
OWNS OR CONTROLS A PROPERTY FROM PROHIBITING OR OTHERWISE REGULATING THE
POSSESSION, CONSUMPTION, USE, DISPLAY, TRANSFER, DISTRIBUTION, SALE,
TRANSPORTATION, OR GROWING OF MARIJUANA ON OR IN THAT PROPERTY
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.