Who's proposing this?! If you break the law, you do yer time, even if the law is eventually changed, and nobody I've seen believes any sort of restitution is due anyone. And as fer the "no testing", I've already pointed out above that increased testing may be necessary in industries where public safety is invoved (esp. transportation). Other than that, individual corporations would be responsible for instituting and administering their own company drug testing policy.
FReegards...MUD
"II. Testing for inert cannabis metabolites shall not be required for employment or insurance, nor be considered in determining impairment."
"VIII. Within one hundred twenty (120) days following the effective date of this initiative, or by the end of the current legislative session, whichever occurs first, the Legislature shall fund, from law enforcement savings hereby generated, an advisory panel to study the feasibility and methods of making restitution to all persons who were imprisoned, fined or had private personal or real properties forfeited as a result of criminal or civil actions for cannabis/marijuana-related acts which are hereby no longer illegal."
"Other than that, individual corporations would be responsible for instituting and administering their own company drug testing policy."
I understand. But, if a company does not test for drugs, they will not be able to participate in a federally regulated industry (rail, air, truck, etc.) or a federally funded project. But, that would be their choice.
And I'll end with this. Under your scheme, if it is not important that a company be required to test their employees for drugs, and that employee harms a non-employee while working (say a truck driver on drugs), then the employer is not responsible unless he knew for a fact the employee was impaired. Deal?