Oregon: Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper
Write a letter to the editor opposing efforts to restrict the ability of medical marijuana patients to work.
Please do not use every single talking point in the order they appear — newspapers will not print a letter that is obviously boilerplate in nature. Furthermore, by submitting a letter that no one will print, you hurt the chances of a good letter being printed that uses some of the same language and talking points. We strongly urge you to use the talking points below as a launching pad for your own ideas. Also, please try to convince the reader in as few words as possible; the shorter and more powerful a letter is, the more likely it is to get published. If you do copy and paste our talking points word for word, please only use a couple of talking points and change their order around.
It is also advisable to send a copy of your letter to only one newspaper. Newspapers like to have exclusivity, and making sure that they have a unique piece greatly increases your chances of being published. If you would like to send a letter to more than one paper, change the wording and resend to a different paper.
Again, please do not use every single talking point — mix and match them with your own ideas.
You can visit this page to view a listing of newspapers in Oregon. We haveprovided a few tips for writing an effective letter.
- A legislative proposal that threatens to seriously undermine Oregon's medical marijuana program is being pushed by a group of well-intentioned, but seriously misguided, drug warriors.
|
- During the 2007 session, patients, activists, and lawmakers worked together to defeat legislation that would have allowed Oregon employers to discriminate against state-registered medical marijuana patients. Under the guise of “workplace safety,” SB 388 attempted to permit employers to fire medical marijuana patients for using their medicine upon the recommendation of a doctor, with no regard given to whether the patient was actually impaired while on the job. Although SB 388 died in committee, proponents are likely to reintroduce the same bill next session.
|
- The instrument that supporters of this discriminatory measure want to use to push their anti-medical marijuana agenda is one that can be found in every drug warrior's toolbox — drug testing.
|
- While drug testing may be appropriate in certain circumstances, relying on it to ensure workplace safety is problematic because the presence of marijuana is detectable for weeks after its effects have worn off, meaning that a positive test for marijuana is not necessarily indicative of impairment.
|
- The inability to accurately measure marijuana impairment with a blood or urine test is why both the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the National Institute on Drug Abuse have found drug tests to be unreliable indicators of impairment.
|
- If employers want to improve workplace safety through drug testing, then they should use tests that measure impairment rather than tests that are only capable of detecting prior use of a substance. Unfortunately, those who support legislation like SB 388 aren't typically concerned with whether such bills are scientifically sound — punishing marijuana users is usually their primary goal.
|
- The provisions of SB 388 are so prejudicial that employees who come to work drunk would have more rights than medical marijuana patients. Consider this: Oregon Revised Statute 659.840 requires employers to have reasonable grounds before administering a Breathalyzer test to an employee suspected of being under the influence of alcohol. SB 388 would allow an employer to require an employee to take a drug test with less evidence of wrongdoing than is necessary for the same employer to test the same employee for alcohol, essentially giving alcoholics more protection than medical marijuana patients in the workplace.
|
- The fact that SB 388 doesn't have a “reasonable suspicion” provision like the one required for alcohol testing speaks volumes about its true intent. Even if there were such a provision, the drug tests used by employers are unreliable indicators of marijuana impairment, which means that prior use — not impairment — would be the only information provided by such a test.
|
- Given that the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) has ruled that current law requires an employer to reasonably accommodate the disabilities of medical marijuana patients and that employers cannot discharge an employee based solely on his or her status as a medical marijuana patient, it seems that terminating medical marijuana patients for prior use of their medicine has already been condemned by the state of Oregon. In June, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed BOLI's decision.
|
- Proponents of SB 388 don't plan to stop at stripping medical marijuana patients of their ability to work, they intend to step up next session's crusade against medical marijuana by introducing bills that would eliminate certain medical conditions currently approved for treatment with marijuana, make it harder for new conditions to be approved, reduce the amount of marijuana patients can possess, and require employer notification when a worker applies for a card.
|
- Oregon employers who believe that our sick and dying should be able to use medicine pursuant to state law as long as they are not impaired on the job should stand up on behalf of patients across the state and demand that SB 388 be removed from the table for discussion.
|
- Regardless of whatever aversion drug warriors have to medical marijuana, the fact remains that more than 20,000 patients and 3,000 physicians in Oregon are finding that it works. To deny our sick and dying access to gainful employment simply because they use marijuana instead of morphine or OxyContin is bad policy; moreover, it's cruel.
|
Tips for writing an effective letter
1) Keep it short and simple
Papers generally won't print anything longer than 150-200 words. It's best to make one point well, rather than trying to make every point possible. By only making one point at a time, you save your other arguments for future letters.
2) Check your spelling and grammar
Not only are newspapers more likely to print a letter containing no errors, having a spelling or grammar mistake plays into the stereotypes embraced by the opposition. We'd be glad to look over your letter if you'd like.
3) Say only what you know is factually true
Science, math, and reason are on our side; there's no need to make false claims or exaggerations. If you are unsure, check our library or ask us.
4) If possible, respond to a recent story in a timely manner
Papers are generally more likely to publish letters that are in response to recent stories, especially letters than are submitted shortly after the stories were published.
Feel free to contact us if you'd like help with your letter.
