So there’s this new website out there called www.priceofweed.com and it’s, well, just what you’d expect.
According to the site, which calculates current prices based on actual reports from consumers (inhalers?), South Carolina has some pretty pricey pot. Our state’s unofficial No. 1 cash crop is running about $440 an ounce. That’s for the high-quality stuff and, really, what other quality do you want in weed?
To put that in perspective, Mary Jane is $432 an ounce in North Carolina and it’s only $379 in Florida — at least in the cities with names that end in vowels. In Kentucky, bluegrass is a mere $400 an ounce.
Yet priceofweed.com reports that on Sept. 25, someone bought a quarter ounce of medium-quality dope in North Charleston and paid $60. For a substandard stash. Last week, someone paid $100 for a quarter-ounce of medium-quality in Mount Pleasant.
Guess everything really is more expensive east of the Cooper.
Meanwhile, some retiree down in Boca just paid $300 for some really premium stuff before hitting the early bird special.
People, this is no way to compete in a global marketplace.
A real cash (only) crop
Now, the South Carolina Department of Agriculture does not list marijuana as one of the state’s top cash crops, which means they must be smoking something.
On the Ag Department’s list of top commodities, they list “broilers” — chickens — as No. 1. Which is sort of like classifying cattle as “grillers.” But there’s nary a word about dope.
Officials say that soybeans, corn and tobacco are our best row crops. But in 2009, our tobacco haul was only $68 million. The folks at drugscience.org estimate that our marijuana industry was $142 million just a few years ago. We’d get more current numbers, but dope dealers apparently are not real good at filing tax returns — sort of like certain gubernatorial candidates.
Bottom line, that’s a lot of weed, but we aren’t getting anything out of it. Other than the obvious.
South Carolina should capitalize on all that publicity we got from Michael Phelps smoking our dope. That’s, like, Wheaties box big.
Don’t try this at home
OK, a disclaimer here. It is illegal to possess, smoke or sell pot in South Carolina. Of course, simple possession is only a misdemeanor — a slap on the wrist.
And if you’re high at the time, hey, you won’t even feel it.
Fact is, usury is technically illegal too, but some politicians are certainly cozy with the check-into-cash crowd. And if that ain’t usury, what is it?
This is not to say marijuana should be legal. But subscribers to the Libertarian point of view (of which there are apparently plenty) say the gubmint should quit burdening us with laws. If anything goes, that should include weed. Otherwise, the purity of our political beliefs are just, yes, up in smoke.

Posted: 11:50 AM September 30, 2010

“Cash Crop” is all about marijuana. But it also is about much more.

The film, absent talking heads, absent a polemic voice-over, takes the audience on a road trip from the Mexican border to the northernmost counties of California — Humboldt, Trinity and Mendocino — commonly known as the Emerald Triangle, where marijuana as a cash crop has replaced the anchor industries of fishing and timber. And so the film creates a nicely framed contradiction — call it widespread cognitive dissonance — between the use and farming of marijuana and the federal and local laws that continue to criminalize pot.

It’s impossible to watch “Cash Crop” and not be reminded of the train wreck called prohibition. Consider the reality on the ground today, specifically in California: it’s been reported that marijuana as a crop produces some $14 billion in annual sales, is the mainstay of many communities and is referred to as the California Green Rush. Nationally, marijuana is thought to be, by some researchers, a pervasive part of the American economy and the No. 1 crop in 12 states and among the top three in 30 states.

From small, mom-and-pop farms, with back-to-the-land characters, to much larger operations, it becomes clear that weed, as its often referred to in the film, is not only part of people’s lives — from recreational to medicinal use — but its is viewed as a civil right. A choice. And who, folks ask, should decide what is pharmacologically efficacious? Big Pharma?

“Cash Crop” explores these questions nicely while never being tedious. Next month, Californians will vote on Proposition 19, a ballot initiative slated to legalize marijuana for cultivation and sale. Fourteen other states have similar proposals in the works. Clearly, our culture and attitudes are changing.

And therein is the rub. Though the feds know that there is a rising tide to decriminalize marijuana, it still is enforcing federal laws that create a tension between Washington and the rights of states to act according to the wishes of their citizens. If you’re in California, you’re no longer in Kansas.

“Cash Crop” is a journey north, a window into American culture wherein Adam Ross, the award-winning director, parallels small vintners and pub owners with cannabis growers of all types, implicitly pointing out the lack of any real distinction between alcohol and pot in terms of social norms. In fact, one local sheriff comments that he has never been called to a domestic disturbance because of marijuana.

Embedded in the film is the question: When will our lawmakers catch up with the people and finally admit that, as a Mendocino County sheriff dryly comments, it’s time to “move on?” A county supervisor candidly points out, “The fact of the matter is, Americans like their marijuana.”

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

The year is 2001. Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas, who famously said, “Greed is good. Greed is right. Greed works”), a Wall Street bandit and a man with panache even in prison clothes, walks out of prison after an eight-year stretch for insider trading. Holding a cell phone the size of a lunch box, he looks around. No one is there to meet him.

Fast-forward to 2008, and there’s a financial tsunami on the way, one that feels a lot like 1929, headed toward the nation’s arbitragers and investment banks. Its momentum will shred esoteric instruments known as credit-default swaps and the real estate market in general.

Wall Street is awash in debt and a Lehman Brothers clone is about to go down, taking thousands of traders with it. Jake Moore (Shia LaBeof) is one of those traders. In desperation, having lost his mentor and his job, and since he is engaged to Gekko’s estranged daughter, Winnie (Cary Mulligan), he seeks out Gordon for advice, and things get complicated.

“Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps” has a nice intensity. It runs along the precipice of financial double-dealing, while men stare at computer screens and place huge bets with other people’s money, always in the shadow of imminent disaster.

While the story is familiar, it is nevertheless solidly entertaining. But what is compelling about “Money Never Sleeps” is the actors who deliver superb performances.

Testimony to Douglas’ talent, spanning almost four decades, is his ability to embrace a wide spectrum of characters from the anti-heroes (or existentially challenged) of “Wall Street,” “Fatal Attraction,” “A Perfect Murder,” “Basic Instinct” and “Falling Down,” to the urbane roles found in “American President” and “Wonder Boys.” He has demonstrated a strong comedic talent in “Romancing the Stone,” and “The Jewel of the Nile.” In other words, Douglas is always eminently watchable.

A character actor that has been remarkably consistent and durable is Frank Langella. In “Money Never Sleeps” he portrays Lewis Zabel, Jake’s mentor and the head of the company that’s about to crater. He gives a fine performance as an old-school trader who remembers a time when Wall Street wasn’t scorched earth (or so he insists).

Both LaBeof and Mulligan also deliver convincing portrayals of twenty-somethings who are finding their way in what is referred to by Gordon as the time of the ninja (no income, no assets). But as the film telegraphs, Gordon and the ninjas are back, as is Wall Street.

Easy A

As long as there is a stage of life known as adolescence, and as long as there are places called high school, where said age group is asked to congregate under the guise of getting an education, well, there will be movies made about this intense, vital and quirky subculture.

In truth, films about teenagers too often head over a cliff of stereotypes, clichés and caricature with plots that are immensely shallow and uninteresting. Occasionally, a gem comes along that even though it might not get high school quite right, it’s still charming and funny. That would be “Easy A.”

What makes the film entertaining, and likely hugely appealing to teens, is due in great part to Emma Stone, portraying a very bright, geeky, kind-hearted Olive Penderghast. Surrounded by mean girls, in the guise of teen Christians who strive for purity and abstinence, she manages to navigate the halls of Ojai High with a sense of self and an understanding of her marginalized standing in the school’s social hierarchy.

Inadvertently, she runs afoul of the high school’s gossip network and finds herself the target of malicious stories about her virginity — splashed from text to cell phone to computer. How she frees herself from the web of misunderstanding and fabrications makes for an interesting tale, one that happens to coincide nicely with a book her English class is reading: “The Scarlet Letter.”

Surprisingly, the supporting cast is exceptional, led by Patricia Clarkson and Stanley Tucci as Olive’s very accepting and hip parents. They are wonderful and clearly are having a hoot. And they’re not clueless. The movie also pays homage to the fine teen moviemaker John Hughes, whose signature film, “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” (1986), will always be the gold standard for great teen comedies.

(CANVAS STAFF REPORTS) – The first house made out of hemp has been built in the United States, filling what advocates say is a need for more green building materials.
USA Today reported the home was completed this summer in Asheville, N.C., and two more are in the works. While such homes have been built over the past two decades in Europe, Hemp Technologies co-founder David Madera told the newspaper that they are new to the United States.
The building material Hemcrete had to be imported because hemp comes from the same plant as marijuana, which is illegal to grow in the United States. Inhabitat.com said Hemcrete is made from hemp, lime and water and can be used for a variety of applications including wall and flooring construction and roof insulation.
The 3,400-square-foot Push House, designed and built by Anthony Brenner, also has interior walls made from recycled paper. Inhabitat said another feature is 30 window frames that have been salvaged and fitted with high tech glass, placed in such a way that the most daylight can enter without overheating the house.
Madera, whose company supplied the hemp stalks, lime and water mixture, said the hemp-filled walls are non-toxic, mildew-resistant, pest-free and flame-resistant.
The website Green Building Elements said the home costs about $100 a month to heat and cool. Former Asheville mayor Russ Martin and his wife, Karon Korp, own the home and told the Huffington Post that it cost $130 per square foot to build. That includes the cost of importing the hemp.
Such homes reflect people’s increasing desire to make homes both energy-efficient and healthy. Brenner told USA Today that he started searching for non-toxic materials because he wants to build a health-friendly home for his daughter, who suffers from a rare genetic disorder that makes her sensitive to chemicals and prone to seizures if she is around anything synthetic.
The newspaper said the second hemp house in Asheville is expected to be finished in about six weeks. Builder Clarke Snell told USA Today that he expects it to meet Passive House Institute standards that call for homes to use up to 90 percent less energy than traditional houses.

The consensus thinking among libertarians is that the standard by which people should judge any law or government program is whether the benefits of that law or government program outweigh the costs associated with its enactment or enforcement.
With that in mind, can anybody name for me any example from history when any government of any kind has ever been able to prevent its citizens from partaking of any vice by prohibiting that behavior? No? Then explain how the United States Federal Government intends to stop the use of a substance that can be routinely cultivated in an average person’s closet.
The prohibition of marijuana can never be successful.
Knowing that there is zero possibility of success in its prohibition, the question each of us must ask is whether the benefits of limiting the use of marijuana as a drug outweigh the costs associated with combating it.
How effective has prohibition been in reducing marijuana usage? Not very effective.
The 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health reports that the number of people over the age of 12 who admitted to using cannabis within the past month rose from 6.2 percent in 2002 to 6.6 percent in 2009.
However, keep in mind that these numbers are survey-based and, since illegal drug use is unquantifiable in any exact sense, there is every reason to believe the real numbers are far higher. Reason.com columnist Jacob Sullum uses data from the FBI and the National Survey on Drug Use and Health in a Sept. 16 blog post to highlight the fact that while arrests for marijuana crimes have roughly tripled since the early 1990’s, use has not only remained constant, but has actually risen slightly. Since the government can only ever hope to reduce usage and it hasn’t even done that, then the only question left to answer is whether the costs of prohibition outweigh its nonexistent success.
Even a cursory glance at those costs indicates that they far exceed the benefits. For example, The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) claims that in 1997 “only 1.6 percent of the state inmate population had been convicted of a marijuana only crime, including trafficking.” This was before many states began legalizing medical marijuana, which resulted in a federal crackdown on trafficking and use, but let’s assume that the same percentage holds true today at both the state and federal level.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reported that in 2006, there were 1,569,945 federal and state prison inmates. At a rate of 1.6 percent, that means over 25,000 of them were incarcerated for marijuana crimes. BJS statistics on corrections expenditures indicate that these 25,000 inmates represent a cost of just over $1 billion that year. This is just the cost for the incarceration of these inmates, which number does not even include all those who violated other laws as a result of being involved in the criminalized economy of marijuana. To me, this represents a minimum of 25,000 people and $1 billion too many.
Then there is the cost imposed by prohibition on hemp cultivation. Hemp is one of the most useful crops mankind has ever cultivated. It was so crucial to the colonial economy that many areas, including Mass., required farmers to dedicate some portion of their acreage to its cultivation. Despite the fact that it had been criminalized in 1937, the U.S. government initiated the “Hemp for Victory” program during World War II to encourage farmers to grow the crop for use in making rope and other products for the war effort. Today, rather than cutting down trees, which remove carbon from the atmosphere and are at best a semi-renewable resource, we could be making paper (and cloth and plastic and myriad and other useful items) from a crop that generates less pollution in the manufacturing process, grows in almost any climate region and is completely renewable.
So, is there some other proven method for reducing the use of a harmful substance? Remarkably, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the government’s own data shows that we have had far more success reducing the prevalence of smoking than we have in reducing the use of cannabis. Through aggressive education and prevention programs, not to mention increasingly heavy doses of taxation, the percentage of adults who smoke in the U.S. has declined from 24.7 percent in 1997 to 20.6 percent in 2009.
In fact, the number of adult smokers had dropped to only 19.7 percent in 2007 before the recent recession began at the end of that year, once again proving the correlation of rising vice to periods of economic distress.
Besides, I don’t know about you, but I would really look forward to seeing what MTV would do with their “Shards ‘O Glass” anti-smoking commercials to refocus them on reducing youth pot smoking.
I’m not going to tell you that legalization is the only solution to our marijuana issues, but as these facts prove beyond any doubt, the current situation causes more harm than good. Prohibition is not working, so let’s find something that will.

As we become increasingly environmentally conscious, we are forced to ask the question, is there anything hemp can;t do? Through its many incarnations, hemp has now become a green construction option. Dozens of hemp homes have already been built in Europe over the last two decades, and they are starting to cross the pond, with a hemp walled home recently built in Asheville, North Carolina.
Peter Ashley, director of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control, explains that hemp has a place on the construction market because “There is a growing interest in less toxic building materials.”
In fact, a recent study of a Seattle public housing complex reported that resident health improved after their homes got a green makeover. The many unhealthy living spaces that exist may be symptomatic of the fact that the US government historically hasn;t taken an interest in studying chemicals found in the home until problems begin to arise. Such has been the case with lead, arsenic, formaldehyde and asbestos, a toxic mineral known to cause asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma, a rare cancer of the lining of the chest and abdomen.
Thus far, green construction has focused mostly on the health of the environment and not specifically on the health of the residents, but it;s likely that what benefits one will benefit the other. Although asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral, its use has been banned in construction, as its devastating health effects have long been known. Every year, approximately 2000 Americans discover they have contracted mesothelioma because of asbestos exposure, a bleak diagnosis, as even with aggressive mesothelioma treatment, including surgery, chemo and radiation, sufferers rarely live beyond 18 months. Asbestos cancer has no known cure.
Industrial hemp is imported because it cannot be grown legally in the U.S. Yet its use reflects an increasing effort to make American homes both energy-efficient and healthier.

A convention that made headlines and drew thousands of people to the Cow Palace in Daly City a few months ago lit up the Bay Area again this weekend.

The International Cannabis and Hemp Expo had such great success in April that it made a return trip, complete with an area for card-carrying medical pot patients to, well, medicate.

Crowds were large Saturday and Sunday.  The only surprise of the weekend is that a lot of those who came  out spoke words of disapproval of California‘s Proposition 19, which would legalize pot for recreational  use.  A new poll shows Prop. 19 ahead, but it looks like that approval is coming from people who can’t currently use it for medical purposes.

Reporters covering the Daly City event said they found it hard to find any Prop. 19 love at the Cow Palace.

Cannabis Cup Cake Anyone?

LOOK

Cannabis Cup Cake Anyone?

Tour Oakland’s Pot-Growing Megastore

LOOK

Tour Oakland’s Pot-Growing Megastore

Mobile Marijuana Operation For Sale

LOOK

Mobile Marijuana Operation For Sale

The event is a chance for the public to learn from vendors and speakers and see 100,000-square feet of displays showing off products to grow and ingest marijuana. Bands and musical acts will entertain. One of the goals of this weekend’s expo is to showcase the job industry the cannabis field has opened. Legal experts will also on hand to help explain the rules of the “canna-business” and guide people interested in getting into the industry.

Marijuana won’t be sold at the event but there will be a “Prop 215 tent” designated for legally-certified medical cannabis patients to consume their own.

An estimated 15,000 people attended the event in April — about half of them were medical marijuana patients. This weekend’s expo could draw an even bigger crowd.

From birth to toilet training, a baby goes through an average of 8000 diaper changes. This sheer volume of diapers makes one thing clear: Your choice of diaper – cloth or disposable – has a tremendous impact on the welfare of your baby and the planet.
To help you decide what’s best for your family, here are some things you should know.

Diapers and Health
Since babies have diapers touching delicate areas 24 hours a day, it’s no surprise that health concerns have arisen.
1. Diaper rash.
Cloth diapers tell kids and parents when they’re wet, while disposables may feel dry because the absorbent materials pull wetness into the middle of the diaper. This often means fewer diaper changes and possibly increased diaper rash. Therefore, regardless of the type of diaper used, it is important to change them frequently, every 2-3 hours, even if they feel dry.
2. Synthetic chemicals.
Parents are largely in the dark about the chemicals used to make the disposable diapers their children wear. Diaper manufacturers are not required to divulge what’s in their products and very little scientific literature exists on the chemicals diaper manufacturers use. Here are some of the most common concerns:

• VOCs – One oft-cited study, conducted by Anderson Laboratories in 1999 and published in the Archives of Environmental Health, found that conventional disposable diapers do release chemicals called volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene and dipentene. All of these VOCs have been shown to have toxic health effects with long-term or high level exposure.

The researchers also discovered that mice exposed to the chemicals emitted by disposable diapers were more likely to experience irritated airways than mice exposed to emissions from cloth diapers. The authors suggested that disposable diapers may cause “asthma-like” reactions and urged more study into a possible link between diaper emissions and asthma. (Cloth diapers and one brand of disposables had low emissions – unfortunately, due to the nature of the study, brand names weren’t revealed.)

• SAP – The main absorbent filler in disposable diapers, sodium polyacrylate (SAP), could cause respiratory, as well as skin, irritations in occupational settings where exposures are at much higher levels than occurs with diaper use. (Note that the gel used in disposable diapers today is not the same as that used in super absorbant tampons, linked with toxic shock syndrome, a number of years ago.) In fact, SAP has been rigorously tested and it has been concluded that it is completely safe and non-toxic. In fact, MBDC, which is the leading US-based design chemistry firm, has assessed SAP as GREEN, which is the safest assessment a chemical or material can receive. Safe for your baby, safe for the planet.
• Dioxins – Most diapers, whether or not disposable, are bleached white with chlorine. As a result, there have been claims that diapers may contain trace amounts of dioxin, a highly carcinogenic byproduct of chlorine bleaching. Since the diapers come into contact with the genitals, some parents worry about potential reproductive cancers. Currently, there is no evidence that this is the case. According to a study by the US EPA, “exposure to dioxins from the diet is more than 30,000-2,200,000 times the exposure through diapers.” So, diapers aren’t a main exposure route, but if they’re bleached, they are creating dioxin pollution – which ends up in food – which ends up in us. (Read more below.)

Others? Without an ingredients list, products can vary. But, according to an article in the CBC News, “Diapers can also contain polyurethane, adhesives, inks used to create the cartoon images found on many disposable diapers, and lotions used to coat the diaper liner. These lotions often include petrolatum, essentially the same substance as Vaseline, which has the potential to be contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), cancer-causing chemicals found in crude oil, according to the U.S. Environmental Working Group, an organization that devotes itself to educating consumers about health hazards posed by a variety of products. Other common diaper substances include lotions containing almond oil or Jojoba, which can also lead to skin reactions in allergic children. Many disposables also add fragrance to their diapers to mask fecal odors or chemical odors, which in many cases contain phthalates, the class of chemicals known to disrupt the endrocrine system. That’s the strong smell that diapers often give off when newly opened.”
Diapers and Our Natural Resources
Many natural resources must be used to produce diapers. Disposable diapers use 1.3 million tons of wood pulp — a quarter-million trees — each year, along with plastics, which are made from petroleum resources. Both types of diapers also consume energy and water in their manufacturer and, in the case of cotton diapers, cleaning.
It has been argued — primarily by the makers of disposable diapers — that the production and cleaning of cloth diapers requires more energy and water and generates more water pollution than the production of disposables.
Mothering magazine estimates that washing cloth diapers at home uses the same amount of water as flushing the toilet five to six times a day — which is what your child will be doing once she’s potty trained. Diaper services wash in high volume, which is more energy- and water-efficient.
POLLUTION
Use of both disposable and cloth diapers can cause harm to the environment, but in different ways.

• Disposal

The basic problem with disposable diapers is disposal. Disposable diapers are made of paper, plastic and the absorptive gel, sodium polyacrylate. These materials don’t biodegrade well, which means disposable diapers, like diamonds, are forever. Most go straight into landfills at the rate of 3.3 million tons —a whopping 18 billion diapers! — per year, according to EPA estimates. However, experts in waste management say that most things fail to biodegrade — even natural materials — in the environment of a landfill because of the lack of oxygen and water.
Proper use of disposables includes dumping fecal matter into the toilet before putting the soiled diaper in the trash. In practice, however, most parents don’t take that extra step. The smell and bacteria can create public health hazards. Fecal matter also carries live viruses that could potentially be released into the environment through leaking landfills. Yet, there are now hybrid disposable diapers like those made by gDiapers that are actually flushable which eliminates this problem.
The biggest environmental plus for cloth diapers is that they can be reused between 100 to 150 times. This also lowers their environmental impact per diaper, as compared to disposables.

• Pesticides

Since cloth diapers are made from cotton, pesticide use is a major pollution issue. Cotton crops use more pesticides than any other crop. (Note: Conventionally grown cotton fabric does NOT have pesticide residues. Learn more.)

• Wastewater

Conventional diaper production (both cotton and disposable) causes the release of dioxin, a potent carcinogen and hormone disruptor, in wastewater due to chlorine bleaching of cotton and wood pulp. Dioxin tends to persist for many years and can cause reproductive effects in wildlife. It also accumulates in animal and human tissue. Humans are exposed to dioxin through food that has been contaminated through environmental pollution.
Along with dioxin, wastewater produced by the manufacture of wood pulp, paper and plastics in disposables can contain solvents, sludge and heavy metals.
Diapering in the 21st Century
The diaper debate is sure to rage on, but consider one final factor: cost. Grist writer Anna Fahey says, “[r]eusable diapers (cloth or otherwise) are easier on the wallet. During the 2.5 years a child might be using diapers, reusables would cost between $400 and $1,700 for diapers, laundry supplies, water, and electricity. Over the same period, disposables would set you back $2,500 or so. If you pass the cloth diapers along to another child, the cost savings of reusables is even greater. A diaper service costs about the same as or a little less than disposables. (Everything you could possibly want to know about diaper costs is laid out here.)”
And, thank your lucky stars for ample choices. Beyond simply cloth vs. disposable, today’s parents have a slew of organically grown, unbleached cotton products in addition to hemp and bamboo alternatives. There’s also an ever-expanding market of eco-friendly disposable diapers including Tushies, Seventh Generation, Nature Boy and Girl, and Mother Nature.. They vary considerably, so do some homework before you choose. And, one last option to consider which allows you to avoid every single issue listed above: elimination communication – diaper-free living!
Did we miss anything? Where do you fall in the diaper debate?

By THOMAS J. MORGAN
JOURNAL sTAFF wRITER PAWTUCKET — The City of Pawtucket has agreed to apologize to one of its employees and to pay her legal fees after she sued over its drug-testing policy.
Romana Ramos, a police matron and interpreter for 17 years, contended that she was unlawfully required to submit to a random urine test for drugs and a chemical breath test for alcohol. The penalty for refusal was a 30-day suspension. Both tests proved negative, according to the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union.
The ACLU on Thursday announced the settlement of the case, which was handled by volunteer attorney Richard A. Sinapi.
The ACLU said that state law allows drug testing in the workplace, but reasonable suspicion is required. Random testing is not allowed, the organization said in a news release.
In the settlement, the ACLU said, the city agreed to pay $5,000 in legal costs and to take steps to bring its testing policy into line with state law.
Sinapi said that the ACLU will take action against other employers if they require testing not approved by state law.