If the feds move it off the schedule I list, which is such a giant crock of horseshit for it to be there, this ruling would have no further legal basis. Hence the specific language of that being OK because it still violates federal law. This indicates to me that beyond that, there isn't a legal justification for not hiring if pot is legal. Firing for a positive test post accident or injury is also shaky to me. Why do we automatically assume if someone has an accident that it was drug related? Even if they do test positive, how does that prove they were high when the accident occurred? Just seems like justification not to pay for someone hurt on the job, etc., based on specious logic.