The Unfair Burden of Measure 119

Oregon's Measure 119 proposes to require cannabis businesses to facilitate unionization and labor organization as a condition of licensure. On the surface, this may sound reasonable - but the details reveal a deeply unfair regulatory structure that singles out cannabis while exempting comparable industries.

The Double Standard

Under Measure 119, cannabis businesses would be required to actively facilitate union organization efforts. Meanwhile, alcohol producers - who are regulated by the same agency (OLCC) and operate in a comparable market - face no such requirement. This creates an obvious regulatory inconsistency that burdens cannabis operators with compliance costs and operational constraints that their alcohol-industry counterparts do not share.

The Impact on Operators

Cannabis businesses already operate on razor-thin margins. Between federal tax penalties under 280E, state excise taxes, and the costs of regulatory compliance, many operators are struggling to stay viable. Adding mandatory unionization facilitation requirements on top of this existing burden could push already fragile businesses past the breaking point.

This is not an anti-labor position. It is a fairness position. If Oregon believes that unionization facilitation should be a condition of licensure, that requirement should apply equally across comparable industries - not single out cannabis for special treatment.

Take Action

If you are an Oregon voter, we encourage you to consider the implications of Measure 119 before casting your ballot on November 5. The cannabis industry needs a level playing field - not additional regulatory burdens that its competitors do not face.