This entire premise presumes that anyone eating pork in most of the US, and especially in Oregon, would be regularly failing drug tests through no fault of their own. Without a significant increase in failed drug tests, and a correlation to casual pork consumption, this entire examination collapses.
Further, it also depends on an assumption that a specific group of food service providers ("restaurants, food trucks, colleges, and other local food services") belong in the same group or merchants who would be more likely to procure tainted pork, when they don't. Restaurants buy from enormous food service providers that specialize in bulk procurement; food trucks are more likely to buy from supermarkets or Costco. Colleges will definitely fall into the same category as fast food providers. You attempt to separate this "tainted" pork food chain along neat lines that would channel it specifically into Houlihan's mouth, while amusing, is baseless.
In short, this is a lot of text with a lot of cobbled-together jargon, but the argument doesn't stand up.