Until a visiting Thatcher honoree informed me that Prop 19, while legalizing pot in the (once-)Golden State, would also make it difficult for employers to fire someone who toked a bit too much:
Prop 19 failed also because it overreached. One feature attempted to protect the “rights” of employees who get fired or disciplined for using marijuana, including a provision that employers could only discipline marijuana use that “actually impairs job performance.” That is a much higher bar than required by current policy.
Commenting on this, Walter Olson observes
Like so many other developments in employment law in recent years, this would have chipped away at the basic principle of employment at will, which holds that in the absence of a contract specifying otherwise, either party to an employment relation may end that relation at any time for any reason or for no reason at all.
Via Instapundit. So, while the law may have removed one barrier to our freedom, it created another. Just as individuals should be free to smoke marijuana, so should employers be free to ensure that their employees don’t.
It seems that the initiative’s authors, like many on the left, only understood the idea of freedom in personal terms, not economic ones. Let us hope that, in future years, they put forward a proposition which recognizes both an individual’s freedom to toke and a company’s freedom to set its own employment policies.
the same groups who support extra high fines and terms for drunk driving will fight the firing of the same person for smoking weed. And the left wonders why we think they are nuts. The unions will back a lowlife to the hilt, unless he actually holds a conservative view, then they demand he be fired. Pass anti-business laws and complain that business leaves and joblessness increases. Praise NMBLA and decry the Catholic church for pedophiles in the cloth…the hypocrisy and irony is endless with these maroons.
Those on the left recognize the rights of invididual citizens Only If those rights are in accord with their own biases and agendas. A concern for individual liberty is not a general charactistic of the left.
I guess you missed the next part,
“This provision allowed Prop 19 opponents to claim that workplaces would become infested with impaired pot users. That assertion is not well-founded, but that is not the point.”
By your logic employers should also be able to not hire people who drink when not at work. Does an employer’s right to choose employees also mean we should eliminate discrimination laws to enable employers also not be able to hire blacks or gays or women? Your assertion of employer’s absolute rights to choose their employees isn’t already invalidated by our current laws on things like alcohol and skin color.
You’re inventing something here that a)doesn’t exist in current law, b) paints marijuana wrongly even by the article you’ve cited here and c)paints a dangerous precedent if truly followed completely to it’s logical end point.
No matter what we argue here, Prop 19 has gone up in smoke.
Excellent reason for opposing the prop.
Another excellent reason is that stoners suck and are a blight on society. (that ought to tweak some noses, but its true).
I have libertarian leanings, but this is one very good example of why I am not a libertarian. I am reluctant to pass laws telling people what they can and can’t do, except to the extent that it affects the rest of us. Your right to swing your arms ends at my face, as the adage goes. And others pot use affects us all.
I had the crap beaten out of me, and was put in the hospital by a guy who just moments prior to attacking me was trying to sell me pot. I told him that every time I passed him he asked me if I wanted to buy pot, and every time I said no, and if he would just try to remember that I don’t want any, he would save us both the trouble. Next thing I knew I woke up flat on my back on the ground, pockets empty, face a mangled bloody mess. A year later I am still not fully recovered.
Pot causes psychoses, as shown by multiple peer reviewed studies (it also shrinks the brain), which is a huge burden on society. An acquaintance recently committed suicide after becoming schizophrenic. He was a regular, daily pot user.
Look at all the most angry, mouth-frothing liberals you know. The one’s who cant even mention George Bush or Sarah Palin without spittle flying from their mouths and veins popping out in their heads…crazed hate filled brain-addled psychos like Andrew Sullivan, Bill Maher, Janeane Garafolo…. every one of them a regular pot user.
The truth is that the last thing society needs is more legal ways for people to addle their brains. The truth remains that people addling their brains most definitely affects the rest of us, and we should not legalize any more drug use. If you want to addle your brain, drink. If you don’t want to drink, then grow up and learn how to deal with life without getting high.
A provision to protect employees that would use the newly legal substance seems to only make sense to me. Marijuana would still very much have a stigma and bosses would be likely to fire people they knew were using regardless of whether or not it was impacting their job performance. Obviously, if the marijuana use was an issue and people were showing up late or impaired, that would be a fireable offense. You can’t fire people for getting drunk recreationally on their own time, and that standard should apply to marijuana as well.
Excellent point.
Actually, you can. Employment-at-will states that a company may terminate an employee at any time, with or without cause, unless there is some statutory bar to doing so — and there is no statutory bar to firing someone because they get drunk on their off-hours, nor is there a statute guaranteeing you the right to get drunk without it affecting your employment.
Furthermore, it is established precedent that anything that you do on your off hours that could reflect negatively on your employer in any way is perfectly permissible as grounds for termination, and is a liability that you take on by choosing to engage in such activity.
In short, the reason Proposition 19 lost is because the average California voter is far better informed than the typical “progressive” drug user like Levi. But that’s no surprise; Levi never bothers to take the time to research before opening his mouth and spewing the latest “progressive” talking points.
The problem, Levi, is that “impacting job performance” is a subjective measure. A trucking firm (or airline) may believe that any use of pot impacts job performance and subjects the public and the company to unacceptable risk but a cabal of SF judges may think otherwise. It would be just one more reason to avoid hiring more workers.
The feds have made a big mistake with pot. There’s some evidence that it helps people with certain chronic and/or terminal conditions. For that reason, it should have been placed on Schedule II and prescribed like any other Sched. II drug. There a plenty of drugs on the market with less evidence of efficacy than pot.
Instead, we wound up with a couple of states with pot dispensaries where anyone can make a call to Dr. Feelgood who will fax a scrip for chronic nervousness.
In theory, pot legalization is fine – provided the consequences can remain with those who choose to use it (e.g. accepting that some employers make not want to employ users “just because”).
Have you ever wondered why the Left is so eager to legalize pot and just as eager to outlaw tobacco and alcohol? The only reason that makes any sense is that the Left is led by a bunch of aging Baby Boomers trying to get back at their parents by outlawing their parents’ drugs of choice while promoting their own.
Is anyone seriously going to make the case that smoking tobacco is deadly and smoking pot is benign?
Of COURSE they are, and they do! They argue that tobacco contains much more harmful ingredients, that smokers smoke more often so its more harmful. I even heard someone on the radio this week claiming that THC prevents or fights cancer, so its actually good for you!
They are shameless in their arguments for legalization precisely because they are addicted. Any and every argument they can use to legalize their obsession. From stoners pretending they want to legalize pot for medicinal purposes to arguing what an awesome textile product it is…. anything to move the
ballbong down the field.The same can be said of the use of alcohol and any number of easily accessible prescription drugs. But those substances aren’t battling a deliberately engineered social stigma or billion dollar industries. I assume this part of the proposition was necessary because the law would have only taken effect in one state and because its authors were trying to be as thorough as possible. I don’t think it is an overreach to incorporate that kind of language considering these circumstances. We urgently need to deal with the disastrous effects of the war on drugs, and I don’t think disagreeing with this portion of the proposition justifies supporting the absurd and deficient status quo. You’ll be waiting forever if you’re looking for some one-shot, perfectly complete solution.
And besides, we all know the stuff would still have been illegal at the federal level, and the Justice Department let everyone know they would still be enforcing those laws. Prop 19 was mainly about generating some national awareness and forcing the issue. It would have been nice to see what would have come from that – but oh well. People in a recession are against the creation of an entire new industry worth billions of dollars that generates jobs and government revenue while reducing crime rates… do we even deserve a recovery?
That doesn’t make any sense. Why should alcohol be legal by that argument? Alcohol has a far more destructive effect on individuals and society. Shouldn’t we at least pretend to be consistent here?
Use your brain as hard as you can and think about what could have helped prevent you from experiencing this unpleasant situation:
Have you figured it out yet? Do you think there would have been a desperate criminal standing on a street corner trying to sell you pot if pot was, oh, I don’t know, available for purchase at a dispensary? This is the problem with criminalizing drugs that people want to use, as we saw in the 20’s during prohibition. We’re creating criminals and incentivizing crime – that’s why you got attacked. You don’t know if the guy that beat you up was high from marijuana, he could have been drunk, he could have been completely sober. The problem was that he was a criminal filling a role that society plainly wants filled, and if someone is willing to risk jail time to sell drugs, then why wouldn’t they be willing to risk jail time to assault someone? Criminals are desperate, paranoid, aggressive, and stupid, the war on drugs has effectively spawned generations of them, not to mention cost us trillions of dollars in enforcement spending and lost revenue from possible taxation.
It might feel good to get on your high horse and moralize that no one should smoke weed, but the verdict is in; no one cares about your opinion and they’re going to do it anyway because it’s all over the place and it’s fun – just like alcohol. The question is do you want to plug your ears and pretend that isn’t the case, or do you want to figure out a way to solve the government-created problem is solely responsible for your misfortune?
“We’re”?
Sorry, cokehead, but YOU are the one buying the pot. YOU are the one protecting the street thugs. YOU are the one handing over your cash to the Mexican cartels, and as we see now, YOU are the one trying to block all drug enforcement.
This guy would not have been on the street if YOU had actually enforced the laws, dirtbag. And the reason you won’t is because you are a stoner addict who needs drugs to function, just like your loser parents.
This shows you how truly delusional Levi is. Instead of admitting that he has a problem and his need to do drugs is bad for him, he whines and cries that everyone should enable him and allow him to do even more. Who wants to bet that his parents bought him drugs and pot?
It makes perfect sense, you simply don’t have any sense, which is another matter altogether.
Because it already is. It’s called pragmatism.
Unlike you, I don’t need to work very hard to solve simple problems.
I had pointed out to Seattle Police officers that this guy was dealing pot, they told me they KNEW that but they weren’t really interested in pot dealers. WHY? Because Seattle “progressives”, the same hypocritical submorons who made smoking cigarettes illegal in private bars and restaurants passed a law forcing police to treat pot related crime as their lowest priority.
Enforcing the law is what would have prevented this incident. Self-styled “progressives” prevented that.
Yes, while it is true that if were were to decriminalize crime there would be no criminals, it nonetheless remains a monumentally stupid argument.
Actually, what we saw during prohibition is that alcohol use went WAAAY down, as most people abided by the law, and we further found that when we repealed prohibition, alcohol use skyrocketed.
actually, its a tedious unpleasant chore.
Um, you might want to check the election results again. It turns out that even in deep blue California, the majority of Americans AGREE with my opinion and reject YOURS.
It’s uncanny! … even a broken watch is right twice a day, and yet you are invariably wrong about virtually everything.
Must be the pot.
The Leftist hysteria over tobacco — even as they wish to legalize pot — is hilarious. I’ve never even tried marijuana in my life, but because I smoke cigars I am a threat to society.
When I light a stogie, those who do not giggle over the incongruity of a skinny blonde with a cigar have a much darker reaction. They recoil, as if I had just boiled a child alive and eaten it in front of them.
What explains this strange reaction, when marijuana is supposedly so benign? The Hivemind has decreed it is verboten — and thus it must be.
Imagine the savings if we didn’t criminalize kicking the shit out of gays and then the time and money of having to prosecute thought crimes on top of that. Those convicted won’t get taxed in prison either. How much is that lost revenue.
You’re right. It created the Kennedys.
Are you Starbuck by chance? 😉
I was explaining to a friend the other day the social contract vs libertarian PoV on drugs with the .08 example. There are people out there who can function with nothing more than a low degree of imparment at the same BAC level that would leave me knocked out. To a Libertarian (IIRC) the point is, that it is the consequences of getting that plastered that should be punished (reckless operation, vehicular assault, public indecency, etc) Not the actualy drinking.
Now in theory, a civil society can decide to make the risky behaviour illegal, instiuting a ‘cap’ on when enough people become a risk. For example, BAC of .08. Yes, you may be able to drive fine with a BAC of .2, but enough people can’t that society has ruled that you have to follow the rules of .08. Using that logic is why society goes overboard on things like smoking, or Pot.
Please correct me if I misunderstand the Libertarian position, Lori. You’re the most Libertarian of our regulars, IIRC.
That’s circular reasoning.
The only thing that is stupid is the arbitrary nature of your opposition to people smoking marijuana, your willingness to continue expensive and counterproductive government policies, and your inability to learn any of the lessons from the Prohibition era.
The problem with alcohol and prohibition wasn’t that people were drinking, it was the sprawling criminal organizations that popped up after the ban. As long as some sliver of the population wants to keep imbibing something, there is going to exist a black market to service their needs. Is there a single positive effect that the criminalization of marijuana has on our society, in exchange for all of the death and prison sentences and property destruction we must endure to keep it illegal? I can’t think of one.
I was referring to people that continue to smoke pot, despite your lectures recommending they do the opposite. The only way to reduce drug related crime is to reduce demand to 0, which is a completely impossible goal in a country of 300 million people.
And I don’t smoke pot, though I have done it in the past, but that only has the slightest bearing on my opinion of whether or not it should be illegal. My position is one that would reduce drug related crime, save the government money, create private sector jobs and increase government revenue with no ill side effects. Portugal decriminalized not only weed, but every kind of drug, and they’re enjoying all kinds of benefits – teens use drugs less, more people seek treatment, the spread of HIV is down… it’s a working model that we should incorporate here.
Or, you know, you could continue to push seedy lowlifes underground and get your ass kicked some more because you want to stick it to the hippies, or whatever.
Fortunately for Levi, the courts have upheld the authority of the government to control substances.
Surely since Levi argues that men in black robes are the be all and end all, then he accepts that Marijuana has been ruled illegal, and won’t oppose that.
No, Livewire, I’m not Starbuck. Among other differences, I’m a little more…seasoned than she is. (-;
As far as the true libertarian position is concerned, it seems to be that only if someone who smokes pot harms someone else should he or she be arrested, and then for the harm caused another person rather than because the smoker may have harmed him/herself.
Logically, that makes sense, of course. But only when the Nanny State starts arresting smokers of tobacco, or drinkers of alcohol, or eaters of Happy Meals, for injuries potentially done to themselves will most people begin to understand why punishing people for harming themselves is a bad idea.
Laws are designed, in the libertarian scheme, to protect people from others — not to protect them from themselves. Thus they should punish people who harm others, rather than for how high their blood-alcohol content is when Nanny pulls them over on the highway. They believe that bad behavior often punishes itself, and that not every nanosecond of our lives can be micro-managed by people who think they know better than we do how to live them.
The key is that our behavior, when bad, should punish ourselves, but not others. It is when it punishes others that it should itself be punishable under the law.
Do I totally agree with legalising pot? At the very least, I believe its possession by adults for their own use should be decriminalized. One aspect of this not usually considered is that the drug trade is now funding terrorism. Does this mean that it should be legal for everybody? That is a different question, and one I’m not sure I know the answer to.
Thank you Lori,
I just wanted to make sure I understood the ‘typical’ Libertarian POV. it helps to understand where someone stands when you’re debating a point with him.
(OTOH, that’s why Levi doesn’t reply to me. I understand the little racist all too well)
Lori, you seem to be suggesting that you’ve got a problem with police issuing DUIs to people based on their blood-alcohol level. Is that what you think or am I reading that wrong?
Come on, are you really mystified as to why people don’t like tobacco? Do you honestly think it’s because the liberal propaganda masters just decided one day that’s what we were going to be brainwashed to believe? You don’t think it has to do with the fact that it smells terrible and is unhealthy for people to be around? Tobacco is annoying because it’s rude and inconsiderate, that’s all.
I don’t care if you do it, but you shouldn’t be able to just light up wherever you want because you’re literally poisoning the air supply of everyone around you. Taking it outside is a perfectly reasonable compromise.
So I see you’ve decided to take this argument into a space of complete irrationality – no thanks!
Levi, for the record…
I agree with you just about ZERO percent of the time. You know this. However, I will state the following in the interest of full disclosure:
I smoke a pack of Newports a day, and about an 1/8th of marijuana a month (usually on Friday or Saturday nights, or the odd-weekday evening I find myself stressed and unable to sleep).
I am one of the many conservatives and/or libertarians who supported Prop 19, and who also see no problem stepping outside to smoke a cigarette.
I truly believe that legalization of marijuana nationwide is now only a matter of time.
Take that FWIW. 🙂
“You don’t think it has to do with the fact that it smells terrible and is unhealthy for people to be around? ”
Looks like no one associates with Levi then.
As to the ‘take it outside’. No one forces non-smokers to go to or work in an establishment that allows smoking. Non-smokers aren’t dragged kicking and screaming to a bar. Private property owners should be allowed to decide if they do or do not want to allow smoking in their property.
Now here’s where Levi loses it. The power to regulate smoking is not specifically delegated to the Federal Government, so the states can decide. While I find smoking bans onerous and intrusive, they’re not unconstitutional in Ohio.
Perhaps the hypocracy of Levi is most evident in his ‘legalize pot but criminalize tobacco because I find it disgusting’ school of thought.
Does this mean that Levi supports sodomy laws? After all, some people find it ‘disgusting’ (paging Seena-Anna) and that appears to be the latest Levi rule of law.
“Taking it outside is a perfectly reasonable compromise.”
And you assume that I don’t do this…why? Why is it that liberals always assume everyone else is inconsiderate and/or stupid? Are you really so objectively inferior that you must imagine points of superiority in order to feel good about yourselves?
You seem to live in a fantasy-world, in which you are alternatively hero or victim while everyone else either victimizes you or else must be rescued, by you, from the victimizers.
Disney movies are nice, but most conservatives and libertarians can discern the difference between them and the reality of life.
Similar to the, “Legalize gay marriage, but not polygamous or sibling marriage because those are icky” line of reasoning.
Good posting! Generally, I tend to disagree with more of your postings than not. Here you made a genuinely libertarian argument without also providing the apologetics or blind devotion to the Repubs. People should be free to smoke whatever they want, and businesses should be free to associate with whomever they want–both employees and clients/customers. That’s the point: both economic and personal freedom. Great post.
And just like that, Thorne nails it! 🙂
Good job, my friend!
I propose Pot Airlines where all the planes are built by pot heads, serviced by potheads and flown by potheads. Oh, yeah, and only potheads can fly on it. They can toke from coast to coast and never really land.
On the other hand, I also propose that anyone remotely responsible for the safety of others who is caught doped up be banished to a pot commune where the weed is free and plentiful but roaming past the barbed wire is not allowed.
I do not want my electrical work done by a person under the influence. No brake jobs for my car under like circumstance. No help at the hospital from people who are high. Don’t toke up before the unit goes on patrol. Don’t tan and fry at the same time on the life-guard stand. Stay off the roads. Don’t ride a bicycle. Don’t serve hot food. Don’t interact with your children while high.
Tell me again why an employer should not stick his nose in someone’s “private” business.
“Lori, you seem to be suggesting that you’ve got a problem with police issuing DUIs to people based on their blood-alcohol level.”
No, I have no problem with that. If somebody is weaving all over the road, gets pulled over for it and flunks a sobriety test, that person should surely be arrested for endangering the lives of others. That is part of the basic duty of police departments everywhere.
Endangering others begins when people become a potential danger. But even that — it must be kept in mind — can sometimes be open to interpretation. Busybodies both Right and Left commonly take it upon themselves to intervene in other people’s private lives because they THINK these folks just MIGHT be endangering others, and that seems to lead to nothing but harm.
No, actually, it’s quite literally linear; a line in the sand. But reasoning is not your strong suit so what can we expect.
You really need to stop trying to be logical. It’s painful to those of us who are. Watching a liberal trying to be logical is like watching a man try to menstruate. If you were capable of logic you wouldn’t be a liberal in the first place.
There is nothing arbitrary about continuing long held social norms. That is pragmatism. What is arbitrary is saying we should CHANGE the status quo to allow your brain-addling drug of preference but not others.
Ahhh, well, that makes complete sense! The verdict is in! Criminals dont care if you dont like their crime! Brilliant, Levi! Truly brilliant. Fortunately it is not the minority opinion of stoners that matters.
Nooo, the way to reduce drug crime is to enforce the laws. Perhaps what you meant to say is the only way to eliminate drug-related crime is to reduce demand to zero. But of course that’s silly too, because while no one believes drug use can be completely eradicated, the proof that drug use can and crime can be reduced by law enforcement is incontrovertible. It HAS been reduced. That is when conservatives who actually enforce the laws are in charge. And because you can reduce both through reducing demand AND reducing supply.
AH, so your brain is just naturally addled. My sympathies.
And hemp makes great rope and clothing too! Again with the throw everything against the wall and see what sticks arguments.
Reduce drug related crime? Hardly. Has drunk driving decreased since the repeal of prohibition? no, its drastically increased. Have the other crimes and problems associated with drinking decreased since the repeal of prohibition? no they have dramatically increased as the use of alcohol dramatically increased. Hell, even the organized crime associated with prohibition hasn’t decreased, they have just changed their crimes. They morphed into organized labor and the base of the Democrat party.
Bull. Like the Netherlands where crimes of all sorts have skyrocketed and the quality of life so deteriorated that they are not re-criminalizing pot — a working model they incorporated from us!
Or we could do something that actually works and repeal so-called “progressive” laws making sanctuary cities for drug crime, and then that man would have already been in prison where he belongs.
oops, that should read: “Like the Netherlands where crimes of all sorts have skyrocketed and the quality of life so deteriorated that they are *now* re-criminalizing pot — a working model they incorporated from us!
It’s pretty clear that medical marijuana has become what Bette Midler funnily predicted back in 1996 – “OOf…I stubbed my toe, anybody have a joint?” “Oh, I have such cramps, roll your mother a doob”.
Kevin,
I don’t often agree w/you, but you hit it on the head here. While MedMary does have some beneficial attributes, it is often, well, over prescribed I read an article back in the late 90’s about Medical Mary in California. One of the people being interviewed was being prescribed Marijuana to treat… alcoholism. Whisky Tango Foxtrot?
Remember Dr. Johnny Fever taking the DUI test? His reaction time got better the drunker he got.
Yep. Comes down through the ages from the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and other fascists. Just like every bit of liberalism, it’s been done and failed before. It’s another attempt at controlling the people.
[Credible Citation Needed]
And the bleeding gashes who whine and complain about designated smoking areas aren’t?
Whilst you’re coming up with brilliant ideas about increasing employment, how about getting rid of the employment bans on smokers?