Group: Prop 19 Would Mean Pot-Smoking at Work

[gilliam]

If marijuana was legal for adults in California, would more people show up at work high? And how would that change the definition of a “smoke break” during work hours?
That’s the latest issue facing proponents of Proposition 19, the ballot measure that would make marijuana legal for adults in California.

Voters will have a chance in November to decide whether to legalize marijuana for recreational purposes for adults over 21 but the political debate over the controversial issue has been heating up for quite some time. The latest argument against the ballot measure is that given the legal freedom to smoke pot, people will be high at work.

The California Chamber of Commerce on Thursday released a legal analysis that claims Proposition 19 would lead to more workplace accidents by forcing employers to let workers smoke pot on the job.

nbcbayarea.com/news/politics/Group-Prop-19-Would-Mean-Pot-Smoking-at-Work-100625869.html

 

[jjdrury81]

I have been following this pretty closely and do not buy this argument. The same logic could be used to argue that people could grab a beer during their ‘smoke break’.

 

[Catholic1954]

Marijuana today, crack tomorrow! I wonder if the government will offer tax breaks to low income users?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

California Chamber of Commerce on Thursday released a legal analysis that claims Proposition 19 would lead to more workplace accidents by forcing employers to let workers smoke pot on the job.

Employers don’t have to let smokers smoke cigarettes on their property; why would they have to allow pot smoking?

Look at the source - a right wing organization.

 

[jjdrury81]

I don’t understand how a right wing organization could oppose the legalization of marijuana. This really seems like one issue where both the right and the left should come together. Less government intrusion, a significant reduction in government spending, increased tax revenues and more freedom.

 

[GEddie]

I don’t understand how a right wing organization could oppose the legalization of marijuana. This really seems like one issue where both the right and the left should come together. Less government intrusion, a significant reduction in government spending, increased tax revenues and more freedom.

The right doen’t really want to see everybody getting stoned.

 

[jilly4ski]

I don’t understand how a right wing organization could oppose the legalization of marijuana. This really seems like one issue where both the right and the left should come together. Less government intrusion, a significant reduction in government spending, increased tax revenues and more freedom.

Most “right wing organizations” are not against all government regulation. Indeed there are things that must be regulated by the government because private entities do not have the incentives to do it themselves. (ie public goods).

I am not as concerned about work but rather driving. (This I am sure all people would agree that the government should regulate). Is one joint enough to make one too impaired for driving? How does law enforcement determine if you are driving “under the influence”? It would mean lots of scientific test to determine what a “safe” amount is, and then there needs to be legislation, and public service announcements and school education, and equipment for law enforcement to be able to test for the limit on the road or back at the station. Not to mention the law suits against the police and state for bringing people in who were not actually over the limit or the officer didn’t have probable cause to test etc.

I didn’t find the article very helpful, as it was confusing medical and recreational use. Indeed a company couldn’t restrict the use of the medical marijuana, unless it restricts all prescription medication or says if you have to take mind altering meds then you can’t work here. For recreational use a company would be able prohibit just like beer and other recreational items.

 

[DOShea]

I don’t understand the concern. Second hand smoke is second hand smoke. California has used the second-hand smoke issue to all but ban cigarette smoking. It won’t take very long for the first person lighting up to be sued by someone nearby or even in the same apartment building, and we now have a plethora of legal precedent that strongly favors the person not wanting the smoke.

Also the issue of smoke toxicity doesn’t come into play as some might think. Courts have decided second hand smoke is dangerous because of alleged health effects and NOT on the basis of scientific evidence. Do you imagine someone sampled the air in adjacent apartments from a single smoker in order to quantify the toxic levels? That would be all but impossible to do, and it wasn’t necessary. Person A smoked, person B has some health issue, therefore A is causing or worsening B’s problem and therefore can’t be allowed to smoke near them.

Health isn’t even the basis for not being allowed to smoke in restaurants; that’s based on others not wanting to smell the smoke while they enjoy their food, or the claim that they can’t enjoy the food in a smoky environment, which is probably true. So the base issue is smoke, undefined smoke, not just tobacco smoke.

I don’t expect marijuana to be allowed anywhere that tobacco isn’t right now.

 

[Montalo]

[snip]

I don’t expect marijuana to be allowed anywhere that tobacco isn’t right now.

thats, in my view, exactly right

(moving from your post)
My personal view

Wherever smoking tobacco is allowed, marijuana should be as well

ban one, then you should ban the other

 

[jilly4ski]

thats, in my view, exactly right

(moving from your post)
My personal view

Wherever smoking tobacco is allowed, marijuana should be as well

ban one, then you should ban the other

Except that marijuana is a mind altering drug. Therefore it is more analogous to alcohol than tobacco. Businesses won’t have a problem banning marijuana if the job is inherently dangerous (even medical marijuana) or if they ban tobacco on their property. I am more worried about “driving under the influence” and how law enforcement can enforce these laws like they do for alcohol consumption. (Just ask any person who works at Taco Bell at 2am, most of their customers are stoned looking for the salty nacho cheese).

ETA:Smoking is allowed in ones car and I am sorry but some one should not be allowed to light up a joint in their car. Until a safe amount can be found, tested, and able to be enforced; they should not be allowed to drive while on marijuana, legal or not.

 

[Good_News_1]

What is the benefit of legalizing marijuana, other than being able to tax it?

 

[Corki]

Employers don’t have to let smokers smoke cigarettes on their property; why would they have to allow pot smoking?

I have to agree with you. There is no way a private employer would have to allow pot smoking on the job, nor allow employees to come to work under the influence of canibis.

This may actually turn into a money making oportunity for those selling quick and easy drug tests.

 

[JimG]

“A nation of potheads.” Sounds like a new national motto. The economy may be in the tank an the enemies at the door, but hey man, it’s all good!

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

What is the benefit of legalizing marijuana, other than being able to tax it?

Lower prison populations, less gang fighting over selling territory, increased safety for users (i.e.regulation of ingredients.)

 

[jjdrury81]

And less government intrusion in our lives and personal decisions.

 

[Corki]

Lower prison populations, less gang fighting over selling territory, increased safety for users (i.e.regulation of ingredients.)

I don’t see anything in the proposal that would regulate production quality, ingredients or safety. There is also no provision (or funding) for a goverrnment entity to be charged with the safety of the pot.

Also, I don’t think the gangs would be affected since they are virtually all involved in a wide spectrum of illegal subtance profiteering, not just pot.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

“A nation of potheads.” Sounds like a new national motto. The economy may be in the tank an the enemies at the door, but hey man, it’s all good!

Are we now “a nation of drunkards,” or 'a nation of cigarette smokers"? What makes you think that the legalization of marijuana will turn all Americans on to its usage?

As to the economy and our enemies - are those conditions now non-existent?

 

[logic_oriented]

“A nation of potheads.” Sounds like a new national motto. The economy may be in the tank an the enemies at the door, but hey man, it’s all good!

Are we now “a nation of drunkards,” or 'a nation of cigarette smokers"? What makes you think that the legalization of marijuana will turn all Americans on to its usage?

Exactly. I can think of exactly one individual I know who does not smoke pot because it is illegal. Plenty who don’t smoke because it doesn’t appeal to them, plenty who do smoke, but only one who made their decision because of the current, silly state of illegality.

 

[jilly4ski]

Are we now “a nation of drunkards,” or 'a nation of cigarette smokers"? What makes you think that the legalization of marijuana will turn all Americans on to its usage?

As to the economy and our enemies - are those conditions now non-existent?

You realize that we are not a nation of cigarette smokers because there was massive government spending in schools (D.A.R.E), quitting programs (I bet your state’s health insurance has a quitting program that it pays for), public service announcements/education and scientific studies. You can look at the numbers of those smoking 1960s to those smoking now.

How much money does the government spend on those who suffer or are victims of alcoholism and alcoholics. The government had to do studies to determine what a safe alcohol limit for driving is, and then they had to equip the law enforcement to test for it and enforce it.

tobacco and alcohol have long histories in this country (alcohol in many countries) and will probably never be illegal. (Though some states are coming pretty close for cigarettes). Pot has no such history and would mean that the government would have to take on these kinds of costs in a time when they do not have the funds to do so. Just because the government decriminalizes something does not end the government’s regulation of the item. In fact, it almost seems like decriminalizing marijuana would lead to more government regulation and spending not less.

 

[jjdrury81]

prohibitioncosts.org/

Milton Friedman, 500+ Economists Call for Marijuana Regulation Debate; New Report Projects $10-14 Billion Annual Savings and Revenues
Savings/Revenues Projected in New Study by Harvard Economist Could Pay For:
**Implementing Required Port Security Plans in Just One Year
**Securing Soviet-Era “Loose Nukes” in Under Three Years

Replacing marijuana prohibition with a system of taxation and regulation similar to that used for alcoholic beverages would produce combined savings and tax revenues of between $10 billion and $14 billion per year, finds a June 2005 report by Dr. Jeffrey Miron, visiting professor of economics at Harvard University.

The report has been endorsed by more than 530 distinguished economists, who have signed an open letter to President Bush and other public officials calling for “an open and honest debate about marijuana prohibition,” adding, “We believe such a debate will favor a regime in which marijuana is legal but taxed and regulated like other goods.”

Chief among the endorsing economists are three Nobel Laureates in economics: Dr. Milton Friedman of the Hoover Institute, Dr. George Akerlof of the University of California at Berkeley, and Dr. Vernon Smith of George Mason University.