Reply #36: You don't have to test for alcohol. [View All]

[Xithras]

Most employers have zero tolerance policies towards employees drinking on the job, or just before it. If you come in reeking of alcohol, you're going home whether you're drunk or not. It's unprofessional and it's a liability to the company.

The text of 19 would have prevented employers from imposing the same restrictions on marijuana users. Employers would ONLY be permitted to send employees home if they were actually impaired. If they were buzzed, but still able to do their job, the employer would be prohibited from intervening. This is a MUCH higher bar than exists for ANY other substance. If a bus driver gets injured and is on painkillers, that driver can be banned from driving simply because the potential for impaired performance exists. If that same driver came to work after smoking herb, the driver couldn't be banned from driving unless the employer first determined that they were too wasted to safely drive.

Prop 19 simply overreached. There was no reason for them to address employment AT ALL, and yet the proposition still touched on several subjects that had nothing to do with pot possession. It defined an odd taxing scheme, devolved regulation to the county level, set up a licensing scheme that most counties weren't interested in, prevented licensing schemes that they were interested in, and got into legal penalties for illegal distribution that didn't need to be there. The proposition addressed tangents that would have been better left alone, to be addressed in other legislation.

The proposition simply needed to read: "The possession and sale of up to one ounce of Marijuana, or the cultivation of xx square feet of Marijuana for personal use, shall not be a crime under California State law."

Instead, we got a 3 page long collection of legal mumbo jumbo, exceptions, limitations, and rules. They overcomplicated it and gave the anti-19 campaigners plenty of openings to attack it.

For what it's worth, I did end up voting yes on 19, but few of my liberal friends did. We all agreed that it was poorly written, but were split on whether or not a bad law was better than the current law. If it had been written better, it would have passed easily.