Are these reason enough to keep pot illegal?

[William Wallace]

In November, California is voting on Prop 19. The proposition will legalize marijuana for personal consumption in the state. Below are the arguments opponents of Prop 19 are using to try to persuade voters to keep marijuana illegal. Is anybody convinced?

https://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/english/19-arg-rebuttals.pdf

Even if you support legalization of recreational marijuana, you should vote “No” on Proposition 19.
Why? Because the authors made several huge mistakes in writing this initiative which will have severe, unintended consequences.
For example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) strongly opposes Proposition 19 because it will prevent bus and trucking companies from requiring their drivers to be drug-free. Companies won’t be able to take action against a “stoned” driver until after he or she has a wreck, not before.

School districts may currently require school bus drivers to be drug-free, but if Proposition 19 passes, their hands will be tied—until after tragedy strikes. A school bus driver would be forbidden to smoke marijuana on schools grounds or while actually behind the wheel, but could arrive for work with marijuana in his or her system.

Public school superintendent John Snavely, Ed.D. warns that Proposition 19 could cost our K–12 schools as much as $9.4 billion in lost federal funding. Another error could potentially cost schools hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants for our colleges and universities. Our schools have already experienced severe budget cuts due to the state budget crisis.

The California Chamber of Commerce found that “if passed, this initiative could result in employers losing public contracts and grants because they could no longer effectively enforce the drug-free workplace requirements outlined by the federal government.”
Employers who permit employees to sell cosmetics or school candy bars to co-workers in the office, may now also be required to allow any employee with a “license” to sell marijuana in the office.

Under current law, if a worker shows up smelling of alcohol or marijuana, an employer may remove the employee from a dangerous or sensitive job, such as running medical lab tests in a hospital, or operating heavy equipment. But if Proposition 19 passes, the worker with marijuana in his or her system may not be removed from the job until after an accident occurs.
The California Police Chiefs Association opposes Proposition 19 because proponents “forgot” to include a standard for what constitutes “driving under the influence.” Under Proposition 19, a driver may legally drive even if a blood test shows they have marijuana in their system.

Gubernatorial candidates Republican Meg Whitman and Democrat Jerry Brown have both studied Proposition 19 and are urging all Californians to vote “No,” as are Democratic and Republican candidates for Attorney General, Kamala Harris and Steve Cooley.
Don’t be fooled. The proponents are hoping you will think Proposition 19 is about “medical” marijuana. It is not. Proposition 19 makes no changes either way in the medical marijuana laws.

Proposition 19 is simply a jumbled legal nightmare that will make our highways, our workplaces and our communities less safe. We strongly urge you to vote “No” on Prop. 19.

[orcus116]

Yeah, stoned truckers are gonna get into some crazy wrecks going 30 mph.

[Nigerius Rex]

The opposing statement is a just a random pile of extremely situational circumstances and over exaggeration.

[hefdaddy42]

That's crap.  Just because something is legal for the general public doesn't mean that companies can't have rules against it.

[soundgarden]

The opponents rebuttal reminds me of Billy Madison's speech during his debate  "... we are all dumber now for hearing that and may god have mercy on your soul"

As long as it is regulated like cigarettes I am cool with it;  kept in private homes and designated areas so others don't have involuntary exposure.

That's crap.  Just because something is legal for the general public doesn't mean that companies can't have rules against it.

That's where 'professionalism" rears its mighty head.  Are you allowed to walk around your office all day with your shirt off?  If so, can I get a job? 

[Chino]

would compromise the safety of our roadways, workplaces, and communities. Before voting on this proposition, please take a few minutes to read it.

I have never once read in the paper that someone got in an accident or killed someone because they were driving stoned. (not saying I condone it)

Proposition 19 fails to provide the Highway Patrol with any tests or objective standards for determining what constitutes “driving under the influence.’’

We have tests that determine your THC level from your saliva in seconds.



That was the worst rebuttal I have ever read.

[XJDenton]

I think their concerns regarding driving/working under the influence are reasonable, but on the other hand I have never seen a company that allows you to be drunk on the job either.

[El Barto]

The only thing I have an issue with is that an employer should be able to keep people from coming to work stoned.  I understand the complication with the medicinal aspect, but if I had an employee whacked out on prescription pain killers or what not, I'd like to be within my rights to send him home.  There are plenty of jobs where it wouldn't matter, but plenty where it would. 

Now, their phrasing of "marijuana in his or her system" isn't helpful.  THC stays in  your system for a very long time, but the effects are obviously short term.  That's why I take issue with any article that reports on a driver in a fatal accident as having pot in his system (one just the other day in Cali).  This is one of the many ways outfits like MAAD distort facts.

Lastly, the cop's concern about driving under the influence probably is misguided (can't say that I'm surprised).  Studies show that people who are high aren't as good at driving as straight-headed people taking the same test.  However, we're talking about a minor difference here.  In normal, everyday circumstances, I'd put stoned drivers ahead of the average guy.  The overwhelming majority of drivers suck, quite frankly (and that includes all of us at times).  Rarely do people devote enough mental resources to good driving habits.  Stoners do.

[Chino]

  The overwhelming majority of drivers suck, quite frankly (and that includes all of us at times).  Rarely do people devote enough mental resources to good driving habits.  Stoners do.

This is a point I have been trying to express to people for years. If someone is stoned, and it makes them drive carefully and pay attention to every little detail... how is that a bad thing?

[EPICVIEW]

The only thing I have an issue with is that an employer should be able to keep people from coming to work stoned.  I understand the complication with the medicinal aspect, but if I had an employee whacked out on prescription pain killers or what not, I'd like to be within my rights to send him home.  There are plenty of jobs where it wouldn't matter, but plenty where it would. 

Now, their phrasing of "marijuana in his or her system" isn't helpful.  THC stays in  your system for a very long time, but the effects are obviously short term.  That's why I take issue with any article that reports on a driver in a fatal accident as having pot in his system (one just the other day in Cali).  This is one of the many ways outfits like MAAD distort facts.

Lastly, the cop's concern about driving under the influence probably is misguided (can't say that I'm surprised).  Studies show that people who are high aren't as good at driving as straight-headed people taking the same test.  However, we're talking about a minor difference here.  In normal, everyday circumstances, I'd put stoned drivers ahead of the average guy.  The overwhelming majority of drivers suck, quite frankly (and that includes all of us at times).  Rarely do people devote enough mental resources to good driving habits.  Stoners do.

Good post EB, pretty much sums up my views

[William Wallace]

I think their concerns regarding driving/working under the influence are reasonable, but on the other hand I have never seen a company that allows you to be drunk on the job either.

I think the strategy they're using illustrates how weak their position is. None of their arguments actually attack marijuana consumption directly, just the misuse of it. If they're so concerned about stoned drivers, why notpass the proposition and then introduce an amendment that restricts driving?

[GuineaPig]

because the children or something

[EPICVIEW]

I think part of the issue is the debate of if its a "gateway drug"...

Id say its not.. but I guess it could be argued it is..

[yeshaberto]

great choice of school bus for their analogy, since it involves children.  who wants to argue against protecting children?
other than that, it is silly.  as mentioned already, "stoned drivers" getting into wrecks are unheard of.  furthermore, any idiot who comes to a sensitive job stoned (more than just in your system) deserves to get fired. 

[Chino]

The gateway drug is total bullshit. In my opinion alcohol is way more of a gateway drug.

[El Barto]

There are no gateway drugs; including alcohol.  Some people will want to alter their perceptions, others will not. 

[yeshaberto]

I think it is even goes further back:  cigarettes.  the concept of a "gateway drug" is rooted in someone willing to make a decision to go against what is acceptable or legal.  Once they make that decision, it naturally escalates.  It has nothing to do with the object but with the person.

[EPICVIEW]

The gateway drug is total bullshit. In my opinion alcohol is way more of a gateway drug.

I agree... alcohol is wicked compared to pot

[icysk8r]

Facebook is legal.  Many companies have control over Facebook accounts.  Their argument extremely flawed.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

So if all these people are so opposed, then what's to stop companies who are concerned about the possibility of their employees showing up stoned from starting random drug test policies?  I mean EVERYONE can't start doing that, obviously, but in particularly more high risk instances like a bus driver, a heavy machinery operater or something.  Maybe that idea's not even feasible.  Not sure what kinda hoops have to be gone through to start up policy like that (a lot, I'd imagine), but just trying to think of some other way to defuse what is already a weak argument on the opponents' side.

[El Barto]

I don't think that would be kosher, since marijuana is now considered medicinal there.  It'd be like testing people for the presence of SSRIs and then punishing them for it (although this wouldn't bother me any).  I think it's a bogus argument (I'm sure they don't let school bus drivers work when they're whacked out on cough syrup and benadryl) but I can understand the complications. 

[Cool Chris]

It'd be like testing people for the presence of SSRIs and then punishing them for it (although this wouldn't bother me any). 

I agree with 99% of what you say Barto, but you lost me here. I take an SSRI, as prescribed by my doc, but it would be fair for my employer to punish and/or fire me because of its presence in my system? Hell, half my department is on some sort of anti-depressant/anxiety medication.

Under Proposition 19, a driver may legally drive even if a blood test shows they have marijuana in their system.

News flash, you can legally drive with alcohol in your system as well. Same with any number of substances. There are just limits to how much can be present. I assume they can modify the laws to include marijauna in the state driving codes/regs?

[Adami]

He was saying that punishing people for using SSRIs would be insane, just like medical marijuana.

[Chino]

News flash, you can legally drive with alcohol in your system as well. Same with any number of substances. There are just limits to how much can be present. I assume they can modify the laws to include marijauna in the state driving codes/regs?

But the problem is how long it stays in the system. Heavy alcohol consumption can leave you with a level for over 24 hours. If you are a heavy weed smoker, you could take a week long break and your blood, fat tissue, and hair will still be full of it.

[El Barto]

He was saying that punishing people for using SSRIs would be insane, just like medical marijuana.

No, sorry, he was right.  However, it's not that I have any problem against people who use SSRIs (though I don't really approve of them in general), it's just that I support an employers right to hire or fire whoever he damn well pleases. 

[Adami]

My  bad then, fair enough.

[Chino]

It is because of people like this.... that weed will always be considered bad.

https://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2010/09/29/ng.pot.laced.rice.krispie.treat.cnn?hpt=T2

God I fucking hate her.

[El Barto]

It is because of people like this.... that weed will always be considered bad.

https://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2010/09/29/ng.pot.laced.rice.krispie.treat.cnn?hpt=T2

God I fucking hate her.

I'm not sure which was nicer, the bud or the soul patch.

91,000 kiddos each year accidentally poison themselves.  Nobody locks their medicine cabinets.  This is an hourly occurrence.  This really wouldn't be news accept that it's pot instead of prescription oxycodon (which could easily have been fatal).  The parents were certainly careless, but their bigger act of stupidity was actually taking the kid to the ER.  WTF?  The kid would have been really high for about 6 hours then gone to sleep.  End of story.  The actual incident would have been over in a day.  The reaction to the incident could land the kid in foster care.  Which would have been the better outcome?

[Chino]

Just announced in the past hour.

https://www.kpbs.org/news/2010/oct/01/new-marijuana-law-decreases-penalty/

The penalty for people caught with small amounts of marijuana in California will stay the same under the new law. They’ll be fined $100. But, instead of being cited with a misdemeanor, the fine will be treated like a traffic ticket.

[William Wallace]

It is because of people like this.... that weed will always be considered bad.

https://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2010/09/29/ng.pot.laced.rice.krispie.treat.cnn?hpt=T2

God I fucking hate her.

Bullshit. Basing any public policy on anecdotal stories is fucking stupid. It may get your ignorant audience of overweight house wives riled up, but it's fucking stupid nonetheless. 

[LTE]

My only input on why pot shouldn't be thought of as such a bad thing and alcohol is more dangerous:

No one ever gets high and beats up their wife and kids.

[King Postwhore]

My only input on why pot shouldn't be thought of as such a bad thing and alcohol is more dangerous:

No one ever gets high and beats up their wife and kids.

And your proof is??

BTW Cool Chris.  I fell asleep at the wheel and I had a .02.  i was so sound asleep I hit a truck and didn't know it.  They tried to get me on drunk driving charges.  I took tests and found out I had sleep apnea.  Then they asked if I would take 30 days suspended, then 15.  So the moral is, they will still try to pin it on you even though I was .06 under the legal limit.  $2500 dollars later in lawyer fees I was able to not have my license suspended.

[ThroughHerEyesDude6]

Under current law, if a worker shows up smelling of alcohol or marijuana, an employer may remove the employee from a dangerous or sensitive job, such as running medical lab tests in a hospital, or operating heavy equipment. But if Proposition 19 passes, the worker with marijuana in his or her system may not be removed from the job until after an accident occurs.
The California Police Chiefs Association opposes Proposition 19 because proponents “forgot” to include a standard for what constitutes “driving under the influence.” Under Proposition 19, a driver may legally drive even if a blood test shows they have marijuana in their system.


 

This part makes no sense. If I came to work smelling like alcohol, they would tell me not to operate heavy machinery. Understandable, but if I smell like marijuana, and it's legal, they can't do shit? Inconceivable! If I smelled like pot at work, they would tell me to go home or not work. Same thing with alcohol. If I showed up smelling drunk, they'd send me home. I see no reason business ethics would die the moment pot is legalized.

[Fiery Winds]

It's very tricky wording.  I'm sure they know that pot stays in your system longer than the effects last, so they word it deceptively.

"if a worker shows up smelling of alcohol or marijuana, an employer may remove the employee from a dangerous or sensitive job"

Ok, sounds reasonable.

"if Proposition 19 passes, the worker with marijuana in his or her system may not be removed from the job until after an accident occurs."

This is the trick.  They could be referring to someone who was at a party a few days prior and hasn't had any since and is fully functional.  They're glossing over the fact that if Prop 19 passes and you show up smelling of marijuana, you can still be sent home.

[Progmetty]

So when's the final decision gonna happen?