August 16, 2010 | 5:11 PM | By

Marijuana Monday: Stoned at work

FILED UNDER: Politics, Kamala Harris, Marijuana, Proposition 19, Steve Cooley

Would you hire this guy?

(Via Wesley M.)

Probably not. But according to a new analysis by the California Chamber of Commerce, if Proposition 19 passes and he shows up for a job interview, has all the right qualifications, and is the best man for the job, you’d have to hire him, regardless of his apparent fondness for marijuana.

According to Cal Chamber’s brief (pdf), published late last week, Proposition 19 would wreak havoc on California workplaces. Among the issues they anticipate:

  • “Employers would have to permit to employees to smoke marijuana at work.
  • Employers would lose millions in valuable federal contracts and grants because they would be unable to comply with federal laws outlawing marijuana use.
  • Employers would not be able to make workplace decisions based on marijuana use.
  • Employers would have to provide a reasonable accommodation to marijuana users.
  • Employers would be required to pay for marijuana-related accidents through workers’ compensation insurance premiums and liability to third-parties.”

Really?

Roger Salazar of No On Proposition 19, explained on KPCC’s AirTalk that Cal Chamber and other anti-legalization folks are concerned about the following passage of the measure:

“No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.”

The problem, Salazar said, is that it’d be tough to prove that marijuana directly affects or would directly affect a person’s job performance. He said the initiative also “creates confusion” about whether or not drug testing for marijuana would be allowed for jobs that are funded by federal money and require such testing.  Attorney general candidates Republican Steve Cooley and Democrat Kamala Harris, who cosigned the official rebuttal to Proposition 19 have put forth similar arguments.

Dan Rush, director with the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 5 in Oakland, who also appeared on AirTalk, called the Chamber’s claims “preposterous” and said the report was designed to bring about a “dramatic response.” He said that employers will be able to respond to marijuana use much as they do now. If federal funding requires a clean drug test, that’s enough of a reason for an employer to deny a marijuana user a job, he said. If a job requires operating a motor vehicle or machinery, then a person using medical marijuana would not be right for the job, Rush said. As for smoking in the workplace, not likely, he said. The proposition calls for no smoking of cannabis in public places, excepting certain exceptions for bars that might want to serve the drug.

What would actually happen should Proposition 19 pass? Hard to say–such is the beast of the proposition. I’ve got a query in to the Legislative Analyst’s Office to see if any of these issues came up in their analysis of the proposition. In court, the intent of a ballot initiative’s authors is what usually reigns. And it seems to me that while vague, the intent of the initiative is to have employers retain their ability to comply with federal funding requirements and as with alcohol, for employers to be able to decide for themselves whether they’ll allow marijuana on the premises.

  • Hotter

    Of course just like they allowing drinking at work ever since it was legalised …. How stupid does the media and our politicians think we are?

  • PabloKOh

    Because blood tests do not exist for active thc? What rock do these C of C idiots live under?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_73C5GM7VU4N6ONIESUI45Y3DX4 Malcolm Kyle

    Prohibitionists dance hand in hand with every possible type of criminal one can imagine.

    An unholy alliance of ignorance, greed and hate which works to destroy all our hard fought freedoms, wealth and security.

    We will always have adults who are too immature to responsibly deal with tobacco alcohol, heroin amphetamines, cocaine, various prescription drugs and even food. Our answer to them should always be: “Get a Nanny, and stop turning the government into one for the rest of us!”

    Nobody wants to see an end to prohibition because they want to use drugs. They wish to see proper legalized regulation because they are witnessing, on a daily basis, the dangers and futility of prohibition. 'Legalized Regulation' won't be the complete answer to all our drug problems, but it'll greatly ameliorate the crime and violence on our streets, and only then can we provide effective education and treatment.

    The whole nonsense of 'a disaster will happen if we end prohibition' sentiment sums up the delusional 'chicken little' stance of those who foolishly insist on continuing down this blind alley. As if a disaster isn’t already happening. As if prohibition has ever worked.

    To support prohibition is such a strange mind-set. In fact, It's outrageous insanity! –Literally not one prohibitionist argument survives scrutiny. Not one!

    The only people that believe prohibition is working are the ones making a living by enforcing laws in it's name, and those amassing huge fortunes on the black market profits. This situation is wholly unsustainable, and as history has shown us, conditions will continue to deteriorate until we finally, just like our forefathers, see sense and revert back to tried and tested methods of regulation. None of these substances, legal or illegal, are ever going to go away, but we CAN decide to implement policies that do far more good than harm.

    During alcohol prohibition in the 1920s, all profits went to enrich thugs and criminals. Young men died every day on inner-city streets while battling over turf. A fortune was wasted on enforcement that could have gone on treatment. On top of the budget-busting prosecution and incarceration costs, billions in taxes were lost. Finally the economy collapsed. Sound familiar?

    In an underground drug market, criminals and terrorists, needing an incentive to risk their own lives and liberty, grossly inflate prices which are further driven higher to pay those who 'take a cut' like corrupt law enforcement officials who are paid many times their wages to look the other way. This forces many users to become dealers themselves in order to afford their own consumption. This whole vicious circle turns ad infinitum. You literally couldn't dream up a worse scenario even if your life depended on it. For the second time within a century, we've carelessly lost “love's labour,” and, “with the hue of dungeons and the scowl of night,” have wantonly created our own worst nightmare.

    So should the safety and freedom of the rest of us be compromised because of the few who cannot control themselves?

    Many of us no longer think it should!

  • ernstB

    What has the double rainbow video have to to do with Cannabis?

    The guy seems to be Talking to God not smoking Cannabis.

    It's ignorant articles like this that make me wonder why writers of these articles don't smoke Cannabis and get a clue?

    If anything the Video is about a man having a God-experience seeing a double rainbow.

    Dumb dumb dumb.

    As for working high. I have a perfect safety record of 10 years and I have been a medical cannabis person 10 years.
    So the idea that it's okay to Bash good hard working people because you don't like cannabis is dead wrong.

    We must get past the ignorance and hate.

  • ernstB

    I agree just how ignorant can these people be.

    No one should come to work intoxicated. It's common sense.

    However, that one can have Cannabis on their day off and test positiver several days later and be guilty of being high at work is wrong. I understand that there is no way to tell if someone smoked an hour ago or ten days ago without paying a lot more for testing.
    Special testing has to be done to determine length of time and it cost significantly more.

    Oh well.. It's not my idea to have people to submit to something the Government has no right to without a search warrant to have a job.

    Perhaps we can be adults about this? We may not need Fascist rule to keep profitable.

  • Anon

    oh human folly! most of the ills in our world, from racism and bigotry to the prohibition of cannabis, come from the religious right. ironic, isn't it?

  • Anon

    If Prop 19 passes, the federal gov't would be extremely foolish to deny federal money because of a damn plant. California is and always has been the site of major innovation in the US.

  • http://twitter.com/Aine Áine MacDermot

    Frankly, anything any Chamber of Commerce says about cannabis or anything else is pure hyperbole. Instead of being pro-cannabis-business, these fools are shooting themselves and entrepreneurs in the foot. No way should ANY legit cannabis dispensary join this Chamber of Fools.