Breaking Political News

"It's been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." -- Ronald Reagan
It is currently Wed Apr 23, 2014 4:24 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
Unread postPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 11:16 am 
Offline
Professional SqlSpacer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:37 pm
Posts: 3791
Quote:
Why did California vote down legal pot?

(CNN) -- California voters have just rejected Proposition 19, the ballot initiative that would have legalized marijuana under state law. Where did Prop 19 go wrong?

Prop 19 failed in part because many proponents emphasized the wrong arguments for legalization. Many advocates promised major benefits to California's budget because of reduced expenditure on marijuana prohibition and increased revenue from marijuana taxation. Other supporters claimed that Mexican drug violence would fall substantially.

Both claims were overblown. The budgetary benefits, while not insignificant, would have been small compared with California's fiscal mess. Mexican drug violence is mainly associated with the cocaine and methamphetamine trades, as well as from marijuana traffic to other states.

Many voters sensed that Prop 19 supporters were overreaching, and this made them suspicious of all the arguments in its favor. Common sense should have recognized that since marijuana was close to legal already, Prop 19 would not have had dramatic effects.

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.

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. Prop 19 did not need to address employee marijuana-testing in the first place.

A more effective position for Prop 19 supporters would have been that employee marijuana-testing should be unencumbered by state or federal law. That would allow employers to protect themselves and their employees against perceived risks from marijuana, thereby promoting support for legalization.

A final problem with Prop 19 is that it would only have legalized marijuana under state law, since federal law also bans marijuana. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, moreover, announced just weeks before Tuesday's election that the administration would enforce the federal law fully even if Prop 19 passed.

More. . . .
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/11/03/m ... =obnetwork


Many voters sensed that Prop 19 supporters were overreaching, and this made them suspicious. I know it would make me suspicious, too



Top
 Profile  
 
Unread postPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 12:40 pm 
Offline
Professional SqlSpacer

Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 1:04 pm
Posts: 1544
An odd apologetic epitaph for what should have been a sure thing in California.

But like I have said for a long while: how can anyone be sure about any voting results anymore?

"The game is rigged."
-George Carlin.


_________________
Ron Paul wrote:
But you can't have a budgetary solution if you don't change what the role of government should be. As long as you think we have to police the world and run this welfare state, all we are going to argue about is who will get the loot.

Patrick J. Buchanan wrote:
Free trade, the Kennedy Round of trade negotiations, the Uruguay Round, the Doha Round, NAFTA, GATT, the WTO — what they all produced is a Magna Carta of the transnational corporation, which looks longingly to the end of nation-states and the arrival of world government.


Top
 Profile  
 
Unread postPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 5:22 pm 
Offline
Professional SqlSpacer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 4:29 pm
Posts: 2499
The only reason that was put on the ballot was to get that voting block off their ass and get to the booth...



Top
 Profile  
 
Unread postPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 2:30 am 
Offline
Amature SqlSpacer
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 11:14 am
Posts: 576
I think making someone a criminal out of consuming a plant is the dumbest shit I have ever heard. However, an employer does have a right to demand a certain behavior from those that they employ, including the behavior of being drug free. Everyone deserves their rights including the pothead and the employer. Given that this stipulation does deprive one of those people of a right, I could not have voted for Prop 19 despite my personal feelings that marijuana be legalized.


_________________
To be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and never stop fighting.

- E.E. Cummings


Top
 Profile  
 
Unread postPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 4:22 am 
Offline
Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 5:15 pm
Posts: 24353
Location: Land Of The Long White Cloud
Well said..

As much as I agree with legalizing it I also see the employers point of view. Truth is Ive already lived it. When you have an awesome employee but he is stoned at work or drinks at lunch.. you have no choice but to put your business and the safety of others first. How many chances do you give him? How much damage does it do your business? Workplace agreements would have to be signed that state no dope or drink.. and the repercussions in bold print.
Im afraid this will always be the sticking point for me.



Top
 Profile  
 
Unread postPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:03 am 
Offline
Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2004 3:27 pm
Posts: 5764
Location: Michigan
Confrontational wrote:
The only reason that was put on the ballot was to get that voting block off their ass and get to the booth...

And it probably helped Jerry Brown get elected Governor---IMHO.
Sandy wrote:
Truth is Ive already lived it. When you have an awesome employee but he is stoned at work or drinks at lunch.. you have no choice but to put your business and the safety of others first.


Under the influence while on the job notwithstanding, few workplaces have "zero-tolerance" policies for alcohol, but a majority do for drugs. If you could 'test' an employee to see if they've used alcohol in the last twenty-four hours....the last forty-eight hours...the last two weeks...would you fire them? (We'd be doing a LOT of hiring here, if that were the case)
But if the most minute trace of pot or other drugs were found in someone's system, they'd be fired (or ineligible for hire). That trace doesn't necessarily mean that they are 'under the influence' of a drug, or any more of a liability than an employee who is miserably hung over, but by law, is not 'under the influence' of alcohol. Those employees are dismissed or not hired because they are engaging in an illegal activity. If we could test people to determine if they drove over the speed limit coming to work, would we judge them on that illegal activity and fire them? No, because employers are not afraid of the stigma being attached to speeders as they are of the stigma of having employees who use drugs---and all the lawsuits that leaves them vulnerable to in today's society, of course.
I think it's kind of silly to outlaw a plant. But we need to get a much better handle on determining what 'under the influence' means if we're going to legalize it.
I suppose you could put Chee-Toh vending machines in workplace breakrooms, and check for overly-orange finger tips...but I think we need something more concrete than that to determine what 'under the influence' means. :wink:


Mick


_________________
"We're no longer a nation that looks to the media to inform us. We've become a nation that looks to the media to affirm us."
--Unknown

"Summer's going fast, nights growing colder...Children growing up, old friends growing older.
Freeze this moment a little bit longer...Make each sensation a little bit stronger."
--'Time Stand Still', Rush

"That some achieve great success is proof to all that others can achieve it, too."
--Abraham Lincoln


Top
 Profile  
 
Unread postPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:33 am 
Offline
Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 5:15 pm
Posts: 24353
Location: Land Of The Long White Cloud
I agree with you on that. I also dont believe in drug testing at work either. That was your Insurance companies that started that. All companies with an American parent company now insist on drug testing both in Oz and NZ. Its slowly becoming the norm.

We were lucky enough to know all our employees and which were the smokers and drinkers. We didnt care what you did in your own time.. but if you went to the bar at lunchtime or had a smoke and we found out.. you were sent home with no pay until the next day. If you came to work drunk or stoned.. you were sent home with no pay. If you did it more than once.. you were fired.

Construction is a tough game and if you make a mistake its usually an expensive one.. either for your safety or the companies bottom line. If it was commonly known that the employees of a company were stoners.. they would think twice about giving you the job in the first place.

Im well aware that some guys do their best work while they are stoned.. they get in the 'zone' and its pretty impressive watching them but thats beside the point. Its ok if they are welding something in their own backyard and while they are so focused on the job they forget to fire spot and the pile of rags behind them goes up in smoke and the shed burns down.. but its not ok on the job.

Its not ok to get stoned on the job and 'climb' the steel .. without your safety harness on. Its also not ok get stoned and 'dog' a crane and get distracted by a pretty girl in the office block above you..sighs..meanwhile the crane is swinging an unsafe load and threatening to drop I beams on someone below. While its pretty easy to spot someone thats been drinking on the job..its a damn site harder to spot a smoker. With smokers its a matter of trust. We would tell them straight that its none of our business if you smoke or not in your own time.. but your own time does not mean having one on the way to work because that will get you fired. In telling them that we also told them that if they were fired because of it.. it would be on their record. That defined quite clearly 'your time vs our time' and they appreciated that and did the right thing. (mostly) :wink:

Edit... Just in case anyone is wondering why we were so 'accepting' of smokers.. Its because the law in Adelaide at the time was you were allowed 10 plants in your garden back then. If you got caught though.. it was a $50 fine. It gradually went down and ended up at one plant per garden so its the accepted thing there. Just something we lived with..



Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group