If the polls are prophetic...

[Scooby's Hubby]

At least if pot gets legalized people can smoke their brains out and won't care that Jerry Brown is f*cking up the state.

until he levies an enourmous sin tax on their purchases. and federal law trumps any state law regarding the legality of drugs. just because CA says it's legal don't make it legal.

[gbpfan1231]

What reason is there to expect that legalizing pot would lead to more people needing rehab? You either smoke pot or you don't and I can't imagine the illegality has saved anyone from themselves in this regard.

I am not sure - I saw it on a talk show and the person that was supporting the legalization did not dispute it. I am not sure how accurate the quote was but I was just throwing it out there.

 

It was on Fox News so I am sure everyone will come in and rip it apart but it was O'Reilly and I am guessing he is pretty straightforward on stats like that???

[CowboysDiehard]

I am not sure - I saw it on a talk show and the person that was supporting the legalization did not dispute it. I am not sure how accurate the quote was but I was just throwing it out there.

 

It was on Fox News so I am sure everyone will come in and rip it apart but it was O'Reilly and I am guessing he is pretty straightforward on stats like that???

 

John Stossel was the guy on the show. Don't worry, I won't rip it. I watch O'Reilly nightly, and what will really blow your mind is that I am on record here as a supporter of legalization. Not, 'grow it everywhere' legalization, but managed legalization along the lines of the liquor industry.

[Perchoutofwater]

You're right, and they already are.

 

Yes, but drug tests show if they used in the last 30-60 days. If you make it legal for them to use on their off time those drug tests are meaningless.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

Yes, but drug tests show if they used in the last 30-60 days. If you make it legal for them to use on their off time those drug tests are meaningless.

 

 

Good point.

[Lucky11]

i'm conflicted on Prop 19. i'm not a smoker, and i'm for legalization as it could help offset our state deficit somewhat through tax revenue collected through Josh Gordon sales. however, my concerns about legalization are two fold:

 

1. what does legalization do to the "middle man"? if a consumer is able to walk into a pot dispensary, and legally procure Josh Gordon, then what do all the street dealers and their ilk do for income? my guess is that they will start pushing "harder" drugs, or turn to more nefarious crimes (e.g. B&E, robbery, grand theft, etc.) to make ends meet. higher crime rates as a result of legalization is not a winning situation.

 

2. where will pot dispensaries be allowed to open shop? i work close to home, about three blocks, and a few weeks back a couple of guys from MA and SoCal came in to taste wine. in the course of our conversation, they admitted to be in the area looking for places to open a pot dispensary in the area. the storefront next to our tasting room is vacant, and they asked my opinion about having their business set up shop in that location (state, county, and city approval/licensing pending of course). my initial response was "Sure, why not. I'm o.k. with people smoking a little Josh Gordon." but upon further reflection, i'm not sure i really want that type of business right next door to mine. i'm not sure what the clientele would be, but my fear is that there would be a number of people simply hanging out all day, getting high and loitering in our courtyard. further,

 

i like to think i'm socially liberal when it comes to things like this, but after some serious consideration i find that i'm ok with the concept, just as long as it's not in my backyard or neighborhood. is that a Megan Foxy mindset? i think it is in a way, but i can't help it.

 

i'm probably voting "NO" on this one....

Edited October 28, 2010 by Lucky11

[evil_gop_liars]

i'm conflicted on Prop 19. i'm not a smoker, and i'm for legalization as it could help offset our state deficit somewhat through tax revenue collected through Josh Gordon sales. however, my concerns about legalization are two fold:

 

1. what does legalization do to the "middle man"? if a consumer is able to walk into a pot dispensary, and legally procure Josh Gordon, then what do all the street dealers and their ilk do for income? my guess is that they will start pushing "harder" drugs, or turn to more nefarious crimes (e.g. B&E, robbery, grand theft, etc.) to make ends meet. higher crime rates as a result of legalization is not a winning situation.

 

 

i'm probably voting "NO" on this one....

 

 

The "middle man" is the stay at home mom down two houses from you who sells it out of convenience for her friends. If they are street merchant selling pot they are also selling harder drugs and already committing nefarious crimes.

[Pope Flick]

Yes, but drug tests show if they used in the last 30-60 days. If you make it legal for them to use on their off time those drug tests are meaningless.

 

 

Just like alcohol.

[redrumjuice]

The "middle man" is the stay at home mom down two houses from you who sells it out of convenience for her friends. If they are street merchant selling pot they are also selling harder drugs and already committing nefarious crimes.

 

LOL, naive.

[Duchess Jack]

i'm not sure i really want that type of business right next door to mine. i'm not sure what the clientele would be, but my fear is that there would be a number of people simply hanging out all day, getting high and loitering in our courtyard.

 

come on man - its about vision. buy a couple vending machines... candy, sammiches, granola bars... you'd make a fortune.

[Duchess Jack]

LOL, naive.

LOL, thought-provoking.

[driveby]

come on man - its about vision. buy a couple vending machines... candy, sammiches, granola bars... you'd make a fortune.

[Perchoutofwater]

Just like alcohol.

 

I can smell alcohol on an employees breath, and can hear slurred speech. As I've said before, on a construction site it is typically dusty so everyone has the red eye. I can also put breathalizers in my company trucks if I feel it is needed, as well as have my employees blow on a hand held breathalizer that tells me if they've been drinking. There is no such test for pot. Sure I can get them to piss in a cup, and that will tell me if they've smoked in the last 30-60 days or so, but it doesn't tell me if they are high right then.

 

My biggest concern is getting sued because an employee is high and either kills himself or someone else.

[bpwallace49]

I can smell alcohol on an employees breath, and can hear slurred speech. As I've said before, on a construction site it is typically dusty so everyone has the red eye. I can also put breathalizers in my company trucks if I feel it is needed, as well as have my employees blow on a hand held breathalizer that tells me if they've been drinking. There is no such test for pot. Sure I can get them to piss in a cup, and that will tell me if they've smoked in the last 30-60 days or so, but it doesn't tell me if they are high right then.

 

My biggest concern is getting sued because an employee is high and either kills himself or someone else.

 

Perch, you drug test your employees before you hire them, right?

 

Then make a condition of your contracts and hiring practices a hold harmless clause due to people that test for drugs and alcohol.

 

Everytime we have a workplace accident, the first step that is a condition of employmnet and in the employee handbook that they sign is a mandatory drug/alcohol screening. Under that employee handbook, it absolves the company of liability in the case of an impaired employee and shifts the burden of responsibility to the employee. If pot is found, whether they are on it or not, they were proven to have used it, so immediate termination and subject to the hold harmless agreement,.

 

Obviously different scenarios and industries, but the concept should hold true.

 

Perch, do you inspect the breath of every employee every day for alcohol? really?

[Ursa Majoris]

Perch, you drug test your employees before you hire them, right?

 

Then make a condition of your contracts and hiring practices a hold harmless clause due to people that test for drugs and alcohol.

Better yet, make non-use a condition of employment. Just because it's legal doesn't mean you have to employ users.

[Perchoutofwater]

Perch, you drug test your employees before you hire them, right?

 

Then make a condition of your contracts and hiring practices a hold harmless clause due to people that test for drugs and alcohol.

 

Everytime we have a workplace accident, the first step that is a condition of employmnet and in the employee handbook that they sign is a mandatory drug/alcohol screening. Under that employee handbook, it absolves the company of liability in the case of an impaired employee and shifts the burden of responsibility to the employee. If pot is found, whether they are on it or not, they were proven to have used it, so immediate termination and subject to the hold harmless agreement,.

 

Obviously different scenarios and industries, but the concept should hold true.

 

Perch, do you inspect the breath of every employee every day for alcohol? really?

 

We do drug test, though I think if something like this is passed it would be much harder to find people that can pass in order to be hired. Additionally while testing is done at hiring and randomly as well as when ever there is an accident, once the accident takes place it is too late. Yes we can be held harmless for anything that happens to the employee, but not for anyone the employee harms while on the job.

 

I don't personally inspect the breath of every employee, but I have fired people for being drunk on the job as have my jobsite superintendents. We typically fire two or three people a year for coming back from lunch with booze on their breath. We've also had the police bring drug dogs out to the worksite at least once or twice during each project. We give the workers the opportunity to quit and never work on another one of our projects again before the dog starts sniffing them and their vehicles. Last time we did this, 13 guys quit, and 6 more were fired and given tickets by the cops because they thought they could trick the dogs. Once you've been sued for $20,000,000 you get kind of paranoid about crap like that.

 

If there was someway to insulate the companies from the actions of the employees that are against company policy I'd be all for it, but you know the lawyers are going to go for the deepest pockets they can find, and that isn't the employee smoking a joint at lunch.

[Perchoutofwater]

Better yet, make non-use a condition of employment. Just because it's legal doesn't mean you have to employ users.

 

It is a condition of employment, and just because it is a condition of employment doesn't mean they don't do it, and that they won't cause an accident involving someone else. See my previous response to BP.

[detlef]

Perch, you drug test your employees before you hire them, right?

 

Then make a condition of your contracts and hiring practices a hold harmless clause due to people that test for drugs and alcohol.

 

Everytime we have a workplace accident, the first step that is a condition of employmnet and in the employee handbook that they sign is a mandatory drug/alcohol screening. Under that employee handbook, it absolves the company of liability in the case of an impaired employee and shifts the burden of responsibility to the employee. If pot is found, whether they are on it or not, they were proven to have used it, so immediate termination and subject to the hold harmless agreement,.

 

Obviously different scenarios and industries, but the concept should hold true.

 

Perch, do you inspect the breath of every employee every day for alcohol? really?

I'm not sure if Perch can get away with requiring testing for a perfectly legal drug. His point is really valid and, thus far, the most compelling argument against the legalization I've heard. Even if you can't tell a guy is drunk, there's a test they can be given that shows if they are drunk right there and then. As far as I know, that's the the same with pot. All you can tell is if a guy has been stoned recently. Well, what good is that?

[Ursa Majoris]

It is a condition of employment, and just because it is a condition of employment doesn't mean they don't do it, and that they won't cause an accident involving someone else. See my previous response to BP.

But in that case it makes no difference whether pot is legal or not.

[Duchess Jack]

We do drug test, though I think if something like this is passed it would be much harder to find people that can pass in order to be hired.

 

you make some good points - but you finding people who can pass a test doesn't seem like a reason to have things illigal. If folk want to smoke - than they don't have to work at your company. If they want to work at your company - they'd need to stop smoking.

 

I worked at an engineering firm and they tested all job site workers often. I guess that is a little extra money to the company - but it seems like the cost of doing business.

[Perchoutofwater]

But in that case it makes no difference whether pot is legal or not.

 

It just increases the possibility of someone getting hurt and us getting sued. You find a way to get the lawyers and juries to hold the employer harmless for something someone does to themselves or to others while stoned, I'll be all for legalization.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Better yet, make non-use a condition of employment. Just because it's legal doesn't mean you have to employ users.

yup

[Perchoutofwater]

you make some good points - but you finding people who can pass a test doesn't seem like a reason to have things illigal. If folk want to smoke - than they don't have to work at your company. If they want to work at your company - they'd need to stop smoking.

 

I worked at an engineering firm and they tested all job site workers often. I guess that is a little extra money to the company - but it seems like the cost of doing business.

 

It's $80 per employee per test, and then it's having to worry about your unemployment insurance going up each time you fire a pothead. Yes it is a cost of doing business. A cost that increases the cost of our projects, which in turn increase the cost to the community. I love the way that people (not necessarily you DJ) say "that's just a cost of doing business" when they have absolutely no idea about running a business, and how quickly those little costs add up. Regulation costs, cost of doing business, double taxation, cost of doing business, outrageously high insurance limits to protect from scum sucking lawyers and estranged wives, cost of doing business, Obamacare, cost of doing business, etc...

[gbpfan1231]

It just increases the possibility of someone getting hurt and us getting sued. You find a way to get the lawyers and juries to hold the employer harmless for something someone does to themselves or to others while stoned, I'll be all for legalization.

Exactly - I have read all of your posts and I am boggled how the others can't comprehend what your issue is.

 

Bottom line is this adds risk to YOU as an employer and you don't need that ADDITIONAL risk.

 

You can put clauses in your contract but we all know how filthy lawyers are and what people get sued for these days - my god people have won millions for hot coffee and slips in a supermarket.

[bpwallace49]

We do drug test, though I think if something like this is passed it would be much harder to find people that can pass in order to be hired. Additionally while testing is done at hiring and randomly as well as when ever there is an accident, once the accident takes place it is too late. Yes we can be held harmless for anything that happens to the employee, but not for anyone the employee harms while on the job.

 

I don't personally inspect the breath of every employee, but I have fired people for being drunk on the job as have my jobsite superintendents. We typically fire two or three people a year for coming back from lunch with booze on their breath. We've also had the police bring drug dogs out to the worksite at least once or twice during each project. We give the workers the opportunity to quit and never work on another one of our projects again before the dog starts sniffing them and their vehicles. Last time we did this, 13 guys quit, and 6 more were fired and given tickets by the cops because they thought they could trick the dogs. Once you've been sued for $20,000,000 you get kind of paranoid about crap like that.

 

If there was someway to insulate the companies from the actions of the employees that are against company policy I'd be all for it, but you know the lawyers are going to go for the deepest pockets they can find, and that isn't the employee smoking a joint at lunch.

 

Hmm . . Perch, I agree with you for the most part, but on the liability I think you might be over estimating the impact.

 

1) you already test, so you have eliminated users from your employee pool (however unlikely it may be that someone abstains for 2 months before applying)

 

2) you do random tests and have drug sniffing dogs. Again, a very prudent and responsible move

 

3) you have a clause in your contracts that absolves you of liability, if in some rare occurance, someone gets around your safeguards

 

Perch, you are VERY diligent in your safeguards overall, and if other businesses want to employ pot users, then it is on their heads. I really dont think that a lawsuit against you would hold up to a burden of proof for liability, considering your safeguard policies in place.

 

That doesnt get past the fact that a mroe reliable test would ease the headache for all parties involved if it was more like an alcohol test.

 

And detlef . . of course he can get away for testing for a perfectly legal drug. Alcohol screening is also part of the drug test my employees need tyo take, and it IS a legal drug. Of course we both work in the service industry, which has a much higher incident of alcohol/casual drug users as part of our employee pool . . .

Edited October 28, 2010 by bpwallace49