It seems weird that the medical use of a virtually harmless substance is something that is put to a public vote. It should be up to doctors and researchers to determine if a substance (a) has a legitimate medical application and (b) is not so harmful as to make its medical application not worth it. In fact, the Controlled Substances Act describes Schedule I substances (the most controlled—no prescriptions may be written for these) as such:
The findings required for each of the schedules are as follows:
(1) Schedule I.—
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
"Accepted medical use in treatment in the United States" seems to mean it is up to the medical community, and not to lawmakers or law enforcement.
A very small amount of people actually are smoking pot for the health effects. The rest just want to get high. Why can't smokers just admit why they want it legalized?
Which makes me think that there aren't really any health benefits. The only studies I've seen are completely biased. The proponents are also very religious about legalizing it and will not listen to any opposing views, which makes me question their motives.
You also say it's your body and you can do what you want. The law proposed in California would make it difficult to fire someone that smokes pot. I don't agree with this. This takes away my right as a business owner.
>You also say it's your body and you can do what you want. The law proposed in California would make it difficult to fire someone that smokes pot. I don't agree with this. This takes away my right as a business owner.
So do you consider your right as a business owner to be more important than the fundamental right to do whatever you want to your body? Seriously?
And EVERYBODY IS DRUGGED in this country. Some drink coffee. Some drink alcohol. Some take anti-depressants. Some take anxiolytics. The performance of your workers should be your only concern; the "why" behind their performance should not bother you. If someone gets high all the time and is able to produce amazing output, then why would you fire him? On the other hand, if someone gets high all the time and is terrible at his job, you have a reason to fire him that is cause-independent: he is not performing well. Why would you care how people like to cope with reality? The only thing that should matter for you is how useful they are to you for a given purpose.
Reality is harsh. People try to cope with it with their own tools. Different tools work for different people. Drugs are such tools.
"So do you consider your right as a business owner to be more important than the fundamental right to do whatever you want to your body? Seriously?"
If it makes it impossible for me to fire you because you are smoking pot as a result of productivity loss, it's impeding on my rights, sorry. The California law would have made it "discrimination" to do so, which is just ridiculous.
"If someone gets high all the time and is able to produce amazing output, then why would you fire him?"
Do you want someone under the influence flying airplanes, driving a school bus, or operating machinery that could potentially harm others? Seriously? I've seen enough people high to know how scary a thought this truly is.
"The only thing that should matter for you is how useful they are to you for a given purpose."
Right. Because a drug that many times causes short-term memory loss and paranoia is going to help someone's productivity.
"Reality is harsh. People try to cope with it with their own tools. Different tools work for different people. Drugs are such tools."
It's funny because you are so dead set on freedoms and rights. But when your rights take away the rights of other people, you see no problem with it.
"If it makes it impossible for me to fire you because you are smoking pot as a result of productivity loss, it's impeding on my rights, sorry. The California law would have made it "discrimination" to do so, which is just ridiculous."
So you're saying that you're unable to fire someone who doesn't perform as well as you wanted (be it because of pot or sheer incompetence)? I don't think that's actually true... Sorry.
"Do you want someone under the influence flying airplanes, driving a school bus, or operating machinery that could potentially harm others? Seriously? I've seen enough people high to know how scary a thought this truly is."
Do you want someone under the influence of alcohol flying airplanes, driving a school bus, or operating machinery that could potentially harm others? Seriously? I've seen enough people drunk to know how scary a thought this truly is.
Wait...
"Right. Because a drug that many times causes short-term memory loss and paranoia is going to help someone's productivity."
Yeah, as we all know no drugs ever have negative side effects while still having positive effects. But okay, I agree that high people are less likely to perform well. All that is, however, besides the point: if they don't work well, you can fire them. You don't have to bring up pot to make your case; they aren't doing their job well, they're out. The law allows you to kick people out because they don't do the job well.
Again, how many people do you see coming to work drunk? I'd guess not many. Why do they not come to work drunk? Because they wouldn't be able to perform very well. Why do they care about performing well? Because they want to keep their jobs. I don't see how anything would be different with marijuana.
"Yeah, as we all know no drugs ever have negative side effects while still having positive effects. But okay, I agree that high people are less likely to perform well. All that is, however, besides the point: if they don't work well, you can fire them. You don't have to bring up pot to make your case; they aren't doing their job well, they're out. The law allows you to kick people out because they don't do the job well."
What I'm saying is the wording of the law that didn't pass in Cali was such that it would allow for people that were pot users to not be discriminated against in the work place. Since it was fairly vague, it could easily be used against the employer if those people were ever fired.
"Again, how many people do you see coming to work drunk? I'd guess not many. Why do they not come to work drunk?"
Are there any specific laws that say that an alcoholic can't be discriminated against by a potential employer? I don't think there are. This is the difference.
Also, it's much easier to detect if a person is drunk (smelling it on their breath, motor skills are affected). I know lots of people that smoke instead of drink because they don't want to get a DUI.
Then where do you draw the line? Should you be able to fire someone who drinks alcohol, or participates in other "extra-curriculars" that you do not agree with?
If coconut cream pie were a Schedule I substance, I would argue it be removed, even without a health benefit—and I don't even like coconut. Also, I do not smoke.
I don't agree with most restrictions on businesses, so perhaps the California law is overly restrictive (I really didn't follow the proposition since I don't live in California).
Cannabis is (wrongly) Schedule I. Rescheduling drugs like marijuana is difficult; state-by-state workarounds are easy.
Laws in general are written to suggest the way they should work, but they way they do work is a lot different. For another example, it makes no logical sense to prosecute a juvenile "as an adult". But for practical reasons, a 15 year old murderer shouldn't be set free to roam the streets at 18, so we try them as an adult.
I think the main issue is the lack of accepted safety. I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana, but quite honestly my biggest fear is people operating a vehicle while high because it's okay to smoke it openly.
It's not legal to drive while you are impaired regardless of the reason for the impairment. From a public safety standpoint banning bars would do far more good than legalizing medical marijuana. IMO, it's one of those cases where the perception of risk has little to do with actual risk.
