Cannabis for California

[Gn2Dlnd]

^ No. As I said, a whiff of weed in passing is not a big deal. And then I responded to your post, which I realized later was not necessarily directed at me. Sorry. That said, in answer to this post, , you talked about being in a room filled with smoke and not getting so much as a contact high. That's where my mileage varies. Definitely contact high, possible actual high, 'cause, you know, I'm breathing actual smoke. If I'm at a party, I remove myself from the smoky area. If I'm at home, or a place of business, and the room is filling up with smoke from an adjacent area, I'm kinda screwed. When I first got sober, I had an apartment that had windows that wouldn't quite close looking into an alley that was a favorite haunt of the smokers. I'd just have to leave. Eventually I moved. Kind of a drag.

Actually, I'm likely to have more trouble resisting the delicious pizza that you just pulled out of the oven, than the weed the guys are smoking out on the back patio. Someone in the room sparks up a doob, though, it's time to say goodnight.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Gn2Dlnd

Actually, I'm likely to have more trouble resisting the delicious pizza that you just pulled out of the oven, than the weed the guys are smoking out on the back patio. Someone in the room sparks up a doob, though, it's time to say goodnight.

I don't imagine this change in law would really make an appreciable difference in that respect compared to what goes on now. That's just a matter of courtesy, not law. I know for a fact that you've been to many-a-party at which marijuana was present, and I don't believe I've ever seen you have to leave for that reason. Most marijuana users, at least most of the ones I'd care to associate with, understand that it's kinda rude to just spark up in close quarters with people who may not be interested and go out of their way to be discreet and unobtrusive. Surely some don't, but seeing as the existing laws have not proven a significant barrier to marijuana's use, I don't really see the use patterns changing significantly.

[Gn2Dlnd]

You're absolutely right, and don't think I haven't appreciated it. Thank you. My question is, will that change? Probably not with my good friends. But, like I said, I can imagine a scenario where I'm told to take a hike if I don't like it.

I know I've been talking from a place of, "How will this affect me?" I'm really more concerned about children, or the elderly, or those who are otherwise incapable of communicating or realizing the effect second-hand smoke is having on them. I'm interested to see how our society works this out. If I'm uncomfortable, I can get up and leave. Many people don't have that option.

Mebbe some of you don't know what a pothead I used to be. My relationship with weed was not casual or occasional, to be sure, and caused me a lot of trouble. The scenario I described above? Not in the least theoretical, if you catch my drift.

[Not Afraid]

I'm always getting teased that I get a "contact drunk". Better for me to get a contact drunk that a real drunk.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Gn2Dlnd

if you catch my drift.

I dig. And I recognize that there's a good chance of a spike in less-than-polite behavior. But I am hopeful that it'll be a temporary celebratory spike that will settle as most of those celebrating will then simply settle back into their usual routines.

[Gn2Dlnd]

From the wording of that post, I take it you believe everyone who is going to smoke, is already smoking. I wouldn't be at all sure of that.

Nevertheless, I'm still in favor of legalization. Would this trump company policies on drug tests, or does federal law supersede?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Gn2Dlnd

From the wording of that post, I take it you believe everyone who is going to smoke, is already smoking. I wouldn't be at all sure of that.

Everyone? No, but there are already a huge number of new smokers all the time, and the rules of civility seem to be holding.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Gn2Dlnd

Would this trump company policies on drug tests, or does federal law supersede?

Here's the language that addresses that:

Originally Posted by Section 11304(c)

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.

I don't know how this intertwines with federal employment laws, especially for industries regulated primarily at the federal level, but my reading is that the intent is you can't be fired for getting high unless they can show it was directly impacting job performance.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Well, there's the Walmart case in Michigan. A little different because it's medical, but it raises many of the same questions. So far it seems the feds are staying out of it. But I think the prevailing legal climate is that Walmart is allowed to enforce its policy. In the long run I think it'll lead to a major reevaluation of how companies write drug policies and it will end up in a similar place that alcohol is. Don't do be stupid and you're fine.

[Alex]

Current law in California is that employers can still fire employees for simply having smoked pot regardless of whether the employee was prescribed the marijuana and there is no need to show that the smoking impacted job performance. This was confirmed by the state supreme court in Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications in 2008. So in that regard this initiative would appear to overturn that. I'm sure that the FAA will still be able to pull you pilot's license or that Berkeley will be able to deny you a job at Lawrence Livermore if pot smoking is against the rules.