6 ms·

Why did California vote down legal pot?

8 points by edw519 16y ago

rick888 16y ago
If I was in California, I wouldn't have voted for it. Prop 19 made it difficult for businesses to fire people that smoke pot under "discrimination" laws. I, as a business owner should be able to fire someone if I know they are a regular pot smoker. Discrimination should have nothing to do with choices you make, but only for things that you can't control (race, sex, etc). Smokers sure want to be able to do what they want with their body, but they don't want to suffer any consequences as a result. If we ever have government run health care, I also shouldn't have to pay for your choices. When these issues are resolved, I would consider voting for it.
- kls 16y ago
  If we ever have government run health care, I also shouldn't have to pay for your choices. Which is exactly why we should not have government run healthcare. Where does it stop, should I have to pay for people that decide to take high risk carrer paths, how about high risk sports as a recreation. You open up a slippery sloop when, you don't agree with someone else's choice and decide you are going to enforce your view of the world on them. Quite honestly as long as they don't smoke pot on the job or come to work after having just smoked it. You really should not have a say in what they do as a business owner. It is audacious and elitist to think otherwise. You are by no means their keeper and have no entitlement to decision making in their personal life.
  - rick888 16y ago
    "Which is exactly why we should not have government run healthcare. Where does it stop, should I have to pay for people that decide to take high risk carrer paths, how about high risk sports as a recreation. " I actually agree with you here. I never want government run health care because of this. It also makes it so it's in the government's best interest to make sure you don't increase your health risks. Many other "risk" behaviors will be banned or taxed (such as fast food). "You open up a slippery sloop when, you don't agree with someone else's choice and decide you are going to enforce your view of the world on them." You can choose to smoke pot and do whatever you want with your life. But, you start encroaching on my freedoms when you force me to pay for any negative health problems or force me to hire specific types of people. As a sysadmin or developer, there are times when you need to come in after hours or in an emergency situation. If the person that needs to come in is high, I can't count on them to do their job. Unlike the government mandates that you support, you can choose not to work for my company.
    - alphaBeta1234 16y ago
      So you also don't hire people that drink alcohol, correct? (Throwaway account for obvious reasons).
      - chc 16y ago
        Deja vu. I remembered seeing this same discussion four days ago, and coincidentally it turns out it was with Rick888 too. This might provide useful context: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1850067 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1850067
        kls 16y ago
        I still contend that a businessman does not have the right to hire or more importantly fire someone based on lifestyle choices. So again a recreational drug uses can be fired because he feels he has the right to intervene in someones personal affairs. What about a drinker? what about a skydiver? Lets take it further what about a homosexual? oh no that would be wrong. OK what about a swinger (they are high risk sexual lifestyle)? The fact remains whether the law allows it or not, if an employer discriminates against people based on personal choices made in their personal life they are an asshat. While they may have the authority they do not have the right. To think you do is self-serving and narrow minded. I respect the personal freedoms of the individual far more than I do the personal freedoms of a business, because when it gets down to brass tacks, it is the people that are the reason that he is in business in the first place. Both the ones that consume his service and provide the back of labor that got him there. I love how business owners feel that they have become the masters. It is the reason for the term corporate slavery.
        rick888 16y ago
        "What about a drinker? what about a skydiver? Lets take it further what about a homosexual? oh no that would be wrong. OK what about a swinger (they are high risk sexual lifestyle)?" Like I said, it has the potential to affect workers. If I caught someone high on the job, I have a feeling someone would be able to successfully use this law to tell me, as a business owner, that I wouldn't be able to fire them due to "discrimination". If getting high or drunk did nothing to your work performance, I wouldn't really care. How does swinging or homosexuality do anything to hurt the performance of a worker? It doesn't. If you were the only developer at a company and the business would be pretty much screwed without you, do you think it's fair to the company to be involved in high-risk behavior? This is why from the company's standpoint, everyone should be replaceable. It equally balances power. "I respect the personal freedoms of the individual far more than I do the personal freedoms of a business, because when it gets down to brass tacks, it is the people that are the reason that he is in business in the first place." Now we are getting to the truth. You are self-serving and only believe in something that will benefit you. Customers are the reason the business is there in the first place. Workers are getting paid and are provided a living. You act as if starting a business involves no work. It involves sacrifice and most workers just aren't willing to go through it. Would you spend all your free time working on a business? Or partying with your friends and relaxing? "if an employer discriminates against people based on personal choices made in their personal life they are an asshat" Banks don't hire felons..and neither would I. This most likely is a personal choice. Businesses only hire people based on personal choices. You might have decided to major in computer science and write programs for fun (all personal choices) that led to having the skills to work for a specific company. "I love how business owners feel that they have become the masters. It is the reason for the term corporate slavery." I love how employees feel that businesses should be forced, by law, to hire people they don't want to hire. Corporate slavery is an insult to people that were actually slaves. You have the freedom to leave at any time, you just choose to stay and complain about how you are a "corporate slave". This, by definition means you are not a slave.
qjz 16y ago
"Miron advises advocates to argue pot prohibition interferes with individual liberty" This is precisely why legalization will fail, as long as smoking marijuana continues to be the principal means of ingestion. The problem is that anyone in the vicinity of a pot smoker is also likely to get high from second-hand smoke. That's simply unacceptable, especially when children are involved, from an individual liberty standpoint.
- lotusleaf1987 16y ago
  There is absolutely no way that is true unless you're smoking inside of a 3'x 3' closet. Most of the cannabinoids and other intoxicating agents have been consumed by the first inhalation. Can you cite any evidence for the claim you've made? Will exposure to passive marijuana second hand smoke result in a positive marijuana test? The most common excuse for a positive marijuana test is, "I was around some people who were smoking pot." Research has shownthat casual exposure to marijuana smoke will not produce a positive test. A person really has to work at being exposed to "passive" smoke to create a positive test. Very close confinement, without ventilation, with several smokers, for a period of over an hour, may result in a low, but measurable amount of marijuana in urine and blood. This demonstrates that even though the person may not have directly inhaled the smoke from a marijuana cigarette, they inhaled enough second hand smoke to get high. In our opinion, if a person tests positive for marijuana, the issue of whether they smoked the marijuana directly, or whether from intense and prolonged exposure to second hand marijuana smoke is irrelevant. The reasonable choice should be clear! From: http://www.drug-testing-kits.com/drug-test-faq.html http://www.drug-testing-kits.com/drug-test-faq.html which is probably not a good source but it's the best I could find through Google at the moment.
  - qjz 16y ago
    No, a site that sells drug testing kits is not a good source, and there's probably a good reason it is the best quote you could find. In any case, a car certainly qualifies as a space that's confined enough to get high from second hand pot smoke. But it doesn't even matter if it's enough to get high, it's the smoke that's objectionable, which is obvious from the trend to prohibit smoking indoors in public places. This fight can't be won with facts, it requires a change of behavior. People simply don't want to inhale other people's smoke anymore. Personally, I'm not against legalizing pot, just smoking it. It's the end of the day, and I'm about to have a drink. I'd much rather have a hash brownie, but I won't go near an illicit drug as long as I have a family to support.
metageek 16y ago
>A final problem with Prop 19 is that it would only have legalized marijuana under state law, since federal law also bans marijuana. That was always my problem with this (and with Prop 215, medical marijuana, in 1996): they completely ignore the fact that states can't nullify federal law. It's as if their backers never heard of the Civil War.
- alphaBeta1234 16y ago
  That was always my problem with the DEA (and the war on drugs, etc.): it completely ignores the fact that the basic building block of government is supposed to be the states, not the fed. It's as if their backers never heard of the tenth amendment.
  - metageek 16y ago
    Agreed. The whole war on drugs needs to be stopped. But nullification is not the right tactic--not least because it just doesn't work.
    - alphaBeta1234 16y ago
      The two examples I'd bring forth to suggest that nullification (I'm assuming nullification = legalization) would work are America's Prohibition (banning alcohol only worsened the problem, http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/what-can-prohibition-teach-us-about-marijuana-legalization-and-other-tales-from-last-call-author-daniel-okrent/ http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/what-can-pr...) and Portugal's recent legalization (a resounding success; http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-dr... and http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.ht...) Or did you mean something else by nullification that I missed?
      - metageek 16y ago
        Nullification is the idea that states can override federal laws.

8 points by edw519 16y ago

If I was in California, I wouldn't have voted for it. Prop 19 made it difficult for businesses to fire people that smoke pot under "discrimination" laws. I, as a business owner should be able to fire someone if I know they are a regular pot smoker. Discrimination should have nothing to do with choices you make, but only for things that you can't control (race, sex, etc). Smokers sure want to be able to do what they want with their body, but they don't want to suffer any consequences as a result. If we ever have government run health care, I also shouldn't have to pay for your choices. When these issues are resolved, I would consider voting for it.

kls 16y ago
If we ever have government run health care, I also shouldn't have to pay for your choices. Which is exactly why we should not have government run healthcare. Where does it stop, should I have to pay for people that decide to take high risk carrer paths, how about high risk sports as a recreation. You open up a slippery sloop when, you don't agree with someone else's choice and decide you are going to enforce your view of the world on them. Quite honestly as long as they don't smoke pot on the job or come to work after having just smoked it. You really should not have a say in what they do as a business owner. It is audacious and elitist to think otherwise. You are by no means their keeper and have no entitlement to decision making in their personal life.
- rick888 16y ago
  "Which is exactly why we should not have government run healthcare. Where does it stop, should I have to pay for people that decide to take high risk carrer paths, how about high risk sports as a recreation. " I actually agree with you here. I never want government run health care because of this. It also makes it so it's in the government's best interest to make sure you don't increase your health risks. Many other "risk" behaviors will be banned or taxed (such as fast food). "You open up a slippery sloop when, you don't agree with someone else's choice and decide you are going to enforce your view of the world on them." You can choose to smoke pot and do whatever you want with your life. But, you start encroaching on my freedoms when you force me to pay for any negative health problems or force me to hire specific types of people. As a sysadmin or developer, there are times when you need to come in after hours or in an emergency situation. If the person that needs to come in is high, I can't count on them to do their job. Unlike the government mandates that you support, you can choose not to work for my company.
  - alphaBeta1234 16y ago
    So you also don't hire people that drink alcohol, correct? (Throwaway account for obvious reasons).
    - chc 16y ago
      Deja vu. I remembered seeing this same discussion four days ago, and coincidentally it turns out it was with Rick888 too. This might provide useful context: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1850067 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1850067
      - kls 16y ago
        I still contend that a businessman does not have the right to hire or more importantly fire someone based on lifestyle choices. So again a recreational drug uses can be fired because he feels he has the right to intervene in someones personal affairs. What about a drinker? what about a skydiver? Lets take it further what about a homosexual? oh no that would be wrong. OK what about a swinger (they are high risk sexual lifestyle)? The fact remains whether the law allows it or not, if an employer discriminates against people based on personal choices made in their personal life they are an asshat. While they may have the authority they do not have the right. To think you do is self-serving and narrow minded. I respect the personal freedoms of the individual far more than I do the personal freedoms of a business, because when it gets down to brass tacks, it is the people that are the reason that he is in business in the first place. Both the ones that consume his service and provide the back of labor that got him there. I love how business owners feel that they have become the masters. It is the reason for the term corporate slavery.
        rick888 16y ago
        "What about a drinker? what about a skydiver? Lets take it further what about a homosexual? oh no that would be wrong. OK what about a swinger (they are high risk sexual lifestyle)?" Like I said, it has the potential to affect workers. If I caught someone high on the job, I have a feeling someone would be able to successfully use this law to tell me, as a business owner, that I wouldn't be able to fire them due to "discrimination". If getting high or drunk did nothing to your work performance, I wouldn't really care. How does swinging or homosexuality do anything to hurt the performance of a worker? It doesn't. If you were the only developer at a company and the business would be pretty much screwed without you, do you think it's fair to the company to be involved in high-risk behavior? This is why from the company's standpoint, everyone should be replaceable. It equally balances power. "I respect the personal freedoms of the individual far more than I do the personal freedoms of a business, because when it gets down to brass tacks, it is the people that are the reason that he is in business in the first place." Now we are getting to the truth. You are self-serving and only believe in something that will benefit you. Customers are the reason the business is there in the first place. Workers are getting paid and are provided a living. You act as if starting a business involves no work. It involves sacrifice and most workers just aren't willing to go through it. Would you spend all your free time working on a business? Or partying with your friends and relaxing? "if an employer discriminates against people based on personal choices made in their personal life they are an asshat" Banks don't hire felons..and neither would I. This most likely is a personal choice. Businesses only hire people based on personal choices. You might have decided to major in computer science and write programs for fun (all personal choices) that led to having the skills to work for a specific company. "I love how business owners feel that they have become the masters. It is the reason for the term corporate slavery." I love how employees feel that businesses should be forced, by law, to hire people they don't want to hire. Corporate slavery is an insult to people that were actually slaves. You have the freedom to leave at any time, you just choose to stay and complain about how you are a "corporate slave". This, by definition means you are not a slave.

qjz 16y ago

"Miron advises advocates to argue pot prohibition interferes with individual liberty" This is precisely why legalization will fail, as long as smoking marijuana continues to be the principal means of ingestion. The problem is that anyone in the vicinity of a pot smoker is also likely to get high from second-hand smoke. That's simply unacceptable, especially when children are involved, from an individual liberty standpoint.

lotusleaf1987 16y ago
There is absolutely no way that is true unless you're smoking inside of a 3'x 3' closet. Most of the cannabinoids and other intoxicating agents have been consumed by the first inhalation. Can you cite any evidence for the claim you've made? Will exposure to passive marijuana second hand smoke result in a positive marijuana test? The most common excuse for a positive marijuana test is, "I was around some people who were smoking pot." Research has shownthat casual exposure to marijuana smoke will not produce a positive test. A person really has to work at being exposed to "passive" smoke to create a positive test. Very close confinement, without ventilation, with several smokers, for a period of over an hour, may result in a low, but measurable amount of marijuana in urine and blood. This demonstrates that even though the person may not have directly inhaled the smoke from a marijuana cigarette, they inhaled enough second hand smoke to get high. In our opinion, if a person tests positive for marijuana, the issue of whether they smoked the marijuana directly, or whether from intense and prolonged exposure to second hand marijuana smoke is irrelevant. The reasonable choice should be clear! From: http://www.drug-testing-kits.com/drug-test-faq.html http://www.drug-testing-kits.com/drug-test-faq.html which is probably not a good source but it's the best I could find through Google at the moment.
- qjz 16y ago
  No, a site that sells drug testing kits is not a good source, and there's probably a good reason it is the best quote you could find. In any case, a car certainly qualifies as a space that's confined enough to get high from second hand pot smoke. But it doesn't even matter if it's enough to get high, it's the smoke that's objectionable, which is obvious from the trend to prohibit smoking indoors in public places. This fight can't be won with facts, it requires a change of behavior. People simply don't want to inhale other people's smoke anymore. Personally, I'm not against legalizing pot, just smoking it. It's the end of the day, and I'm about to have a drink. I'd much rather have a hash brownie, but I won't go near an illicit drug as long as I have a family to support.

metageek 16y ago

>A final problem with Prop 19 is that it would only have legalized marijuana under state law, since federal law also bans marijuana. That was always my problem with this (and with Prop 215, medical marijuana, in 1996): they completely ignore the fact that states can't nullify federal law. It's as if their backers never heard of the Civil War.

alphaBeta1234 16y ago
That was always my problem with the DEA (and the war on drugs, etc.): it completely ignores the fact that the basic building block of government is supposed to be the states, not the fed. It's as if their backers never heard of the tenth amendment.
- metageek 16y ago
  Agreed. The whole war on drugs needs to be stopped. But nullification is not the right tactic--not least because it just doesn't work.
  - alphaBeta1234 16y ago
    The two examples I'd bring forth to suggest that nullification (I'm assuming nullification = legalization) would work are America's Prohibition (banning alcohol only worsened the problem, http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/what-can-prohibition-teach-us-about-marijuana-legalization-and-other-tales-from-last-call-author-daniel-okrent/ http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/what-can-pr...) and Portugal's recent legalization (a resounding success; http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-dr... and http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.ht...) Or did you mean something else by nullification that I missed?
    - metageek 16y ago
      Nullification is the idea that states can override federal laws.