"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.
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.