# 2016 CA Marijuana Legalization Ballot Initiative **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [July 17, 2015, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2016-ca-marijuana-legalization-ballot-initiative/725425 "2015-07-17T16:55:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2015, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2016-ca-marijuana-legalization-ballot-initiative/725425/61 "2015-07-22T09:23:29Z")
There’s no question that legalization of marijuana brings downsides with it. But decriminalization is a nonsense concept. It says, “This is illegal, but no action will be taken against you if you use it.”, or it nonsensically outlaws the sale but not the buying. It’s an offense against common sense, a political solution to a public health and crime problem. Decriminalization comes with all the downsides of prohibition(criminal gangs, violence) without the benefits(less usage). ---
**Author:** ![zwede](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ac91a4/32.png) [@zwede](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwede)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2015, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2016-ca-marijuana-legalization-ballot-initiative/725425/62 "2015-07-22T12:22:35Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Legalizing marijuana would be a mistake: marijuana, alcohol and cigarettes are a greater health threat than alcohol and cigarettes alone. That marijuana is less dangerous than the other 2 isn’t especially relevant. I disagree. There will be some number of people who will choose pot instead of alcohol, or pot and _less_ alcohol. I’d expect to see less of the senseless violence and traffic deaths that alcohol induces. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2015, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2016-ca-marijuana-legalization-ballot-initiative/725425/63 "2015-07-22T12:36:03Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Unless that law is _also_ changed at the federal level. There is absolutely zero chance that will happen. “At will employment” is a conerstone of Republican theology. In an at will state your employer can fire you for wearing the wrong color hat. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2015, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2016-ca-marijuana-legalization-ballot-initiative/725425/64 "2015-07-22T12:55:07Z")
Well, yes, but there are still wrongful termination lawsuits and anti-discrimination law. At will doesn’t really mean “We can fire you anytime” so much as “you can work for us without joining a union”. In practice, employers are terrified of lawsuits and so document infractions and performance issues carefully so that you’ll have no case when they fire you. And since the vast majority of workers are a member of at least one protected group, there’s usually grounds for a lawsuit. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2015, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2016-ca-marijuana-legalization-ballot-initiative/725425/65 "2015-07-22T13:11:27Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > At will doesn’t really mean “We can fire you anytime” so much as “you can work for us without joining a union”. :dubious: That’s “right to work”, not “at will employment”. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2015, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2016-ca-marijuana-legalization-ballot-initiative/725425/66 "2015-07-22T13:22:26Z")
Oh yeah, duh. However, my point that at will doesn’t actually mean you can be fired for any reason in practice still stands. You can say, “I fired him for having the wrong hat!” and I can say I got fired because of my age, or marital status, or religion. Then we settle it in court. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2015, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2016-ca-marijuana-legalization-ballot-initiative/725425/67 "2015-07-22T13:33:23Z")
Anyone fired anywhere can make any claim they want. So what? An employer does not have to articulate any reason at all to fire someone in an “at will” state. They don’t have to dcument perperformance or poor customer service skills. The burden of proof in any lawsuit is entirely on the fired employee. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2015, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2016-ca-marijuana-legalization-ballot-initiative/725425/68 "2015-07-22T13:36:40Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Legalizing marijuana would be a mistake: marijuana, alcohol and cigarettes are a greater health threat than alcohol and cigarettes alone. That marijuana is less dangerous than the other 2 isn’t especially relevant. > > Legalize pot and you will see the awesome powers of capitalism devoted to the task of intoxicating the public. Yeah, just like booze. Advertising, marketing and efficient distribution push product. Absent meaningful campaign finance reform, regulators and legislators will end up in the pockets of Big Pot, just as they are in the pockets of the booze and cigarette industries. I agree with the sentiment but I think pot could be legalized in a restrained manner that isn’t excessively burdensome for responsible adults. For example, some states already restrict alcohol from being sold anywhere except by government-managed stores and prohibit most alcohol-related advertising. I think that approach should be formalized at the federal level for pot, alcohol, and cigarettes. Also I’d advocate that anyone buying pot or alcohol would need a recreational drug license that is contingent on a reasonably clean criminal and medical history (for example no felonies or diagnosis of psychiatric disease). ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2015, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2016-ca-marijuana-legalization-ballot-initiative/725425/69 "2015-07-22T13:44:56Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Anyone fired anywhere can make any claim they want. So what? An employer does not have to articulate any reason at all to fire someone in an “at will” state. They don’t have to dcument perperformance or poor customer service skills. The burden of proof in any lawsuit is entirely on the fired employee. And in the absence of a loser pays law, it’s still a big financial burden and a risk for the employer. Much easier to just document issues and not fire good employees in the first place because they wore the wrong hat. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2015, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2016-ca-marijuana-legalization-ballot-initiative/725425/70 "2015-07-22T13:52:59Z")
Here is the ddefinition of at-will employment from the [National Conference of State Legislatures](http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/at-will-employment-overview.aspx): > [@](#): > > … At-will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, except an illegal one, or for no reason without incurring legal liability. Likewise, an employee is free to leave a job at any time for any or no reason with no adverse legal consequences. > > At-will also means that an employer can change the terms of the employment relationship with no notice and no consequences. For example, an employer can alter wages, terminate benefits, or reduce paid time off. In its unadulterated form, the U.S. at-will rule leaves employees vulnerable to arbitrary and sudden dismissal, a limited or on-call work schedule depending on the employer’s needs, and unannounced cuts in pay and benefits. > … ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2015, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2016-ca-marijuana-legalization-ballot-initiative/725425/71 "2015-07-22T13:57:36Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > And in the absence of a loser pays law, it’s still a big financial burden and a risk for the employer. Much easier to just document issues and not fire good employees in the first place because they wore the wrong hat. This isn’t a discussion about how smart or dumb it might be to fire someone. The point is that no reason has to be articulated, no defense has to be made by the employer. If I hire you and decide I don’t like you, I can fire you, tell that to the judge as my reason for firing you, and walk away with a judgement for court costs against you. That is, if you can find a lawyer to take your case, which is extremely unlikely in an atw will state. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2015, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2016-ca-marijuana-legalization-ballot-initiative/725425/72 "2015-07-22T13:59:55Z")
“except an illegal one” is the rub. Almost everyone is part of a protected group. It’s not worth it to risk lawsuits just to get rid of an employee that some supervisor doesn’t like for capricious reasons. Heck, all you have to do is claim you were sexually harassed and there’s some legal fees incurred right there. Thats’ why even when companies are entirely within their rights to let you go, such as in layoff situations, they get you to sign a nondisparagement agreement and agree not to sue. In exchange, you get severance pay. Heck, we live in a world where companies are afraid to even give an honest reference. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2015, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2016-ca-marijuana-legalization-ballot-initiative/725425/73 "2015-07-22T14:25:23Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Oh yeah, duh. > > However, my point that at will doesn’t actually mean you can be fired for any reason in practice still stands. You can say, “I fired him for having the wrong hat!” and I can say I got fired because of my age, or marital status, or religion. Then we settle it in court. Yeah, who has the deeper pockets? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2015, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2016-ca-marijuana-legalization-ballot-initiative/725425/74 "2015-07-22T14:27:00Z")
Because that’s what corporations want to spend money on, defending against lawsuits. Unless you’re Monsanto or Haliburton, you don’t have a budget line item for that sort of thing. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2015, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2016-ca-marijuana-legalization-ballot-initiative/725425/75 "2015-07-22T14:36:58Z")
Any such suits would be summarily dismissed unless the plaintiff can introduce at least some credible evidence of their claim of discrimination. That is the whole point of “at will” – to make it as easy possible to fire employees without risk of legal consequences. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2015, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2016-ca-marijuana-legalization-ballot-initiative/725425/76 "2015-07-22T14:37:26Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Because that’s what corporations want to spend money on, defending against lawsuits. Unless you’re Monsanto or Haliburton, you don’t have a budget line item for that sort of thing. And setting a precedent for all disgruntled employees is cheaper too, I suppose? ---
**Author:** ![MegaNazz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/858c86/32.png) [@MegaNazz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MegaNazz)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2015, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2016-ca-marijuana-legalization-ballot-initiative/725425/77 "2015-07-22T17:08:48Z")
I feel that if marijuana were legalized at the federal level, someone getting fired from their job may have a little more ground to stand on if pursuing a lawsuit. So maybe there is a reason for someone to push for that fed support. ---
**Author:** ![zwede](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ac91a4/32.png) [@zwede](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwede)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2015, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2016-ca-marijuana-legalization-ballot-initiative/725425/78 "2015-07-22T20:28:40Z")
> [@MegaNazz](#): > > I feel that if marijuana were legalized at the federal level, someone getting fired from their job may have a little more ground to stand on if pursuing a lawsuit. So maybe there is a reason for someone to push for that fed support. There are already several companies that will fire someone found to be using tobacco. The feds don’t have a problem with that. No, this is a case where market forces will end up doing something good (it **does** happen occasionally). Companies will find that they are losing too many good employees and will change their rules to “don’t show up stoned at work, and we’re good”. Even the CIA changed their hiring rules from “no pot use ever”, to “it’s ok if you used to smoke, as long as you don’t now”. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2015, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2016-ca-marijuana-legalization-ballot-initiative/725425/79 "2015-07-22T20:40:23Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Almost everyone is part of a protected group. There’s no “almost” about it, unless you know some people somewhere who have neither race or gender. Firing someone for being white is every bit as illegal as firing someone for being black. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2015, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2016-ca-marijuana-legalization-ballot-initiative/725425/80 "2015-07-23T03:56:17Z")
> [@MegaNazz](#): > > I feel that if marijuana were legalized at the federal level, someone getting fired from their job may have a little more ground to stand on if pursuing a lawsuit. So maybe there is a reason for someone to push for that fed support. Perhaps, but companies can still not hire in the first place. Some companies won’t hire tobacco smokers. [http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/story/2012-01-03/health-care-jobs-no-smoking/52394782/1](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/story/2012-01-03/health-care-jobs-no-smoking/52394782/1) Although interestingly enough, 29 states consider smokers a protected class. Seems to me that in regards to tobacco, all you have to do is just ban smoke breaks. A lot of smokers can’t go hours without a cigarette, so that at least removes the serious addicts. Obviously that won’t work with marijuana, as I’d hope that 99% of pot users can do without it for 8-10 hours. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2016-ca-marijuana-legalization-ballot-initiative/725425.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2016-ca-marijuana-legalization-ballot-initiative/725425.md?page=5)