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).
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.
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.
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.
:dubious:
That’s “right to work”, not “at will employment”.
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.
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.
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).
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.
“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.
Yeah, who has the deeper pockets?
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.
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.
And setting a precedent for all disgruntled employees is cheaper too, I suppose?
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”.
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.
Perhaps, but companies can still not hire in the first place. Some companies won’t hire tobacco smokers.
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.