PROP. 19 WON'T LEAVE WORKERS HIGH ON DUTY

There are good arguments against Proposition 19, the initiative on the
November ballot that would legalize marijuana in California. The
arguments presented to the Redding City Council for a proposed
resolution opposing the measure, primarily related to how they would
affect the city as an employer, are not among them.

In a report to the council, Police Chief Peter Hansen echoes
statements from the California League of Cities and the California
Chamber of Commerce that the measure, if it passes, would undermine
efforts to ensure drug-free workplaces.

Hansen writes that the city "will not have the authority to ensure the
safety of all its employees and customers from someone who is under
the influence of marijuana while on-duty." Pot-smoking employees, he
adds, "will be protected from discipline for being in possession of
and/or under the influence of marijuana while at work."

Does this mean firefighters, Redding Electric line crews, officers on
patrol, and road workers operating heavy equipment will be stoned on
the job, endangering the public while the city can do nothing? The
plain language of Proposition 19 says otherwise.

In describing the initiative's intent, it specifically states that it
is not meant to "affect the application or enforcement" of public
health and safety laws including "any law prohibiting use of
controlled substances in the workplace or by specific persons whose
jobs involve public safety."

That's pretty clear. Will some fired pot smoker somewhere sue his
ex-employer, claiming discrimination? In the land of a million
lawyers, that's inevitable. But courts have already ruled that
employers have the right to sack workers for drug use even when they
have a doctor's recommendation. Surely judges will not find a civil
right to smoke a joint during lunch breaks.

The proposed law further states that legal marijuana users shall not
be discriminated against or "denied any right or privilege."

Hansen -- and, to be sure, he's not alone -- reads that to mean that
an employer could only address on-the-job drug use by disciplining
employees after an accident. If the law truly ran so counter to common
sense, opposing it on those grounds would be a no-brainer. That same
provision, however, specifically adds "that the existing right of an
employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance
by an employee shall not be affected."

That's just sensible. Alcohol is legal. But if you show up to work
after an evening's hard drinking with a hideous hangover that keeps
you from doing your job, your boss will keep a close eye on you. Show
up drunk, and you'll be fired.

If Proposition 19 should pass -- a faint prospect, to judge by recent
polls -- and marijuana becomes legal, it'll be handled similarly. And
that's as it should be. What we do on weekends, if it's legal and
doesn't spill over to Monday morning, isn't our bosses' business.

Proposition 19 would amount to a radical cultural shift with
far-reaching consequences -- likely too radical to swallow. But the
notion that employers will be stuck with a pot-addled workforce and
have no authority to demand clear heads on the job is a fanciful scare
tactic.