AD WATCH: ANTI-PROP. 19 SPOT DISTORTS ITS IMPACT

A radio ad against Proposition 19 paid for by the California Chamber
of Commerce's Business PAC depicts a stoned California work force.
Here is the text, followed by an analysis by Bee reporter Peter Hecht:

Text

Imagine coming out of surgery and the nurse caring for you was high,
or having to work harder on your job to make up for a co-worker who
shows up high on pot. It could happen in California if Proposition 19 passes.

Prop. 19 would do more than simply legalize marijuana. Prop. 19 is
worded so broadly that it would hurt California's economy, raise
business costs and make it harder to create jobs. Employees would be
allowed to come to work high and employers would be unable to punish
an employee for being high until after a workplace accident.

Not only could workers' compensation premiums rise, businesses will
lose millions in federal grants for violating federal drug laws.
California's economy is bad enough. Prop. 19 will hurt workers and
business and cost jobs.

Analysis

The chamber's claims contradict rules on marijuana in the workplace
upheld by the California Supreme Court and federal law.

But, businesses may need to worry about employee litigation if
Proposition 19 passes, based on a declaration in the initiative: "No
person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied
any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted
by this act."

Yet the initiative also says the measure doesn't supersede "any law
prohibiting use of controlled substances in the workplace or by
specific persons whose jobs involve public safety."

The chamber's warnings of companies being defenseless against stoned
workers and in danger of losing millions of dollars in federal
drug-free workplace grants don't square with a landmark 2008 state
Supreme Court decision.

In the case of a Sacramento man, a legal medical marijuana user who
was fired by a telecommunications firm for testing positive for pot,
the court ruled employers can set and enforce workplace rules against
drug use and require drug testing.

The plaintiff, Gary Ross, contended his rights as a legal pot user
under California's 1996 Proposition 215 medical marijuana law were
violated when he was dismissed after results came in from a
pre-employment drug test.

The court said employers can fire workers or refuse to hire them
based on positive drug tests or impairment, whether the drug use is
legal in California or not. It ruled the federal Fair Employment and
Housing Act "does not require employers to accommodate the use of
illegal drugs."

The court also said public intoxication laws remain in place -
meaning that stoners in the workplace can be fired as easily as drunks.