(November 1, 2010) California Chamber of Commerce-opposed Proposition 19,the marijuana initiative on the November ballot, has been criticized in recent weeks by newspaper editorial boards and the attorney general of the United States.
On October 18, The San Diego Union-Tribune said Proposition 19 “may be the worst drafted legislation since 1996.”
News reports said U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. stated that “the Department of Justice strongly opposes Proposition 19. If passed, this legislation will greatly complicate federal drug enforcement efforts to the detriment of our citizens.”
Multitude of Regulations
The Union-Tribune noted that Proposition 19 “would allow every one of California’s nearly 480 cities and each of its 58 counties to develop their own regulation and tax schemes for the cultivation, processing, distribution, transportation and sale of marijuana.
In San Diego County alone, that could mean 19 separate sets of regulations and taxes—one for the unincorporated areas and one for each of the 18 cities. That provision alone is an invitation to law enforcement chaos.”
The Los Angeles Times pointed out that in Los Angeles County alone, Proposition 19 “could mean 88 different sets of regulations.”
The Union-Tribune also cited the workplace issues the CalChamber has been highlighting: “In addition, the proposition would create . . . a ‘legal quagmire’ for employers up and down the state. A business would be limited to addressing marijuana use to situations where it could prove that an employee’s job performance was actually impaired, making a mockery of employer efforts to create a safe, drug-free workplace.”
The Los Angeles Times commented, “Far from helping the state’s economic outlook, Proposition 19 could cause substantial harm. For instance, it would put employers in a quandary by creating a protected class of on-the-job smokers, bestowing a legal right to use marijuana at work unless employers could actually prove that it would impair an employee’s job performance. Employers would no longer have the right to screen for marijuana use or discipline a worker for being high. But common sense dictates that a drug-free environment is crucial at too many workplaces to name—schools, hospitals, emergency response and public safety agencies, among others.”
The San Francisco Chronicle cited workplace issues as well: “A nondiscrimination clause would prevent employers from firing or disciplining workers who used marijuana unless an employer could prove that job performance was impaired. Preemployment testing would be banned.
Conflicts with federal law abound. For example, the feds require operators of planes, trains, trucks and buses to be removed from their jobs if they test positive for any narcotic.”
Editorial Opposition
To date, 41 California daily newspapers have editorialized against Proposition 19, including the Bakersfield Californian; Chico Enterprise-Record; Contra Costa Times; (Palm Springs) Desert Sun; Fresno Bee; Gilroy Dispatch; Inland Valley Daily Bulletin; La Opinión; Lompoc Record; Long Beach Press-Telegram; L.A. Daily News; Los Angeles Times; Marin Independent Journal; Merced Sun-Star; Monterey County Herald; Modesto Bee; Napa Valley Register; North County Times; Oakland Tribune; Paradise Post; Pasadena Star News; Redding Record- Searchlight; Riverside Press-Enterprise; Sacramento Bee; Salinas Californian, San Bernardino Sun; San Diego Union-Tribune; San Francisco Chronicle; San Gabriel Valley Tribune; San Jose Mercury News; Santa Clarita Signal; Santa Cruz Sentinel; Santa Rosa Press Democrat; Santa Ynez Valley News; Stockton Record; Torrance Daily Breeze; Ukiah Daily Journal; Vallejo Times-Herald; Ventura County Star; Visalia Times-Delta; and Whittier Daily News.
CalChamber Opposition
The CalChamber has pointed out that Proposition 19 would create a legal quagmire for employers by significantly undermining the ability of employers to protect the safety of all employees in the workplace and establishing a new class of protected workers in the state.
If Proposition 19 is approved, employers, including the State of California, would be faced with the burden of proving that an employee who tests positive for marijuana is “actually impaired” from performing the job before taking any adverse action against the employee. This process would delay disciplinary actions used to protect workplace safety and drive up costs due to increased litigation.
In addition, the act threatens state and federal contracts and grants. If passed, this initiative could result in employers losing public contracts and grants because they could no longer effectively enforce the drug-free workplace requirements outlined by the federal government.
More Information
More information on the opposition to Proposition 19 is available at www.noonproposition19.com.