[andymorris]

That's a horrible reason.

No law will ever be perfect - it's all about steps in the right direction. If we wait for things to be perfect, nothing will ever change.

I find it very disheartening that some of the very people who want this change the most refused to vote for a 90% solution in the hopes that someone will come along with a 100% solution tomorrow. With this setback, the issue won't come up again for many years, and even when it does it STILL won't be perfect.

I just hope that in 10 years when it comes up again, people won't be going "I voted no because it's not perfect" and setting the process back ANOTHER 10 years.

[cabalamat]

> No law will ever be perfect - it's all about steps in the right direction.

Absolutely. The best is the enemy of the good. A better response for pro-legalisation people who disliked aspects of prop 19 would be to campaign for it, then when it's passed (and the dire predictions of the no lobby proven to be unfounded), campaign to improve it.

In Britain next year there will be a referendum on changing the voting system from FPTP to AV. Some people are opposing it saying it doesn't go far enough, and using pretty much the same arguments as aaronblohowiak. These people are IMO misguided; they are more likely to prevent the change they want from happening.

[tptacek]

I'm pro-legalization and found the arguments of the "no" lobby persuasive. I'm not a CA voter, but I believe I speak for at least one of them who shares my sentiments. How does your argument --- "wait for the dire predictions of the no lobby to prove unfounded" --- address people who in good faith oppose the proposition?

[cabalamat]

My point was that if prop 19 had passed, then if after a few years bad thi8ngs didn't happen as a result of it, then that fact would change the tone of the debate on cannabis legalisation, leading to a big majority being in favour of people being in favour of it. When that happened, it'd be time to tweak the law to change some of the bad parts of it (because no law is perfect).

[tptacek]

Why would someone vote for a law that seemed to them likely to create harmful side effects rather than waiting for a less ambitious, better-designed law that wouldn't? That's the conundrum I think many people fell into. You can say "the perfect is the enemy of the good", but that ignores the fact that the bad is also the enemy of the good.

[cabalamat]

> Why would someone vote for a law that seemed to them likely to create harmful side effects

Because as well as the bad effects, the law might also have good effects, i.e. be a net improvement. Most policy proposals have some potential bad side effects -- if they didn't, people would already be doing them.

So if a policy appears to be net-positive, it is probably worth supporting.

> rather than waiting for a less ambitious, better-designed law that wouldn't?

If a referendum fails, it may make it less likely that a better designed law will come along later. This is IMO the case for the referendum on electoral reform that will be held in the UK next May -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote...

[tptacek]

Just because Paul Buchheit says it's a horrible reason doesn't make it actually a horrible reason.

In reality, the particulars of the law matter, a lot. And, in particular, this law could have allowed people to lawfully drive under the influence, and almost certainly would have caused hundreds of employers to end up in frivolous lawsuits. It manifestly did leave open the question of whether employers would have to allow employees to take one-hitters to their smoke breaks.

The second-order effects were even worse; companies in California are entangled in a web of business relationships that require drug-free workplaces --- FedGov is the most obvious example, but every investment bank in the world has a similar requirement --- all of which would have been thrown into chaos by this measure.

And why? To keep people from getting fired for something that currently gets people incarcerated. A step in the right direction is exactly what this measure wasn't.

The campaign for legalization could have written a minimalist bill. They could have waited 2 years for a more favorable election cycle. They did neither, choosing instead to walk into a buzzsaw. Don't blame the bill's opponents for this incompetence.

[Alex3917]

"this law could have allowed people to lawfully drive under the influence"

Considering that marijuana impairs driving ability less than driving at the legal limit for alcohol, does it really matter? We as a society have already decided that the level of risk that driving stoned poses is acceptable.

[tptacek]

Libertarians will also make rational arguments about how blood alcohol limit laws should be repealed. After all, there's no science to indicate that 10 different people will be impaired to the same extent by the same blood alcohol level. You can argue about any of these issues. But do you really think driving stoned is a winning political issue? And while tens of thousands of people are imprisoned over marijuana, isn't it relevant that it's a losing argument?

[jrockway]

Libertarians will also make rational arguments about how blood alcohol limit laws should be repealed. After all, there's no science to indicate that 10 different people will be impaired to the same extent by the same blood alcohol level.

No, that issue is solved. It's called a trial.

[tptacek]

My point is simply this: now you're trying to convince sensible people of two things they've been trained not to believe. First, that something that has been a controlled substance for decades should be open to commerce in California, and second, that the basis of our drunk driving laws are unsound and should be in effect repealed starting with that controlled substance.

A campaign to repeal blood alcohol limits would almost certainly fail in every US state, so its attachment to this bill seems like a horrible overreach.

[chollida1]

> Considering that marijuana impairs driving ability less than driving at the legal limit for alcohol

Source? I've seen stoned people that couldn't stand up, much less drive.

[Alex3917]

Obviously you can put enough of anything into your body that you can't stand up, but for normal amounts it's safer than driving drunk, on your phone, texting, etc. There are several researchers who have found that it's so safe that in double blind studies they couldn't tell the difference between the sober group and the stoned group, i.e. they found zero harm at all. The ones who do find some impairing effects say they are minimal.

[chollida1]

I didn't down vote you, sorry that happened.

> Obviously you can put enough of anything into your body that you can't stand up, but for normal amounts it's safer than driving drunk, on your phone, texting, etc.

The problem I have with what you are stating is that you hand wave over "normal amounts". What is a normal amount. I've seen one toke of weed be enough to lay someone out for a half hour, I haven't seen that from one sip of a beer.

[adolph]

Any citation for that statement about impairment? Does it impair less than texting to talking on the phone? There was a stunt article in the LA Times that is short on detail but indicates that marijuana may impair in different ways from alcohol:

http://articles.latimes.com/print/2010/oct/20/local/la-me-10...

[Alex3917]

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7459

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-term_effects_of_cannabis#...

[roc]

> "It manifestly did leave open the question of whether employers would have to allow employees to take one-hitters to their smoke breaks."

Is that unlike the open question of whether employers have to allow employees to have a martini or two at lunch?

[tptacek]

No, because unless you can get a medical professional to write you up as an alcoholic (in which case the ADA applies), you can be fired simply for handling a martini at lunch. That isn't an open question. Employment in California is at will, excepting:

* discrimination on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, or national origin

* discrimination over disabilities covered by the ADA (diagnosed drug and alcohol addiction notably included)

* termination over lawful activities conducted outside the work place.

Perverse as this sounds to me, you can in California be fired over a bad haircut, but cannot be fired for marching in a Nazi parade.

[roc]

> "termination over lawful activities conducted outside the work place."

What I mean to ask is: doesn't that statement right there cover any responsible person who might want a puff or drink during the work day? I'm not talking about having a martini or a smoke at your desk or on the loading dock.

I just don't understand

1: why anyone would be concerned that the law might allow someone to show up with marijuana in their system at a non-impairment level, when they might already show up with alcohol in their system at a non-impairment level.

2: why a law that explicitly re-iterates that you can't be fired for engaging in a particular lawful activity outside the workplace is viewed as a flaw, when the general case of any lawful activity is already law.

[tptacek]

Where to begin...

1. Employment in the US is (for the most part) at-will. Employers can fire you for having a bad haircut. This is a good thing: it lowers the barriers to starting new companies and taking on new employees.

2. In virtually every situation in which people are given protections beyond "at-will", the harms have overwhelmed the benefits (see: teachers, auto workers, municipal employees).

3. The very few exceptions to this practice mostly involve unconscionable discrimination: specifically and literally, race, color, gender, national origin, and religion. To these 5 protected classes we should add "pot smoker"?

4. To many employers, "protected class" is code for "excuse to get sued". Termination is already a minefield simply because of racial and gender politics. I'd argue that ending racial and gender discrimination makes the hazards worth it, but even as a legalization advocate I can't argue that ending pot discrimination is worth a dime to society.

5. It gets worse because in addition to the fact that every other state criminalized cannabis, huge companies operating out of those states (notable examples: the federal government, almost every major bank) have drug-free work policies that would overnight have become unlawful in CA.

6. California's "lawful activity outside the workplace" thing appears to be a CA quirk.

7. That quirk isn't settled in case law and may only apply to cases where companies try to suppress political speech or invade privacy.

8. It seems batshit crazy to me that I can, as a CA employer, fire someone for having a bad haircut, but I can't fire that person for being nationally televised for marching in support of Nazism. Let's not pretend that particular law was well-thought-out.

I can bring this discussion back to earth real quickly though. The problem is simply this: we're having a huge and tangled discussion involving discrimination, at-will employment, freedom of association, contract law, and so on. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of people are imprisoned because of marijuana criminalization. Many of them are now going to remain imprisoned for a longer period of time because the advocates of this measure overreached and tried to pass a "marijuana anti-discrimination act" instead of a "marijuana decriminalization act".

[roc]

> "1. At-will" For the most part, this is true. However, it is and has been abused and has its existing exemptions for very good reason. Protecting an employer's right to punish people for lawful activity they engage in outside of the workplace, that has no impact on how they perform their job, does not seem like a very good reason.

> "2. harms from exceptions have overwhelmed the benefits" You're conflating union contracts with legal protections. Also, we shouldn't overlook the ways in which employers would use their at-will rights to control employee voting, spending (company store) and living (company housing). Beneficial protections for employees from the at-will rights of employers go beyond the handful of explicit protected classes.

> "3. To these 5 protected classes we should add "pot smoker"?" No more than we should add "alcohol drinker". But it absolutely shouldn't be a protected right to fire people for engaging in lawful behavior that occurs outside the workplace and has no impact on their job performance.

> "4. "protected class" is code for "excuse to get sued"." Termination is pretty clean and easy so long as you document your decisions.

> "5. Existing policies unlawful" I believe the correct interpretation there is the specific sections would be rendered invalid/unenforceable and would need to be amended. I don't see it as such a huge deal. The very organizations that would experience a large cost in this endeavor are overwhelmingly the ones who have annual updates anyway.

> "6. CA quirk." But we're only talking about California. It's nonsensical to argue based on interstate applicability of a proposed State law.

> "7. That quirk isn't settled in case law and may only apply to cases where companies try to suppress political speech or invade privacy." Or it may not. Or firing people based on lawfully smoking weed might be seen as an invasion of privacy.

> "8. It seems batshit crazy to me that I can, as a CA employer, fire someone for having a bad haircut, but I can't fire that person for being nationally televised for marching in support of Nazism." You don't think freedom to political speech on your own time is a more important and sacred right than freedom of expression via appearance in the workplace?

> "Many of them are now going to remain imprisoned for a longer period of time because the advocates of this measure overreached and tried to pass a "marijuana anti-discrimination act" instead of a "marijuana decriminalization act"." I think the jury's out on how much of the opposition to this bill had to do with marijuana anti-discrimination.

I'll absolutely agree that it was bad strategy, particularly as the right seems to already be protected. I'm just not convinced that a critical reading of the proposal would sway voters away from it for its inclusion.

Arguments against the anti-discrimination sections were overwhelmingly emotional arguments. Those arguments, and those swayed by them, have never needed a rational basis. If it wasn't "they'll drive high" it would've been "they'll babysit high" or "the welfare queen will be high on your dime" or some similar scare-scenario.

[krschultz]

I agree with something like healthcare or financial reform, but not here.

If we have a crappy law and it creates a bunch of talking points for the opposition, that is worse than no law. The CA law will be open for repeal and other states will be less likely to pass the law.

If CA passed a good law, had a good result over the next 10 years, proponents elsewhere can point to CA as a model example of what will happen.

Any law to legalize pot has to 1) Increase tax revenue 2) Reduce crime related to drugs (especially violent crime) 3) Effectively penalize those that endager others 4) Effectively regulate the industry so that the supply is safe