"Yeah, as we all know no drugs ever have negative side effects while still having positive effects. But okay, I agree that high people are less likely to perform well. All that is, however, besides the point: if they don't work well, you can fire them. You don't have to bring up pot to make your case; they aren't doing their job well, they're out. The law allows you to kick people out because they don't do the job well."
What I'm saying is the wording of the law that didn't pass in Cali was such that it would allow for people that were pot users to not be discriminated against in the work place. Since it was fairly vague, it could easily be used against the employer if those people were ever fired.
"Again, how many people do you see coming to work drunk? I'd guess not many. Why do they not come to work drunk?"
Are there any specific laws that say that an alcoholic can't be discriminated against by a potential employer? I don't think there are. This is the difference.
Also, it's much easier to detect if a person is drunk (smelling it on their breath, motor skills are affected). I know lots of people that smoke instead of drink because they don't want to get a DUI.
What I'm saying is the wording of the law that didn't pass in Cali was such that it would allow for people that were pot users to not be discriminated against in the work place. Since it was fairly vague, it could easily be used against the employer if those people were ever fired.
"Again, how many people do you see coming to work drunk? I'd guess not many. Why do they not come to work drunk?"
Are there any specific laws that say that an alcoholic can't be discriminated against by a potential employer? I don't think there are. This is the difference.
Also, it's much easier to detect if a person is drunk (smelling it on their breath, motor skills are affected). I know lots of people that smoke instead of drink because they don't want to get a DUI.