Previous article on legalizing marijuana
Next article on legalizing marijuana
List of all articles on legalizing marijuana
|
Based on this article, Demitri Yegolas Downing probably wasn't lying to us when he told us that a number of business groups campaigned against Prop 205 because I would not allow them to fire employees who use marijuana.
While I think it's stupid for a business to fire a person simply for using marijuana, I also think that business owners should be allowed to hire and fire anybody for any reason they choose. It's only fair that if a person has the right to smoke marijuana in Arizona, that a business who doesn't like marijuana smokers has the right NOT to hire them. My understanding is that the Safer Arizona 2018 initiative as we wrote it DOES allow an employee to fire an employee for anything including using marijuana. Under Prop 203 or Arizona's medical marijuana act, they do not allow a business to fire an employee for simply using marijuana off the job. But the courts seem to say that option is NOT enforceable because Arizona is a right to work state. And juries have been allowing employees to fire employees because they use marijuana off the job. Demitri Yegolas Downing suggested that we put something the initiative that says employors have the right to fire marijuana users for any reason to keep folks like Mike Huckins at the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce from fighting against us.
Letter: Be glad Prop. 205 went up in smoke Mike Huckins 5:39 p.m. MST November 21, 2016 Republic staff members on Proposition 205 loss The Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce applauds Arizona voters and the business community for making their voice heard and saying no to Proposition 205, Arizona’s ballot measure to legalize recreational marijuana. This mandate would have negatively impacted the business community and local economy. The legalization of recreational marijuana also would've created yet another hurdle to attracting and retaining businesses to Arizona. This measure would have limited an employer’s ability to prevent employees from working while impaired by marijuana consumed outside the workplace. In addition, it would have exposed employers to litigation for trying to impose workplace restrictions other than those specifically outlined in the measure. Why did this initiative fail then? Other than the public concern and drawbacks, it was a poorly written measure and contained contradictory language. Many looked to Colorado and it was clear that the tax revenue didn’t materialize as expected. Voters saw through the ulterior motives of the special interest groups. Ultimately, the focus on youth use and public safety likely pushed voters to oppose it. — Mike Huckins, Phoenix Editor’s note: Huckins is the chamber’s vice president of public affairs.
|