Pot Legalization Side-Issues

[rstrong]

A couple decades ago in New York, a kid was kidnapped from a first story apartment. The city's response was to order apartment blocks to install bars on any first and second story apartments that had young children. And then walk away congratulating themselves on a job well done.

One couple received a bill for thousands of dollars from their caretaker for installing the bars. There was stone-work involved. The couple refused to pay, saying that it was a building upgrade to match a new law. The caretaker's position was that of all his tenants, only that one couple needed bars on their windows. Therefore it was the tenant's responsibility.

One side won, after $20,000 in legal bills to both sides. The other side appealed and won, after another $20,000. It went back and forth a few more times. The caretaker eventually won, and the couple was stuck with well over $100,000 in legal bills.

The point isn't which side was right. It's that they should never have been stuck with that legal battle in the first place. It was an obvious issue with the new law, and those making the law should have addressed it to begin with. Even as an oversight, they should have settled the issue as soon as it appeared.

And so while I don't really care either way whether pot is legalized, I DO care about the obvious issues that will arise from legalization. There's no reason why these should stop legalization, of even delay legalization for more than a couple months. But they need to be addressed before.

Whether bus drivers etc. can be barred from pot by their employers.

To my knowledge no legalization has affected employer choices.

Nevertheless, it will.

Few parents care if their kid's bus driver has a cigarette before he gets on the bus. I don't think the bus companies have the legal right to order their employees to not smoke tobacco, when not actually on the bus.

If pot is simply legalized - making it legally no different than tobacco - then the first time a parent notices their kid's driver smoking pot before getting on the bus, the bus companies will face enormous pressure to stop them. They'll order drivers not to smoke, and it will inevitably end up in court. This should be settled ahead of time.[/quote]

Plus, simulator studies in Europe and Canada have shown that pot does increase reaction time slightly - nothing like booze - but does not lead to more accidents. Unlike booze, pot does not eliminate one's judgment re impairment level and the ones on it tend to drive slower.

Fair enough. But of course if pot is simply legalized, a great many jurisdictions will disagree. They'll want road-side testing, just like for alcohol. Without a saliva test or something else non-invasive, well, if that means getting needles, it's bloody well going to court. In 50 different jurisdictions. With opposing judgments in different cases, and lots of appeals.

This needs to be settled ahead of time, at the same time as legalization. Nothing major, just a legal recognition that pot does/doesn't cause impairment, or like with alcohol, a testable point where it does.

Whether landlords can ban pot smoking - which stinks up a building FAR more than tobacco - in their apartments.)

Sure, they already can ban legal tobacco smoking and any other voluntary activity that has not been specifically deemed a protected right.

I had this problem over a decade ago in my old apartment. And starting just in the last two weeks, I have it here now: Suddenly my apartment will smell like a tire fire, because someone is smoking pot on our floor. Others have complained, but the caretaker isn't sure which suite is responsible. It usually happens late at night.

This doesn't happen with tobacco. I'll smell it in the hallway, but only vaguely. I've never noticed it in my suite. I've noticed cooking smells, but only just, and they don't smell bad. Pot is not equivalent.

I see no need to ban tobacco smoking in the building. But if pot is grouped in with tobacco, then obviously people will be demanding a ban. Evicting long-time tenants because suddenly OTHERS are smoking pot, means court battles. For that matter, so does evicting the pot smoker.

Whether pot and tobacco are grouped together for this purpose needs to be settled first, along with the landlord's and other tenants' rights.

None of this is too much to ask. They're only the most obvious issues that will have to be addressed almost immediately upon legalization. They should be settled in any legislation to legalize pot, not left to bankrupt people in a thousand legal battles after.

[O Really]

Employers currently prohibit employees from being "impaired," whether that impairment is from illegal or legal substances. One can certainly be impaired on the job from, for example, NyQuil, and certainly from many legal prescription pain-killers. Smoking, although legal, is not allowed in many public places because of the effect on others, not necessarily because of the effect on the smoker. I don't see restrictions on pot smoking would be any different. It's not like making pot smoking legal bestows some Constitutional right like the gun nuts think they have to pack heat anywhere without restriction. Some states used to have laws that didn't necessarily make it illegal to drink while driving, but to drive while drunk. Having a beer on the commute home wasn't illegal unless you were impaired. I think if it's not treated as unique, but treated according to long-standing precedents on other products, there shouldn't be much problem.