The whole piece is worth reading, but this bit stuck out to me:
Prop 19 failed also because it overreached. One feature attempted to protect the "rights" of employees who get fired or disciplined for using marijuana, including a provision that employers could only discipline marijuana use that "actually impairs job performance." That is a much higher bar than required by current policy.I agree: individuals should be free to consume whatever substances they like, but employers should be free to place whatever conditions they like on employment. I wouldn't mind if a modern-day Henry Ford insisted his workers abstain from alcohol, on pain of dismissal. Nobody has a right to a job. But it would not be reasonable for him to campaign for prohibition — to require that non-employees abstain, on pain of imprisonment. Marijuana should be treated no differently.
This provision allowed Prop 19 opponents to claim that workplaces would become infested with impaired pot users. That assertion is not well-founded, but that is not the point. Prop 19 did not need to address employee marijuana-testing in the first place.
A more effective position for Prop 19 supporters would have been that employee marijuana-testing should be unencumbered by state or federal law. That would allow employers to protect themselves and their employees against perceived risks from marijuana, thereby promoting support for legalization.