As is so often the case, I’m going to write about something I don’t really know much about (Ed: maybe don’t lead with that…), the use of marijuana while employed. I’ve made it to 64 without ever being drunk or getting high or trying any non-medical drugs, so you can judge my alleged insights as you will, but I’m certainly an outsider to this debate.

As I have said before, we all have a libertarian streak that varies over time and over issue. In general, my view is that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t hurt others or endanger our society, which is of course both broad and unclear, as it should be. In previous columns, I’ve quoted the great US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said that rights are broad but not unlimited, using the analogy that your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.

And where society’s nose is, so to speak, is often a source of conflict and disagreement.

I was reminded of Justice Holmes as I read a recent Colorado Politics article. That story reported on the yet-again rejection by the state legislature of a proposed bill that would prohibit the firing of workers simply because they used marijuana.

I’ll be the first to admit that there are many reasons why the bill should be supported. Here in Colorado, marijuana is legal. Why then should employers be allowed to fire people for using a legal product? Heck, studies have shown that, unlike the equally-legal alcohol, marijuana use does not impair one’s ability to function in any significant way. So, if you can drink at home and stay employed, why shouldn’t you be able to smoke pot at home and stay employed?

I suspect at least some of the objections to the proposed new law have to do with the somewhat blanket approach – House Bill 1152 protects workers from being fired for using medical marijuana during working hours on the premises of the employer, and recreational users from being fired for use during non-working hours. The CP story reports that at a meeting to discuss the proposed bill, nearly 70 businesses and organizations spoke against the bill, with only one speaking in support.

We can all easily think of occupations wherein the employees must be able to function with clear heads and sharp faculties. You don’t want an impaired cop to come to your aid, nor do you want firefighters summoned to your burning home to be compromised. The same is true for EMTs and, frankly, lots of other jobs, like the folks who prepare our food and who process our tax payments.

I admit, I’m an outsider on this issue. As a career military officer, I was always prohibited from any use of drugs and a single DUI would have been a career ender. And I’m OK with that, especially during the years I was an ICBM launch officer. Those folks really, really, need clear heads.

So perhaps the bill could have been drafted with certain exclusions, such as medical and law-enforcement personnel, but I readily admit that such a bill would quickly become overly complex and likely way too long. Yet there is a part of my brain that is uncomfortable with an employer being able to fire a person for what they do with a legal product in the privacy of their own home. Show up to work drunk or high? Fire that person! But should a private citizen who takes part in a legal consumption of a legal product be terminated from employment if that use no way impacts job performance?

Between 1920 and 1933, our great nation banned the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol. We all know from our history books how well that went. Prohibition was an effort by the government to regulate private and social behavior, and it was a disaster. Do we really want to repeat parts of that social experiment in the 21st century with legal weed?

I fully accept the Air Force having the right to ban my use of drugs and excessive alcohol while I was on active duty. Given the profession of arms is a 24-hours-per-day, 365-days-per-year obligation, I willingly agreed to limit some of my “freedoms” to serve in uniform. I accept that cops, firefighters, EMTs and likely others also fall into that “might need to serve at any time” group and so must be prohibited from drug use (though getting drunk while off duty is still legal for them, but that double standard must await a future column).

I know that dedicated legislators have been working on versions of HB 1152 for years and have been searching for the best way forward with good hearts and honorable intentions. Far be it from me to tell them what they should have done, based on reading one CP article (Ed: I can see where this is going), but perhaps a smaller bill, with carveouts for certain types of employment, might be a better first step.

Hal Bidlack is a retired professor of political science and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who taught more than 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.