Tu-Toned Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 With the Bradham news, and Miller too, I was wondering what the implications would be for players Either visiting or playing at home in either of those two states if they were found with Marijuana? I guess if it is legal, and under a certain amount, and as long as you don't Test positive for it, you could throw it in your locker and grab it after the game. Kind of a slippery slope for the NFL in those states, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumbalaya Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 They should supply the players with one hitters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBUffalo Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 (edited) Still banned by the NFL in those states and players will be suspended as normal if caught with it. Pretty sure they even released a statement saying this themselves, but if they didn't that is how it's going to work anyways. Edited August 21, 2013 by DStebb716 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tu-Toned Posted August 21, 2013 Author Share Posted August 21, 2013 Still banned by the NFL in those states and players will be suspended as normal if caught with it. Pretty sure they even released a statement saying this themselves, but if they didn't that is how it's going to work anyways. Oh, maybe they will follow federal guidelines! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle flap Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Oh, maybe they will follow federal guidelines! They follow their own guidelines. Just like many PEDs and other drugs (like Adderall, for example) are completely legal, the NFL has decided that they are not to be used by its players. Think of it this way: You are legally allowed to be drunk*, but if you show up to work reeking of alcohol and slurring your words, do you think they would be ok with it because it's "legal?" Or as someone else put in another thread; You can walk around all day with a bathrobe on, but if you show up to a desk job like that, you can expect to be fired or disciplined. * Allowed to be drunk as long as you don't commit a related crime, such as driving while drunk or disturbing the peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djp14150 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Still banned by the NFL in those states and players will be suspended as normal if caught with it. Pretty sure they even released a statement saying this themselves, but if they didn't that is how it's going to work anyways. Still banned by the NFL in those states and players will be suspended as normal if caught with it. Pretty sure they even released a statement saying this themselves, but if they didn't that is how it's going to work anyways. I live in Washington State where it is legal. Possession up to a specific amount is legal. Police will not do anything---thus it will not get reported---thus the NFL would not know. There is a separate part which is a DUI case---just like alcohol there would be a blood test to determine if you were DUI or not. This part isnt defined clearly yet. The federal property areas in Washington state (national parks, national forests, military bases) will prosecute in federal court. Places that get federal funding will still not allow possession (Universities and Colleges) the NFL would be put into a legal quagmire if they tried to challenge it. It will be similar to the case with the Vikings and the NFL in minnesota regarding workplace rules and jurisdiction. I am willing to bet if a player who played for Seattle smoked legally at his home and the NFL found out there will be a legal challenge to this policy and the player would win. thus pot enforcement willfollow the same avenue as alcohol enforcement regulations the NFl uses. They follow their own guidelines. Just like many PEDs and other drugs (like Adderall, for example) are completely legal, the NFL has decided that they are not to be used by its players. Think of it this way: You are legally allowed to be drunk*, but if you show up to work reeking of alcohol and slurring your words, do you think they would be ok with it because it's "legal?" Or as someone else put in another thread; You can walk around all day with a bathrobe on, but if you show up to a desk job like that, you can expect to be fired or disciplined. * Allowed to be drunk as long as you don't commit a related crime, such as driving while drunk or disturbing the peace. Pot would be just like alcohol in washington state. you cant fire an employee because they had a beer at home. you can fire an employee because they came in drunk. Same logic would apply to pot. The NFL would not have a leg to stand on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle flap Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Pot would be just like alcohol in washington state. you cant fire an employee because they had a beer at home. you can fire an employee because they came in drunk. Same logic would apply to pot. The NFL would not have a leg to stand on. No, the same logic does not apply to pot. Plenty of employers can fire you or discipline you if you test positive for pot. The bottom line is that any employer can create any set of requirements for employment, as long as they don't discriminate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBUffalo Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 I live in Washington State where it is legal. Possession up to a specific amount is legal. Police will not do anything---thus it will not get reported---thus the NFL would not know. There is a separate part which is a DUI case---just like alcohol there would be a blood test to determine if you were DUI or not. This part isnt defined clearly yet. The federal property areas in Washington state (national parks, national forests, military bases) will prosecute in federal court. Places that get federal funding will still not allow possession (Universities and Colleges) the NFL would be put into a legal quagmire if they tried to challenge it. It will be similar to the case with the Vikings and the NFL in minnesota regarding workplace rules and jurisdiction. I am willing to bet if a player who played for Seattle smoked legally at his home and the NFL found out there will be a legal challenge to this policy and the player would win. thus pot enforcement willfollow the same avenue as alcohol enforcement regulations the NFl uses. Pot would be just like alcohol in washington state. you cant fire an employee because they had a beer at home. you can fire an employee because they came in drunk. Same logic would apply to pot. The NFL would not have a leg to stand on. This is 100% false. The league can and will stand by it's already in place restriction of marijuana. It doesn't have to be illegal for them to ban their players form using it. Sure, they will be less likely to know that people in those states are doing it since they won't be getting caught by police. BUT if they do find out that they were doing it they will follow the same guidelines already in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowery4 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 No, the same logic does not apply to pot. Plenty of employers can fire you or discipline you if you test positive for pot. The bottom line is that any employer can create any set of requirements for employment, as long as they don't discriminate. Actually I have been wondering do they drug tests for pot? How are these guys getting around this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChesterRocCo Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Im in Colorado and many companies are trying to figure out how/if they should enforce this. I have friends who work for multinationals and small locals and from what i have found in the papers and through others is that a company will either choose to comply with federal law or state law. So companies like Level 3/ global crossing, comcast/nbc that have big centers here comply with federal law and can fire you for testing positive. A local company would likely comply with state law and be more forgiving if they did test. In the case of the NFL, given they operate in many different states could stick with the federal law and really not be challenged. Some business will not hire cigarette smokers given the potential health care costs so im sure they could deny weed smokers for some reason or another. Also for those talking about adderall, it is a controlled substance (amphetamine) and not completely legal. Possession of one pill of adderall without prescription can get you in deeper than an ounce plus of marijuana in a surprising amount of states. While it is easy to get a script i would assume a lot of these guys wouldn't considering the constant stream of NFL guys getting caught with out gun permits or not having the foresight to take a cab when drunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWatch Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Pot would be just like alcohol in washington state. you cant fire an employee because they had a beer at home. you can fire an employee because they came in drunk. Same logic would apply to pot. The NFL would not have a leg to stand on. How much a gram for the stuff you are smoking to believe this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 (edited) Kind of a slippery slope for the NFL in those states, eh? It's still against federal law, so not a slippery slope at all. Even if it wasn't, employers are able to set their own conditions outside of what is "legal". One example is dress code. Another, more similar example are drugs like HGH and Adderall. These drugs are legal with a Dr.s prescription, but they are still included in the banned substances list (even if you have a prescription.) the NFL would be put into a legal quagmire if they tried to challenge it. It will be similar to the case with the Vikings and the NFL in minnesota regarding workplace rules and jurisdiction. I am willing to bet if a player who played for Seattle smoked legally at his home and the NFL found out there will be a legal challenge to this policy and the player would win. thus pot enforcement willfollow the same avenue as alcohol enforcement regulations the NFl uses. BS - #1 it does not need to be legal for an employer to prohibit it's use, #2 it is still against federal law (although that's honestly not relevant - the fact that the NFL prohibits it is all that is needed.) Don't believe me? Try wearing a bathing suit to work tomorrow and see if you last through the day (unless you're a lifeguard. It's not illegal, so by your logic you should be able to wear whatever you want. Edited August 21, 2013 by Captain Caveman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts