Martavis Bryant Suspended Indefinitely

[JoPar_v2]

2 hours ago, The Wiz said:

This is the same guy that was the dirty ass player in Cincy right? 

 

Vontaze Burfict?

[Spiderweb]

3 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

The question is more about whether it's a good policy or a bad policy. It's not about legality.

 

I get the sense that you think it's a good policy, which is fine. That's YOUR opinion.

 

No you are mistaken. Bottom line is that currently weed is illegal in most places.  It's very possible it was more than weed as well. Full disclosure may not ever come forth.

 

Whether the laws are dumb or futile can be debated and decided in the future.  We all live in the "now".

[BullBuchanan]

5 hours ago, apuszczalowski said:

Because it's currently illegal in many areas, that's the answer to the question on why they care about it. Doesnt matter what will happen in the future or how you or others feel about it. It's still an illegal substance in many places

 

There are a lot of other things that are illegal that the NFL doesn't give af about, so that's not a super valid reason. Legality does not equal morality.

[Bfanlc]

9 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

It will be legal EVERYWHERE in the United States with the possible exception of Utah within 10 years. Guaranteed.

 

I don't even like weed but it's nowhere near as dangerous as alcohol. The laws are stupid, which is why they are changing. Many players smoke as an alternative to OPIATES, which are INFINITELY more harmful. Again, why does the NFL care with everything else going on? It's asinine.

 

 

I don't see it becoming legal in 10 years. I think that you will definitely see more and more states become lenient. Instead of being arrested you will see citations which some states already do. Personally I'm not a proponent of making it legal. I don't believe we need a nation doped up...by anything. As far as it being less dangerous than alcohol...of all of the wrecks where blood toxicology was done (in the state I live in) marijuana was the most prevalent drug. More than meth, cocaine, heroine, etc. If you think people aren't being killed by others being under the influence of marijuana while driving you would be wrong.

5 hours ago, Spiderweb said:

 

No you are mistaken. Bottom line is that currently weed is illegal in most places.  It's very possible it was more than weed as well. Full disclosure may not ever come forth.

 

Whether the laws are dumb or futile can be debated and decided in the future.  We all live in the "now".

Also just because a state declares it legal doesnt mean the federal government feels the same way. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

8 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

Then my OPINION is that the NFL should concern themselves with more important things. Shouldn't members of the Raiders, Chargers, Broncos, Lions, 49'ers, Rams, and Seahawks be immune to the rule because it's legal where they're employed?
 

 

 

 

 

No, because at the end of the day the NFL is a private employer that can set its own rules.

[billsfan_34]

10 hours ago, apuszczalowski said:

That's what everyone's been saying here

 

Again, he has all the resources available to him and only has to stay clean for a short period of his life to set himself up financially for the rest of his years that he can spend smoking/drinking/snorting/injecting whatever he wants.

Then he ends up on “where are they now”. ?

[Nuncha]

13 hours ago, Johnny Hammersticks said:

You know what they say...14 strikes and you’re out!

If Josh Gordon is still playing in this league, Bryant certainly will be too.

[machine gun kelly]

I’ll never understand how anyone in the NFL would willingly make such stupid decisions.  It’s as if they don’t think about how difficult life can be for the regular joe like many of us.

[billsfan_34]

12 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

I didn't realize his problem reached the Josh Gordon level.

Gordon did bongs before his games in Cleveland- thats a tough one to top.

[NoHuddleKelly12]

14 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

And he turned to her and said “go and sin no more.”

You’re both right. ?

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

12 hours ago, matter2003 said:

Some people are just too dumb to be in the NFL

 

...LOL....not just the NFL remember the NBA's Latrell Spreewell?......'Wolves offered him a three year, $21 mil extension and he said it was an insult...."I got a family to feed".......dumbazz went belly up and lost everything.......

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

27 minutes ago, NoHuddleKelly12 said:

You’re both right. ?

 

I know. Just irks me when that verse is taken out of context.

 

[The Wiz]

11 hours ago, JoPar_v2 said:

 

Vontaze Burfict?

That's who I was thinking of.  Nothing to see here, move along. 

[LSHMEAB]

5 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

No, because at the end of the day the NFL is a private employer that can set its own rules.

And NOBODY is disputing that.

 

I'm stating an OPINION that the NFL, as a private employer, has a stupid, misguided policy. This is not a legal debate. 

 

Having the right and being right are two entirely different things. If you like the policy, that is YOUR right. I happen to think it's stupid. And I hate weed!

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

3 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

And NOBODY is disputing that.

 

I'm stating an OPINION that the NFL, as a private employer, has a stupid, misguided policy. This is not a legal debate. 

 

Having the right and being right are two entirely different things. If you like the policy, that is YOUR right. I happen to think it's stupid. And I hate weed!

 

Never said I liked the policy. Just think it's kind of pointless to kvetch about it

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

19 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

And NOBODY is disputing that.

 

I'm stating an OPINION that the NFL, as a private employer, has a stupid, misguided policy. This is not a legal debate. 

 

Having the right and being right are two entirely different things. If you like the policy, that is YOUR right. I happen to think it's stupid. And I hate weed!

 

...private employer versus public employer makes no difference...ANY employer can have a prohibitive policy, whether legal in some states or not.....and that policy can stretch from time when in the "care, custody or control" of the employer ("on the clock") or even include a clause outside the purview of control if you were arrested for possession......what realistically does the NFL do, headquartered in NYS where it is illegal regarding a league wide policy to cover all 32 teams, whether in a legal state or not?......what does a corporation do with its headquarters in a state where it is illegal versus branches in legal states?...."doobies" in SOME lunchrooms but no "buzz for others"?...and since when is employment a right versus privilege?......then again, we're talkin' Bryant who will NEVER get IT........"paging Ron White"........

Edited December 15, 2018 by OldTimeAFLGuy

[LSHMEAB]

5 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...private employer versus public employer makes no difference...ANY employer can have a prohibitive policy, whether legal in some states or not.....and that policy can stretch from time when in the "care, custody or control" of the employer ("on the clock") or even include a clause outside the purview of control if you were arrested for possession......what realistically does the NFL do, headquartered in NYS where it is illegal regarding a league wide policy to cover all 32 teams, whether in a legal state or not?......what does a corporation do with its headquarters in a state where it is illegal versus branches in legal states?...."doobies" in SOME lunchrooms but no "buzz for others"?...and since when is employment a right versus privilege?......then again, we're talkin' Bryant who will NEVER get IT........"paging Ron White"........

Once again; no-one is disputing the NFL's RIGHT to have such a policy. Some believe it's a stupid policy. It's really that simple.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 minute ago, LSHMEAB said:

Once again; no-one is disputing the NFL's RIGHT to have such a policy. Some believe it's a stupid policy. It's really that simple.

 

 

...what if YOUR current employer, be it public or private, had a similar policy?.......even as a non-user, is it the same "stupid"?........what if you're in a manufacturing/production environment for an employer with a lax policy in a legal state?.......the guy next to you, on his "third doobie", effs up and costs you your left hand......."my bad" heals??.....just askin'.....

[LSHMEAB]

4 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

 

...what if YOUR current employer, be it public or private, had a similar policy?.......even as a non-user, is it the same "stupid"?........what if you're in a manufacturing/production environment for an employer with a lax policy in a legal state?.......the guy next to you, on his "third doobie", effs up and costs you your left hand......."my bad" heals??.....just askin'.....

I'd be much more concerned if a co-worker was hitting the bottle. But anyways, Nevada has fully legalized marijuana, yet employers test for it and refuse employment based on positive results. I think THAT is stupid. It's not a problem for me personally because I don't smoke weed. I'm more of a raging alcoholic.

 

As an aside, there's a huge difference between using on the job and in your spare time.

Edited December 15, 2018 by LSHMEAB

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

3 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

I'd be much more concerned if a co-worker was hitting the bottle. But anyways, Nevada has fully legalized marijuana, yet employers test for it and refuse employment based on positive results. I think THAT is stupid. It's not a problem for me personally because I don't smoke weed. I'm more of a raging alcoholic.

 

As an aside, there's a huge difference between using on the job and in your spare time.

 

...that is a conundrum for us as a Union electrical contractor........Union employees are subject to random testing at the employer's expense......a fully loaded General Foreman costs me $60+/hr.....say he is summoned on a Monday morning after having a joint on his own time Sunday....costs me $90 bucks for test time including travel.....depending upon the general contractor on the job I have him assigned to, they may demand he is booted from the job if he tested positive even on "his own time".....he could be one of our best at running a multi-million dollar job and those capable at that level are hard to find....

[NoSaint]

18 hours ago, Johnny Hammersticks said:

 

Yeah, but this dude keeps getting popped for weed.  Addiction?  More like boundless irresponsibility and blatant ambivalence toward remaining employed, maybe? 

 

Its entirely possible he doesn’t want to play football but isn’t mature enough to handle walking away gracefully. 

2 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Never said I liked the policy. Just think it's kind of pointless to kvetch about it

 

 

This is where you draw the line on pointless kvetching? Really, Joe? 

 

?

[LSHMEAB]

1 hour ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...that is a conundrum for us as a Union electrical contractor........Union employees are subject to random testing at the employer's expense......a fully loaded General Foreman costs me $60+/hr.....say he is summoned on a Monday morning after having a joint on his own time Sunday....costs me $90 bucks for test time including travel.....depending upon the general contractor on the job I have him assigned to, they may demand he is booted from the job if he tested positive even on "his own time".....he could be one of our best at running a multi-million dollar job and those capable at that level are hard to find....

That's the thing. Do you think he'd be more on his game having smoked a joint or gotten wasted on booze? The laws just seem silly, but it is what it is.

 

[NoSaint]

16 hours ago, apuszczalowski said:

Because it's currently illegal in many areas, that's the answer to the question on why they care about it. Doesnt matter what will happen in the future or how you or others feel about it. It's still an illegal substance in many places

 

 

And yet, plenty of employers don’t test for it. I haven’t taken any drug tests in 10 years and multiple job changes in a state where it’s illegal 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

16 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

 

Its entirely possible he doesn’t want to play football but isn’t mature enough to handle walking away gracefully. 

 

This is where you draw the line on pointless kvetching? Really, Joe? 

 

?

 

Yes ?

[Doc Brown]

Weed policy will pry be discussed at next CBA with more states legalizing it.  Most owners are pretty conservative so it could be interesting.

1 hour ago, LSHMEAB said:

That's the thing. Do you think he'd be more on his game having smoked a joint or gotten wasted on booze? The laws just seem silly, but it is what it is.

 

For some it's a motivational killer though.  Off-season conditioning, game day preparation, showing up to meetings on time, etc... may all be negatively impacted if a player is a pot head.

[LSHMEAB]

11 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Weed policy will pry be discussed at next CBA with more states legalizing it.  Most owners are pretty conservative so it could be interesting.

For some it's a motivational killer though.  Off-season conditioning, game day preparation, showing up to meetings on time, etc... may all be negatively impacted if a player is a pot head.

And that is probably much more of a consideration for the league than the legality/morality issue.

 

I know plenty of highly motivated potheads, but I get that rationale. Just seems to me that a team can gauge whether a guy is motivated independent drug testing.

 

Very dicey issue, but I'd personally rather have a guy smoking weed than popping pills. And once again, I HATE WEED.

[Bakin]

20 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

Then my OPINION is that the NFL should concern themselves with more important things. Shouldn't members of the Raiders, Chargers, Broncos, Lions, 49'ers, Rams, and Seahawks be immune to the rule because it's legal where they're employed?
 

 

 

 

As an avid pothead and NORML dues payer, your suggestion is interesting but it’s not enforceable. 

If the league says you cannot do it, then you cannot do it. It sucks for the players and they should lobby the league to allow them to use it for pain etc. These guys need weed BADLY. I guess the NFL prefers them on much more dangerous prescription meds. 

[FearLess Price]

10 hours ago, ScottLaw said:

Seriously.

 

Its ***** weed. Who cares. Let em get high.

100% agree.

 

 

 

Hell yeah breh. Let the green leaf grow. Its stupid and i bet the league wudnt really care about weed if it wasnt anti pc and whatever documents it has in place for testing snd banned substances 

[Dopey]

10 hours ago, billsfan_34 said:

Gordon did bongs before his games in Cleveland- thats a tough one to top.

I'm not a pro by any means,but I can relate to a degree. I smoked before every soccer game and some basketball games in high school. Was smoking since the age of 15. Non-smoker for a few years now(I'm 51 now). I felt like I had a more of a narrow focus. Didn't pay attention to anything other than the game and didn't lose motivation. Maybe tmi.