HOUSE Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 (edited) Posted by Mike Florio on March 6, 2019, 7:18 AM EST With the War on Drugs long over (did we win?), the NFL has begun to quietly realize the folly of its ongoing efforts to police the private lives and bodily fluids of players who may from time to time or more often than that enjoy the pungent fumes of a certain burning leaf. And the next Collective Bargaining Agreement likely will reflect that. Per a league source, the NFL is prepared to make major concessions regarding the substance-abuse policy, especially as it relates to marijuana. The details of the concessions aren’t known. A complete abandonment (and implicit legalization) of marijuana is possible, but if the league goes in that direction it would need to have a procedure in place for players who are charged criminally with marijuana-related offenses in the states where marijuana continues to be banned. A delicate balance may be required. It the law of the land becomes “smoke at will as long as you’re in a weed-legal state,” plenty of free agents will flock to teams in states where it’s legal. So maybe the best approach would be to simply dump marijuana from the list of banned recreational drugs, and move on. https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/03/06/in-the-next-cba-nfl-is-prepared-to-make-major-concessions-under-the-substance-abuse-policy/ Edited March 7, 2019 by HOUSE 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PetermansRedemption Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 It makes sense given that many states are making marijuana legal. That being said, if the NFL does not want their employees smoking it should be completely up to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshAllenHasBigHands Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 Just now, Bills2ref said: It makes sense given that many states are making marijuana legal. That being said, if the NFL does not want their employees smoking it should be completely up to them. Employers are not allowed to prohibit employees from engaging in legal off duty conduct. There is a quasi-exception for Marijuana (in most states) because its illegal at the federal level. If marijuana becomes legal at the federal level, and a player lives in California or some other legalized state, the NFL 100% would not and should not be allowed to direct players not to get high. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PetermansRedemption Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 2 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said: Employers are not allowed to prohibit employees from engaging in legal off duty conduct. There is a quasi-exception for Marijuana (in most states) because its illegal at the federal level. If marijuana becomes legal at the federal level, and a player lives in California or some other legalized state, the NFL 100% would not and should not be allowed to direct players not to get high. So, really, the NFL isn’t making much of a concession at all, they almost had to at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillies Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshAllenHasBigHands Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 Just now, Bills2ref said: So, really, the NFL isn’t making much of a concession at all, they almost had to at this point. I think they see the writing on the wall. By the time the next CBA comes around, there is a high chance they wont even have the right to prohibit it. They may as well use it as a bargaining chip while they can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Joshin' Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 9 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said: I think they see the writing on the wall. By the time the next CBA comes around, there is a high chance they wont even have the right to prohibit it. They may as well use it as a bargaining chip while they can. Really - so what about the other legal substances they ban? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshAllenHasBigHands Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 Just now, Just Joshin' said: Really - so what about the other legal substances they ban? My guess is that the other legal substances qualify as performance enhancing substances. Thus, because they affect "on duty" work, they may be regulated by the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark80 Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 (edited) 42 minutes ago, HOUSE said: My favorite scene in the movie. Any time I watch it, I watch that scene at least twice in a row. 37 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said: Employers are not allowed to prohibit employees from engaging in legal off duty conduct. There is a quasi-exception for Marijuana (in most states) because its illegal at the federal level. If marijuana becomes legal at the federal level, and a player lives in California or some other legalized state, the NFL 100% would not and should not be allowed to direct players not to get high. This is not true at all. It varies by state, but in a lot of states employers can do anything they want as long as they are not discriminating against a protected class. Just looked it up and it looks like 29 states + DC prohibit employers from doing it, but the other 21 do not. Edited March 7, 2019 by Mark80 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshAllenHasBigHands Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 12 minutes ago, Mark80 said: My favorite scene in the movie. Any time I watch it, I watch that scene at least twice in a row. This is not true at all. It varies by state, but in a lot of states employers can do anything they want as long as they are not discriminating against a protected class. Just looked it up and it looks like 29 states + DC prohibit employers from doing it, but the other 21 do not. I haven't done a 50 state survey on the subject, I just know New York and Connecticut have laws that prohibit employees from engaging in lawful off duty activities. I guess I don't know about the rest of the states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 you get to smoke up we will scalp you for the 25th straight time on your share of the bounty 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOUSE Posted March 7, 2019 Author Share Posted March 7, 2019 If they did this 10 years ago, the Browns would be 5 time Superbowl Champs 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaCrispy Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 1 hour ago, HOUSE said: Posted by Mike Florio on March 6, 2019, 7:18 AM EST With the War on Drugs long over (did we win?), the NFL has begun to quietly realize the folly of its ongoing efforts to police the private lives and bodily fluids of players who may from time to time or more often than that enjoy the pungent fumes of a certain burning leaf. And the next Collective Bargaining Agreement likely will reflect that. Per a league source, the NFL is prepared to make major concessions regarding the substance-abuse policy, especially as it relates to marijuana. The details of the concessions aren’t known. A complete abandonment (and implicit legalization) of marijuana is possible, but if the league goes in that direction it would need to have a procedure in place for players who are charged criminally with marijuana-related offenses in the states where marijuana continues to be banned. A delicate balance may be required. It the law of the land becomes “smoke at will as long as you’re in a weed-legal state,” plenty of free agents will flock to teams in states where it’s legal. So maybe the best approach would be to simply dump marijuana from the list of banned recreational drugs, and move on. https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/03/06/in-the-next-cba-nfl-is-prepared-to-make-major-concessions-under-the-substance-abuse-policy/ OP...what movie is that?!?! I have to see it...I’m lmao just from the clip!!! ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 1 hour ago, HOUSE said: Posted by Mike Florio on March 6, 2019, 7:18 AM EST With the War on Drugs long over (did we win?), the NFL has begun to quietly realize the folly of its ongoing efforts to police the private lives and bodily fluids of players who may from time to time or more often than that enjoy the pungent fumes of a certain burning leaf. And the next Collective Bargaining Agreement likely will reflect that. Per a league source, the NFL is prepared to make major concessions regarding the substance-abuse policy, especially as it relates to marijuana. The details of the concessions aren’t known. A complete abandonment (and implicit legalization) of marijuana is possible, but if the league goes in that direction it would need to have a procedure in place for players who are charged criminally with marijuana-related offenses in the states where marijuana continues to be banned. A delicate balance may be required. It the law of the land becomes “smoke at will as long as you’re in a weed-legal state,” plenty of free agents will flock to teams in states where it’s legal. So maybe the best approach would be to simply dump marijuana from the list of banned recreational drugs, and move on. https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/03/06/in-the-next-cba-nfl-is-prepared-to-make-major-concessions-under-the-substance-abuse-policy/ The NHL already ignores MJ positives in players. They test, they don't condone, but they don't pursue it. 4 minutes ago, JaCrispy said: OP...what movie is that?!?! I have to see it...I’m lmao just from the clip!!! ??? The Big Lebowski. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigK14094 Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 2 hours ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said: Employers are not allowed to prohibit employees from engaging in legal off duty conduct. There is a quasi-exception for Marijuana (in most states) because its illegal at the federal level. If marijuana becomes legal at the federal level, and a player lives in California or some other legalized state, the NFL 100% would not and should not be allowed to direct players not to get high. Employees will apparently have rights to engage in legal behavior. However, applicants with positive drug tests may not be hired based on the criteria established by employers. Stoners operating heavy equipment in industry is not a pleasant thought. ie: they would fail the physical. And especially if they use the hair test....which goes back in time 3 or 4 months. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshAllenHasBigHands Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, bigK14094 said: Employees will apparently have rights to engage in legal behavior. However, applicants with positive drug tests may not be hired based on the criteria established by employers. Stoners operating heavy equipment in industry is not a pleasant thought. ie: they would fail the physical. And especially if they use the hair test....which goes back in time 3 or 4 months. Yeah, but, again, employers are only allowed to do that because pot is illegal at the federal level. If that wasn't the case, and New York legalized marijuana, they wouldn't be allowed to do that. Heavy equipment is an obvious exception. Its like alcohol. If you show up drunk, you are done. Conversely, if you drink on your free time, an employer can't fire you. Edited March 7, 2019 by JoshAllenHasBigHands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalostu2 Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 Hopefully they give up Marijuana and get blood testing in return. If player safety is truly an issue then HGH and other non urine detectable PEDS need to go. It is only my speculation but the fact that the Superbowl was won by a 41 year old QB and the fastest player on the field that day was a 32 year old WR who looked worlds different in the Superbowl compared to week 5/6 immediately following his PED suspension sucks. If anyone hasn't watched ICARUS on netflix yet, predictable scheduling of urine tests are easily beaten. Clean up PED use and we won't need to soften the rules so guys don't get hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machine gun kelly Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 The Olympics have been using dna with hair for years since the 80’s with dna testing. I don’t really care if someone is not driving if people use weed, but private companies have a zero tolerance policy until the Feds change. It won’t change my behavior, but as long as you’re safe and others are safe, I don’t care unless it is my children who are growing up. That is not a legal issue as much as a moral one so I am resolute on that issue as a parent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LikeIGiveADarn Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 2 hours ago, Mark80 said: My favorite scene in the movie. Any time I watch it, I watch that scene at least twice in a row. This is not true at all. It varies by state, but in a lot of states employers can do anything they want as long as they are not discriminating against a protected class. Just looked it up and it looks like 29 states + DC prohibit employers from doing it, but the other 21 do not. Which still doesn't matter because these are contracts the players are signing. The NFL bans players from riding motorcycles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quinnearlysghost88 Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 More than 30 states have legal or medical marijuana. if they bake marijuana (pun) into the CBA, they can easy get medical marijuana for 'pain management'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsSB2020 Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 5 hours ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said: I haven't done a 50 state survey on the subject, I just know New York and Connecticut have laws that prohibit employees from engaging in lawful off duty activities. I guess I don't know about the rest of the states. Nevada has legalized marijuana but the major employers still test and deny applicants for positive tests. I believe federal legalization is right around the corner. Certainly with the next political administration whether that be 2020 or 2024. It's just asinine for the NFL to concern themselves with something as harmless as marijuana while hooking players on much more destructive opiates. For the record, I do not smoke weed and really can't stand it. I prefer to get obliterated on booze. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 (edited) 6 hours ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said: Employers are not allowed to prohibit employees from engaging in legal off duty conduct. There is a quasi-exception for Marijuana (in most states) because its illegal at the federal level. If marijuana becomes legal at the federal level, and a player lives in California or some other legalized state, the NFL 100% would not and should not be allowed to direct players not to get high. Well they do, all the time. Many hospitals will test employees for nicotine by-products. Edited March 8, 2019 by BringBackOrton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 7 hours ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said: Employers are not allowed to prohibit employees from engaging in legal off duty conduct. There is a quasi-exception for Marijuana (in most states) because its illegal at the federal level. If marijuana becomes legal at the federal level, and a player lives in California or some other legalized state, the NFL 100% would not and should not be allowed to direct players not to get high. 4 hours ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said: Yeah, but, again, employers are only allowed to do that because pot is illegal at the federal level. If that wasn't the case, and New York legalized marijuana, they wouldn't be allowed to do that. Heavy equipment is an obvious exception. Its like alcohol. If you show up drunk, you are done. Conversely, if you drink on your free time, an employer can't fire you. This not true. Employers have the right to test potential and current employees for drug use, whether they are suing "legal" drugs or not. They can do what they want as long as they are not doing so in a discriminatory way. You, as the potential employee are free to refuse to work for such companies. None of this will ever change. Anyway, the NFL is tossing a small percentage of players a bone (pun intended). By placating a relative handful of players, they saying to everyone else...."still no guaranteed contracts for all". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshAllenHasBigHands Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 8 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: This not true. Employers have the right to test potential and current employees for drug use, whether they are suing "legal" drugs or not. They can do what they want as long as they are not doing so in a discriminatory way. You, as the potential employee are free to refuse to work for such companies. None of this will ever change. Anyway, the NFL is tossing a small percentage of players a bone (pun intended). By placating a relative handful of players, they saying to everyone else...."still no guaranteed contracts for all". I guess I don’t understand what you mean by a “legal” drug. If it’s an opioid, or some other prohibited drug, but you have a prescription, you cannot be fired for it. Marijuana is an exception because it’s illegal at the federal level. If it makes a difference, I’m not talking out of my ass. I’m a lawyer and am published on this very topic—employers’ legal obligations in a world post-marijuana legalization 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwai San Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 Smoke more - drink less. World would be a MUCH better place. I say PED test EVERY player at the beginning, middle and end of regular season. Sorta eliminates that loophole that "some" people get thru.....weed testing is a waste of time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 I skipped ahead. Owners will concede some stuff, and dollars will be on the other side of the scale. That’s how it goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turk71 Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 (edited) I've heard that Dan Fouts smoked before every game and a friend of mine in southern Oregon says he grew some of it. Hard to say whether it was performance enhancing or not, but Dan was pretty good in his day. 8 hours ago, HOUSE said: Posted by Mike Florio on March 6, 2019, 7:18 AM EST With the War on Drugs long over (did we win?), the NFL has begun to quietly realize the folly of its ongoing efforts to police the private lives and bodily fluids of players who may from time to time or more often than that enjoy the pungent fumes of a certain burning leaf. And the next Collective Bargaining Agreement likely will reflect that. Per a league source, the NFL is prepared to make major concessions regarding the substance-abuse policy, especially as it relates to marijuana. The details of the concessions aren’t known. A complete abandonment (and implicit legalization) of marijuana is possible, but if the league goes in that direction it would need to have a procedure in place for players who are charged criminally with marijuana-related offenses in the states where marijuana continues to be banned. A delicate balance may be required. It the law of the land becomes “smoke at will as long as you’re in a weed-legal state,” plenty of free agents will flock to teams in states where it’s legal. So maybe the best approach would be to simply dump marijuana from the list of banned recreational drugs, and move on. https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/03/06/in-the-next-cba-nfl-is-prepared-to-make-major-concessions-under-the-substance-abuse-policy/ Saw a guy bounce around the inside of a car when a red hot chunk of hash fell into the top of his pants, luckily he wasn't driving. Edited March 8, 2019 by Turk71 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 6 minutes ago, Turk71 said: I've heard that Dan Fouts smoked before every game and a friend of mine in southern Oregon says he grew some of it. Hard to say whether it was performance enhancing or not, but Dan was pretty good in his day. Saw a guy bounce around the inside of a car when a red hot chunk of hash fell into the top of his pants, luckily he wasn't driving. I hope you don’t have a scar! ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turk71 Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 4 minutes ago, Augie said: I hope you don’t have a scar! ? ?It wasn't me luckily, but he got burned pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SinceThe70s Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 33 minutes ago, Turk71 said: Saw a guy bounce around the inside of a car when a red hot chunk of hash fell into the top of his pants, luckily he wasn't driving. Driving home from a ski weekend, a friend of a friend witnessed the drivers shirt catch fire from a stray ember. Shotgun had to put it out. It all worked out and I'm told it was pretty funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iinii Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 http://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/26046596/is-nhl-future-marijuana-pro-sports-why-be 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ol Dirty B Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 5 hours ago, Kwai San said: Smoke more - drink less. World would be a MUCH better place. I say PED test EVERY player at the beginning, middle and end of regular season. Sorta eliminates that loophole that "some" people get thru.....weed testing is a waste of time. Save the bs hippy. I'm not against weed. But people abuse both and that doesn't make the world a better place. What a dumb post. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 Woo Hoo, PEDS for all !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 11 hours ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said: I guess I don’t understand what you mean by a “legal” drug. If it’s an opioid, or some other prohibited drug, but you have a prescription, you cannot be fired for it. Marijuana is an exception because it’s illegal at the federal level. If it makes a difference, I’m not talking out of my ass. I’m a lawyer and am published on this very topic—employers’ legal obligations in a world post-marijuana legalization If an employer lists marijuana as a substance that they will test for and exclude you from being hired if positive, it is in within their rights to do so, whether MJ is locally "legal" or not. If random drug tests for any substance that they ban as a condition of ongoing employment are positive, they have a right to enforce whatever penalty for positive tests that you agreed to as a condition of employment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshAllenHasBigHands Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said: If an employer lists marijuana as a substance that they will test for and exclude you from being hired if positive, it is in within their rights to do so, whether MJ is locally "legal" or not. If random drug tests for any substance that they ban as a condition of ongoing employment are positive, they have a right to enforce whatever penalty for positive tests that you agreed to as a condition of employment. Yes. That is currently true. But that is only currently true because it is illegal at the federal level. New York courts haven't addressed it, but this case from Colorado is instructive. Brandon Coats v. Dish Network, LLC, 2015 CO 44 (2015). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 17 hours ago, JaCrispy said: OP...what movie is that?!?! I have to see it...I’m lmao just from the clip!!! ??? one of the greatest films of all time. Grab a white russian and a joint and watch the Big Lewbowski ASAP 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 12 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said: Yes. That is currently true. But that is only currently true because it is illegal at the federal level. New York courts haven't addressed it, but this case from Colorado is instructive. Brandon Coats v. Dish Network, LLC, 2015 CO 44 (2015). Only 8 states protect the use of "lawful products" and 4 states protect any lawful activity. In only 2 of those 12 states is MJ legal for recreational use by state law. It will be a long time before the federal statues change to make MJ legal. These 2 realities make it unlikely for most such terminations to be successfully challenged, including the one you cited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshAllenHasBigHands Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: Only 8 states protect the use of "lawful products" and 4 states protect any lawful activity. In only 2 of those 12 states is MJ legal for recreational use by state law. It will be a long time before the federal statues change to make MJ legal. These 2 realities make it unlikely for most such terminations to be successfully challenged, including the one you cited. I guess now I don’t really understand your point. Truth it, most of what you said is right, but for all the wrong reasons. Like, its true an employer can test and then fire, but you don't fully understand why that is. Edited March 8, 2019 by JoshAllenHasBigHands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 22 hours ago, Bills2ref said: It makes sense given that many states are making marijuana legal. That being said, if the NFL does not want their employees smoking it should be completely up to them. There are NO states with MJ legal. The states have decriminalized (basically not spending resources on it) it but it is still illegal per federal law. 21 hours ago, Just Joshin' said: Really - so what about the other legal substances they ban? That stuff T*m Br*dy's chemist mixes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dopey Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 (edited) Weed?! Sure! PEDS!?!? No way! Dopey says "puff,puff,give". Edited March 8, 2019 by Dopey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts