In the next CBA, NFL is prepared to make major concessions under the substance-abuse policy

[ctk232]

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. 

So business beliefs > democratically based state law? So you'd be down with corporations forcing employees to stay abstinent from alcohol consumption as well? Where is the line drawn then?

 

Just be like the NHL and get it over with.

23 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

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.

So no actually, they haven't just decriminalized it. There are several states that have fully legalized recreational use, that's just a fact. But this can conflict with federal categorization of Marijuana as a Schedule-1 substance - it hasn't yet. We can chat about how it even got that schedule in the first place, but there is currently nothing prohibiting states from legalizing these substances as it has yet to become a federal matter. There are ways in which it can get escalated, but there are reasons this hasn't reached any federal court yet.

[Dopey]

Cowboys’ David Irving quits NFL over weed policy while smoking ‘blunt’

https://nypost.com/2019/03/08/cowboys-david-irving-quits-nfl-over-weed-policy-while-smoking-blunt/

 

 

 

[PetermansRedemption]

13 minutes ago, ctk232 said:

So business beliefs > democratically based state law? So you'd be down with corporations forcing employees to stay abstinent from alcohol consumption as well? Where is the line drawn then?

 Absolutely, it’s a private business, they should be able to employ whoever they wish. 

3 minutes ago, Dopey said:

Cowboys’ David Irving quits NFL over weed policy while smoking ‘blunt’

https://nypost.com/2019/03/08/cowboys-david-irving-quits-nfl-over-weed-policy-while-smoking-blunt/

 

 

 

Brilliant career move. Agree or disagree with marijuana being legal or illegal, it doesn’t matter. The fact that so many can’t choose millions of dollars a year over smoking weed is absolutely mind boggling to me. 

[ddaryl]

8 hours ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

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.

 

 

the world is a much better place with mj. you are entitled to your opinion, I disagree. 

[ctk232]

Just now, Bills2ref said:

 Absolutely, it’s a private business, they should be able to employ whoever they wish. 

That's different than saying you don't want your employees doing x, y, z outside of work. They can drug test as part of the hiring process, there's nothing wrong with that. But a hired employee's own individual rights as granted by the state they reside in being regulated by a private entity? That's a different ball game.

[Kirby Jackson]

This was inevitable. I’ve been saying on here for years, that they would concede on weed to get something else back. It makes sense for everyone involved. It looks like they are finally all coming to their senses.

[thebandit27]

11 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

This was inevitable. I’ve been saying on here for years, that they would concede on weed to get something else back. It makes sense for everyone involved. It looks like they are finally all coming to their senses.

 

What will they be getting back? A 17th game?

[Kirby Jackson]

31 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:

 

What will they be getting back? A 17th game?

I don’t think it will be that extreme. My guess is it has something to do with player discipline. Maybe it’s as simple as stepping up the punishment for performance enhancing substances? 

[Mr. WEO]

5 hours ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

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.  

 

"Why that is"...is that it is their right by law to do so.  Federal law regarding MJ and state law regarding "lawful activities" (in nearly every state) gives them legal protection to test for substances such as MJ, whether MJ is legal to use in that state or it's not.

 

 

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

"Why that is"...is that it is their right by law to do so.  Federal law regarding MJ and state law regarding "lawful activities" (in nearly every state) gives them legal protection to test for substances such as MJ, whether MJ is legal to use in that state or it's not.

 

 

 

But again, that is only because MJ is illegal at the federal level.  If MJ was legal at the federal level, employers in states that have legalized MJ, and protect legal off duty acitvity (like New York) would not be allowed to test for MJ (barring an on-duty exception).  

 

I'm really surprised you are arguing with me on this.  This is sort of akin to an anti-vaxer arguing with a pediatrician about vaccines.  I have wildly more expertise on the subject than you.  At some point, you just have to trust that I have read (and understood) the law much more than you.  

[Mr. WEO]

6 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

But again, that is only because MJ is illegal at the federal level.  If MJ was legal at the federal level, employers in states that have legalized MJ, and protect legal off duty acitvity (like New York) would not be allowed to test for MJ (barring an on-duty exception).  

 

I'm really surprised you are arguing with me on this.  This is sort of akin to an anti-vaxer arguing with a pediatrician about vaccines.  I have wildly more expertise on the subject than you.  At some point, you just have to trust that I have read (and understood) the law much more than you.  

 

No doubt you have.

 

But as per the bolded, that's 12 states.  Also, in states like Mass, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Vermont and Maine, where recreational use of MJ is now legal,  there is no statute (as of 2010 that I can see) that protects employees using MJ lawfully from employees drug testing them. 

 

Also, there are states (RI, AZ, Utah, Ohio, NM, Pennsylvania) that have legalized the use of medically prescribed marijuana ("lawful use") that also have no protection from employers' right to drug test and fire/not hire.

 

Also, several states that do prohibit employers refusing to hire an employee who lawfully uses lawful products, but with significant exceptions, such as a "bone fide occupational requirement reasonably related to the employment activities" or even "if the restriction relates to the fundamental objectives of the organization".

 

So, basically, again, the bolded part above is not correct.  That's all I'm saying.  There are states where weed is recreationally or medically legal, yet there are not concomitant laws preventing employers restriction of lawful use of lawful products, which is where I originally disagreed with you.

'

If you have up to date state by state statutory changes regarding employer restriction that have kept pace with the legalization in these states then by all means clue me in.

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

3 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

No doubt you have.

 

1) But as per the bolded, that's 12 states.  Also, in states like Mass, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Vermont and Maine, where recreational use of MJ is now legal,  there is no statute (as of 2010 that I can see) that protects employees using MJ lawfully from employees drug testing them. 

 

2) Also, there are states (RI, AZ, Utah, Ohio, NM, Pennsylvania) that have legalized the use of medically prescribed marijuana ("lawful use") that also have no protection from employers' right to drug test and fire/not hire.

 

3) Also, several states that do prohibit employers refusing to hire an employee who lawfully uses lawful products, but with significant exceptions, such as a "bone fide occupational requirement reasonably related to the employment activities" or even "if the restriction relates to the fundamental objectives of the organization".

 

So, basically, again, the bolded part above is not correct.  That's all I'm saying.  There are states where weed is recreationally or medically legal, yet there are not concomitant laws preventing employers restriction of lawful use of lawful products, which is where I originally disagreed with you.

'

If you have up to date state by state statutory changes regarding employer restriction that have kept pace with the legalization in these states then by all means clue me in.

 

1) That is because the protections for legal off-duty activity are not specific to marijuana (in most states).  If you look for a statute specific to marijuana you will not find it. You have to read the legalization of marijuana in the context of existing statutes that protect legal off-duty activity.  Courts that have addressed the issue have held that while it is legal at the state level, it is not legal at the federal level, and is therefore not entitled to the off-duty activity statute's protections.  Thus my point that if MJ was legal at the federal level, it would be protected in some (including NY) states. 

 

2) The same principle outlined in 1 applies to 2.  The protection for medical MJ, however, has to do with protections of the Americans with Disabilities Acts and other state statutes that require employers make reasonable accommodations to medical conditions and treatment.  However, again, because marijuana is illegal at the federal level, it is not considered a lawful treatment entitled to ADA protections.  Thus, employers can test for it.  

 

3) I have mentioned this several times - that is what I meant by "on-duty exception."  

 

Basically, the conclusion is that you don't know what you are looking for, and that is why your research is incomplete.  

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

18 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

1) That is because the protections for legal off-duty activity are not specific to marijuana (in most states).  If you look for a statute specific to marijuana you will not find it. You have to read the legalization of marijuana in the context of existing statutes that protect legal off-duty activity.  Courts that have addressed the issue have held that while it is legal at the state level, it is not legal at the federal level, and is therefore not entitled to the off-duty activity statute's protections.  Thus my point that if MJ was legal at the federal level, it would be protected in some (including NY) states. 

 

2) The same principle outlined in 1 applies to 2.  The protection for medical MJ, however, has to do with protections of the Americans with Disabilities Acts and other state statutes that require employers make reasonable accommodations to medical conditions and treatment.  However, again, because marijuana is illegal at the federal level, it is not considered a lawful treatment entitled to ADA protections.  Thus, employers can test for it.  

 

3) I have mentioned this several times - that is what I meant by "on-duty exception."  

 

Basically, the conclusion is that you don't know what you are looking for, and that is why your research is incomplete.  

 

 

 

It doesn't matter if the restrictions are for marijuana specifically. It's for lawful use of ANY lawful product that is either protected in your state by state law or it is not.  There are 18 states where the lawful use refers to tobacco only.

 

 If it is lawful in  your state, there are many states that will still allow your employer to test you and, if positive, not hire you or fire you.  In fact most states still a allow for this.  It has nothing to do with the federal illegality of MJ.  If that federal statute was rewritten tomorrow to make all such uses of MJ no longer a federal crime, nothing would change at the state level given each state's current statutory protections or lack thereof for employees.  In corollary, weed use being legal in your state does not mean you are protected from your employer firing you for using it .  In fact in most such states, they still can.

 

 

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

4 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

It doesn't matter if the restrictions are for marijuana specifically. It's for lawful use of ANY lawful product that is either protected in your state by state law or it is not.  There are 18 states where the lawful use refers to tobacco only.

 

 If it is lawful in  your state, there are many states that will still allow your employer to test you and, if positive, not hire you or fire you.  In fact most states still a allow for this.  It has nothing to do with the federal illegality of MJ.  If that federal statute was rewritten tomorrow to make all such uses of MJ no longer a federal crime, nothing would change at the state level given each state's current statutory protections or lack thereof for employees.  In corollary, weed use being legal in your state does not mean you are protected from your employer firing you for using it .  In fact in most such states, they still can.

 

 

 

Sure. 

 

Tell you what, I'll go back to advising employers with 100+ employees on their employee policies and procedures, including MJ drug testing, and you can . . . well, I don't know what you do, but I'm sure its something that makes you significantly more qualified to think you are right. 

[Mr. WEO]

7 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

Sure. 

 

Tell you what, I'll go back to advising employers with 100+ employees on their employee policies and procedures, including MJ drug testing, and you can . . . well, I don't know what you do, but I'm sure its something that makes you significantly more qualified to think you are right. 

 

If they have anyone in their current employment who can read and use the internet, I'll be happy to advise them as to how they can easily save a bundle on outside corporate counsel....

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

 

If they have anyone in their current employment who can read and use the internet, I'll be happy to advise them as to how they can easily save a bundle on outside corporate counsel....

 

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...

 

Typos happen, I feel like its an unwritten rule on message boards they get ignored.  Maybe not. 

[Bing Bong]

Anybody see David Irving smoking a blunt live on instagram to announce he's quitting? Total power move.

[Mr. WEO]

11 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...

 

Typos happen, I feel like its an unwritten rule on message boards they get ignored.  Maybe not. 

 

 

Great catch.

 

Maybe you would be better suited to proofing their ad copy.  See?  Just helped you out as well.  I'm in a helping mood!

[Bing Bong]

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Great catch.

 

Maybe you would be better suited to proofing their ad copy.  See?  Just helped you out as well.  I'm in a helping mood!

You guys!

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

8 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Great catch.

 

Maybe you would be better suited to proofing their ad copy.  See?  Just helped you out as well.  I'm in a helping mood!

 

I realize you are trolling me at this point.  But the truth is, you obviously aren't a dummy. But you are always going to be much further behind than where you could be going about things the way you do. Being oppositional, even when confronted by overwhelming evidence and someone who obviously knows more than you about a particular topic, will always hinder you. 

[BringBackOrton]

19 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Great catch.

 

Maybe you would be better suited to proofing their ad copy.  See?  Just helped you out as well.  I'm in a helping mood!

I have seen hospital contracts that refuse to hire staff if they test positive for nicotine.

 

That dude is just flat out wrong.

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

I realize you are trolling me at this point.  But the truth is, you obviously aren't a dummy. But you are always going to be much further behind than where you could be going about things the way you do. Being oppositional, even when confronted by overwhelming evidence and someone who obviously knows more than you about a particular topic, will always hinder you. 

 

I will enthusiastically  yield to a convincing argument when yiu make one.  Your insistence on the federal illegality of MJ is the main reason employee challenges to fateful drug testing in the vast majority of states will fail is wrong and has been demonstrated as such.  Take that illegality away and most employees i this country are still in jeopardy given lack of state law protection.  It’s that simple, even for non-dummies.

 

Declaring I’m simply trolling you would be a bit too self-congratulatory in this case....

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

9 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

I will enthusiastically  yield to a convincing argument when yiu make one.  Your insistence on the federal illegality of MJ is the main reason employee challenges to fateful drug testing in the vast majority of states will fail is wrong and has been demonstrated as such.  Take that illegality away and most employees i this country are still in jeopardy given lack of state law protection.  It’s that simple, even for non-dummies.

 

Declaring I’m simply trolling you would be a bit too self-congratulatory in this case....

 

This is wild.  You haven't offered a single citation.  You have talked about the research you did. I am in awe that you consider this "demonstrated as such." Truly, disturbing that you consider that a citation.  Moreover, I explained why that research was unreliable, and why you were looking for the wrong thing.  All ignored.  I even gave you the citation to case law discussing the exact issue.  More pertinent information ignored. 

 

It is wild to me that are this thick.  

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

25 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

This is wild.  You haven't offered a single citation.  You have talked about the research you did. I am in awe that you consider this "demonstrated as such." Truly, disturbing that you consider that a citation.  Moreover, I explained why that research was unreliable, and why you were looking for the wrong thing.  All ignored.  I even gave you the citation to case law discussing the exact issue.  More pertinent information ignored. 

 

It is wild to me that are this thick.  

 

 

 

You cited a case in Colorado that failed due to the prevailing federal illegality and said “see?? It’s all because MJ has no federal lawful use!!”.

 

if that suit had been brought in any state, unlike Colorado, that has no lawful use protection for anything but cigarettes,  there would be no legal argument for the employee bringing the suit.  It would have nothing to do with federal laws.  

 

This isnt trolling.  I receive no thrill from shooting fish in a barrel..

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

25 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

You cited a case in Colorado that failed due to the prevailing federal illegality and said “see?? It’s all because MJ has no federal lawful use!!”.

 

if that suit had been brought in any state, unlike Colorado, that has no lawful use protection for anything but cigarettes,  there would be no legal argument for the employee bringing the suit.  It would have nothing to do with federal laws.  

 

This isnt trolling.  I receive no thrill from shooting fish in a barrel..

Lol

[Kwai San]

21 hours ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

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.

First I am no hippy, quite far from it.  About as close to you really being an old dirty bastard.  Maybe you wish you were gives you some cred.

 

All I am saying is alkillhol is MUCH worse (proven) than weed.

 

Lighten up Francis.  I would say MOST of your posts are dumb but do I call you out on it???  Lighten up....

Edited March 9, 2019 by Kwai San