NFL Seeks Right Answer For Marijuana Use

[Denver Native (Carol)]

(AP) – Marijuana is casting an ever-thickening haze across NFL locker rooms, and it’s not simply because more players are using it.

As attitudes toward the drug soften, and science slowly teases out marijuana’s possible benefits for concussions and other injuries, the NFL is reaching a critical point in navigating its tenuous relationship with what is recognized as the analgesic of choice for many of its players.

“It’s not, let’s go smoke a joint,” retired NFL defensive lineman Marvin Washington said. “It’s, what if you could take something that helps you heal faster from a concussion, that prevents your equilibrium from being off for two weeks and your eyesight for being off for four weeks?”

rest - http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/08/14/nfl-seeks-right-answer-for-marijuana-use/

[BeefStew25]

Carol have you ever chiefed a fatty?

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Carol have you ever chiefed a fatty?

NOPE, and never will.

[ShaneFalco]

lies. Carol puffed one last night at the 420 bar with me.

She then proceeded to eat all of the nachos in the entire bar....

[Dzone]

The problem with this is the only players who can use MMJ legally are those in states that allow it. Otherwise, they are breaking the law. Not sure how the NFL can allow players to take a substance that is outlawed in most states.

[BeefStew25]

NOPE, and never will.

Me neither. I got your back. You know being on this board associates you with not only known users, but active dealers. Be careful.

[tubby]

lies. Carol puffed one last night at the 420 bar with me.

She then proceeded to eat all of the nachos in the entire bar....

Do NOT slander Carol like that.

[ShaneFalco]

Do NOT slander Carol like that.

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f284/EPHorn/not-sure-if-serious.jpg

[ShaneFalco]

The problem with this is the only players who can use MMJ legally are those in states that allow it. Otherwise, they are breaking the law. Not sure how the NFL can allow players to take a substance that is outlawed in most states.

i think the # of states for medical use is around 25 now. And apparently players using it for concussion treatment, would most likely classify as medical.

[BroncoJoe]

Hey SF - do you ever have an original thought?

[ShaneFalco]

Hey SF - do you ever have an original thought?

http://i58.tinypic.com/epgcye.jpg

[BroncoJoe]

That's what I figured, and why I (along with many others) just don't take you seriously.

[ShaneFalco]

Thats good joe, i dont know what i would do if some 70 year old dude didnt take me seriously.

[BroncoJoe]

Thats good joe, i dont know what i would do if some 70 year old dude didnt take me seriously.

Say's the Ron Paul jizzer.

[ShaneFalco]

dont get me wrong joe, i think its awesome when old people learn to use the internet.

[Dzone]

I cant see the NFL coming out and saying MMJ is ok. If they do that, expect more players wanting to play in "free" states. Maybe the NFL should just stop testing for it

[Valar Morghulis]

Maybe the NFL should just stop testing for it

Boom.

[OB]

Isnt that what baseball does or maybe its the NBA - one of them doesnt test, right?

[BroncoJoe]

dont get me wrong joe, i think its awesome when old people learn to use the internet.

Hey dipshit. I was on the internet before you were born. Anyway, let me know when you come up with an original thought. Although I may die of old age before that happens.

[Joel]

That's a lot of the opposition to "decriminalizing" it: Many people categorically opposed to it see ANY penalty reduction as indirect-but-official encouragement of it.

I cant see the NFL coming out and saying MMJ is ok. If they do that, expect more players wanting to play in "free" states. Maybe the NFL should just stop testing for it
The problem with that is they DO test for it now, so reversing that policy would be widely seen as tacit approval. That's effectively what states that legalized it for any purpose did: Repealing their own bans just left the federal one, effectively unenforceable unless it crosses a state line. Back when the first states legalized medicinal marijuana, Scalias whole argument was that people would come there from out of state to get it, making it an Commerce Clause issue that gave the feds authority to intervene.

Here's another wrinkle though: A few weeks before their recess, the US House passed a bill legalizing medical marijuana. It's "high"ly unlikely the Senate passes that (or a similar bill reconciled into one both pass) and the White House signs it; the three of them have only managed to pass 18 bills in the last 4 years (most of them just delaying bankruptcy a few more months.) However, IF they do, medicinal marijuana will be legal NATIONALLY, and then the NFL would be forced to justify banning legal use of a drug doctors prescribe for its athletes.

That's probably impossible; they can't ban Adderall for people with prescriptions despite PROVEN performance-enhancing effects: All they could do was ban it during games (and if you say you just drank from someone elses water bottle it's OK then, too; even though it's STILL illegal during games, neither you nor the anonymous player apparently using it in a game gets banned: BOOM!) Trying to ban legal use of a prescribed NON-ehancing drug when players aren't on the field would be very hard to justify, and might be vulnerable to court challenge.

I know the owners are mostly crusty rich old dudes, but they're also so terrified of legal liability for concussions that they agreed to cough up a settlement of nearly a BILLION dollars (which the judge threw out because she said it was too LOW.) I can't see them banning use of a legally prescribed drug to treat concussions.

All that's just speculation until/unless it's legalized in some capacity nationally though; as long as it's illegal in any jurisdiction where the NFL plays, it'll be banned throughout the league. Prostitution's legal in NV, too, but that doesn't mean a guy on the Dolphins wouldn't get suspended if caught indulging in it there, and if there was a NV team, it'd probably be just as off limits for them, too (although the NFL seems OK with players gambling there until/unless they commit some accompanying crime.)

[Joel]

Isnt that what baseball does or maybe its the NBA - one of them doesnt test, right?
Nope, they both test; maybe you're thinking of the CFL, 'cause they don't test for ANY recreational drug, and only recently began testing for PEDs (maybe that's why all those guys who couldn't make rosters a few years ago came home and made Pro Bowls in Seattle. :tongue:)

[Simple Jaded]

Just let the ******s toke up and be done with it, fine them and give all the money to Focus on the Family. Then both wingnuts are happy, win/win.

You're welcome.

[Joel]

Just let the ******s toke up and be done with it, fine them and give all the money to Focus on the Family. Then both wingnuts are happy, win/win.

You're welcome.
I remember that Simpsons; classic. ;)

[Nomad]

What happens to a player if the coach smells alcohol or you can tell they've been drinking, before practice or a game? Whatever they do, treat smoking weed in the same way. Though I do it'll be hard to prove if the player smoked 10 minutes before or 10 hrs before.

[Simple Jaded]

I remember that Simpsons; classic. ;)

Homer for President.

[aberdien]

Thats good joe, i dont know what i would do if some 70 year old dude didnt take me seriously.


dont get me wrong joe, i think its awesome when old people learn to use the internet.

Hell yeah, **** old people.


vsx2H1P1vgk

[BroncoTech]

I'm ok with letting the Broncos smoke up. Except that time they all smoked up right before the Superbowl, that was baaaad.

[Dzone]

Some people love defending gay rights and promoting gay football, but mention weed smokers rights and they get all worked up into a self righteous frenzy of condemnation. Odd double standard.

[BroncoWave]

Some people love defending gay rights and promoting gay football, but mention weed smokers rights and they get all worked up into a self righteous frenzy of condemnation. Odd double standard.

How is that a double standard exactly? Just because you think a person has the right to do one thing doesn't mean you have to think they have the right to do anything else they want or else it's a double standard.

[Valar Morghulis]

How is that a double standard exactly? Just because you think a person has the right to do one thing doesn't mean you have to think they have the right to do anything else they want or else it's a double standard.

Nice counter argument!

[PatriotsGuy]

I support old people on the internet.

[Dzone]

Whats the difference. They are lifestyle choices and nobody has the right to tell someone what lifestyle they can choose, unless said lifestyle infringes upon their own pursuit of life, liberty and happiness...In any case, Im just surprised at how many pro gay people are ardently anti marijuana and believe it should remain criminalized.

[PatriotsGuy]

Whats the difference. They are lifestyle choices and nobody has the right to tell someone what lifestyle they can choose, unless said lifestyle infringes upon their own pursuit of life, liberty and happiness...In any case, Im just surprised at how many pro gay people are ardently anti marijuana and believe it should remain criminalized.

A business has the right to

[BroncoJoe]

Whats the difference. They are lifestyle choices and nobody has the right to tell someone what lifestyle they can choose, unless said lifestyle infringes upon their own pursuit of life, liberty and happiness...In any case, Im just surprised at how many pro gay people are ardently anti marijuana and believe it should remain criminalized.

If pot is more important than playing in the NFL, they have that choice.

[PatriotsGuy]

Whats the difference. They are lifestyle choices and nobody has the right to tell someone what lifestyle they can choose, unless said lifestyle infringes upon their own pursuit of life, liberty and happiness...In any case, Im just surprised at how many pro gay people are ardently anti marijuana and believe it should remain criminalized.

Also, where do you get your statistics for your pro gay anti weed angle here?

[Dzone]

If pot is more important than playing in the NFL, they have that choice.
No problem with that. The NFL has the right to ban marijuana.As does any other business. Im talking general public and people who choose to smoke marijuana in the privacy of their own home. Some people are totally against that and believe pot smokers should go to jail

[Dzone]

Also, where do you get your statistics for your pro gay anti weed angle here?
There are no statistics. Just talking about the pro homo people who hate pot smokers. They will go crazy and get their panties in a wad if anyone puts down a gay person, but they feel perfectly fine calling all weed smokers pot heads. Seems pretty damn hypocritical. Thats all

[BroncoJoe]

No problem with that. The NFL has the right to ban marijuana.As does any other business. Im talking general public and people who choose to smoke marijuana in the privacy of their own home. Some people are totally against that and believe pot smokers should go to jail

Some are, but the vast majority don't have a problem with it - myself included.

[PatriotsGuy]

There are no statistics. Just talking about the pro homo people who hate pot smokers. They will go crazy and get their panties in a wad if anyone puts down a gay person, but they feel perfectly fine calling all weed smokers pot heads. Seems pretty damn hypocritical. Thats all

Ah, the "pro homo" crowd. Carry on.

[BroncoWave]

Also, where do you get your statistics for your pro gay anti weed angle here?
There are no statistics. Just talking about the pro homo people who hate pot smokers. They will go crazy and get their panties in a wad if anyone puts down a gay person, but they feel perfectly fine calling all weed smokers pot heads. Seems pretty damn hypocritical. Thats all

It's not hypocritical if you don't believe being gay is a choice.

[CoachChaz]

No problem with that. The NFL has the right to ban marijuana.As does any other business. Im talking general public and people who choose to smoke marijuana in the privacy of their own home. Some people are totally against that and believe pot smokers should go to jail

Except that's where the problem will come up. The state can say you're allowed to smoke pot in your home...but a business can still say you cant work there is you test positive for pot. So you can still technically be fired from your job or prevented from getting a job for doing something that is completely legal to do in your home. In a "right to work" state like Texas, I could see that being a huge issue.

[Cugel]

Me neither. I got your back. You know being on this board associates you with not only known users, but active dealers. Be careful.

Yup! You better beware or they will creep under your bed at night and ambush you when you get up to pee! :coffee:

[Dzone]

Ah, the "pro homo" crowd. Carry on.
lol.....Is "homo" a pejorative word? If so I will say Pro LGBT so as not to hurt anyones feelings

[PatriotsGuy]

lol.....Is "homo" a pejorative word? If so I will say Pro LGBT so as not to hurt anyones feelings

I don't know, what if I said "There are no statistics. Just talking about the same sex couples who hate drug addicts."

[Dzone]

I don't know, what if I said "There are no statistics. Just talking about the same sex couples who hate drug addicts."
So smoking a joint makes someone a drug addict. Damn, then call me a junkie lol..well, I did smoke once in college, but I didnt inhale

[BroncoWave]

It's not hypocritical if you don't believe being gay is a choice.
Ok, so that makes it ok to bash pot smokers and call them all potheads.

Who in this thread is doing that?

[atwater27]

I think the owners of each team should have a say on if they want to test for weed or not. I bet most of them would not want the lack of work ethic, laziness, forgetfulness and general lack of giving a crap that is typical of people using the stuff. Yeah... Sounds like something worthy of investing a high draft pick and or millions of dollars on. And e ones who didn't have a problem with it could prove the haters wrong by fielding the choom gang. It would probably end up being the raiders.

[tubby]

I think the owners of each team should have a say on if they want to test for weed or not. I bet most of them would not want the lack of work ethic, laziness, forgetfulness and general lack of giving a crap that is typical of people using the stuff. Yeah... Sounds like something worthy of investing a high draft pick and or millions of dollars on. And e ones who didn't have a problem with it could prove the haters wrong by fielding the choom gang. It would probably end up being the raiders.

Out. Of. Touch.

[BeefStew25]

Out. Of. Touch.

Hey Hoes. What's up.

[tubby]

Hey Hoes. What's up.

who cares

[BeefStew25]

who cares

Discretion cares.

[OB]

I think the owners of each team should have a say on if they want to test for weed or not. I bet most of them would not want the lack of work ethic, laziness, forgetfulness and general lack of giving a crap that is typical of people using the stuff. Yeah... Sounds like something worthy of investing a high draft pick and or millions of dollars on. And e ones who didn't have a problem with it could prove the haters wrong by fielding the choom gang. It would probably end up being the raiders.

You really do love painting with that wide brush don't you.

There is a HUGE difference between someone who smokes pot and a stoner pot head.

There are tons of people who smoke weed and live the same exact life as you - some who live better and work harder even. It's really that simple.

[BeefStew25]

Tubs and OB riding dirty.

[atwater27]

Out. Of. Touch.

with who? You? I consider that a good thing.

[BeefStew25]

with who? You? I consider that a good thing.

His life is spinning out of control.

[tubby]

with who? You? I consider that a good thing.

The reality of usage in the league. And lack of GAF

I agree the owners should decide.

[Joel]

How is that a double standard exactly? Just because you think a person has the right to do one thing doesn't mean you have to think they have the right to do anything else they want or else it's a double standard.
If everyone has the right to do ONE thing affecting no one else, why not EVERYTHING affecting no one else? That can lead interesting places, like someone says, "if we allow gay marriage, we'll have to allow polygamy!" gets no response but "so?" or someone says, "legalizing pot would lead to legalizing prostition!" and someone else says, "another upside!" If we're drawing policy conclusions from speculative facts, I'll opine there are probably more libertarians opposed to prohibiting things than Libertarians opposed to requiring things.

Note: None of that is advocating anything either way, just an observation with a little speculation on the end. ;)

[ShaneFalco]

lol double standard for individual rights.....

[Joel]

Except that's where the problem will come up. The state can say you're allowed to smoke pot in your home...but a business can still say you cant work there is you test positive for pot. So you can still technically be fired from your job or prevented from getting a job for doing something that is completely legal to do in your home. In a "right to work" state like Texas, I could see that being a huge issue.
That just means employers can't make employees join unions/pay union dues (or rather, unions can't make employers make them.) It doesn't mean employers can't require/prohibit employees do anything else within the law (a big qualifier here;) since employment is at-will unless there's a contract (as in the NFL,) TX employers can fire any employee for any reason or none. Even WITH contracts, it's not hard to fabricate a technically valid reason to fire undesirables, as that same Simpsons episode reminded us (Splenda's probably "mistaken" for cocaine all the time. ;))

[Nomad]

Light em up!:bandit::lol:

[Cugel]

I support old people on the internet.

Thanks!

5361

Now you kids get off my lawn!

[Ravage!!!]

Some people love defending gay rights and promoting gay football, but mention weed smokers rights and they get all worked up into a self righteous frenzy of condemnation. Odd double standard.

Not really. One is something you are born with, the other is choosing to drug up. Big difference.

[Joel]

Not really. One is something you are born with, the other is choosing to drug up. Big difference.
The technical term for unchosen sex isn't "homosexuality," it's "rape." Also, the evidence homosexuality is genetic remains inconclusive; at least one gene has been found to be contributory, but not deterministic, very few major traits are determined by a single trait anyway, and the nature vs. nurture debate is at least as old as genetics. Some folks want life to be simple; it's not.

[ShawnBaker]

Denver Native (Carol), Thanks for the link.

[OrangeHoof]

That's what I want - the NFL played with all the intensity of a regular-season NBA game. Give me more of that. :rolleyes:

[chazoe60]

Just let them do it. They're allowed to go have some beers I personally don't see the difference. Pot laws are antiquated and pointless. And this is coming from a guy who wouldn't touch the shit with a ten foot pole but I also don't give a shit if others do just like I don't give a shit if others are drinking. Just don't drive or work under the influence, otherwise why would anyone else care what an adult does in his free time?

[DenBronx]

I almost had a heart attack! For a minute there I thought Joel was back posting on here again!!

[SR]

Denver Native (Carol), Thanks for the link.

Who the heck is this guy?

[Davii]

Who the heck is this guy?

Is this DBfan's brother?

[SR]

Is this DBfan's brother?

Oh good call.

[Tned]

The problem with this is the only players who can use MMJ legally are those in states that allow it. Otherwise, they are breaking the law. Not sure how the NFL can allow players to take a substance that is outlawed in most states.

The NFL is a private enterprise and has no obligation to enforce federal law. MJ is against the law, that's a given, however there is a big question about whether the NFL needs to be suspending people for it. Unless it is a performance enhancing drug, why should the NFL be involved in testing/punishment?

I'm not an MJ fan, and certainly not a fan of stoners like Falco who yap about how great it is at every turn and pollute the forum like stoners who smoke in public events around kids, but I do think the NFL is wrong focusing on MJ.

[Simple Jaded]

Make love, not war!

[Tned]

The technical term for unchosen sex isn't "homosexuality," it's "rape." Also, the evidence homosexuality is genetic remains inconclusive; at least one gene has been found to be contributory, but not deterministic, very few major traits are determined by a single trait anyway, and the nature vs. nurture debate is at least as old as genetics. Some folks want life to be simple; it's not.

Hey guys, if you want to debate homosexuality (causes, civil rights, hotness of two chics going at it on Cinemax, etc.), do it in the politics forum so people who come to BF and the Broncos Talk forum to read and discuss football don't get involved in your political and non-football debates.

Thanks