Your favorite prospect has smoked weed

[YosemiteSam]

Personally, IMO if something is legal. Then the NFL shouldn't have a say about it except when they are on their employers time. What people do (that's legal) in their spare time is their own business. Now, "weed" is illegal in many states and therefore the NFL should be able to test for it. Before you bring up Colorado and Washington, don't. "Weed" is still deemed illegal by the US government and therefore the NFL should deem it illegal too. Once that changes, so should the NFL's rules.

 

[Doomsday101]

Glad to see someone admit it.

For the record though nobody is arguing against your point, Dooms. You're absolutely right. If millions of dollars depend on it...then stop.

I agree that goes for anything that you allow to stand in your way. If something means allot to you then you do what you have to do. I just think too many people get hung up on their own personal views instead of focus on the reality. NFL is not likely to change it's policy any time soon and frankly it is an easy policy to deal with. heck NASCAR is 1 strike and you are suspended there is no 3 and 4 times. My job also 1 strike except you are fired.

 

[Doomsday101]

Personally, IMO if something is legal. Then the NFL shouldn't have a say about it except when they are on their employers time. What people do (that's legal) in their spare time is their own business. Now, "weed" is illegal in many states and therefore the NFL should be able to test for it. Before you bring up Colorado and Washington, don't. "Weed" is still deemed illegal by the US government and therefore the NFL should deem it illegal too. Once that changes, so should the NFL's rules.

Problem still remains that because weed stays in the system for so long it is hard to determine when this person was high. Alcohol is legal but it too is tested and if you are positive on the job then you face punishment.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Problem still remains that because weed stays in the system for so long it is hard to determine when this person was high. Alcohol is legal but it too is tested and if you are positive on the job then you face punishment.

You can determine if someone is inebriated while on the NFL clock. Like I said, what they do in their personal time (if legal) shouldn't be the NFL's concern unless the player has given them cause too. (like banning the use of alcohol because a player got a DWI etc)

 

[Doomsday101]

You can determine if someone is inebriated while on the NFL clock. Like I said, what they do in their personal time (if legal) shouldn't be the NFL's concern unless the player has given them cause too. (like banning the use of alcohol because a player got a DWI etc)

Yes the league will test just as they do for alcohol, as do many other business around the US. Employers have that right. You can't just look at a guy and say I think you better be able to verify and that is done by testing.

 

[casmith07]

The thing with marijuana is that it impairs you, just like alcohol. Employers have the right to say you can't show up for work drunk, same with marijuana, even if it was fully legal nationwide.

You want the job, you have to adhere to the rules.

 

[Doomsday101]

The thing with marijuana is that it impairs you, just like alcohol. Employers have the right to say you can't show up for work drunk, same with marijuana, even if it was fully legal nationwide.

You want the job, you have to adhere to the rules.

Yes it does impair you but still an employer can't just say I think you are drunk or high and reprimand an employee based on his own personal view it must be verified and that again is done by testing.
Accusing someone of being high or drunk does not cut it, they must be able to prove it.

 

[casmith07]

Yes it does impair you but still an employer can't just say I think you are drunk or high and reprimand an employee based on his own personal view it must be verified and that again is done by testing.
Accusing someone of being high or drunk does not cut it, they must be able to prove it.

Right, absolutely.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Yes it does impair you but still an employer can't just say I think you are drunk or high and reprimand an employee based on his own personal view it must be verified and that again is done by testing.
Accusing someone of being high or drunk does not cut it, they must be able to prove it.

When you're inebriated, the levels of the chemicals are at higher levels in your body. Much higher than they are when you've recently used, but are no longer inebriated.

 

[Doomsday101]

When you're inebriated, the levels of the chemicals are at higher levels in your body. Much higher than they are when you've recently used, but are no longer inebriated.

and how do they see what level that is unless your tested? NFL players have it easy, they get to fail 3 of them before anything is even done to them. According to many they know when to expect testing to take place so no reason to fail. All I know is a player suspended for 4 games or more does this team no good. league is not changing the rule anytime soon and so again it becomes the players choice do you want to play in the NFL or get high? Myself I would think that is a no brainer but evidently not.

 

[YosemiteSam]

and how do they see what level that is unless your tested? NFL players have it easy, they get to fail 3 of them before anything is even done to them. According to many they know when to expect testing to take place so no reason to fail. All I know is a player suspended for 4 games or more does this team no good. league is not changing the rule anytime soon and so again it becomes the players choice do you want to play in the NFL or get high? Myself I would think that is a no brainer but evidently not.

The entire situation is crap and I completely agree. If the NFL says you can't use Marijuana, then it's use should be able to directly impact your ability to play in the NFL. Also, the NFLPA shouldn't have any say in when a test is given. Only the maximum amount of times a test can be given in a set period of time.

 

[Doomsday101]

The entire situation is crap and I completely agree. If the NFL says you can't use Marijuana, then it's use should be able to directly impact your ability to play in the NFL. Also, the NFLPA shouldn't have any say in when a test is given. Only the maximum amount of times a test can be given in a set period of time.

My own experience I can be tested at any time. For 4 months in a row I was called in to take a drug test yet prior to that I had gone years for it. A friend of mine called me up asking how I was beating the test was it this product or drinking this or that. I had actually looked at all of them and saw that if you failed you would get your money back!!!! Wow I would recoup the 40 or 50 bucks I spent on the product but lose a 60,000 dollar job a year with benefits so the choice became clear stop getting high and I told him I just stopped it is not worth it. So now when I see a player getting popped on a drug test I don’t feel sorry for them, the people I feel sorry for are the teammates that you screwed over because of your own selfishness. Being part of a team sometimes requiring sacrificing for the good of the team

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

They should just all do cocaine and be done with it. 48 hours and its out of your system. Done. By the way, im just kidding.

What about taking it during the game?

 

[phildadon86]

What about taking it during the game?

Irvin?

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Irvin?

LT

 

[Hoofbite]

The NFL doesn't care about weed. If they did, they'd randomly test everyone, and not just those in the drug program. Let's not be naive - a very good deal of our roster smokes weed. The coaches know this; Jerry knows this; Roger Goodell knows this. And they could care less.

Failing the test at the combine is a sign that a player may not pass drug tests they know are coming. It likely means the kid is an addict or, at the very least, self medicating his anxiety or depression. (Neither of which are an indicator of intellegence, btw.) That is, and should be, a very big red flag. But smoking weed, in a vacuum, is not.

When you argue against a prospect for weed, just know that your favorite prospect very likely has, or does, too.

Why go that far? It could just mean they're stupid.

 

[ConceptCoop]

Why go that far? It could just mean they're stupid.

Stupid means lack of intelligence. That would only apply if the person lacked the intelligence to understand his actions or the consequences. If they do, and do it anyway, it's not a matter of intelligence.

A lot of brilliant people have addiction issues.

 

[Hoofbite]

Stupid means lack of intelligence. That would only apply if the person lacked the intelligence to understand his actions or the consequences. If they do, and do it anyway, it's not a matter of intelligence.

A lot of brilliant people have addiction issues.

You're making it more complicated than it needs to be.

What if someone just didn't respect the law? What if someone didn't care about the consequences?

You can call those examples of addiction if you like, but I'll let them fall under the umbrella of stupidity.

 

[ConceptCoop]

You're making it more complicated than it needs to be.

What if someone just didn't respect the law? What if someone didn't care about the consequences?

You can call those examples of addiction if you like, but I'll let them fall under the umbrella of stupidity.

You can call it what you want, but it's not an indicator of ones intelligence level. Impulse control has very little correlation with IQ. Dumb people can have it and brilliant people can struggle with it.

I know it's a societal norm to call everyt counterproductive action dumb or stupid, but it's not accurate. Not a big deal, but I've had people in my life struggle with all kinds of things, and it wasn't because they were dumb.

 

[Hoofbite]

You can call it what you want, but it's not an indicator of ones intelligence level. Impulse control has very little correlation with IQ. Dumb people can have it and brilliant people can struggle with it.

Impulse control is not addiction. Could it lead to addictive behavior? Absolutely.

I'm not sure anyone has ever said poor decisions are an indicator of intelligence so I'm not sure why you are so interested is disconnecting stupidity from intelligence. Stupid decisions can be isolated events.

I know it's a societal norm to call every counterproductive action dumb or stupid, but it's not accurate. Not a big deal, but I've had people in my life struggle with all kinds of things, and it wasn't because they were dumb.

We can't chalk it up to stupidity because that's not accurate enough, but playing the role of armchair psychiatrist and proposing all sorts of alternatives is?

Not that any of this matters because I don't think many people have some deep seated hatred for weed. I certainly don't care but that doesn't mean I won't take a position against drafting these known users. The NFL is not going to change it's policy until US law changes. Until that time, players will continue to be suspended for weed.

If my favorite prospect smokes weed and never tests positive, more power to him. Doesn't bother me one bit because he's not going to be suspended. Furthermore, whether or not my favorite prospect actually smokes weed is irrelevant because the tests say he doesn't, and the test results are the determining factor as to whether or not a guy will be available on Sunday.

When people are arguing against a player for weed, they're more than like just arguing against a player who can't pass the test. I know that's where I am at.