NFL and NFLPA joint agreement on pain management, potentially including marijuana

[DogFace]

I am for legalization for everyone, but I dont get why many here want it to be ok for just nfl players to smoke it.
They should have to follow the same rules as everyone else in the country.
The funny thing is if a player lives where it is illegal, and they test positive, then that means they are potentially committing a crime by having it to smoke.
The nfl just disregards that.

Also the beer industry is a huge sponsor for Nfl games, so do you really think they want the nfl to take weed off the ban list??
Or for it to be legal everywhere? I think not, it would be a huge competitor to what they sell.

The only way to get it legal is to start voting out the people in Washington, Some senators have been reelected for 20 years lol.
Vote some new people in, otherwise it all stays the same.

Right. Look at the people for it and those against it. Then look at other issues. You’ll notice a pattern of policies that are hurtful or at the very least not helpful to the majority.

Then go vote.

 

[Haimerej]

OK, this is not a question that should even be asked if you understand the relationship the NFL enjoys. If you truly don't understand why Congress would investigate and why the NFL would care ALOT about that, then you gotta go read up on why this is important. It's not a five minute conversation and I don't really have time to discuss this with you at this point. I guess all I can say is that you have to trust me when I say that it would be a big deal for the NFL.

I don't understand this response. The time it took for you to explain why you couldn't explain would've been better spent actually explaining.

I assume you're alluding to the antitrust stuff. You think they'll do that over relaxing their drug testing? Politicians be grandstanding, true. But what do you think they'll do? Shut down the NFL?

 

[DogFace]

I think that if you had a situation in which a player were involved in any kind of issue, while said player was high, you might see suit brought against the league. I mean, I know you think it would be the player and it probably would be the player as well but I think the league is exposed there if they adopt a position where they look the other way, so to speak. I think it also introduces the idea that congress could use this to investigate the league. This issue is a political football so I would not be surprised to see one side or the other, or even both, use it.

That's just my opinion.

There is no proven scientific method to determine when a person is high.

If you consume THC is stays in your system even after the effects have worn off.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, I don't think I would. It's pretty standard practice to drug test in a great many vocations. I think it's more likely that a court might ask why the NFL is not testing if it ever came to that.

Based on what? There is no law requiring it. There is no contract that demands it.

It's 'standard practice' because of how insurance works particularly workers comp. The insurer demands it because its a standard exclusion on such policies. The NFL does not have that issue.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Is this for real? I ran down the discussion you and I were having. Now you're referring to the entire thread?

You assume that the discussion is just you and I? No, this discussion involves many posters and you jumped into a discussion, as did I, that was already started. It is not reasonable to assume that the discussion doesn't include other parts of the thread. You have, many times, made assumptions on things that were not necessarily my points of view or words. Doesn't mean that it's accurate but for the sake of discussion, I just move on. I mean, I don't expect you to remember every detail and I understand how it works in threads but that doesn't mean that your viewpoint is mine, necessarily.

Not difficult at all- "We believe the restriction is arbitrary and possibly detrimental given the health risks of cannabis vs other pain management options."

And what do you base these expert opinions on, with regards to health? Are you a doctor? That's the question you will have to address and beyond that, you would also have to explain why, for the past 40 odd years, or whatever, you believed it was necessary to test for same. I mean, it's not as easy as just changing your mind.

It's not an endorsement and your insistence about liability doesn't make it so. It's actually scary you think it's even possible.

Doesn't make it wrong either. It is very possible and what's more, it happens all the time. It is scary that it can happen, I agree but so what, it does happen.

I answered the first time you asked it... back on page 22...

Benefits-

They can save money by not having to enforce an arbitrary policy.

How exactly are you going to save money? You test for a whole battery of things so it's not going to save you money. You are still paying for the testing regardless. It's not like the NFL is going to stop testing all together. I don't think it's going to save you anything at all, to be honest.

They can have higher quality of play by no longer suspending talented players who may use it.

I don't even think the NFL cares about this. I mean, perhaps it's a concern to them but I seriously doubt it.

They save face by not having to publicly punish players.

Save face with who? The majority of their fan base is probably more conservative and inline with testing. If anything, I think you create way more problems then you solve in this area.

They can lower opioid use among players, potentially saving their lives

Based on what? I've heard over and over again that Weed is not a gateway drug so if that is true, which I am not at all sure of, then how does it effect the usage of Opioids? It hasn't worked with alcohol. That's been legal for ages and it's been used as a self medication option for just as long and the problem of illicit and dangerous drugs has continued. There is no credible evidence that suggests that this would be the case.

Probably more but those are off the top of my head.

IMO, it creates way more problems then it solves for the NFL and I believe that what you will see from the NFL is no give on the acceptance of weed in the NFL. JMO though.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Doesn't make it wrong either. It is very possible and what's more, it happens all the time. It is scary that it can happen, I agree but so what, it does happen.

Yeah it does. Assertions without proof are to be discarded. You have no basis for most anything you say. Really nothing more needs to be said.

Wish as hard as you will. There is no legal basis for the courts intervening unilaterally like you are trying to assert. None.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Lol... now your position is, "they could get sued."? I already said earlier that people can sue for ANYTHING. That doesn't mean they have a case.



People suing is now the precedent you're referring to?



Oh noes... not a lawsuit which has no legal standing! Whatever will they do????



My opinion is they have no case. You've not been able to state the case in a coherent manner. The closest you get is referring to a code of conduct as if it's a law enforced by the government. It's not.



The people who do the fearmongering are not the people who are afraid. You're stating a case that the NFL should fear legal repercussions that don't exist. Doing the classic, "what if," argument that has no actual substance but sure enough leads to dire consequences.

OK, I guess we are done here. You clearly are not interested in serious discussion. It's cool, move on.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

OK, I guess we are done here. You clearly are not interested in serious discussion. It's cool, move on.

It's hard to take your wishcasting seriously. This reads like a white flag btw.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't understand this response. The time it took for you to explain why you couldn't explain would've been better spent actually explaining.

I assume you're alluding to the antitrust stuff. You think they'll do that over relaxing their drug testing? Politicians be grandstanding, true. But what do you think they'll do? Shut down the NFL?

This basically underlines your lack of understanding around this specific issue. It's much more complex and would probably take it's own thread. It is what it is, you don't get it, that's fine.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

There is no proven scientific method to determine when a person is high.

If you consume THC is stays in your system even after the effects have worn off.

I am aware of this. However, legally, you can link THC levels to legal tolerance laws. I mean, the same exact argument was used with alcohol and they failed.

What's really funny here is that my position of the NFL not allowing the use of weed but instead, adopting a position where Cannabinoids and THC can be prescribed would essentially solve the problem for the very same reasons you outline here. By taking an active approach on health through the use of prescriptions, rather then adopting a position where the NFL welcomes smoking weed, it really solves the problem IMO. It allows the NFL to save face with the public, it puts a good face on the league and it makes testing irrelevant because you are going to have traces in your body if you use the prescriptions right? I mean, if a player gets caught with weed, then yeah, they will be in trouble with the league or the law but it would allow the players to get around it and give an out for the NFL as well. That's really what I see as the solution the NFL would probably like to see but what do I know?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This basically underlines your lack of understanding around this specific issue. It's much more complex and would probably take it's own thread. It is what it is, you don't get it, that's fine.

You mean like how you don't understand why companies drug test?
You mean like how you don't understand how courts don't intervene unilaterally?

It helps to point out what someone doesn't understand when you make these types of claims as I have here. You're all over the place arguing for a conclusion. IOW, you are babbling nonsense and then blaming others when they don't understand.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Based on what? There is no law requiring it. There is no contract that demands it.

It's 'standard practice' because of how insurance works particularly workers comp. The insurer demands it because its a standard exclusion on such policies. The NFL does not have that issue.

That's not exactly true, it depends on what your vocation is. There are many, many jobs where it is required. There are even more contracts that require same. I mean, we do have laws in this country that still prohibit the use of weed. Any Federal Job requires it, by law. It's not insurance driven, it's because any federal job requires that employees comply with Federal Law.

The NFL does have other issues at play however.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yeah it does. Assertions without proof are to be discarded. You have no basis for most anything you say. Really nothing more needs to be said.

Wish as hard as you will. There is no legal basis for the courts intervening unilaterally like you are trying to assert. None.

Is there an assertion here? If so, lets see it. While your at it, go ahead and provide anything that suggests your "assertions" in this post are legally proven fact. I'll be sitting here wishing and hoping that you can support what you claim in this post.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You mean like how you don't understand why companies drug test?
You mean like how you don't understand how courts don't intervene unilaterally?

It helps to point out what someone doesn't understand when you make these types of claims as I have here. You're all over the place arguing for a conclusion. IOW, you are babbling nonsense and then blaming others when they don't understand.

No, like why the NFL would be concerned with congressional investigations into the NFL. Can you stay on point here or no?

Also, please show me where I've said that any court in this land might intervene unilaterally. You should be plenty busy here trying to prove your BS, or not. You may just ignore these facts and continue to post stuff you make up and accredit to posters. I mean, that's your MO right?

I know you say that it helps to point these things out but it doesn't seem to have helped you at all and posters have been point this stuff out to you for years.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's not exactly true, it depends on what your vocation is. There are many, many jobs where it is required. There are even more contracts that require same. I mean, we do have laws in this country that still prohibit the use of weed. Any Federal Job requires it, by law. It's not insurance driven, it's because any federal job requires that employees comply with Federal Law.

The NFL does have other issues at play however.

Too bad that doesn't apply in this case. When the NFL becomes a federal agency or contractor let me know.

Fact is that for private companies 99% of the time it is done because of insurance. This should make sense given how expensive it is and profit motive being what it is.

Again there is no law requiring private companies to drug test. The NFL is a private company.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Is there an assertion here? If so, lets see it. While your at it, go ahead and provide anything that suggests your "assertions" in this post are legally proven fact. I'll be sitting here wishing and hoping that you can support what you claim in this post.

that the courts or Congress would intervene is an assertion.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, like why the NFL would be concerned with congressional investigations into the NFL. Can you stay on point here or no?

Also, please show me where I've said that any court in this land might intervene unilaterally. You should be plenty busy here trying to prove your BS, or not. You may just ignore these facts and continue to post stuff you make up and accredit to posters. I mean, that's your MO right?

I know you say that it helps to point these things out but it doesn't seem to have helped you at all and posters have been point this stuff out to you for years.

i get that you want to ignore the rest of what you've spewed to fixate on the argument you think you can win.

there is zero evidence that Senate leadership would even do that. Your just wishing and waving your hands. They could also vote to legalize it today and given the house that is much more likely to happen.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Too bad that doesn't apply in this case. When the NFL becomes a federal agency or contractor let me know.

Fact is that for private companies 99% of the time it is done because of insurance. This should make sense given how expensive it is and profit motive being what it is.

Again there is no law requiring private companies to drug test. The NFL is a private company.

I never said it applied in this case. In fact, I said just the opposite but, that doesn't change the fact that there is still no benefit, that I can see, to allowing this if you are the NFL. BTW, I don't believe the NFL qualifies as a private company.

 

[Haimerej]

You assume that the discussion is just you and I

When we're talking to each other, yes.

And what do you base these expert opinions on, with regards to health? Are you a doctor? That's the question you will have to address and beyond that, you would also have to explain why, for the past 40 odd years, or whatever, you believed it was necessary to test for same. I mean, it's not as easy as just changing your mind.

I'm not a doctor. Formerly a medicolegal death investigator. Literally filled out thousands of death certificates and personally investigated thousands of deaths. I've seen firsthand the dangers of drugs.

Doesn't make it wrong either. It is very possible and what's more, it happens all the time. It is scary that it can happen, I agree but so what, it does happen.

It doesn't happen. People filing frivolous lawsuits isn't proof of actual liability.

How exactly are you going to save money? You test for a whole battery of things so it's not going to save you money. You are still paying for the testing regardless. It's not like the NFL is going to stop testing all together. I don't think it's going to save you anything at all, to be honest.

Just to remind you, we're talking about them actually not testing for weed. You're forgetting the increased costs associated with a program dealing with failure. No failure, no need to increase testing and manage player programs for weed.

I don't even think the NFL cares about this. I mean, perhaps it's a concern to them but I seriously doubt it.

They don't care about some of their better talent not playing? Now you're being disingenuous.

Save face with who? The majority of their fan base is probably more conservative and inline with testing. If anything, I think you create way more problems then you solve in this area.

That's arguable, but I understand it's your opinion.

Based on what? I've heard over and over again that Weed is not a gateway drug so if that is true, which I am not at all sure of, then how does it effect the usage of Opioids? It hasn't worked with alcohol. That's been legal for ages and it's been used as a self medication option for just as long and the problem of illicit and dangerous drugs has continued. There is no credible evidence that suggests that this would be the case.

It provides an alternative to opioids. You say it hasn't worked with alcohol but forget the effect of prohibition. Of course it hasn't ebbed the use of a legal substance.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

that the courts or Congress would intervene is an assertion.

No, wrong again. I never claimed that the courts or Congress would intervene. Show me where I claimed anything like that.

I said that it opens them up to suit and it could create a political environment where by a congressional hearing might become attractive to one party or the other, because of the political climate. I never stated either one as a certainty.