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

[Sinister]

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?

As I've explained many times in this thread weed/Marijuana cannot be prescribed, it is federally a schedule 1 drug:

http://www.mdlinx.com/internal-medicine/article/2548

How do you prescribe medical marijuana?
First of all, you can't actually “prescribe” it—you can “authorize” or “recommend” that a patient obtain it.

“The core of this problem lies in the Federal Government’s stance that marijuana is an illegal substance in all cases and has ‘no currently accepted medical use (Controlled Substances Act, 1970),’” Dr. Levine said. Cannabis is a Schedule I controlled substance and, under the Controlled Substances Act, physicians cannot legally prescribe a Schedule I controlled substance.

However, a federal court decision found that while a prescription for cannabis is unlawful, a recommendation is allowed. A recommendation is not considered an order, but a communication between doctor and patient on benefits and harms. As such, states can step in to establish protections for patients who receive recommendations, along with a regulatory framework for the production and distribution of cannabis.

 

[Haimerej]

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.

That's fine that you think that. You may be right about them not changing their policy, too. I'm just trying to douse your concerns about any legal liability the league may have not testing for weed.

 

[Haimerej]

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

What makes you think I'm not serious? I think your problem may be that I'm actually taking your argument seriously.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.

Suit from who? Again no law or contract requires it.

As for Congress you are delusional.

The only reason the NFL has not done it -and they have said as much when Jerry tried to change the rules a year or so ago- was because they knew they could use it as leverage in future negotiations.

I can play that game too. They could legalize it. I don't say that because that is the reasoning of conspiracy nonsense: it "could" happen.

 

[Haimerej]

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.

Lol... I mean that literally, too.

Goodness me. The ol', "you can't understand the thing I won't name," argument. It seems your desire to communicate is waning. Perhaps you should, "move on,"? You don't have to but it seemed genuine advice when you provided it earlier.

 

[Haimerej]

BTW, I don't believe the NFL qualifies as a private company.

Um... it does.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

When we're talking to each other, yes.

How can that be, I was not speaking to you initially and you entered the conversation. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with that but you can't have it both ways. Either I was talking to somebody else and you inserted or I was only talking to you and that's not true at all and we both know that.

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.

The question of , "are you a doctor", was meant as a counter to the previous statement and not a direct question to you. If you reread the post, it might become a bit more clear on the intent. However, good to know your background.

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

It happens all the time but I'm not going to argue the point with you. Again, and I don't know why I'm surprised but, I never said that people filing lawsuits constitutes proof of liability. Never once and I certainly invite you show me where I ever said anything like that. What I said was that it opens you up to suit and it does.

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.

That is one of the things that is being discussed, yes. However, there is a better way IMO, which I have outlined. I don't know what you are referring to with regards to increased testing but there will still be testing in the NFL regardless. Just to be clear.

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

You think that's a driving force in all of this? Who's being disingenuous here now? No, I don't believe that that is even a blip on the NFL's radar, in terms of this issue.

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

That's fair enough and I can respect that point of view. I don't ask everybody to agree with me. I just prefer to have honest dialog. It's no big deal.

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.

There are many alternatives to opioids already, yet none of them seem to prevent people from increasing the use of opioids. I mean, at some point you have to wonder if this is on the users? I am not certain how prohibition relates to any point I was trying to make but perhaps I just misunderstand you here. What I am suggesting is that alcohol, for example, is an alternative and yet, it has not been successful in stopping the escalation with more and more powerful drugs. I think it's just the situations we live in. People want to do these drugs and I don't believe that allowing weed, especially the type that I believe the league would allow, is going to prevent or even help that situation much.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Um... it does.

I wouldn't bother answering the line by line nonsense he is doing. He is using that, ad hominem, wishcasting, and all manner of cheap argumentation tactics.

Keep it simple and he hangs himself where it is obvious to anyone else reading.

 

[DandyDon52]

Im not sure you are understanding fully which is no surprise with a lot of the back and forth. I dont think anyone that is supportive of medical MJ is saying only for the players. The players are brought up only because its the topic and hell what the main function of the boards are. If you go back and read some of my posts at least you will see that. IMO its very special plant not a drug. No other one plant is able to fully support life like The Cannabis /Hemp plant.

ok I agree with you on the hemp and MJ, but the thing is, if it was ok for a player to use weed for pain mgmt, he could then smoke all he want to couldnt he??
And unless you test him on game day, he could show up stoned, especially for home games, and he could use his own pot , not just what he is prescribed.

Also weed can help with some types of pain, but not all types, and it is a mild pain reliever, and players would for most part not
be helped for pain with weed.

I do not think they will allow it, they probably will just discuss it.
I think if they did then all the players that want to smoke it all the time would then be having pain ?
And some of then would show up for games stoned.

Now if a player is hurt and out for say 6 games or rest of season, whatever, then it might be ok to prescribe them the MJ while they are not eligible to play.
But then they might have a problem when it is time to quit and start playing again.

 

[DandyDon52]

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.

yes and vote out the people who have been there a long time put a new guy or gal in, it doesnt matter what party they are with and then
once you get all the old timers out, just keep voting in new guys till they get the message.
The whole problem is the ones that have been in office way too long, and they just keep getting reelected !

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

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

Cool, be my guest then, go ahead and explain the reasons why the NFL would not want to give Congress any reason for a Congressional Investigation or Hearing. I mean, I know for a fact, that you understand this because you and I have discussed this in the past. While we might not have agreed on the specific topic, I know we both agreed that the NFL would not want to see this and BTW, that's an entirely different thread. If you want to start down that path, I'm fine with it. If somebody doesn't want to believe that this would not be what the NFL wants, then OK, I'll throw up the white flag because every knows this is not what the NFL would ever want.

Congratulations, do you feel a little better now?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Cool, be my guest then, go ahead and explain the reasons why the NFL would not want to give Congress any reason for a Congressional Investigation or Hearing. I mean, I know for a fact, that you understand this because you and I have discussed this in the past. While we might not have agreed on the specific topic, I know we both agreed that the NFL would not want to see this and BTW, that's an entirely different thread. If you want to start down that path, I'm fine with it. If somebody doesn't want to believe that this would not be what the NFL wants, then OK, I'll throw up the white flag because every knows this is not what the NFL would ever want.

Congratulations, do you feel a little better now?

Your question assumes the premise. You have given no indication that they want to do that. I could just as easily say, "why wouldn't they want to chance Congress passing a resolution applauding their effort?" they could do that too.

Also don't speak for me. You have no idea what the NFL does or does not want and seeing that Jerry campaigned to have the MJ rules slackened there is evidence to the contrary. When he did that he was told by the executive council that they wanted to use it as a negotiating tool.

This is yet another institution you seem to have no idea about. "The NFL" is 32 ownership executives making decisions particularly ones like this. If you think they all think as you do you truly are delusional.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Um... it does.

No, I don't believe so. There very unique position with multiple owners is not a board of directors, per say. There is no one owner. Their are multiple owners so I think it's really more of a cartel, to be honest. Because of their Antitrust exemption, they are very conscious of congressional involvement of any kind. I'm just saying, that's extremely important and the league is hyper sensitive to any risks associated with that. There is a lot to that topic. I mean, I don't want to get into it and honestly, I don't have the time to do it right now, but don't underestimate the importance attached to that one topic by the league.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Your question assumes the premise. You have given no indication that they want to do that. I could just as easily say, "why wouldn't they want to chance Congress passing a resolution applauding their effort?" they could do that too.

Also don't speak for me. You have no idea what the NFL does or does not want and seeing that Jerry campaigned to have the MJ rules slackened there is evidence to the contrary. When he did that he was told by the executive council that they wanted to use it as a negotiating tool.

This is yet another institution you seem to have no idea about. "The NFL" is 32 ownership executives making decisions particularly ones like this. If you think they all think as you do you truly are delusional.

Well, this is another BS post. First of all, none of it is a question. It is all a statement and and invitation. You don't like people speaking for you? I understand, you are much more in line with trying to put words in other peoples mouths. I get it. Yeah, don't care.

But, since you bring it up, I'd be interested in seeing what leads you to believe that the "MJ rules" have slackened. Please, present that evidence for us.

For a guy who doesn't want anybody speaking for him, you sure think that it's ok to do that for other. I never once said that the owners or, more accurately, the league thinks like me. Those are your assumptions. In fact, I've never even told you what my personal position is on this issue. Again, you whine alot about people infringing upon you and yet, you turn around and in the next breath, do it to somebody else. What a crappy concept of life you must have to cry over that and then turn around and do it to somebody else with your next post. But, I've know you for a long time and I've see you do it over and over so I'm not surprised. Anyway, the NFL is not a company, as you suggest, earlier in this thread.

 

[Birdgang]

ok I agree with you on the hemp and MJ, but the thing is, if it was ok for a player to use weed for pain mgmt, he could then smoke all he want to couldnt he??
And unless you test him on game day, he could show up stoned, especially for home games, and he could use his own pot , not just what he is prescribed.

Also weed can help with some types of pain, but not all types, and it is a mild pain reliever, and players would for most part not
be helped for pain with weed.

I do not think they will allow it, they probably will just discuss it.
I think if they did then all the players that want to smoke it all the time would then be having pain ?
And some of then would show up for games stoned.

Now if a player is hurt and out for say 6 games or rest of season, whatever, then it might be ok to prescribe them the MJ while they are not eligible to play.
But then they might have a problem when it is time to quit and start playing again.

Whats the difference then them going into games on Pain killers " opiates" or even worse getting Toradol injections before and during? medical MJ is not like the crap you buy on the corner either. But if a player is abusing it ... then he should be treated just as if they abused ANY prescription medicine. " Not used as directed"

 

[America's Cowboy]

old people continue to ruin this country with their outdated, fact-proof feelings.

You young druggies who just have to get your high are what's ruining everything. No discipline. No honor. No respect. All just to get your high.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, I don't believe so. There very unique position with multiple owners is not a board of directors, per say. There is no one owner. Their are multiple owners so I think it's really more of a cartel, to be honest. Because of their Antitrust exemption, they are very conscious of congressional involvement of any kind. I'm just saying, that's extremely important and the league is hyper sensitive to any risks associated with that. There is a lot to that topic. I mean, I don't want to get into it and honestly, I don't have the time to do it right now, but don't underestimate the importance attached to that one topic by the league.

The NFL is from a charter created by the 32 private clubs that make up the NFL. It's a corporate trust between the companies and in no way shape or form is it public. It's not even publicly traded.

And here you go speaking for the league again. Just stop.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, this is another BS post. First of all, none of it is a question. It is all a statement and and invitation. You don't like people speaking for you? I understand, you are much more in line with trying to put words in other peoples mouths. I get it. Yeah, don't care.

But, since you bring it up, I'd be interested in seeing what leads you to believe that the "MJ rules" have slackened. Please, present that evidence for us.

For a guy who doesn't want anybody speaking for him, you sure think that it's ok to do that for other. I never once said that the owners or, more accurately, the league thinks like me. Those are your assumptions. In fact, I've never even told you what my personal position is on this issue. Again, you whine alot about people infringing upon you and yet, you turn around and in the next breath, do it to somebody else. What a crappy concept of life you must have to cry over that and then turn around and do it to somebody else with your next post. But, I've know you for a long time and I've see you do it over and over so I'm not surprised. Anyway, the NFL is not a company, as you suggest, earlier in this thread.

"why the NFL would not want to give Congress any reason for a Congressional Investigation or Hearing" is a question and your entire argument.

Your speaking for both Congress and the NFL in making it with not one shred of evidence that they even feel that way amongst the hundreds of constituents of both bodies. You are not remotely qualified to do so.

I said Jerry tried to get them slackened. You continue to struggle to keep up.

During the owners-only meeting — which is unusual during this event, but not completely unheard of — Jones addressed the group and said that he wants the league to stop disciplining players who test positive for marijuana, according to Pro Football Talk’s Mike Florio.

Strange no Congressional hearings or even a whisper in response.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

The NFL is from a charter created by the 32 private clubs that make up the NFL. It's a corporate trust between the companies and in no way shape or form is it public. It's not even publicly traded.

And here you go speaking for the league again. Just stop.

It's tax exempt, of course it's not publicly traded. Even you should understand that. It's not a corporation but if that's what you want to believe, that's fine with me.

 

[RoboQB]

You young druggies who just have to get your high are what's ruining everything. No discipline. No honor. No respect. All just to get your high.

Wow! You need to get out more.

Not all pot smokers look or act like the Jeff Spicoli character in Fast Times at Ridgemont High.