Twitter: New proposed cba would eliminate game suspensions for positive marijuana tests

atlantacowboy

Well-Known Member
Messages
18,076
Reaction score
24,789
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Gregory was playing pretty well for us, and we have him on the cheap for the next two seasons.

Though I'm pretty sure we have no rights to Irving, and given that he washed out here, I'd expect we're not a likely destination for him.

Neither is committed to football. Can't win them which is why we got them cheap.
 

CouchCoach

Staff member
Messages
41,122
Reaction score
74,900
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
A ploy to get the players to approve the CBA like reducing even further the work load in the off season. The problem is the number of players affected are minor to the number of players in the league.
 

erod

Well-Known Member
Messages
37,772
Reaction score
58,267
I want 95, and to a lesser degree...94, back for mini camp!

Dallas needs them, AND to draft DL, AND to sign a FA DL or two, and very much focus on that part of the team being rebuilt, not just a scrub and some hope.

Irving is clinically psychotic.

Gregory doesn't want anything to do with playing football.
 

BigStar

Stop chasing
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
17,078
Owners sipping scotch hardly care about players smoking mj. Just don't go on social media and make a mockery of it (Irving).
 

Vtwin

Safety third
Messages
8,079
Reaction score
10,959
People are free to do as they feel but unfortunately the courts have already ruled that employers can still enforce any policy that states they can terminate for a fail drug test and they are still free to do pre-employment and random testing.
.
Drug testing policies are determined at the state level. In the state I live in, testing can only be done pre-employment or if probable cause is established indicating drug use. Random testing is not allowed.

There are exceptions for certain 'high risk' jobs.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
35,684
Reaction score
27,237
Irving is clinically psychotic.

Gregory doesn't want anything to do with playing football.

He never missed off-season workouts and in the two seasons he was available he averaged 13 games played. He was pretty productive garnering 6 sacks in a backup role in 2018.

Watching him play he likes to compete. He clearly worked on his game.

I wouldn't be shocked if he came back for the off-season program he would be productive.
 

Established1971

fiveandcounting
Messages
5,503
Reaction score
4,107
giphy.gif
from Hot Boyz to High Boyz
 

Haimerej

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,083
Reaction score
6,776
Me personally, absolutely none at all. The difference is I respect the right of companies that don't want their employees using it. What you, me or anyone else does as long as the law or employees don't allow it is us.

Nonsense. You said-

Personally I don't think the league should agree with that.

Your argument is they shouldn't stop testing for it because they have the right to test for it. The question was why you have a problem with weed, not whether or not people have to follow company policies.
 

LoneStar84

Member
Messages
38
Reaction score
43
That is a proposal from the NFLPA to the owners. The new CBA hasn't been approved so it's a little or way to soon to be proclaiming anything. Personally I don't think the league should agree with that. The courts have already ruled that even though it may be legal in some states that employers in those states can still have company policies the forbid the use of it and is legal grounds for either not hiring someone that tests positive or terminated for testing positive. People that are not in professional sports can legally take steroids but that doesn't mean the NFL shouldn't be able to ban that.
.
First of all, just because the courts ruled something to be legal, doesn’t mean it’s a good policy. It’s one thing if your employees are operating heavy machinery or something like that. But in the case of the NFL, I see no benefits to suspending players for marijuana. Also, all anabolic steroids are Schedule III controlled substances, so they are not legal for the public to possess without a valid prescription.
 

Staggerlee

chip_gilkey
Messages
2,671
Reaction score
257
Me personally, absolutely none at all. The difference is I respect the right of companies that don't want their employees using it. What you, me or anyone else does as long as the law or employees don't allow it is us.
.
So if jobs started testing for alcohol in states where pot is legal, you'd be totally ok with that as well?
 

Proof

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,895
Reaction score
13,751
Oh it's being on a high horse to obey laws and respect company policies? How about you stop acting like a little kid and more like a mature adult. I can't talk for you but I was raised to obey laws and respect what an employer's rules are.
.
lol what. the topic at hand is that the NFL would stop punishing players for smoking weed, you don't have a problem with weed, but you don't think the owners should agree to this because you respect rules?

if they're willing to concede, and you don't have a problem with weed, why on earth do you have any objection? you sound like you snitch on your coworkers for printing off a recipe at work
 

stilltheguru

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,698
Reaction score
13,536
That is PROTECTED under the U.S. Constitution, smoking weed isn't. Law makers won't ever pass that because they know that it's protected and would never get signed into law. You're how old, 10?
.
I said IF :facepalm: meaning it wasnt part if the constitution.
how old are you with your reading comprehension
 

Flamma

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,800
Reaction score
18,666
And if they don't test for weed do you really want to see players because they have some pain before a game smoke some weed before coming to a game? Even though you said companies only test if the drive for them or run heavy equipment which isn't true, playing a extreme contact sport and you want to run the chance that some won't be using before games? I work for a company that doesn't involve driving or running any heavy equipment but failing a drug test is grounds for immediate termination.
.

I'd leave that up to the teams to police themselves. No job supports their employees using illegal drugs. But some jobs randomly test due to liability concerns. I don't know who you work for, but I never heard of an employer randomly testing for drugs if there isn't liability concerns.

When I was a road maintenance employee for the NJ Turnpike I was randomly tested. As a toll collector I am not. As a Verizon employee in the office I was not. As a UPS loader/unloader I was not. Never tested after initial employment. I was never randomly tested as a cashier at Pathmark. All of these employers I mentioned do have a department where they randomly drug test. They are the jobs where you actually drive their vehicles. They don't care how much a toll collector or unloader is drinking or using drugs. Yet if you're high or drunk at any of these jobs you'll get fired. Sports should be no different. There is no need to test. If they're caught using then discipline them.
 
Top