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

[RoboQB]

Yep, good advice. I'll give it it's just due and move on. Anything else or you just want to cry some more?

Just one more thing.
Grab your lower lip and pull it over your head.
If you could just do that, it would be great. Thanks.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Just one more thing.
Grab your lower lip and pull it over your head.
If you could just do that, it would be great. Thanks.

OK, so more crying is the answer...... gotcha. LOL........

 

[DandyDon52]

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.

 

[Haimerej]

Yeah, I don't agree with that. The NFL is in sales basically. They sell a product called Professional Football, they sell entertainment. They have customers and those customer bases have opinions. There is a very large segment of their customer base who do not like the idea of Weed being allowed, never mind this idea that the NFL will not be held accountable by forces outside of their own sphere. It is not wise, IMO, to ignore this issue. Ignoring something usually doesn't make it go away. It only creates an environment for it to get worse.

JMO

So what actual, "liability," are you referring to? You've been implying they'll have some legal liability and now you're basically just saying they may lose fans.

 

[Birdgang]

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.

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.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

So what actual, "liability," are you referring to? You've been implying they'll have some legal liability and now you're basically just saying they may lose fans.

I believe that they open themselves up to suit and the possibility of Congressional Investigation. This issue is a political football nationally and it would not surprise me at all if one side or the other or even both sides, might try and capitalize on this situation. I certainly believe that any issue involving accidents etc will be taken to court and you really don't know what a ruling might come back as. T

 

[Haimerej]

No, I don't. I don't think I was ever involved in changing the rule discussion.

This whole discussion was rooted on the idea that they're possibly going to lax their rules on marijuana. You've been saying that'll make them liable if a player does something while high outside of work. After that seemed to fizzle you started saying the NFL has to police it if they stop testing... I asked why and you said they have to enforce their rules... so you're saying they have to enforce rules they don't have because they got rid of them.

What am I missing?

 

[Haimerej]

Is it really "me" or is it the actions of the NFL for the past 20 years? I mean, there is substantial proof that illustrates clearly that the NFL does and is active in policing their own league. I don't think it's realistic to assume that they will just stop this behavior, especially since this Commissioner was hired to do exactly that. I mean, does that really make a lot of sense to you?

I don't think that it's accurate to say that it's my opinion as much as it is the policy of the NFL.

Dude... this whole discussion is based on them changing their policy. If they change their policy, there would be no need to police it. You seem to be intertwining administrative discipline a company takes with judicial punishments administered via the legal system.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

So what actual, "liability," are you referring to? You've been implying they'll have some legal liability and now you're basically just saying they may lose fans.

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.

 

[Haimerej]

I believe that they open themselves up to suit and the possibility of Congressional Investigation. This issue is a political football nationally and it would not surprise me at all if one side or the other or even both sides, might try and capitalize on this situation. I certainly believe that any issue involving accidents etc will be taken to court and you really don't know what a ruling might come back as. T

You'd be hard pressed to find a court who would hold an employer legally responsible for not drug testing an employee who was in an auto accident while on their own time.

You're essentially equating a business' code of conduct with actual law. Yes, as a representative of the NFL the NFL has a right hold players accountable for what they do off work. Just like a McDonald's can fire a staffer who makes a fool of themselves on social media. But this doesn't mean that the company has any legal responsibility for that employee's actions outside of their official job.

 

[Haimerej]

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.

But they have to have legal standing for a lawsuit. There's not a court in the land who would set that precedent because it would apply across the board. People would sue mom and pop's when some nitwit they couldn't afford to drug test kills someone in a car wreck. What kind of crazy world do you think exists where people can hold responsible the person who employed the guy who killed their family member in a car wreck?

Seriously, this is just fearmongering and grasping at straws for anything to support your position of keeping it a banned substance.

 

[Haimerej]

What would Congress investigate? Furthermore- who cares if they do?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

This whole discussion was rooted on the idea that they're possibly going to lax their rules on marijuana. You've been saying that'll make them liable if a player does something while high outside of work. After that seemed to fizzle you started saying the NFL has to police it if they stop testing... I asked why and you said they have to enforce their rules... so you're saying they have to enforce rules they don't have because they got rid of them.

What am I missing?

In actuality, there have been several different points of view, discussed in this thread, all revolving around the NFL and NFLPA joint agreement on pain management, potentially including marijuana, I.E, the title of the thread. I don't think it was rooted in any one thing. I have actually discussed the same questions multiple times so I don't think there is any one central discussion point.

Having said this, I do believe that it will ultimately create a liability issue if they do not address this issue. Yes, that is correct. If you go from a position that says we are testing for these substances to a position that says, we are no longer testing, the question will eventually be asked, "why did you start testing and why did you stop?" At that point, it becomes a very difficult situation to manage for the NFL, IMO.

I've asked this question over and over again. Perhaps you can explain, what benefit does allowing weed into the NFL, provide to the NFL? Why would they do this?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Dude... this whole discussion is based on them changing their policy. If they change their policy, there would be no need to police it. You seem to be intertwining administrative discipline a company takes with judicial punishments administered via the legal system.

Dude, I understand what the discussion is about but you assume that the NFL's position is to allow. I don't assume that. I don't ever see the NFL going away from that. Further, lets say they did, that would not mean that they would not be held accountable.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You'd be hard pressed to find a court who would hold an employer legally responsible for not drug testing an employee who was in an auto accident while on their own time.

You're essentially equating a business' code of conduct with actual law. Yes, as a representative of the NFL the NFL has a right hold players accountable for what they do off work. Just like a McDonald's can fire a staffer who makes a fool of themselves on social media. But this doesn't mean that the company has any legal responsibility for that employee's actions outside of their official job.

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.

 

[Haimerej]

In actuality, there have been several different points of view, discussed in this thread, all revolving around the NFL and NFLPA joint agreement on pain management, potentially including marijuana, I.E, the title of the thread. I don't think it was rooted in any one thing. I have actually discussed the same questions multiple times so I don't think there is any one central discussion point.

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

Having said this, I do believe that it will ultimately create a liability issue if they do not address this issue. Yes, that is correct. If you go from a position that says we are testing for these substances to a position that says, we are no longer testing, the question will eventually be asked, "why did you start testing and why did you stop?" At that point, it becomes a very difficult situation to manage for the NFL, IMO.

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

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.

I've asked this question over and over again. Perhaps you can explain, what benefit does allowing weed into the NFL, provide to the NFL? Why would they do this?

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.

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

They save face by not having to publicly punish players.

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

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

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

But they have to have legal standing for a lawsuit. There's not a court in the land who would set that precedent because it would apply across the board. People would sue mom and pop's when some nitwit they couldn't afford to drug test kills someone in a car wreck. What kind of crazy world do you think exists where people can hold responsible the person who employed the guy who killed their family member in a car wreck?

Seriously, this is just fearmongering and grasping at straws for anything to support your position of keeping it a banned substance.

Are you kidding me? You need next to nothing to file suit in this country. That old saying about the ham sandwich is true.

As to setting precedents, it's already been set many times over. I feel like you are not paying attention to what is going on in the world. Business gets sued all the time for actions that they are not directly responsible for. If your opinion is that it could not happen, that's fine. Everybody is entitled to an opinion. I would say this though, I don't see this as "fearmongering". I mean, what do I personally have to fear? Why would I be fearful of whatever, none of it has any direct effect on me. I'm just saying that this is what I see happening. If you don't agree that's fine but it doesn't mean it's not accurate.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

What would Congress investigate? Furthermore- who cares if they do?

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.

 

[Haimerej]

Dude, I understand what the discussion is about but you assume that the NFL's position is to allow. I don't assume that. I don't ever see the NFL going away from that. Further, lets say they did, that would not mean that they would not be held accountable.

Lol... so do you just throw out all context each new day? I'm trying to build upon what we've been talking about and now you're trying to start a new conversation.

You've been going on about the NFL being liable if they change their rules and I've been saying your concerns are unfounded. As regards that scenario, obviously the assumption is the rule changed... otherwise there's no concern over liability. Why would you revert back to, "they haven't changed the rule," and your belief they may be liable... as a defense for your stance on possibly being liable?

 

[Haimerej]

Are you kidding me? You need next to nothing to file suit in this country. That old saying about the ham sandwich is true.

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.

As to setting precedents, it's already been set many times over.

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

I feel like you are not paying attention to what is going on in the world. Business gets sued all the time for actions that they are not directly responsible for.

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

If your opinion is that it could not happen, that's fine. Everybody is entitled to an opinion.

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.

I would say this though, I don't see this as "fearmongering". I mean, what do I personally have to fear? Why would I be fearful of whatever, none of it has any direct effect on me. I'm just saying that this is what I see happening. If you don't agree that's fine but it doesn't mean it's not accurate.

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.