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 was referring to what we were speaking about- your idea that they could have legal liability if they didn't test for weed. You're off on a tangent now.
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.
You were asking about my assertion that it's less dangerous than opioids. I qualified my position.
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.
"It" was, "your insistence [the NFL has] liability." Go back and reread. I said you saying the NFL has liability doesn't make it so and you said it doesn't mean it's wrong. Now you're saying they don't have liability. That means your concerns about frivolous lawsuits lose some of their weight... which is what I've been saying from the beginning.
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.
Sigh... I was showing how they would benefit... you know, responding to
your question... and you said they wouldn't save money because they'd still test... so I said you're forgetting about the increased cost of increased testing if they fail for weed... which is what they do now... that's what I was referring to... the question and counterpoint you made in our discusion...
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.
No, I don't think it's a driving force. I have no idea how you took me saying players not getting suspended as one of a few benefits was saying it were a driving force. But you have to reframe it so you don't have to acknowledge it as a benefit. Ok.
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.
You used alcohol as an example that weed hadn't worked as an alternative for it, to which I said weed being a prohibited substance affects that metric.
I get it. You don't like the reefer. Just don't imply the NFL would face legal problems for not testing and we can agree to disagree on the rest.
