The owners and a significant portion of the players union have had, what I believe is, a shared opinion on the topic of marijuana. I think that common opinion is shaped by two considerations primarily. One, they feel there isn't a necessity making recreational marijuana exempt from the currently lax testing provisions (e.g. fellow players allow themselves to be penalized by not avoiding fairly easily avoidable penalties). Two, they see the National Football League's stance as a positive public relations standard above that governing other major team sports leagues.
Granted, my assumptions are based on what I see are owners, who do not wish to buck the status quo, and the majority of players, who have done little in the past towards minimizing or eliminating penalties on recreational marijuana use by their peers--despite evidence of the contrary in other sports leagues, such as the NBA in particular.
This leads to my question. What motivational factor has or will change the opinion of the owners and a large enough portion of the players union to ratify a new CBA, that embraces a more tolerant recreational marijuana policy, when a small fraction of affected players have been or shall be annually "victimized" by the league's contemporary drug policy? Why? Because it's feels like the "right thing to do?" Because increasing numbers of states are themselves becoming more legally tolerant towards recreational or medical marijuana use?
I'm simply curious to read what others think will serve as "the push" that compels a private business entity (along with a good number of its employees' acceptance) to revamp current drug policy. It's probably just me but I don't see neither some sort of inner grass roots (lol. I said grass
) campaign by the players union to eliminate weed penalties nor see how general public philosophy on the topic will significantly strong-arm the league into an assumed compliance.
/rant
