NFL should look at this policy

[ehb5]

What other metrics should the NFL use?

Costs...
1- https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ggiMAI&usg=AFQjCNGfbo9Hu20KGkG3_-SwstKwUkeZzg

2- #1 advertiser is alcohol, I believe

3- tax exemption

Player safety. If marijuana is a better option for NFL players and their health they shouldnt be restricted from using it.

As for that pdf. I will do my best to read that but I cant get through 15 pages right now.

I also think they could easily turn a blind eye too it (actually they kind of already do this - its supposedly VERY easy to pass their tests). But they could - without legalizing it - essentially say, "you dont publicly use, we wont bust you". Everybody wins that way IMO.

 

[gkekoa]

Player safety. If marijuana is a better option for NFL players and their health they shouldnt be restricted from using it.

As for that pdf. I will do my best to read that but I cant get through 15 pages right now.

I also think they could easily turn a blind eye too it (actually they kind of already do this - its supposedly VERY easy to pass their tests). But they could - without legalizing it - essentially say, "you dont publicly use, we wont bust you". Everybody wins that way IMO.

Because it is against league rules and federal law. Marijuana does not have health benefits that I know of. It can be a pain killer and it too can be abused.

In a nut shell, the article says sports needs kids. They are the next generation and the next generation of fans. It states fandom starts young as well. Now, if parents see the future of their children as pot heads, they will prevent their children from being involved and definitely won't allow them to contribute to merchandising profits.

One final question. Why is it so personal to you?

 

[Sharkinva]

One final question. Why is it so personal to you?

I would ask the same of you.

The reality is, more people abuse and die from LEGAL drugs (Oxy, Alcohol, Tobacco) than all the pot heads combined. The Gateway drug theory was proven to be a crook years ago.

Said it before and I will say it again. Weed remains illegal because the federal government hasnt figured out a way to ensure they get their cut, It has dick all to do with protecting our children, or preventing abuse. Ten years tops and they will figure out how to make sure they get their cut, and it will be legal. But until then I guess its much better for people with chronic pain to take Oxy which is legal, but causes liver failure. Because the next weed overdose death I see will likely be the first weed over dose death any of us have ever seen.

 

[gkekoa]

I would ask the same of you.

The reality is, more people abuse and die from LEGAL drugs (Oxy, Alcohol, Tobacco) than all the pot heads combined. The Gateway drug theory was proven to be a crook years ago.

Said it before and I will say it again. Weed remains illegal because the federal government hasnt figured out a way to ensure they get their cut, It has dick all to do with protecting our children, or preventing abuse. Ten years tops and they will figure out how to make sure they get their cut, and it will be legal. But until then I guess its much better for people with chronic pain to take Oxy which is legal, but causes liver failure. Because the next weed overdose death I see will likely be the first weed over dose death any of us have ever seen.

I have a child that likes football. I know children who like football. I know children will idolize sports figures if they are interested in sports. It is human nature to emulate those you idolize. Does anybody think being a "pot head" is actually a good thing?

Of course more have died from legal drugs. They are legal so more people take them.

Gateway has never been disproven. Just because not all people who smoke marijuana do a harder drug, doesn't disprove gateway. What percentage of people who have done harder drugs started with pot?

I believe it will be legalized as well. I also believe it lead to a worse America.

 

[Sharkinva]

I have a child that likes football. I know children who like football. I know children will idolize sports figures if they are interested in sports. It is human nature to emulate those you idolize. Does anybody think being a "pot head" is actually a good thing?

Of course more have died from legal drugs. They are legal so more people take them.

Gateway has never been disproven. Just because not all people who smoke marijuana do a harder drug, doesn't disprove gateway. What percentage of people who have done harder drugs started with pot?

I believe it will be legalized as well. I also believe it lead to a worse America.

Well I tend to think Organized religion and party politics are 1000 times more likely to lead to a worse America than legalized weed for medicinal or recreational reasons. But just because IM not personally a fan of those drugs (Jesus and party politics) , dont mean Im going to condemn that particular coping mechanize for those that use them to make them feel ok.

 

[gkekoa]

Well I tend to think Organized religion and party politics are 1000 times more likely to lead to a worse America than legalized weed for medicinal or recreational reasons. But just because IM not personally a fan of those drugs (Jesus and party politics) , dont mean Im going to condemn that particular coping mechanize for those that use them to make them feel ok.

Organized religion?

Party politics you may have a point. I am a Constitutionalist and a governmental minimalist.

Did I condemn anybody? I don't believe they use it to cope. I believe they use it to get high. I believe an employer has the right to set the rules of employment, and I believe the government has a right to make laws that do not infringe on the rights of the poeple.

 

[j_y19]

Organized religion?

Party politics you may have a point. I am a Constitutionalist and a governmental minimalist.

Did I condemn anybody? I don't believe they use it to cope. I believe they use it to get high. I believe an employer has the right to set the rules of employment, and I believe the government has a right to make laws that do not infringe on the rights of the poeple.

So why do people use alcohol? Is it not to get high? Yet it is legal. How to you justify the difference? As for do parents want their kids idolizing pot heads, well, do you want your kids idolizing drunks? Do you honestly believe that there is not an alcohol problem at some level in the NFL?

You over dramatize what pot does and how it would affect the league and society. We would not see any huge increase of players showing up high to practice and games just like you don't see them showing up drunk. You know why? Because they would lose their job. Not because of a rule, but because they couldn't perform to their best abilities and would be replaced by someone that could. We don't need a law or a rule to manage that. The law of Survival of the fittest would take care of those that did not put themselves in the best position to perform.

I also am a Constitutionalist. The Constitution, at the end of the day, only guarantees its citizens 3 things. You know what they are? Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. In essence, the Government stays out of our lives (supposedly) and lets us become what ever we want to be, as long as we don't infringe on others in their pursuit of happiness. Not sure how you reconcile being a Constitutionalist and the government telling you what you can and can't do with your body and mind. I know, as a Constitutionalist, I think we have way too many laws, especially at the Federal level. Where does it stop?

 

[gkekoa]

So why do people use alcohol? Is it not to get high? Yet it is legal. How to you justify the difference? As for do parents want their kids idolizing pot heads, well, do you want your kids idolizing drunks? Do you honestly believe that there is not an alcohol problem at some level in the NFL?

You over dramatize what pot does and how it would affect the league and society. We would not see any huge increase of players showing up high to practice and games just like you don't see them showing up drunk. You know why? Because they would lose their job. Not because of a rule, but because they couldn't perform to their best abilities and would be replaced by someone that could. We don't need a law or a rule to manage that. The law of Survival of the fittest would take care of those that did not put themselves in the best position to perform.

I also am a Constitutionalist. The Constitution, at the end of the day, only guarantees its citizens 3 things. You know what they are? Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. In essence, the Government stays out of our lives (supposedly) and lets us become what ever we want to be, as long as we don't infringe on others in their pursuit of happiness. Not sure how you reconcile being a Constitutionalist and the government telling you what you can and can't do with your body and mind. I know, as a Constitutionalist, I think we have way too many laws, especially at the Federal level. Where does it stop?

Did I ever defend the use of alcohol? The federal government tried to outlaw it and it led to prohibition. That is why it is legal. Of course I do not want children to idolize get drunks and again, I did not defend alcohol. I defended the league's right to make rules of employment and the natural course of what parents will do.

Do I? Do you have a crystal ball? Do you control the media and how it will be portrayed? Maybe they do not show up high to games or practice but it can still affect their overall performance. I think it is a naive thought that guys won't be stupid because it may hurt their performance on the field. Guys are already stupid in the NFL by doing things that get them suspended.

The Constitution does not guarantee those things. That was the Declaration. While I agree the Constitution does cover those things, it actually guarantees far more because even the Rights listed don't cover what was meant to be guaranteed. As for supporting the illegal inaction of marijuana, I condone it in this sense. The government's job is promote the general welfare of the nation, as listed in the Constitution. I see rampant drug use as a harmful thing to that general welfare. Now, I too believe in liberty, which is what you are referring to. So if the federal government were to legalize all drugs, I would have no real problem with that either. I think it would lead to a lot of deaths but Darwin.

I agree there are far too many laws and degrees for which they say we break them. Personally, I say legalize all the drugs and let people die and go bankrupt over their addictions. You would have to explain to me, you being a Constitutionalist, how you could support legalization of marijuana but be against legalization of all drugs based on your same argument.

 

[Krusheasy]

 

[Krusheasy]

Personally, I say legalize all the drugs and let people die and go bankrupt over their addictions.

 

[Stymietee]

I have a child that likes football. I know children who like football. I know children will idolize sports figures if they are interested in sports. It is human nature to emulate those you idolize. Does anybody think being a "pot head" is actually a good thing
What percentage of people who have done harder drugs started with pot?

Interesting conversation, so,two quick questions:

1. Does anybody think that being an alcoholic is a good thing?

2. How do we know that people doing harder drugs didn't start with a beer, or using glue in school?

Just asking!!

 

[j_y19]

Did I ever defend the use of alcohol? The federal government tried to outlaw it and it led to prohibition. That is why it is legal. Of course I do not want children to idolize get drunks and again, I did not defend alcohol. I defended the league's right to make rules of employment and the natural course of what parents will do.

Do I? Do you have a crystal ball? Do you control the media and how it will be portrayed? Maybe they do not show up high to games or practice but it can still affect their overall performance. I think it is a naive thought that guys won't be stupid because it may hurt their performance on the field. Guys are already stupid in the NFL by doing things that get them suspended.

The Constitution does not guarantee those things. That was the Declaration. While I agree the Constitution does cover those things, it actually guarantees far more because even the Rights listed don't cover what was meant to be guaranteed. As for supporting the illegal inaction of marijuana, I condone it in this sense. The government's job is promote the general welfare of the nation, as listed in the Constitution. I see rampant drug use as a harmful thing to that general welfare. Now, I too believe in liberty, which is what you are referring to. So if the federal government were to legalize all drugs, I would have no real problem with that either. I think it would lead to a lot of deaths but Darwin.

I agree there are far too many laws and degrees for which they say we break them. Personally, I say legalize all the drugs and let people die and go bankrupt over their addictions. You would have to explain to me, you being a Constitutionalist, how you could support legalization of marijuana but be against legalization of all drugs based on your same argument.

I actually agree with you. I think if drugs were legal, you are not going to see a nation full of addicts. Just like we don't see a nation full of drunks. Will there me more? Yes. But I don't think it would be some huge increase. I also agree, that no matter if legal or not, an employer has a right to set rules as to how their employees act while on the job. This includes both being high as well as being hungover from a high. But it would be determined by performance in their duties or how it affects their coworkers performance of their duties. If you take a job knowing the rules and expectations ahead of time and you violate those rules, you should fairly suffer the consequences. I just don't think that the Government should use laws, but let the market work as it should. You show up high/drunk and it affects your performance, you are gone. Regardless of a law. In short, the government should not be in enacting laws to influence morality, unless that morality affects the will, welfare or liberty of others (child molestation, etc). Obviously this is a very nuanced issue and I am talking about it at a very high level. But back to the point of pot, it is not a gateway drug any more that alcohol is.

 

[j_y19]

I have a child that likes football. I know children who like football. I know children will idolize sports figures if they are interested in sports. It is human nature to emulate those you idolize. Does anybody think being a "pot head" is actually a good thing?

Of course more have died from legal drugs. They are legal so more people take them.

Gateway has never been disproven. Just because not all people who smoke marijuana do a harder drug, doesn't disprove gateway. What percentage of people who have done harder drugs started with pot?

I believe it will be legalized as well. I also believe it lead to a worse America.

Probably less that the percentage of people that started with alcohol. I get that you are not specifically defending alcohol. But you are defending the government's ability to pick and choose which stimulant they will allow its citizens to partake when you single out pot.

BTW, you probably think I am a smoker at this point. You would be wrong. When younger, I did smoke recreationally (once in a while) so I understand what pot is, what it does, and what it doesn't do. Its all blown way out of proportion because of some societal perception led by those that want to legislate they believe you should do and don't do. Pot is not a gateway drug. That is a bunch of crap. For those that smoke pot and go on to hard drugs has little to do with the pot and more to do with their addictive personalities.

 

[SoCalWizFan]

Organized religion?

Party politics you may have a point. I am a Constitutionalist and a governmental minimalist.

Did I condemn anybody? I don't believe they use it to cope. I believe they use it to get high. I believe an employer has the right to set the rules of employment, and I believe the government has a right to make laws that do not infringe on the rights of the poeple.

I don't think that it is fair for you to make a blanket statement the players would only use pot to get high & not to help them cope with pain. Will this be true for some players? Sure. However I can see as many or more using it to cope with pain which according to all accounts is severe w/ NFL players.

If you have ever had any kind of chronic pain or ailment that is severe you would realize that you probably do/take just about anything to ease the pain. When this type of situation occurs just about nothing else in your life is that important. None of us are mind readers & don't have the rt just to assume we know how players think or feel. This is just as wrong as when fans state that a player is not trying when they do poorly. Honestly - we don't have a freaking clue. I would be a little more careful with these type of assumptions.

 

[RobToxin]

Unfortunately, until the federal government changes, the NFL really won't be able to do a thing about their marijuana policy.

It's all about keeping their antitrust status.

Like many things, the marijuana policy is a business decision based on that more than anything else.

 

[Sharkinva]

Unfortunately, until the federal government changes, the NFL really won't be able to do a thing about their marijuana policy.

It's all about keeping their antitrust status.

Like many things, the marijuana policy is a business decision based on that more than anything else.

Slightly disagree. It would have zero effect on the NFL's anti trust if the league just stopped testing for Weed, or simply ignored any positive results. The question of IF to test for drugs or not is a company decision. Thats usually set by the board as to if they are going to test, and what the ramifications for use will be.

The only reason the NFL cares at all about weed or alcohol is because of public perception. It has the ability to damage the brand, the fact that weed is illegal currently just makes it easier for them to enforce punishment when some one does get caught.

 

[ehb5]

I have a child that likes football. I know children who like football. I know children will idolize sports figures if they are interested in sports. It is human nature to emulate those you idolize. Does anybody think being a "pot head" is actually a good thing?

Of course more have died from legal drugs. They are legal so more people take them.

Gateway has never been disproven. Just because not all people who smoke marijuana do a harder drug, doesn't disprove gateway. What percentage of people who have done harder drugs started with pot?

I believe it will be legalized as well. I also believe it lead to a worse America.

"Has never been disproven"

Since when is that what we should use to decide things.

It's never been disproven that legalizing marijuana will create lasting peace and prosperity for the entire human race. Still a dumb thing to base anything off of.

 

[ehb5]

I don't think that it is fair for you to make a blanket statement the players would only use pot to get high & not to help them cope with pain. Will this be true for some players? Sure. However I can see as many or more using it to cope with pain which according to all accounts is severe w/ NFL players.

If you have ever had any kind of chronic pain or ailment that is severe you would realize that you probably do/take just about anything to ease the pain. When this type of situation occurs just about nothing else in your life is that important. None of us are mind readers & don't have the rt just to assume we know how players think or feel. This is just as wrong as when fans state that a player is not trying when they do poorly. Honestly - we don't have a freaking clue. I would be a little more careful with these type of assumptions.

You're 100% right here.

And for the players who would use it just to get high........so? Who gives a shit?

 

[gkekoa]

You're 100% right here.

And for the players who would use it just to get high........so? Who gives a shit?

The NFL does. That is why it is a rule.

 

[gkekoa]

Interesting conversation, so,two quick questions:

1. Does anybody think that being an alcoholic is a good thing?

2. How do we know that people doing harder drugs didn't start with a beer, or using glue in school?

Just asking!!

1- Nope. Never claimed it was.

2- I agree...not with the glue thing though.