In the next CBA, NFL is prepared to make major concessions under the substance-abuse policy

[HOUSE]

 

Posted by Mike Florio on March 6, 2019, 7:18 AM EST

 

With the War on Drugs long over (did we win?), the NFL has begun to quietly realize the folly of its ongoing efforts to police the private lives and bodily fluids of players who may from time to time or more often than that enjoy the pungent fumes of a certain burning leaf. And the next Collective Bargaining Agreement likely will reflect that.

Per a league source, the NFL is prepared to make major concessions regarding the substance-abuse policy, especially as it relates to marijuana.

The details of the concessions aren’t known. A complete abandonment (and implicit legalization) of marijuana is possible, but if the league goes in that direction it would need to have a procedure in place for players who are charged criminally with marijuana-related offenses in the states where marijuana continues to be banned.

A delicate balance may be required. It the law of the land becomes “smoke at will as long as you’re in a weed-legal state,” plenty of free agents will flock to teams in states where it’s legal. So maybe the best approach would be to simply dump marijuana from the list of banned recreational drugs, and move on.

 

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/03/06/in-the-next-cba-nfl-is-prepared-to-make-major-concessions-under-the-substance-abuse-policy/

Edited March 7, 2019 by HOUSE

[PetermansRedemption]

It makes sense given that many states are making marijuana legal. That being said, if the NFL does not want their employees smoking it should be completely up to them. 

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

Just now, Bills2ref said:

It makes sense given that many states are making marijuana legal. That being said, if the NFL does not want their employees smoking it should be completely up to them. 

 

Employers are not allowed to prohibit employees from engaging in legal off duty conduct.  There is a quasi-exception for Marijuana (in most states) because its illegal at the federal level.  

 

If marijuana becomes legal at the federal level, and a player lives in California or some other legalized state, the NFL 100% would not and should not be allowed to direct players not to get high. 

[PetermansRedemption]

2 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

Employers are not allowed to prohibit employees from engaging in legal off duty conduct.  There is a quasi-exception for Marijuana (in most states) because its illegal at the federal level.  

 

If marijuana becomes legal at the federal level, and a player lives in California or some other legalized state, the NFL 100% would not and should not be allowed to direct players not to get high. 

So, really, the NFL isn’t making much of a concession at all, they almost had to at this point. 

[BuffaloBillies]

 

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

Just now, Bills2ref said:

So, really, the NFL isn’t making much of a concession at all, they almost had to at this point. 

 

I think they see the writing on the wall.  By the time the next CBA comes around, there is a high chance they wont even have the right to prohibit it.  They may as well use it as a bargaining chip while they can. 

[Just Joshin']

9 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

I think they see the writing on the wall.  By the time the next CBA comes around, there is a high chance they wont even have the right to prohibit it.  They may as well use it as a bargaining chip while they can. 

Really - so what about the other legal substances they ban?

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

Just now, Just Joshin' said:

Really - so what about the other legal substances they ban?

My guess is that the other legal substances qualify as performance enhancing substances.  Thus, because they affect "on duty" work, they may be regulated by the NFL.  

[Mark80]

42 minutes ago, HOUSE said:

 

 

 

My favorite scene in the movie.  Any time I watch it, I watch that scene at least twice in a row.

37 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

Employers are not allowed to prohibit employees from engaging in legal off duty conduct.  There is a quasi-exception for Marijuana (in most states) because its illegal at the federal level.  

 

If marijuana becomes legal at the federal level, and a player lives in California or some other legalized state, the NFL 100% would not and should not be allowed to direct players not to get high. 

 

This is not true at all.  It varies by state, but in a lot of states employers can do anything they want as long as they are not discriminating against a protected class. 

 

Just looked it up and it looks like 29 states + DC prohibit employers from doing it, but the other 21 do not.

Edited March 7, 2019 by Mark80

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

12 minutes ago, Mark80 said:

 

My favorite scene in the movie.  Any time I watch it, I watch that scene at least twice in a row.

 

This is not true at all.  It varies by state, but in a lot of states employers can do anything they want as long as they are not discriminating against a protected class. 

 

Just looked it up and it looks like 29 states + DC prohibit employers from doing it, but the other 21 do not.

 

I haven't done a 50 state survey on the subject, I just know New York and Connecticut have laws that prohibit employees from engaging in lawful off duty activities.  I guess I don't know about the rest of the states.  

 

 

[row_33]

you get to smoke up

 

we will scalp you for the 25th straight time on your share of the bounty

 

[HOUSE]

If they did this 10 years ago, the Browns would be 5 time Superbowl Champs

[JaCrispy]

1 hour ago, HOUSE said:

 

Posted by Mike Florio on March 6, 2019, 7:18 AM EST

 

With the War on Drugs long over (did we win?), the NFL has begun to quietly realize the folly of its ongoing efforts to police the private lives and bodily fluids of players who may from time to time or more often than that enjoy the pungent fumes of a certain burning leaf. And the next Collective Bargaining Agreement likely will reflect that.

Per a league source, the NFL is prepared to make major concessions regarding the substance-abuse policy, especially as it relates to marijuana.

The details of the concessions aren’t known. A complete abandonment (and implicit legalization) of marijuana is possible, but if the league goes in that direction it would need to have a procedure in place for players who are charged criminally with marijuana-related offenses in the states where marijuana continues to be banned.

A delicate balance may be required. It the law of the land becomes “smoke at will as long as you’re in a weed-legal state,” plenty of free agents will flock to teams in states where it’s legal. So maybe the best approach would be to simply dump marijuana from the list of banned recreational drugs, and move on.

 

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/03/06/in-the-next-cba-nfl-is-prepared-to-make-major-concessions-under-the-substance-abuse-policy/

OP...what movie is that?!?! I have to see it...I’m lmao just from the clip!!! ???

[PromoTheRobot]

1 hour ago, HOUSE said:

 

Posted by Mike Florio on March 6, 2019, 7:18 AM EST

 

With the War on Drugs long over (did we win?), the NFL has begun to quietly realize the folly of its ongoing efforts to police the private lives and bodily fluids of players who may from time to time or more often than that enjoy the pungent fumes of a certain burning leaf. And the next Collective Bargaining Agreement likely will reflect that.

Per a league source, the NFL is prepared to make major concessions regarding the substance-abuse policy, especially as it relates to marijuana.

The details of the concessions aren’t known. A complete abandonment (and implicit legalization) of marijuana is possible, but if the league goes in that direction it would need to have a procedure in place for players who are charged criminally with marijuana-related offenses in the states where marijuana continues to be banned.

A delicate balance may be required. It the law of the land becomes “smoke at will as long as you’re in a weed-legal state,” plenty of free agents will flock to teams in states where it’s legal. So maybe the best approach would be to simply dump marijuana from the list of banned recreational drugs, and move on.

 

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/03/06/in-the-next-cba-nfl-is-prepared-to-make-major-concessions-under-the-substance-abuse-policy/

 

The NHL already ignores MJ positives in players.  They test, they don't condone, but they don't pursue it.

4 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:

OP...what movie is that?!?! I have to see it...I’m lmao just from the clip!!! ???

 

The Big Lebowski.

[bigK14094]

2 hours ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

Employers are not allowed to prohibit employees from engaging in legal off duty conduct.  There is a quasi-exception for Marijuana (in most states) because its illegal at the federal level.  

 

If marijuana becomes legal at the federal level, and a player lives in California or some other legalized state, the NFL 100% would not and should not be allowed to direct players not to get high. 

Employees will apparently have rights to engage in legal behavior.  However, applicants with positive drug tests may not be hired based on the criteria established by employers.  Stoners operating heavy equipment in industry is not a pleasant thought.  ie:  they would fail the physical.  And especially if they use the hair test....which goes back in time 3 or 4 months.

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

11 minutes ago, bigK14094 said:

Employees will apparently have rights to engage in legal behavior.  However, applicants with positive drug tests may not be hired based on the criteria established by employers.  Stoners operating heavy equipment in industry is not a pleasant thought.  ie:  they would fail the physical.  And especially if they use the hair test....which goes back in time 3 or 4 months.

Yeah, but, again, employers are only allowed to do that because pot is illegal at the federal level.  If that wasn't the case, and New York legalized marijuana, they wouldn't be allowed to do that. Heavy equipment is an obvious exception. 

 

Its like alcohol.  If you show up drunk, you are done.  Conversely, if you drink on your free time, an employer can't fire you. 

Edited March 7, 2019 by JoshAllenHasBigHands

[buffalostu2]

Hopefully they give up Marijuana and get blood testing in return.  If player safety is truly an issue then HGH and other non urine detectable PEDS need to go. 

 

It is only my speculation but the fact that the Superbowl was won by a 41 year old QB and the fastest player on the field that day was a 32 year old WR who looked worlds different in the Superbowl compared to week 5/6 immediately following his PED suspension sucks.  If anyone hasn't watched ICARUS on netflix yet, predictable scheduling of urine tests are easily beaten.

 

Clean up PED use and we won't need to soften the rules so guys don't get hurt.

  

 

     

[machine gun kelly]

The Olympics have been using dna with hair for years since the 80’s with dna testing.  I don’t really care if someone is not driving if people use weed, but private companies have a zero tolerance policy until the Feds change.   It won’t change my behavior, but as long as you’re safe and others are safe, I don’t care unless it is my children who are growing up.  That is not a legal issue as much as a moral one so I am resolute on that issue as a parent.

[LikeIGiveADarn]

2 hours ago, Mark80 said:

 

My favorite scene in the movie.  Any time I watch it, I watch that scene at least twice in a row.

 

This is not true at all.  It varies by state, but in a lot of states employers can do anything they want as long as they are not discriminating against a protected class. 

 

Just looked it up and it looks like 29 states + DC prohibit employers from doing it, but the other 21 do not.

 

Which still doesn't matter because these are contracts the players are signing. The NFL bans players from riding motorcycles.

[quinnearlysghost88]

More than 30 states have legal or medical marijuana. if they bake marijuana (pun) into the CBA, they can easy get medical marijuana for 'pain management'.