Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Should the NFL stop drug testing for Marijuana?


RockThatBlue

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

32 minutes ago, RockThatBlue said:

What are your thoughts? I'm on the fence about it tbh. 

The NFL IMO will not change it's policy as long as it's illegal on a federal level. Now comes the tricky part- it is more than likely too political to have a detailed debate with much success. To get deep into the debate would involve pretty much the whole judicial system and the federal government including big business. Myself I am an opponent for legalizing myself. I would start the debate on the lobbyist for the big business (pharmaceuticals) and how many millions of dollars are given to the politicians to keep it illegal?  How many billions of dollars are fed into the judicial system where judges, lawyers, police departments and the prison systems are run off illegal weed and the money intake. Even in the states who have legalized pot it is still against the law to posses on federal land or property. I found that out with my trip to Colorado for 3-20 this last March.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah... They sold workplace drug tests to the public under the guise that just the pilots would be tested... It's since become a completely out of control waste of time and energy...

 

The NFL is a special case where the integrity of the game depends on nobody being able to gain an unfair advantage due to the effects of substances... I don't think marijuana applies in this context...

Besides, what about all of the legal substances that completely alter the game, like pain shots, cortizone, and opiates that virtually all players use legally? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Carlos Danger said:

Yeah... They sold workplace drug tests to the public under the guise that just the pilots would be tested... It's since become a completely out of control waste of time and energy...

 

The NFL is a special case where the integrity of the game depends on nobody being able to gain an unfair advantage due to the effects of substances... I don't think marijuana applies in this context...

Besides, what about all of the legal substances that completely alter the game, like pain shots, cortizone, and opiates that virtually all players use legally? 

That falls into the category of the pharmaceutical and their controlling the use of pain meds and other things as you mention. They have enough money to dictate what is legal and what is not through their lobbyist paying the politicians. We also cant overlook the impact of insurance companies and their insistence of drug testing to void their liabilities as your opening statement stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, crestmount said:

Well, they do, so if a player is smoking he's an *

 

I understand your comment but you cant just say football players who partake in the use of cannabis. It is in every phase of life including those who make a living prosecuting those who do use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, crestmount said:

I realise that it is used a lot in society, yet if you want to play in the NFL you have to abide by the NFL's rules

 Football players are not smarter than anyone else. Drug use hits every walk of life. To us it seems real stupid because of the money. Money has zero to do with the problem. People risk their job and livelihood every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RockThatBlue said:

What are your thoughts? I'm on the fence about it tbh. 

 

What are you trying to find out here?

 

I have pointed out in numerous posts in other threads that it is So Easy to smoke MJ in the NFL it isn't even funny and makes this post almost pointless.  That is how so many Vets smoke and never 'get caught'.  They know how to play the {minimal} NFL system.  Those that get caught are stupid, addicted, lazy, or have an IDGAF attitude or combos of the above and deserve their punishment; IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

What are you trying to find out here?

 

I have pointed out in numerous posts in other threads that it is So Easy to smoke MJ in the NFL it isn't even funny and makes this post almost pointless.  That is how so many Vets smoke and never 'get caught'.  They know how to play the {minimal} NFL system.  Those that get caught are stupid, addicted, lazy, or have an IDGAF attitude or combos of the above and deserve their punishment; IMHO.

 

To the bolded, if so many can get away with smoking marijuana and not testing positive, why test for it at all? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NFLfan said:

 

To the bolded, if so many can get away with smoking marijuana and not testing positive, why test for it at all? 

 

Good question.  The answer is the NFL changes its substance abuse policy to follow society and Federal law.  The NFL and NFLPA recently  collectively bargained just this issue to reduce punishments and include more 'chances'. So, the punishments on THC have been made more lenient to keep pace with changing societal views.  But until it is legal for recreational or medicinal use in every state and decriminalized in Federal law, it will not be off the banned substance list.  But the NFL will adjust rules/punishment over time until such point.  That  point is not here yet. Here's Herm Edwards take as of now-

 

“I think our league is trying to have a set of rules and regulations that an athlete has to live up to, and in order to be part of the league, you have to live up to them,’’ said former head coach Herm Edwards, now an ESPN studio analyst. “You may not like the rules, but there are consequences to violating them. Right now, in our league, it’s on the list of banned substances."

 

It seems the substance abuse test at the combine and in the off season between April 20 and August 9 is almost a player I.Q. test of sorts, and there is a penalty to 'not study' and 'flunk' it.   The players know, and make career decisions when ingesting items that are not allowed.  They can't plead ignorance as a defense. They know.

 

Do teams / NFL outright oppose using MJ?  Not really it seems, and it may well be a better alternative to binge drinking. But they both do oppose testing positive for it. 

 

Similar to do I oppose my wife (only hypothetical here!) trying to make it through a yellow light and actually catch the red?  As long as there are no accidents, not really.  What I do oppose is getting a $260 citation in the mail for her catching that Red and captured by a red light photo camera.

 

During the season use, the player will regulate it or lose his job. In the narrow off season testing window, they want to see who can man up and get/stay clean until their test is completed.  Nothing more. And they usually test at a team event or by position groups on a team (for all players not in the Drug Program), so there is ample warning signs of when the test may well occur.

 

We will see if it gets change again at the next CBA negotiations.  Or even earlier... as recently happened.  but no change on the horizon as of now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the NFL saying marijuana is OK as a painkiller....is that doing so makes the NFL liable for anything a player on Marijuana does..

...Even the players could sue the NFL saying that league-sanctioned use of the drug led to their addiction and is then responsible for whatever harm the player suffered from that and further addictions...

They could legally say that the NFL made them junkies....and cite marijuana as that gateway drug...

The NFL has been successfully sued for denying the depth of head trauma.

They are currently, I believe,  being sued for passing out legal painkillers to players

 

There's no way they can open the 'MJ' door.   Eve if its legal, the NFL saying its okay to use opens them up to a whole new universe of lawsuits

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oldunclemark said:

The problem with the NFL saying marijuana is OK as a painkiller....is that doing so makes the NFL liable for anything a player on Marijuana does..

...Even the players could sue the NFL saying that league-sanctioned use of the drug led to their addiction and is then responsible for whatever harm the player suffered from that and further addictions...

They could legally say that the NFL made them junkies....and cite marijuana as that gateway drug...

The NFL has been successfully sued for denying the depth of head trauma.

They are currently, I believe,  being sued for passing out legal painkillers to players

 

There's no way they can open the 'MJ' door.   Eve if its legal, the NFL saying its okay to use opens them up to a whole new universe of lawsuits

I highly doubt any of that is true

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, crestmount said:

I realise that it is used a lot in society, yet if you want to play in the NFL you have to abide by the NFL's rules

..I agree and they should continue to ask that players stay off the weed

I just don't see how the NFL can take on responsibility and liability for players who get addicted to marijuana and by dropping a prohibition of it, they OK its use..there's no 2 ways abut that

 

.....I cant see what the NFL gains by doing that and I don't think they will.

And players union isn't going to use weed as a bargaining chip...

 

Give us weed and we'll let you have that 18-game schedule you want? No way/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

..I agree and they should continue to ask that players stay off the weed

I just don't see how the NFL can take on responsibility and liability for players who get addicted to marijuana and by dropping a prohibition of it, they OK its use..there's no 2 ways abut that

 

.....I cant see what the NFL gains by doing that and I don't think they will.

And players union isn't going to use weed as a bargaining chip...

 

Give us weed and we'll let you have that 18-game schedule you want? No way/

 

The NFL wouldn't dispense it...there is no need to....they would just stop testing for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

It seems the substance abuse test at the combine and in the off season between April 20 and August 9 is almost a player I.Q. test of sorts, and there is a penalty to 'not study' and 'flunk' it.   The players know, and make career decisions when ingesting items that are not allowed.  They can't plead ignorance as a defense. They know.

...

During the season use, the player will regulate it or lose his job. In the narrow off season testing window, they want to see who can man up and get/stay clean until their test is completed.  Nothing more. And they usually test at a team event or by position groups on a team (for all players not in the Drug Program), so there is ample warning signs of when the test may well occur.

 

I agree with equating the substance abuse test to somewhat of an IQ test. It is also a discipline test. Those who are not too bright or disciplined will get caught.

 

It seems that players take amphetamines to give them an edge or greater confidence in games.  Most will not use them in the offseason because there are no games to be played. So, those who take amphetamines are likely not to test positive because they are not tested during the season. Right?  

 

I am definitely not a proponent of legalizing marijuana, but the NFL's position on this is akin to the marijuana laws that have gotten poor and less educated folks imprisoned for possession.  If the NFL is testing for illicit drugs, then they should test for them randomly anytime in the year, not only from April to August. JMHO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2016 at 3:57 PM, NFLfan said:

 

I agree with equating the substance abuse test to somewhat of an IQ test. It is also a discipline test. Those who are not too bright or disciplined will get caught.

 

It seems that players take amphetamines to give them an edge or greater confidence in games.  Most will not use them in the offseason because there are no games to be played. So, those who take amphetamines are likely not to test positive because they are not tested during the season. Right?  

 

Recreational substances aren't tested for in the regular season  Steroids/PED's are tested for all year as described below.

 

The items on the Steroid / PED list are-

 

Anabolic agents - 59 listed, not limited to
Hormones - 5 listed (including hGH)
Beta-2 Agopnist - (Clenbuterol, etc...)
Antgi-Estrogrenic Agents - 15 listed (including Clomid - Robert Mathis)
Masking Agents - 23 listed in section A.
   A. Diuretics and similar
   B. Epitestosterone
   C. Probenecid
Stimulants - 64 listed - including Amphetamine (IE: Adderall, Meth, etc..)
   *Psuedoephedrine (Sudafed, Actifed) can be excluded IF prescribed by Club Medical personnel*

 

The NFL institutes random and reasonable cause testing for PED/Steroids during the year, notably during the playing season.  The breakdown:

 

Annual-  20% of each clubs players are randomly selected for Serum and Urine testing

Pre/Regular Season - 5 players from 8 Clubs are randomly selected each and every week for Serum and Urine testing.

Post Season - 5 of the 10 players selected from Section 3.1 rules are tested for Serum and Urine samples.

Off Season - 10% of each Clubs players randomly selected for Serum testing (may or may not include Urine testing)

Pre-Employment - Any Vet or rookie FA can be selected for testing, and 30 randomly selected players at the Scouting Combine will be tested for Serum and Urine

Reasonable Cause - Selected at the discretion of the Independent Administrator, not to exceed 24 Blood/Urine sample in one calendar year.

 

Penalties for failure?

First Offense-

   Masking agent detection only is two games

   PED detected is 4 games (regular and or post season)

   PED plus masking agent detected is 6 games (regular and or post season)

Second offense - 10 games (regular and or post season, even if into next season)

Third offense - 2 year ban, must petition for reinstatement

 

The policy is very detailed.

 

Quote

I am definitely not a proponent of legalizing marijuana, but the NFL's position on this is akin to the marijuana laws that have gotten poor and less educated folks imprisoned for possession.  If the NFL is testing for illicit drugs, then they should test for them randomly anytime in the year, not only from April to August. JMHO

 

The NFL is making adjustments for MJ to the way society is moving.  They will not be the front runner in the change movement, however.  This league will always be a league of rules and accountability.  There are and will be expectations required from players regardless of legality issues.  NFL is huge business and branding important.  They'll find ways to make changes, but also 'protect the shield' in doing so.

 

Sorry for the length, but now I can search for this later and recall certain aspects as needed in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Recreational substances aren't test in the regular season  Steroids/PED's are tested for all year as described below.

 

The items on the Steroid / PED list are-

 

Anabolic agents - 59 listed, not limited to
Hormones - 5 listed (including hGH)
Beta-2 Agopnist - (Clenbuterol, etc...)
Antgi-Estrogrenic Agents - 15 listed (including Clomid - Robert Mathis)
Masking Agents - 23 listed in section A.
   A. Diuretics and similar
   B. Epitestosterone
   C. Probenecid
Stimulants - 64 listed including Amphetamine (IE: Adderall, Meth, etc..)
   *Psuedoephedrine )Sudafed, Actifed) can be excluded IF prescribed by Club Medical personnel*

 

The NFL institutes random and reasonable cause testing for PED/Steroids during the year, notably during the playing season.  The breakdown:

 

Annual-  20% of each clubs players are randomly selected for Serum and Urine testing

Pre/Regular Season - 5 players from 8 Clubs are randomly selected each and every week for Serum and Urine testing.

Post Season - 5 of the 10 players selected from Section 3.1 rules are tested for Serum and Urine samples.

Off Season - 10% of each Clubs players randomly selected for Serum testing (may or may not include Urine testing)

Pre-Employment - Any Vet or rookie FA can be selected for testing, and 30 randomly selected players at the Scouting Combine will be tested for Serum and Urine

Reasonable Cause - Selected at the discretion of the Independent Administrator, not to exceed 24 Blood/Urine sample in one calendar year.

 

Penalties for failure?

First Offense-

   Masking agent detection only is two games

   PED detected is 4 games (regular and or post season)

   PED plus masking agent detected is 6 games (regular and or post season)

Second offense - 10 games (regular and or post season, even if into next season)

Third offense - 2 year ban, must petition for reinstatement

 

The policy is very detailed.

 

 

The NFL is making adjustments for MJ to the way society is moving.  They will not be the front runner in the change movement, however.  This league will always be a league of rules and accountability.  There are and will be expectations required from players regardless of legality issues.  NFL is huge business and branding important.  They'll find ways to make changes, but also 'protect the shield' in doing so.

 

Sorry for the length, but now I can search for this later and recall certain aspects as needed in the future.

Good stuff. This should explain a lot of questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎7‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 1:58 PM, BOTT said:

The NFL wouldn't dispense it...there is no need to....they would just stop testing for it.

The act of stopping testing, in effect, looking the other way when a player is high,  sanctions it......

If the NFL allows players to smoke weed in their faciiities..for use as a pain killer,,,

There is almost certain liability there...

 

We all know that players have successfully sued the NFL for health damage they allowed the players to inflict on each other .....they are being sued for drugs they dispensed as painkillers...

 

The fact that they did not dispense them but simply condoned their use....makes them liable for the players' addictions....unless the players, as a group, contractually agree to accept personal responsibility for the harm that becoming addicted to marijuana could lead to..

 

If a player suffers an injury that in any way can be connected to his use of weed or another players use of weed, of course the NFL is liable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oldunclemark said:

The act of stopping testing, in effect, looking the other way when a player is high,  sanctions it......

If the NFL allows players to smoke weed in their faciiities..for use as a pain killer,,,

There is almost certain liability there...

 

We all know that players have successfully sued the NFL for health damage they allowed the players to inflict on each other .....they are being sued for drugs they dispensed as painkillers...

 

The fact that they did not dispense them but simply condoned their use....makes them liable for the players' addictions....unless the players, as a group, contractually agree to accept personal responsibility for the harm that becoming addicted to marijuana could lead to..

 

If a player suffers an injury that in any way can be connected to his use of weed or another players use of weed, of course the NFL is liable

You really think the NFL woul allow the players to smoke weed at their facility?

 

stop talking like you know the law...I am certain you do not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont really see what they test for matters. They can test for jelly beans and there will still be a number of people fail. From they way I understand it they are given way over 30 days notice of when they will be tested and for whatever reason people still cant show up clean. I care less if people smoke marijuana or do anything else but if you are that dumb after given notice then you deserve everything that is dished out to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

You can't be a serious athlete and a serious smoker of weed.  All multi-billion dollar industries that rely upon their athletes being in top condition should have a serious policy against it.  Its that simple.

So you don't think there are players in the NFL that are serious smokers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, BOTT said:

You really think the NFL woul allow the players to smoke weed at their facility?

 

stop talking like you know the law...I am certain you do not.

BOTT.....Think about what you're saying...my man

If the NFL didn't allow players to smoke weed or be high at their facility, then they would have to test them to prove they were high, right?

So they would be testing. .

 

This isn't deep legal theory.  If the NFL accepts the use of weed as a painkiller for its players

 they are liable for the addictions they 'cause' and what players may then do when they are high

And if they stop testing for  it, and ignore its use they are allowing it

I don't have to be Denny Crane to say that

 

The arguement for using or allowing the use of hallucinatory drugs never makes sense for professional athletes who use their mind and body.  The lack of common sense of the arguement always suggests

 to me that proponents of the argument are already deep into the product....

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

BOTT.....Think about what you're saying...my man

If the NFL didn't allow players to smoke weed or be high at their facility, then they would have to test them to prove they were high, right?

So they would be testing. .

 

This isn't deep legal theory.  If the NFL accepts the use of weed as a painkiller for its players

 they are liable for the addictions they 'cause' and what players may then do when they are high

And if they stop testing for  it, and ignore its use they are allowing it

I don't have to be Denny Crane to say that

 

The arguement for using or allowing the use of hallucinatory drugs never makes sense for professional athletes who use their mind and body.  The lack of common sense of the arguement always suggests

 to me that proponents of the argument are already deep into the product....

 

 

 

I have no idea what you are saying in the first paragraph.

 

lack of common sense? From the guy who claims Mississippi should have an NFL team.......

 

so so you are saying any workplace that doesn't test for a certain drug is responsible for its employees become victims of said drug?

 

and and I don't smoke weed.  Never liked it.

 

Hallucatory drug? Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IDK

NFL is pretty focused on what should and what should not go into players bodies and I can understand why.  I think their reasons have to do with the health of the player. 

 

Everyone, players, fans, and NFL should care even more about player health imo. From concussions to readiness to return to play, and substance abuse.  The game is not worth losing your health.

 

Not meaning to get into a debate on whether or not pot affects your health.  Just saying that in general I can see why the NFL cares about it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, oldunclemark said:

BOTT.....Think about what you're saying...my man

If the NFL didn't allow players to smoke weed or be high at their facility, then they would have to test them to prove they were high, right?

So they would be testing. .

 

 

No...this is a ridiculous assumption.  Schools don't allow students to smoke weed on school property and they also don't force every student to submit to a urine test every day to prove that those students aren't high.  It's illegal to drink and drive, but is every driver given a breathalyzer? No.  

 

The company I work for no longer does pre-employment drug screens, but consuming alcohol and/or MJ on property is prohibited.  However, they don't actively test for it, but they (like the NFL would) reserve the right to test if there is probable cause.

 

And saying that the NFL would be endorsing the use of MJ if they stop actively prohibiting it is even more ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Nadine said:

IDK

NFL is pretty focused on what should and what should not go into players bodies and I can understand why.  I think their reasons have to do with the health of the player. 

 

Everyone, players, fans, and NFL should care even more about player health imo. From concussions to readiness to return to play, and substance abuse.  The game is not worth losing your health.

 

Not meaning to get into a debate on whether or not pot affects your health.  Just saying that in general I can see why the NFL cares about it.

 

You bring up a good point. The game is not worth your health and the game cant be played without your health. A multi billion dollar business depends on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IndyD4U said:

Even if marijuana is legalized nationwide that doesn't mean that the NFL will permit it. I cannot see an instance where the NFL doesn't stop testing for marijuana, legal or not.

That could change if it is used for medicinal purposes and prescribed by a doctor. If that was to happen it is still years away. I see your point as long as cannabis is federally against the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, oldunclemark said:

 

 

The arguement for using or allowing the use of hallucinatory drugs never makes sense for professional athletes who use their mind and body.  The lack of common sense of the arguement always suggests

 to me that proponents of the argument are already deep into the product....

 

 

 

 

And what does that have to do with the discussion about MJ?  MJ is not a hallucinatory drug.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jason_S said:

 

And what does that have to do with the discussion about MJ?  MJ is not a hallucinatory drug.

 

Neither here nor there, but marijuana in high doses can lead to hallucinations. That may or may not be an effect related to other substances laced in...

 

Synthetic marijuana seems to drive people crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I can too. And that will tell us everything we need to know about how the view him. It will tell us their feelings on the tight end room, and what direction they pick from there will tell us even more.    but if they take him at 15, we won’t know much about what might have happened, as they will be landing someone they had rated highly and fell to them. 
    • Glad that’s over…    if I wanted to argue about it, I would have responded far more in depth than pointing out how you were attempting to gaslight me. I did not. Meaning I was ending my part of whatever the argument was. You “putting a finality to it” and then listing bullet points tells me it was the argument you wanted all along, which makes sense why you brought Grigson up in the first place. Bait, hook, gaslight. Almost got me buddy. You are a funny guy, Doug 
    • Putting a finality on an argument you want to have.   There is a theory that Ballard won't draft a OL high because ARs injuries were not caused by a poor oline.  I felt it important to note that since Luck's major injuries were also not caused by his oline, Ballard could still want to improve it like he did in 2018 simply because AR is The Franchise. And its important to point that out because there has been a running (false) narrative for about 9 years that Luck's oline was the (main) reason for his injuries that kept him out of games.  The (false) narrative is based upon, IMO, a detest of Grigson, and not reality about the facts (or strong rumors) behind the kidney laceration and snowboarding shoulder. Therefore, mentioning Grigson and the (false) narrative was germain to the point about Ballard possibly drafting Oline high this draft to protect AR. Mentioning Grigson shouldn't trigger a CB vs RG discussion, unless people reading it are gaslighted by their own reading lens.
    • That is a very inaccurate description of what happened.  At this point it’s history and doesn’t need to be revisited but I will say Chloe adds value to this board and should be and is by most encouraged to post, even if people don’t always agree with her.  
    • My response was in regards to another posted suggesting that the Colts need to get the pick right when it comes to picking a WR. I agree with you .
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...