BGHawk
Active member
Dpost
mikeak":156uimdx said:nategreat":156uimdx said:mikeak":156uimdx said:We had like 15 pages of discussions on this once already. Same premise and talked ad naseum about
It isn't allowed by the NFL it isn't allowed by the federal government
End thread
If you couldn't tell, OP has 5 posts. He's new, and he probably never was able to partake in these other discussions. If you don't want to read about it anymore, you don't have to. His post was long and thought out, and deserves more than you throwing up all over it. If you were going to reply, you could have done it without sounding like such a jerk.
In any case, I agree with you. It's illegal within the NFL, therefore it's for all intents and purposes, it's illegal for our players to do it, regardless of where they live. Who knows if this will ever change, since the Colorado and Washington state laws are new to this whole thing. Maybe the NFL will become more lenient as more states begin doing the same thing, but I kind of doubt it.
1) I didn't say anything that was being a jerk. I was direct
2) So if you put a lot of paragraphs together which are based on a very flawed premise that keeps coming up does it still remain a thought out post?
He ignores that private companies can set their own rules (there are companies out there that doesn't allow their employees to smoke cigarettes and it is perfectly legal), he ignores that they violated set rules by the company, he ignores federal law and he ignores that NFL teams compete across the country). But despite that it is a well thought out post? I can go with a post with lots of words without meaning put into a nice order.
Now that was closer to being a jerk but really not because it is called direct language. Apparently no longer allowed......
mikeak":3puuh009 said:^ sounds like you are worrying a bit there and thinking I should get a life.......
The original post ignores facts and conditions of life and the NFL. If the rules of the NFL aren't to your likings then maybe you should move on.
At the end of the day the only thing that matters is the players knew the rules. Like them or dislike them - irrelevant. They knew them, they got tested and they got caught for violating them. You want to fight the "good" fight to change the rules - great. It won't be retroactive and it won't be anytime soon.
muxpux":2r0d3yfm said:i had friends in the military who smoked spice to avoid testing positive for weed. not sure if NFL players wanna get high that bad though.
pmedic920":6aensi4i said:muxpux":6aensi4i said:i had friends in the military who smoked spice to avoid testing positive for weed. not sure if NFL players wanna get high that bad though.
Off topic but....
Anybody that either smokes that stuff or is thinking about it, needs to come ride a couple of shifts with me on the ambulance. SPICE, KUSH, whatever, it's all bad news.
MontanaHawk05":6aensi4i said:That's the thing with some pro-legalization folks. They go on and on about the unbalanced "value system" and how innocent it is to smoke weed, and forget that legalizing it will not stop schools and workplaces from forbidding it during work.
Schadie001":yyruxai0 said:Any employer has the right to terminate you for drug use....regardless of whether a state says it's ok or not. I'm all for employers being able to drug test their employees and fine, suspend or terminate them if they test positive. You can smoke it all you want, but you won't work for me.
cdallan":1hs1k3oy said:Schadie001":1hs1k3oy said:Any employer has the right to terminate you for drug use....regardless of whether a state says it's ok or not. I'm all for employers being able to drug test their employees and fine, suspend or terminate them if they test positive. You can smoke it all you want, but you won't work for me.
You do know that people that work for you ARE actually people themselves, right? You want to control what they legally do in their own home and which no one would find out about, except you want them tested in a way that even the police couldn't do without a warrant?
Riiiiiight.
BlackDiamondHawk":106od5wf said:Seems to me that BBs appeal had a lot more to do with due process than cannabis. The CBA shouldn't apply to somebody who is not covered by it. I have no bitch with the NFL saying players can't use pot, but the steamrolling of consequence and the lack of following due process in an unprecedented case are questionable. I know somebody will jump quickly about how much this has been discussed, but a vast majority of the discussion had to do with the pros/cons of pot and letting your teammates down. I think the NFL got backed into a corner and Roger's only response was to throw a haymaker.