pokersteve
Footballguy
I forgot to add this poll to my last post.
Steven
Steven
Last edited by a moderator:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Should The NFL Test For Marijuana (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter pokersteve
- Start date
As far as I'm concerned it doesn't even matter if marijuana is legal or not. The NFL is a private organization and can determine which rules it wants to enforce. Right now it says that any player smoking marijuana should be be punished therefore if you want to play in the league don't smoke marijuana. Being in the NFL isn't a right, you can't do whatever you want
BoulderBob
Footballguy
Marijuana is the best pain-killer on the market. Ricky Williams could have passed any drug test he wanted, he just didn't care. The NFL is only following the lead of an idiotic law. If an NFL player wants to inhale the smoke of a plant the creator placed on this planet, so be it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Browns Rule!
Footballguy
I really don't understand the play for the Browns answer. That doesn't make any sense.
BigJim®
Footballguy
You should consider better answers... like maybe:
(1) Yes, the NFL should test even though drug tests are stupid and I am stupid for agreeing with the NFL.
(2) No, testing is stupid and plus I need Ricky Williams on my FF team.
(3) Just throwing this option in for no apparent reason.
(1) Yes, the NFL should test even though drug tests are stupid and I am stupid for agreeing with the NFL.
(2) No, testing is stupid and plus I need Ricky Williams on my FF team.
(3) Just throwing this option in for no apparent reason.
The yes choice needs to focus its criteria. The drug isn't legal, therefor testing is acceptable. If found guilty the individual has broken the law. The question should ask how they should be punished, not whether the individual should be booted from the league.
In a free society, I don't have trouble with pot being legal. Until it is players/people who are users should face justice from the judical system, and take the decision out of the hands of the NFL.
In a free society, I don't have trouble with pot being legal. Until it is players/people who are users should face justice from the judical system, and take the decision out of the hands of the NFL.
tarheel1unc
Footballguy
I like this answer .
The Redbeard
Footballguy
Adultary is illegal in 26 states.
Sodomy is illegal in 23.
Why aren't there "adultary chaperones" for every married NFL player in each state where it is illegal?
Why aren't there "sodomy police" in the hotel room of every NFL player?
Maybe, it is because how an NFL player chooses to behave in his marriage or his bedroom doesn't have any bearing on the competative balance of the game of football even though it is "illegal". If you can prove to me that smoking pot makes you run faster, hit harder or tips the scales in any way in favor of the person that is ingesting the THC, I will vote yes on this poll. Otherwise, I don't care if it illegal, it is a private choice each player makes that in no way effects fair play on Sundays.
Sodomy is illegal in 23.
Why aren't there "adultary chaperones" for every married NFL player in each state where it is illegal?
Why aren't there "sodomy police" in the hotel room of every NFL player?
Maybe, it is because how an NFL player chooses to behave in his marriage or his bedroom doesn't have any bearing on the competative balance of the game of football even though it is "illegal". If you can prove to me that smoking pot makes you run faster, hit harder or tips the scales in any way in favor of the person that is ingesting the THC, I will vote yes on this poll. Otherwise, I don't care if it illegal, it is a private choice each player makes that in no way effects fair play on Sundays.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Why the amazement? It's not a performance enhancer. In fact, probably just the opposite. If a player uses it to his competitive detriment, he'll get beat out of a job by someone better/straighter.
BigJim®
Footballguy
I'll agree drug testing is far more rampant than it should be, but your point is going overboard. You're acting like the NFL is from Mars when marijuana testing is permitted and abused in most states for no apparent reason. Some states even permit random testing of employees who do not work in safety-related jobs, which is completely preposterous. The government itself tests employees as much as anyone. I tell you, it makes far more sense to me that a unionized pro athlete must test for illegal drugs than a customer service rep or a marketing manager. But bottom line, there is a huge difference between drug testing and policing the bedroom, which no employer does anywhere.
Black Sunday
Footballguy
I agree with you 100%. It is the players private choice that does not effect the game. These guys are adults, and can make decisions on their own.Do you also feel that it is the NFL's private choice to make sure that it's employees and players are not "using", just like 99% of all employers in the country? Heck, if I were to fail a drug test at my job, do you think they would give me a slap on the wrist and enroll me in the company substance abuse program?
Pictus Cat
Footballguy
How about the illegal private choices of Assault with a weapon, Sex with a minor, Drug Smuggling, Sex slave trade, Pimping...?None of the NFL's business, right?
Pictus Cat
Footballguy
My old job’s drug testing seemed reasonable. When we hire you don’t be high or drunk. If you destroy our property, we want you to get tested at that time so we know if you were high or drunk.
AnonymousBob
Footballguy
As long as the NFL is a privately owned organization, your response makes little sense. Of course, if a player is busted with pot then they should be prosecuted. But to actively weed out these offenders? That's just silly.
As long as the NFL is a privately owned organization that has since replaced baseball as "America's game"--marketing players, the sport, get out and see game w/the family, then his response makes PERFECT sencethe question is "should the NFL test for MJ?"
not..."should we as a country leaglize pot smoking"
until our society changes the law regarding use of pot, the NFL has no other option than to test for it and other drugs...performance enhancing or illicit
how many guys here have to test when applying for a job?---I did...I haven't seen any threads/polls about "how I was wronged by a potential employer for drug testing"---how stupid would that sound?
same thing, ladies
The Redbeard
Footballguy
Actually, the NFL has nothing to do with checking for or prosecutting these offences, that falls to the local government in that jurisdiction, unless of course the drug smuggling or sex trade crossed state or international lines. And as for pot, if a player is caught possessing it, it is illegal, and they should face the same fines and punishment as anyone else.BUT, do I care if after training camp and the first 7 weeks of a brutal sport, the Tuesday morning of a player's bye weeks rolls around and he wants to smoke a doob? I couldn't care less because as I stated earlier it has no bearing on how he will perform 12 days later in his next game. But, the drug test that player might randomly take before week 9, administered by the league, not the government, does care. That is what this topic is about.How about the illegal private choices of Assault with a weapon, Sex with a minor, Drug Smuggling, Sex slave trade, Pimping...?None of the NFL's business, right?
And for the record, when I made my post regarding sodomy and adultary, I was fully aware that they are on a whole different plane then smoking pot - I was only trying to illustrate, through the use of exageration, that many of us were getting caught up arguing over the "leaglity" of things.
Plain and simple - the NFL makes most of its money through advertising and merchandising. Pot has no effect on a players abilities, but appearing to come down hard on the use of the substance does have a positive effect on the leagues ability to market itself.
The Redbeard
Footballguy
The sad truth is - before 1937 marijuana was legal. Unfortunatley, as with most decisions made in this country, it had nothing to do with what is good for American people - but what is good for our economy. Hemp = competition for cotton. Marijuana = competition for alcohol (which coincidentally was made leagal again in late 1933, coincidence?) 80 years of propoganda from our government has brought us to a place where drinking (which leads to aggresive, angry and violent behavior) is leagal and accepted, while smoking pot (which leads to munchies and docility) is demonized.Sorry to hijack the thread which is meant to focus on footballs policy and not legality in general, but I can not agree with Zoonation enough - we are severly out of whack when players hitting their girlfriends, dragging them down stairs, etc. is pretty much glossed over and forgiven, while the use of a recreational drug is cause for dismisal from the league.
simmonjm
Footballguy
Lets forget about Leonard Little his drunk driving actually killed somebody and villianize guys who smoke weed or speak their minds.
Sorry to hijack the thread which is meant to focus on footballs policy and not legality in general, but I can not agree with Zoonation enough - we are severly out of whack when players hitting their girlfriends, dragging them down stairs, etc. is pretty much glossed over and forgiven, while the use of a recreational drug is cause for dismisal from the league.
kellumsboys
Footballguy
if my employer doesn't allow me to smoke POT while I do my job, then Ricky shouldn't be allowed to either.
Liquid Tension
Footballguy
Iagree with the above. Speeding is illegal also, people are just deciding on what laws are really not the laws and what the punishments are. People who say if it is illegal than they shouldn't do it don't really understand how governments operate. Is there really ANY reason why Alcohol is legal and marijuana isn't? It is ALL politics. Ask any rehabilitation specialist and they will tell you MARIJUANA IS NOT PHYSICALLY ADDICTING and they never have issues with pot-heads and they are not an issue on society. Alcohol is far worse as it is physically addicting.Now, I am not a fan of smoke, as an ex athlete I have never even taken a puff of a cigarette in my life and if an owner wants to test for marijuana on his players that he is paying, I say go ahead, it is your choice. I do not believe that Marijuana could be any advantage to a player or team. As for society, I say legalize pot and legalize prostitution; tax the living heck out of both of them and control it and we will have a surplus of dollars and we could alleviate some of the tax payers burden.
Pictus Cat
Footballguy
Like cigarettes? Tax it and some PSAs. Throw alcohol and tobacco in and a discount on medical insurance for not partaking. 99% of the partakers would die faster without being able to afford medical care. Sounds like a plan.Of course the violent crime that would lead to for people to support there psychological addictions and the devastation to loved ones might be too high a cost.
By the way, where do prostitutes and strippers get recruited? Runaways, the desperately poor, slow learners, and/or morally bankrupt? How's the longevity and family impact?
I digress, the NFL is a business. Like a politician, they will sell themselves to everybody (Saints and Sinners) to get their support. Ricky's potsmoking is just not marketable.
ImTheScientist
Footballguy
If you owned a company and you paid your employee's millions wouldn't you expect a little more from them?
Chaz McNulty
Footballguy
How would you feel if Ricky went on a trip to Amsterdam and didn't break any laws, then came back and tested positive.
Chaz McNulty
Footballguy
I voted no. I find it amazing that this poll is even close. Who cares if someone lights up occasionally. It's not a performance enhancer. It's legal in a few countries and de-criminalized in many more. It really shouldn't be on the banned list.The only thing that should be on the banned list are performance enhancing drugs.
The Football Freak
Footballguy
My vote made it 77 for 77 against and 7 for the Browns option. Just thought that was cool.
Donnybrook
Footballguy
Put the bong down and back away from the computer.
The Redbeard
Footballguy
--you are arguing "for leagalization"...OK, but that wasn't the questionbut to find the results "even close" is suprising?
given OUR current law, the NFL has no choice but to test for weed.....period
--only test for "performance enhancers?" so shooting heroin, snorting coke and smoking crack is OK?
...I give up
Ricky...knowing the full consequences of his actions, has failed the test 4X's
yes, he should be given a year off, which someone earlier mentioned was probably his true intention all along
Last edited by a moderator:
Pictus Cat
Footballguy
Then he could get some kiddie porn and some animal sex tapes and hook up with lots of young prostitutes. Free societies sound like a great place to grow up. Who doesn't like free?The guys making money off this stuff probably use it to help keep more people free.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Redbeard
Footballguy
Then he could get some kiddie porn and some animal sex tapes and hook up with lots of young prostitutes. Free societies sound like a great place to grow up. Who doesn't like free?
Have you ever even been to Holland? Do you realize that much of the world views our society as the one out of whack with our glorification of violence?
And in response to Rav, two posts up - that is exactly the point - the NFL DOESN'T have to test for pot. The question in the heading is "should" they test for pot. Your response is that it is illegal, so they must test for pot. So, by your rationale, the NFL should hire private investigators and surveil their players. You speed in your car 3 times, banned from the league. Go to an away game and while having sex in your hotel room you commit sodomy in a state where it is illegal - right into the NFL's sodomy abuse program.
I'm trying to figure out the logic of "it is illegal" (in SOME states, not all) so therefor the NFL must test for it, but I just can't follow the thread. If someone can explain it to me in a rational manner, rather than just:
given OUR current law, the NFL has no choice but to test for weed.....period
--only test for "performance enhancers?" so shooting heroin, snorting coke and smoking crack is OK?
...I give up
Don't give up, just drop the righteous indignation and enter the discussion instead of talking down to those with a different point of view from you.
Have you ever even been to Holland? Do you realize that much of the world views our society as the one out of whack with our glorification of violence?
And in response to Rav, two posts up - that is exactly the point - the NFL DOESN'T have to test for pot. The question in the heading is "should" they test for pot. Your response is that it is illegal, so they must test for pot. So, by your rationale, the NFL should hire private investigators and surveil their players. You speed in your car 3 times, banned from the league. Go to an away game and while having sex in your hotel room you commit sodomy in a state where it is illegal - right into the NFL's sodomy abuse program.
I'm trying to figure out the logic of "it is illegal" (in SOME states, not all) so therefor the NFL must test for it, but I just can't follow the thread. If someone can explain it to me in a rational manner, rather than just:
given OUR current law, the NFL has no choice but to test for weed.....period
--only test for "performance enhancers?" so shooting heroin, snorting coke and smoking crack is OK?
...I give up
Don't give up, just drop the righteous indignation and enter the discussion instead of talking down to those with a different point of view from you.
Mik789fl
Footballguy
There are adultary chaperones,they're called "wives". The NFL is a private business,as such it makes workplace rules as it sees fit as long as the rules don't violate the law. Pot is illegal,like it or not,the NFL is banning an illegal substance. My company does the same,they also test for illegal substances. I know that and NFL players know that,if Ricky or any other player makes the private decision to use an illegal substance he or they should be responsible for that action,as I would be. I choose NOT to jeopordize my career,Ricky has. I signed a contract with my employer,they expect certain things from me and I,in return,expect certain things from them,it's no diffferent for an NFL player,if they violate the terms of their contract they must face the music. I will not make excuses for someone like Ricky,even though I agree that pot should be legal. Right now it isn't,he broke terms in his contract,the NFL has every right to deal out the punishment as it sees fit. just my 2 cents.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Redbeard
Footballguy
Fair enough. And the drug chaperones are called police. We can go around in circles for days - I get it, the NFL is a private company that can do whatever it wants for whatever PR reasons it might want. . . but what about your answer to the actual question: should the NFL test for marijuana? We all admit that they can. But as a substance that in no way interferes with the fair competition on Sunday, and aside from the particular case of Ricky Williams, do you really believe that guys who get paid to play a game should be tested for smoking pot?
Mik789fl
Footballguy
It's all about "image" and the league's reputation. Yes,the NFL should test for pot and any other "illegal" substance,performance enhancing or not. Remember the NBA back in the 70's,players openly admitting to doing illegal drugs,the league had no policy in regards to it,fans stayed away in droves,the NBA was a mess,while Magic and Bird helped rescue the leagues "image" the drug policy that was put in place went a long way to helping the "image" of the NBA also. The NFL hasn't become the mega money maker it is by accident,smart business decisions have made it a business model in this country,they will test,and they SHOULD test. imop.
The Redbeard
Footballguy
I agree that the reference to the 70's NBA is apt, and we all seem to be in agreement that the issue of should test revolves around the image of the league.But I hope that your last comment was just for effect. You really believe that if the technology existed NFL players should be tested for and punished for sodomy and adultary? I was going to spend a bunch of time arguing against this (speeding, cursing in public, i.e. on the field of play, etc.), but we'll just aknowledge that you were goingThis is a very
BroadwayG
Footballguy
It was meant to be extremely sarcastic.I suppose it's really just a question of where one 'draws the line' so to speak. I don't know for sure, but doesn't the NFL have a code of conduct of some sorts to address the other scenarios you bring up that are not substance based? Not that it's all too great (Leonard Little), but I think it exists.I agree that the reference to the 70's NBA is apt, and we all seem to be in agreement that the issue of should test revolves around the image of the league.But I hope that your last comment was just for effect. You really believe that if the technology existed NFL players should be tested for and punished for sodomy and adultary? I was going to spend a bunch of time arguing against this (speeding, cursing in public, i.e. on the field of play, etc.), but we'll just aknowledge that you were goingThis is a very
If scientists could develop a urine test for adultery and sodomy, which also reveals the state the crime was committed in, I would be all for the NFL testing for it as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
Pictus Cat
Footballguy
Then he could get some kiddie porn and some animal sex tapes and hook up with lots of young prostitutes. Free societies sound like a great place to grow up. Who doesn't like free?
Have you ever even been to Holland? Do you realize that much of the world views our society as the one out of whack with our glorification of violence?
Reply
Holland and Amsterdam are different like the US is to Vegas. I think the things I mentioned above do involve a kind of violence and intimidation to create. To your second question, Yes.
I feel communication in this post is awesome force. It's important to know where people stand and why. Most people do not want more violence or its glorification.
Violent athletes should be severely punished. The NFL would lose a few fans if it was marketed. Way to go Wife Beater and That Player's Great Even Half Baked don't seem to be the NFLs marketing strategy.
Pot should be tested for because many NFL fans see the detrimental impact of drugs on society and don't want to watch athletes that glorify drug use because the athletes body and pocket book can afford it for a while.
Pot is tested for because the NFL is protecting its image and income (and most of them probably think its the right thing to do regardless of their personal demons.)
Thank you all for your opinions.
Have you ever even been to Holland? Do you realize that much of the world views our society as the one out of whack with our glorification of violence?
Reply
Holland and Amsterdam are different like the US is to Vegas. I think the things I mentioned above do involve a kind of violence and intimidation to create. To your second question, Yes.
I feel communication in this post is awesome force. It's important to know where people stand and why. Most people do not want more violence or its glorification.
Violent athletes should be severely punished. The NFL would lose a few fans if it was marketed. Way to go Wife Beater and That Player's Great Even Half Baked don't seem to be the NFLs marketing strategy.
Pot should be tested for because many NFL fans see the detrimental impact of drugs on society and don't want to watch athletes that glorify drug use because the athletes body and pocket book can afford it for a while.
Pot is tested for because the NFL is protecting its image and income (and most of them probably think its the right thing to do regardless of their personal demons.)
Thank you all for your opinions.
