PDA

View Full Version : NFL Still Bans Denver Broncos From Marijuana Use Even When Itís Legal; Right Or Wrong?


DAN_BRONCO_FAN
11-09-2012, 12:16 PM
The states of Colorado and Washington have voted to make recreational marijuana legal to 21-year-old residents as long as they only posses one ounce at a time. However, the NFL has told its players that live in these states they are not allowed to use marijuana despite the new laws. Is it right or wrong for the NFL to still make it a banned substance when it is legal in some playersí home states?

What does this mean for Denver Broncos and Seattle Seahawks players?

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has made it clear that these states legalizing marijuana will not change anything with the way the league handles drug testing and suspensions. Marijuana has always been on the NFLís substance abuse list and if tested positive for marijuana, a player faces up to a four-game suspension. NFL spokesman Greg Aiello says thatís not about the change


Read more at http://www.rantsports.com/nfl/2012/11/09/nfl-still-bans-denver-broncos-from-marijuana-use-even-when-its-legal-right-or-wrong/?7I3LsqbymkJcG7JO.99

DAN_BRONCO_FAN
11-09-2012, 12:17 PM
darn shame manning cant light a doobie up after a win

STBumpkin
11-09-2012, 12:18 PM
Military members in WA and CO cannot use it either. I agree with this, organizations should be able to make their own rules on this. I think something along the lines of our 12 hour bottle-to-brief rule should apply.

RhymesayersDU
11-09-2012, 12:19 PM
Organizations can make rules as they see fit, IMO.

Smiling Assassin27
11-09-2012, 12:19 PM
what a pity. could've been a HUGE FA recruiting tool.

sgbfan
11-09-2012, 12:19 PM
I agree with it. Its an unfair competitive advantage. Think of the FA signings we could get!

Man-Goblin
11-09-2012, 12:19 PM
No fun league.

Al Wilson
11-09-2012, 12:22 PM
NFL is its own league, and every player that is in the league has to follow its rules. Simple as it is.

socalorado
11-09-2012, 12:25 PM
What about employers hiring in these states?
Do they have the same standards that the military and Soprts organizations have?

Beantown Bronco
11-09-2012, 12:26 PM
Nothing they can do now. They allowed it to be included in the CBA last year.

If the players really want it, then they can deal with it the next time the CBA comes up for renewal. Maybe by then, more states will jump on board and it might make more sense to negotiate that point.

BroncoLifer
11-09-2012, 12:27 PM
It's not just the NFL -- the USA still bans marijuana. Generally speaking, the Feds are not impressed by state laws that conflict with federal.

Bigdawg26
11-09-2012, 12:27 PM
You can't smoke (which is legal now), but you can get wasted before and after every game!

Beantown Bronco
11-09-2012, 12:27 PM
What about employers hiring in these states?
Do they have the same standards that the military and Soprts organizations have?

They need to check their employment contracts, collective bargaining agreements, etc. Everyone in the private sector is different.

elsid13
11-09-2012, 12:27 PM
It remains a federal crime.

DBroncos4life
11-09-2012, 12:28 PM
I agree with it. Its an unfair competitive advantage. Think of the FA signings we could get!

How is it any different then the states that have no state sales taxes or other tax laws that favor the rich?

Garcia Bronco
11-09-2012, 12:32 PM
It's up to the NFL regardless of the Colorado Constitutional Law. The Feds have no jurisdiction over this provided it stays in the state.

uplink
11-09-2012, 12:33 PM
It is not performance enhancing. They shouldn't be able to ban players from using it in states where is legal. It now has the same status as alcohol these states, a legal drug. Its like the NFL banning alcohol use for its players.

BroncoLifer
11-09-2012, 12:37 PM
It's up to the NFL regardless of the Colorado Constitutional Law. The Feds have no jurisdiction over this provided it stays in the state.

You don't think the NFL is engaged in interstate commerce?

spiralism
11-09-2012, 12:38 PM
The states of Colorado and Washington have voted to make recreational marijuana legal to 21-year-old residents as long as they only posses one ounce at a time. However, the NFL has told its players that live in these states they are not allowed to use marijuana despite the new laws. Is it right or wrong for the NFL to still make it a banned substance when it is legal in some playersí home states?

What does this mean for Denver Broncos and Seattle Seahawks players?

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has made it clear that these states legalizing marijuana will not change anything with the way the league handles drug testing and suspensions. Marijuana has always been on the NFLís substance abuse list and if tested positive for marijuana, a player faces up to a four-game suspension. NFL spokesman Greg Aiello says thatís not about the change


Read more at http://www.rantsports.com/nfl/2012/11/09/nfl-still-bans-denver-broncos-from-marijuana-use-even-when-its-legal-right-or-wrong/?7I3LsqbymkJcG7JO.99

Well that's OK in fairness, substances banned by a sporting organisation arent necessarily illegal after all so the NFL is entitled to not allow it.

Garcia Bronco
11-09-2012, 12:38 PM
It's not just the NFL -- the USA still bans marijuana. Generally speaking, the Feds are not impressed by state laws that conflict with federal.

That's now up for legal debate. The President won't touch it though in any significant way IMO. It's now a big source of revenue in our state.

socalorado
11-09-2012, 12:38 PM
They need to check their employment contracts, collective bargaining agreements, etc. Everyone in the private sector is different.

So Police, Fire, Nurses, Dr.s can be stoned on the job if its part of their union or employment contracts?
Just asking. I really dont know.

Garcia Bronco
11-09-2012, 12:39 PM
You don't think the NFL is engaged in interstate commerce?

They are, but I was commenting on two issues. The second being the Federal Government's right to regulate a commodity in Colorado or any state.

DAN_BRONCO_FAN
11-09-2012, 12:40 PM
It remains a federal crime.

heres a good question


WHY?
how is marijuana more dangerous than alcohol mho it should have the same laws as drinking alcohol ie no driving while intoxicated

BroncoLifer
11-09-2012, 12:40 PM
That's now up for legal debate. The President won't touch it though in any significant way IMO. It's now a big source of revenue in our state.

There is no "legal debate". There may be a "should we actually enforce the laws?" debate, but that's a different thing.

Beantown Bronco
11-09-2012, 12:40 PM
So Police, Fire, Nurses, Dr.s can be stoned on the job if its part of their union or employment contracts?
Just asking. I really dont know.

Technically, yes, but it would NEVER be written in to a union contract for those types of workers that doing so was acceptable. One thing those folks will always have to concede as point #1 in their negotiation of those contracts are related to consequences of finding any trace of drugs (legal or not), alcohol, etc. in their blood while on the job.

socalorado
11-09-2012, 12:45 PM
Technically, yes, but it would NEVER be written in to a union contract for those types of workers. One thing those folks will always have to concede as point #1 in their negotiation of those contracts are related to any trace of drugs, alcohol, etc. in their blood.....legal or not.

That doesnt make sense.
If its a legal right to smoke weed in COLO and the union says its legal for their employess as part of collective barganing to smoke weed, then all of their union employees should be able to smoke weed. Period. Its legal.
Its just like booze. Its legal, and in their off-time they smoke weed.
Cause they can, cause its legal.

DAN_BRONCO_FAN
11-09-2012, 12:45 PM
Well that's OK in fairness, substances banned by a sporting organisation arent necessarily illegal after all so the NFL is entitled to not allow it.

well the nfl is a private org.
so they can make whatever rules they want .
if the players want to change it they would have to either threaten to strike or strike ,which i doubt they will. plus it is illegal on the federal level those idiots

Beantown Bronco
11-09-2012, 12:46 PM
That doesnt make sense.
If its a legal right to smoke weed in COLO and the union says its legal for their employess as part of collective barganing to smoke weed, then all of their union employees should be able to smoke weed. Period. Its legal.
Its just like booze. Its legal, and in their off-time they smoke weed.
Cause they can, cause its legal.

Huh? Where did I say otherwise?

Garcia Bronco
11-09-2012, 12:46 PM
There is no "legal debate". There may be a "should we actually enforce the laws?" debate, but that's a different thing.

There very much is a legal debate. The Federal Government is not enumerated to regulate marijuana in the US Constitution. In fact the use of the interstate commerce clause is a loose one at best. further, if the Feds think they're going to destroy a solid source of tax revenue for the State of Colorado and win elections...they'll get the business come election time. We're being a responsible state and there is no compelling legal argument to have it be illegal. None.

Brewer
11-09-2012, 12:47 PM
So Police, Fire, Nurses, Dr.s can be stoned on the job if its part of their union or employment contracts?
Just asking. I really dont know.

Yeah, and drunk, too. The ignorance runs high. The law does not REQUIRE marajuana use by all residents. It just decriminalized it to an extent. Don't like the law? Don't spark one. I think a lot of people in this thread would feel better if they sucked a bong. Me? Never tried it, don't care to, and especially don't care if others want to or not.

DAN_BRONCO_FAN
11-09-2012, 12:50 PM
That's now up for legal debate. The President won't touch it though in any significant way IMO. It's now a big source of revenue in our state.

umm yeah about that


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/09/usa-marijuana-legalization-idUSL1E8M905320121109

Nov 8 (Reuters) - Colorado's Republican attorney general said the state cannot collect taxes of up to 15 percent on pot sales without further voter approval, casting doubt on how quickly a new state measure legalizing recreational marijuana can be implemented.

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers has said that he would implement a voter-approved constitutional amendment legalizing the recreational use of marijuana by adults, although he personally opposed it. But he said the language of the measure conflicts with the state's Taxpayer Bill of Rights.

Jay3
11-09-2012, 12:50 PM
There is no legal right to smoke weed. It has been decriminalized in Colorado.

I think all employers should be able to test for it and ban it if they want to.

BroncoLifer
11-09-2012, 12:51 PM
There very much is a legal debate. The Federal Government is not enumerated to regulate marijuana in the US Constitution. In fact the use of the interstate commerce clause is a loose one at best. further, if the Feds think they're going to destroy a solid source of tax revenue for the State of Colorado and win elections...they'll get the business come election time. We're being a responsible state and there is no compelling legal argument to have it be illegal. None.

Good grief. You're mixing political arguments with legal.

socalorado
11-09-2012, 12:53 PM
Yeah, and drunk, too. The ignorance runs high. The law does not REQUIRE marajuana use by all residents. It just decriminalized it to an extent. Don't like the law? Don't spark one. I think a lot of people in this thread would feel better if they sucked a bong. Me? Never tried it, don't care to, and especially don't care if others want to or not.

I might have confused Beantown. Sorry Bean.
My question is can a Fire Fighter or a Doctor on his off time just spark up a doobie and smoke it in his backyard with other coworkers and not be prosecuted by some union or the state?

theAPAOps5
11-09-2012, 12:53 PM
What about employers hiring in these states?
Do they have the same standards that the military and Soprts organizations have?

Well, currently it is legal to buy alcohol in every state. Yet countless employers have specific regulations stating no alcohol use. This will be the same thing.

Houshyamama
11-09-2012, 12:54 PM
Right or wrong? That's kind of a deep discussion, let's keep it to whether it's legal or not.

Beantown Bronco
11-09-2012, 12:55 PM
There is no legal right to smoke weed. It has been decriminalized in Colorado.



This is incorrect.

They legalized it, which is very different from decriminalizing it. Decriminalizing it means that it is still subject to civil penalties/fines/tickets. In other words, you can still get a ticket from a cop if he sees you smoking a joint. Legalizing means you can smoke a joint legally and without the danger of receiving a ticket or being arrested, etc.

Colorado legalized it.

Jay3
11-09-2012, 12:56 PM
This is incorrect.

They legalized it, which is very different from decriminalizing it. Decriminalizing it means that it is still subject to civil penalties/fines/tickets. In other words, you can still get a ticket from a cop if he sees you smoking a joint. Legalizing means you can smoke a joint legally and without the danger of receiving a ticket or being arrested, etc.

Colorado legalized it.

Do you believe that the referendum created a legal right to smoke weed? A protected, enforceable, legal right to smoke weed?

Beantown Bronco
11-09-2012, 12:58 PM
I might have confused Beantown. Sorry Bean.
My question is can a Fire Fighter or a Doctor on his off time just spark up a doobie and smoke it in his backyard with other coworkers and not be prosecuted by some union or the state?

What theAPAOps5 said. However the employer currently deals with alcohol should be (but might not necessarily be in practice) how they deal with weed.

Doctors, nurses, police and firemen can drink and get drunk in their own home, but can't show up to work that way. It could easily be written into the next round of contracts that weed would be included in that class of drugs IMO. It's not a guarantee that it would pass (employees may have to concede some other point), but it could certainly be up for negotiation.

Beantown Bronco
11-09-2012, 12:59 PM
Do you believe that the referendum created a legal right to smoke weed? A protected, enforceable, legal right to smoke weed?

That's EXACTLY what happened.

socalorado
11-09-2012, 01:01 PM
Well, currently it is legal to buy alcohol in every state. Yet countless employers have specific regulations stating no alcohol use. This will be the same thing.

Here in CAL most city and counties have a NO-TOBACCO policy that city employees like fire fighters must sign or they will not be offered the job.
There have been a number of incidents where fire fighters have been fired because they brought in pictures from their vacation and they were smoking a cigarette in the pictures and were immediately tested, and fired.

This is why i am asking. Its a healthcare issue to these cities and counties.
Very expensive.

BroncoMan4ever
11-09-2012, 01:03 PM
What about employers hiring in these states?
Do they have the same standards that the military and Soprts organizations have?

Different businesses will have their own rules on how they feel about weed

mwill07
11-09-2012, 01:19 PM
what a pity. could've been a HUGE FA recruiting tool.

you know, it still may be.

If a player were driving down the road with some weed stashed in his pocket and got pulled over, any other state he's getting a ticket for possession which will make it to the teams attention, and he gets suspended.

In Colorado, the cop may issue a ticket for speeding, but possession of the weed will never make it to the police blotter...The NFL random drug testers are the only ones the players will have to look out for.

Further, all of the players family/friends/agents/hangers-on/etc. will be free to smoke whatever they want, so they've got that goin' for them.

baja
11-09-2012, 01:19 PM
Nothing they can do now. They allowed it to be included in the CBA last year.

If the players really want it, then they can deal with it the next time the CBA comes up for renewal. Maybe by then, more states will jump on board and it might make more sense to negotiate that point.

How many years before MJ is legal across the nation?

I say two more national election cycles

Beantown Bronco
11-09-2012, 01:29 PM
How many years before MJ is legal across the nation?

I say two more national election cycles

Fair guess.

I think Vegas needs to start taking action on 50 state legalization of weed vs gay marriage. My money's on weed.

Kaylore
11-09-2012, 01:42 PM
Considering selling pot is still a federal crime in certain amounts, and a private organization can make its own rules, yes, I think this is fair.

bronco militia
11-09-2012, 01:43 PM
the only jobs this thing is going to create this year are for the government; DEA agents and Lawyers

Drunken.Broncoholic
11-09-2012, 02:01 PM
How many people can't smoke cigarettes cause of their job? Personally I don't know why people would want broncos players to smoke. Last thing you want to do after smokin a blunt is work out. I'd rather have them perfecting their trade and body than cruising the Internet lookin for bong AVs.

crowebomber
11-09-2012, 02:02 PM
Employers are still going to drug test employees, and the employee does not have a legal leg to stand on if they come up hot for marijuana and are fired. If an employer doesn't want a pot smoker to work at his or her business, they don't have to. Just because it is legal doesn't mean that pot smokers now belong to some protected class such as minority groups.

Tombstone RJ
11-09-2012, 02:57 PM
The states of Colorado and Washington have voted to make recreational marijuana legal to 21-year-old residents as long as they only posses one ounce at a time. However, the NFL has told its players that live in these states they are not allowed to use marijuana despite the new laws. Is it right or wrong for the NFL to still make it a banned substance when it is legal in some playersí home states?

What does this mean for Denver Broncos and Seattle Seahawks players?

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has made it clear that these states legalizing marijuana will not change anything with the way the league handles drug testing and suspensions. Marijuana has always been on the NFLís substance abuse list and if tested positive for marijuana, a player faces up to a four-game suspension. NFL spokesman Greg Aiello says thatís not about the change


Read more at http://www.rantsports.com/nfl/2012/11/09/nfl-still-bans-denver-broncos-from-marijuana-use-even-when-its-legal-right-or-wrong/?7I3LsqbymkJcG7JO.99

The employer has the right to screen and ban substances, regardless if they are legal or not. CO's new law has no power to change this.

R8R H8R
11-09-2012, 02:59 PM
What the players do in the off-season(Jan-to mid April) is thier business; but once they report to the facitlity in mid-April, it better be out of thier system because they would be subject to testing. Just my $.02. :peace:

Tombstone RJ
11-09-2012, 03:32 PM
I foresee a lot of NFL and NBA players buying their second home in CO and WA...

oubronco
11-09-2012, 04:37 PM
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/557798_493694540663196_56933787_n.jpg

Agamemnon
11-09-2012, 04:46 PM
There is no "legal debate". There may be a "should we actually enforce the laws?" debate, but that's a different thing.

No it's more along the lines of "can we actually enforce the law?". They don't have enough DEA agents to even begin, and would then face serious jury nullification issues with Colorado jurors as soon as they brought any case to trial.

bowtown
11-09-2012, 04:47 PM
DOOOOOOON'T CAAAAAAAAARRE

Drek
11-09-2012, 05:06 PM
The employer has the right to screen and ban substances, regardless if they are legal or not. CO's new law has no power to change this.

So you think your employer should be allowed to fire you based on the fact that you drank alcohol on your free time? In no way having it impair your work, but just simply the fact that you did it should mean they can fire you.

cutthemdown
11-09-2012, 05:21 PM
It's right. The NFL is a private organization that makes its own rules for the most part. its an agreement between franchises to follow a set of rules set by comissioner through thw owners, with comittees etc etc.

Why would they have to change an agreement that all teams agreed to, just because of some voters in colo?

DENVERDUI55
11-09-2012, 05:25 PM
Nothing new here. A company can make their own rules.

DENVERDUI55
11-09-2012, 05:26 PM
So you think your employer should be allowed to fire you based on the fact that you drank alcohol on your free time? In no way having it impair your work, but just simply the fact that you did it should mean they can fire you.

Yes I can't drink 12 hours before work.

cutthemdown
11-09-2012, 05:27 PM
So you think your employer should be allowed to fire you based on the fact that you drank alcohol on your free time? In no way having it impair your work, but just simply the fact that you did it should mean they can fire you.

a private company can make emplyment rules as long as they don't infring on race, religion, age. They can for sure say no weed. You guys are kidding yourself if you think they cant. Places like construction etc will still have higher insurance if they dont test for weed.

The reason the started testing for weed had nothing to do with it being illegal. They started testing more and more as insurance companies made them. They don't want higher rates, get it higher rates.

Besides this law violates federal law and Obama wont want to bother with pissing off the justice dept. He will let them sue this law and have it be ruled in violation of federal law.

Sorry you guys but this is how its going down. Why care though legalized weed would just ruin it. They would regulate, tax the hell, probably limit its potency. Better to decriminalize and let govt make the money through sales tax from all the growers.

cutthemdown
11-09-2012, 05:29 PM
Nothing new here. A company can make their own rules.

Yep you are 100% correct. If the colo wants to let its state employees smoke weed they probably can. Its like people think the govt just rules the planet all the sudden. Private companies make their own rules for employment outside race, relgion, age, sex.

Drek
11-09-2012, 05:45 PM
Yes I can't drink 12 hours before work.

But you can still drink if you want. You just need to be able to pass a test that only applies to the window of intoxication.

So if instead of testing for THC-COOH, the non-intoxicating metabolite they currently test for, and instead tested for just straight THC, the real intoxicant, that would make complete sense. That test with a reasonable baseline threshold (like we use for alcohol testing) and we'd be all cool.

But unilaterally saying "you're fired for smokin' weed, period!" is wrong and discriminatory in a hypothetical world in which weed is legal across the board. Firing someone for being intoxicated with anything while on the job is legal, trying to dictate recreational activity is the domain of specialized, literal contracts that both parties agree to before hand (like pro athletes agreeing not to ride motorcycles, etc.)

a private company can make emplyment rules as long as they don't infring on race, religion, age. They can for sure say no weed. You guys are kidding yourself if you think they cant. Places like construction etc will still have higher insurance if they dont test for weed.

The reason the started testing for weed had nothing to do with it being illegal. They started testing more and more as insurance companies made them. They don't want higher rates, get it higher rates.

Besides this law violates federal law and Obama wont want to bother with pissing off the justice dept. He will let them sue this law and have it be ruled in violation of federal law.

Sorry you guys but this is how its going down. Why care though legalized weed would just ruin it. They would regulate, tax the hell, probably limit its potency. Better to decriminalize and let govt make the money through sales tax from all the growers.
1. I actually administer a random drug testing program for a mid-sized demolition, engineering, environmental services and remediation company. I know what most companies have for a policy.

2. From a legal standpoint in a world with legalized weed you would never be able to get away with a test for weed that someone would fail while not intoxicated, regardless of their use. That is the current case with alcohol. The test for it needs a threshold that only comes up positive for someone currently intoxicated. That makes complete sense, but it will not be acceptable to discriminate based on simply using weed. That is what the phrasing I'm questioning strongly implies.

DENVERDUI55
11-09-2012, 05:50 PM
But you can still drink if you want.

1. I actually administer a random drug testing program for a mid-sized demolition, engineering, environmental services and remediation company. I know what most companies have for a policy.

.

100% not true. I could get fired for drinking within 12 hours and have legal ramifications.

Drunken.Broncoholic
11-09-2012, 06:01 PM
100% not true. I could get fired for drinking within 12 hours and have legal ramifications.

I know some bar owners who do not hire anyone that drinks.. This is nothing new

Meck77
11-09-2012, 06:05 PM
I guess it's probably easier said than done but if someone is cutting me a $1,000,000 check to play 16 games, that's $62,500 a game, or $2,083/minute if I'm playing 30 minutes in that game.

I think I could wait until the off season to drink some crystal. Smokin dope at the risk of a Million dollars? You got to be f'n kidding me.

If I'm an owner cutting multi million dollar checks your ass better be clean and sober.

Tombstone RJ
11-09-2012, 06:11 PM
I guess it's probably easier said than done but if someone is cutting me a $1,000,000 check to play 16 games, that's $62,500 a game, or $2,083/minute if I'm playing 30 minutes in that game.

I think I could wait until the off season to drink some crystal. Smokin dope at the risk of a Million dollars? You got to be f'n kidding me.

If I'm an owner cutting multi million dollar checks your ass better be clean and sober.

yep, or go find a job somewhere else.

cutthemdown
11-09-2012, 06:13 PM
But you can still drink if you want. You just need to be able to pass a test that only applies to the window of intoxication.

So if instead of testing for THC-COOH, the non-intoxicating metabolite they currently test for, and instead tested for just straight THC, the real intoxicant, that would make complete sense. That test with a reasonable baseline threshold (like we use for alcohol testing) and we'd be all cool.

But unilaterally saying "you're fired for smokin' weed, period!" is wrong and discriminatory in a hypothetical world in which weed is legal across the board. Firing someone for being intoxicated with anything while on the job is legal, trying to dictate recreational activity is the domain of specialized, literal contracts that both parties agree to before hand (like pro athletes agreeing not to ride motorcycles, etc.)


1. I actually administer a random drug testing program for a mid-sized demolition, engineering, environmental services and remediation company. I know what most companies have for a policy.

2. From a legal standpoint in a world with legalized weed you would never be able to get away with a test for weed that someone would fail while not intoxicated, regardless of their use. That is the current case with alcohol. The test for it needs a threshold that only comes up positive for someone currently intoxicated. That makes complete sense, but it will not be acceptable to discriminate based on simply using weed. That is what the phrasing I'm questioning strongly implies.


Sorry but Colo isn't a world with legalized weed. Companies can just say they have to follow federal law. I'm not questioning your job but i work for a law firm. They will ban it the same way they did medical marijuana. By saying until feds say different we aren't budging.

cutthemdown
11-09-2012, 06:15 PM
Drek is in some hypothetical world where more then just 2 states said it was legal. Fact is federal law trumps state law. Until that changes companies in certain industries will still test for weed, and fire you for it.

*WARHORSE*
11-09-2012, 06:18 PM
Isnt the use and possession of marijuana a federal crime?

Lestat
11-09-2012, 06:18 PM
the NFL is a business and the players are employees.
outside of a hippie joint there isn't a boss in the world who is going to allow his employees to toke up and represent the business.

plus, let one of the players get high and get injured on the field or even worse, drive after the game and hurt someone. the PR nightmare would be insane.

*WARHORSE*
11-09-2012, 06:20 PM
Its still a federal crime to use marijuana. End of story.



I think.

Lestat
11-09-2012, 06:21 PM
Isnt the use and possession of marijuana a federal crime?

it's only a crime if you get caught.
before that it's a moral issue. crimes are committed everyday but the actual % of crimes that are prosecuted and convicted relative to the number of crimes that occur is ridiculous.

Bigdawg26
11-09-2012, 06:39 PM
Its still a federal crime to use marijuana. End of story.



I think.

Could it be a federal crime if its legal??

DENVERDUI55
11-09-2012, 06:41 PM
Could it be a federal crime if its legal??

Federal Law overrides state law.

cutthemdown
11-09-2012, 06:57 PM
Federal Law overrides state law.

Not only that but Obamas justice dept doesn't seem to be on the side of legalization. Not sure Obama really wants to fight conservatives over this right now. Fiscal cliff, new budget, job creation, immigration, implementing healthcare reform. They have to set up the exchanges really soon and i read they aren't close to ready in most states.

I think Obama says no to worrying about weed legalization right now. I'm not even sure how he would go about it. Not sure the president can just decree something like that.

cutthemdown
11-09-2012, 06:59 PM
Repubs arent done playing politics just yet. Not like dems gave up because GWB won 2 in a row. Repubs will push immigration reform, hold firm on raising taxes. Immigration the logical place to look for a change.

Drunken.Broncoholic
11-09-2012, 07:06 PM
Repubs arent done playing politics just yet. Not like dems gave up because GWB won 2 in a row. Repubs will push immigration reform, hold firm on raising taxes. Immigration the logical place to look for a change.

Or everyone will just bitter after they lose their jobs by their employers. We're dropping 5 employees After 1st of the year and I imagine many more business owners will do the same

Lestat
11-09-2012, 07:15 PM
it will be a struggle for the next 2 or so years. there will be a lot of gridlocked and hand tying issues floating around politics.

Mogulseeker
11-09-2012, 08:09 PM
If lifestyle were a selling point for players, then the CU Buffs would be annual NCAA title contenders.

rbackfactory80
11-09-2012, 08:14 PM
'Legalize it, don't criticize it"

They do call it the NATIONAL football league for a reason though...

teknic
11-09-2012, 08:22 PM
If lifestyle were a selling point for players, then the CU Buffs would be annual NCAA title contenders.

It seems to work pretty well for Oregon.

Garcia Bronco
11-09-2012, 08:30 PM
Employers are still going to drug test employees, and the employee does not have a legal leg to stand on if they come up hot for marijuana and are fired. If an employer doesn't want a pot smoker to work at his or her business, they don't have to. Just because it is legal doesn't mean that pot smokers now belong to some protected class such as minority groups.

The problem is there are no tests that show you are under the influence of pot.

elsid13
11-09-2012, 08:33 PM
You don't think the NFL is engaged in interstate commerce?

It not about about interstate commerce, the NFL and other professional sports leagues in this country have been granted exemption from Federal Anti-trust laws by Congress. By knowingly allow members to engage in illegal federal act, that anti-trust status is put in jeopardy.

Tombstone RJ
11-09-2012, 08:47 PM
The problem is there are no tests that show you are under the influence of pot.

other than red eyes, dry mouth and an insatiable appetite for oreo cookies. Other than that, nope.;)

Drunken.Broncoholic
11-09-2012, 08:58 PM
Growing your hair out is perfectly legal. Getting a tattoo on your face is perfectly legal. Both will get you fired at several jobs. Companies and employers can and should be able to set their own guidelines.

errand
11-09-2012, 09:19 PM
If they follow NY's lead (with cigarettes) they'll tax the hell out of it, but make it to where you can't smoke it anywhere but at your own home, and then bitch about the shortfall on tax revenue as people figure what the hell...might as well chew gum.

errand
11-09-2012, 09:25 PM
Growing your hair out is perfectly legal. Getting a tattoo on your face is perfectly legal. Both will get you fired at several jobs. Companies and employers can and should be able to set their own guidelines.

This^

Nobody is forcing anyone play in the NFL...or work anywhere else.

montrose
11-09-2012, 09:40 PM
Was speaking hypothetically with 2 former NFLers and a current NBAer. They all agreed if players on a team didn't have to be tested for weed due to state law- it would be a greater recruiting advantage than big markets have in the NBA.

Bigdawg26
11-09-2012, 09:46 PM
Growing your hair out is perfectly legal. Getting a tattoo on your face is perfectly legal. Both will get you fired at several jobs. Companies and employers can and should be able to set their own guidelines.

That's not entirely true! Depending on where you work it can get you fired (although I'm pretty sure that's discrimination). Somebody with a face tattoo and/or long hair can get jobs working in the entertainment industry, department stores, and other places. I mean I work in a laboratory and I see people (with and about to receive Ph.D.'s) with long hair, piercings, and alot of tattoos.

Jay3
11-09-2012, 09:53 PM
That's EXACTLY what happened.

So, for example, I wouldn't be able to disallow smoking weed on my property? It's a protected, enforceable, right to smoke weed, such that no other relationships -- property, contract, employment, etc. -- can come into play? It has been exalted to the level of a religion, I take it?

I'm not bothering to read the thing. It feels kind of like you're wrong about that. I'm just using the Force to detect that.

Jay3
11-09-2012, 09:55 PM
This is why people don't want to legalize it -- dopeheads claim they just want to be left alone and able to smoke weed. But give them one inch and they're suddenly claiming they have an unfettered right to to stuff reefer joints in a baby's nostril.

JPPT1974
11-09-2012, 10:07 PM
Hope we never see Manning use marijuana or any other players. As that would be a bad role modeling for the kids that look up to them!

Lestat
11-09-2012, 10:09 PM
This is why people don't want to legalize it -- dopeheads claim they just want to be left alone and able to smoke weed. But give them one inch and they're suddenly claiming they have an unfettered right to to stuff reefer joints in a baby's nostril.

this is my problem with it as well. once you legalize it morons will claim they should be free to smoke it everywhere you can smoke a cigarette and etc.
then you'll have more idiots driving while stoned, getting into wrecks and claiming it was their legal right to do so.

i know there are plenty of people who only smoke in their own private home and those will be responsible and fine once it's legal.
it's the idiots who think they have no moral or legal obligations that worry me.

Lestat
11-09-2012, 10:10 PM
Hope we never see Manning use marijuana or any other players. As that would be a bad role modeling for the kids that look up to them!

http://specevents.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/snoop.jpg

Drunken.Broncoholic
11-09-2012, 10:13 PM
That's not entirely true! Depending on where you work it can get you fired (although I'm pretty sure that's discrimination). Somebody with a face tattoo and/or long hair can get jobs working in the entertainment industry, department stores, and other places. I mean I work in a laboratory and I see people (with and about to receive Ph.D.'s) with long hair, piercings, and alot of tattoos.

Ya chances are they had them when hired. But it's up to the company and employer as to whether or not they want them as an employee. You most certainly can have long hair and face tats in the entertainment industry, labs and other jobs. Try growing long hair and getting a face tat if you're a cop. Ain't gonna happen. Grounds for termination written in their guidelines.

Jay3
11-09-2012, 10:15 PM
this is my problem with it as well. once you legalize it morons will claim they should be free to smoke it everywhere you can smoke a cigarette and etc.
then you'll have more idiots driving while stoned, getting into wrecks and claiming it was their legal right to do so.

i know there are plenty of people who only smoke in their own private home and those will be responsible and fine once it's legal.
it's the idiots who think they have no moral or legal obligations that worry me.

Amsterdam, that font of wisdom and light unto the world, has had a much more limited deployment of the wacky tobacky. Licensed clubs, authorized locations only, etc.

They respect the need of a society to get along with different subcultures. I think we ought to have the ability to preserve the climate we have for families that don't want to be around it, don't want to find themselves immersed in a pot culture.

I don't intend to ever be friends with a pot user, or to continue polite conversation in a place where it's being smoked. And there's a lot of people that feel the same way as me, but won't have the guts to say it.

So we just need to find a way for the pot smokers to get that weed that they love and think is so important. My acceptance, my approval, they cannot have. Don't see why they would want it -- but you watch. They will push into the public square and the employment arena with a victim mentality. One more group we have to deal with that sees the world as a giant source of rights for them.

lonestar
11-10-2012, 12:03 AM
Considering it is against federal law. IIRC still a banned substance under the CBA.

I do not understand why it would be an issue..

If the NFL does allow team members of Of two teams to use then what about those visiting players before of after games. To or from the airport.

Laws are laws rules are rules.

If it is that important for you to light up then quit your multi-million dollar NFL contract and do so.

In that context then it is probably not all that important.

lonestar
11-10-2012, 12:05 AM
If lifestyle were a selling point for players, then the CU Buffs would be annual NCAA title contenders.

Probably why they are not. One of the reasons they suck.

lonestar
11-10-2012, 12:08 AM
this is my problem with it as well. once you legalize it morons will claim they should be free to smoke it everywhere you can smoke a cigarette and etc.
then you'll have more idiots driving while stoned, getting into wrecks and claiming it was their legal right to do so.

i know there are plenty of people who only smoke in their own private home and those will be responsible and fine once it's legal.
it's the idiots who think they have no moral or legal obligations that worry me.

You are correct the idiots are who you should be worried about.

That said drunks still kill thousands a year. Cause billions in damage and yet it is still legal for other morons to use.

DBroncos4life
11-10-2012, 12:19 AM
This is why people don't want to legalize it -- dopeheads claim they just want to be left alone and able to smoke weed. But give them one inch and they're suddenly claiming they have an unfettered right to to stuff reefer joints in a baby's nostril.
http://m.upi.com/story/UPI-55851304608184/


You tell him he should go to prison.

DAN_BRONCO_FAN
11-10-2012, 02:56 AM
this is my problem with it as well. once you legalize it morons will claim they should be free to smoke it everywhere you can smoke a cigarette and etc.
then you'll have more idiots driving while stoned, getting into wrecks and claiming it was their legal right to do so.

i know there are plenty of people who only smoke in their own private home and those will be responsible and fine once it's legal.
it's the idiots who think they have no moral or legal obligations that worry me.

then apply the laws for drunk driving toward smokin weed too.

its legal to use sleeping pills or drugs that make you loopy but you can be arrested for driving while impaired i believe

hambone13
11-10-2012, 04:27 AM
You are correct the idiots are who you should be worried about.

That said drunks still kill thousands a year. Cause billions in damage and yet it is still legal for other morons to use.

Do you know how many more people are killed by soccer Moms talking to their girlfriends on their cell phones every year? Distraction can't be measured but it is the big killer.

Jay3
11-10-2012, 05:39 AM
Do you know how many more people are killed by soccer Moms talking to their girlfriends on their cell phones every year? Distraction can't be measured but it is the big killer.

That's crazy talk. We lose about 40 people a day to alcohol-related deaths on the road. It is by far the greatest contributor to fatal accidents.

Beantown Bronco
11-10-2012, 05:47 AM
So, for example, I wouldn't be able to disallow smoking weed on my property? It's a protected, enforceable, right to smoke weed, such that no other relationships -- property, contract, employment, etc. -- can come into play? It has been exalted to the level of a religion, I take it?

I'm not bothering to read the thing. It feels kind of like you're wrong about that. I'm just using the Force to detect that.

No, no, no.

Why are you having so much trouble with this?

100 other posters in this thread are making it clear. We're all on the same page but you. Now that weed has been legalized, you as a person can legally smoke it, but your employer can also enforce his legal rights to fire you for it (unless you have a signed contract with him/her that says you can smoke it and not be fired for it). "Legal" and "allowable on the job" are two different things.

Beantown Bronco
11-10-2012, 05:49 AM
This is why people don't want to legalize it -- dopeheads claim they just want to be left alone and able to smoke weed. But give them one inch and they're suddenly claiming they have an unfettered right to to stuff reefer joints in a baby's nostril.

Because every time I crack open a beer, I look for the nearest baby's bottle to fill up......

Why are you being so inconsistent?

Rock Chalk
11-10-2012, 08:42 AM
It is not performance enhancing. They shouldn't be able to ban players from using it in states where is legal. It now has the same status as alcohol these states, a legal drug. Its like the NFL banning alcohol use for its players.

Except that you know, alcohol is not prohibited in any state or at the federal level and weed is still illegal nationally.

How is the NFL saying no to a federally illegal substance anything at all like them saying you cant drink alcohol which is completely legal for anyone over the age of 21 anywhere in the United States?

bowtown
11-10-2012, 08:58 AM
So, for example, I wouldn't be able to disallow smoking weed on my property? It's a protected, enforceable, right to smoke weed, such that no other relationships -- property, contract, employment, etc. -- can come into play? It has been exalted to the level of a religion, I take it?

I'm not bothering to read the thing. It feels kind of like you're wrong about that. I'm just using the Force to detect that.

What are you even talking about? You do realize something can be legal with limits and regulations, right? You can't drink beer everywhere, you can't smoke everywhere. Neither are decriminalized though, they are legal.

Beantown Bronco
11-10-2012, 09:06 AM
What are you even talking about? You do realize something can be legal with limits and regulations, right? You can't drink beer everywhere, you can't smoke everywhere. Neither are decriminalized though, they are legal.

By his bringing the topic of religion into play, it leads me to believe he's confusing the process of legalizing something with the process of making something a legally protected class.

DAN_BRONCO_FAN
11-10-2012, 09:06 AM
lemme simplify this :
state law says you can now smoke weed.
federal law says no you cant.
employers can say no you cant smoke weed.
nfl says no you cant either.
lighting a doobie and smoking can impair your judgement
driving while intoxicated or recklessly is illegal
do not smoke and drive you stoners lol

bronco militia
11-10-2012, 09:51 AM
lemme simplify this :
state law says you can now smoke weed.
federal law says no you cant.
employers can say no you cant smoke weed.
nfl says no you cant either.
lighting a doobie and smoking can impair your judgement
driving while intoxicated or recklessly is illegal
do not smoke and drive you stoners lol

/thread

ChampBailey24
11-10-2012, 09:59 AM
This is why people don't want to legalize it -- dopeheads claim they just want to be left alone and able to smoke weed. But give them one inch and they're suddenly claiming they have an unfettered right to to stuff reefer joints in a baby's nostril.

you're an idiot

teknic
11-10-2012, 10:04 AM
Amsterdam, that font of wisdom and light unto the world, has had a much more limited deployment of the wacky tobacky. Licensed clubs, authorized locations only, etc.

They respect the need of a society to get along with different subcultures. I think we ought to have the ability to preserve the climate we have for families that don't want to be around it, don't want to find themselves immersed in a pot culture.

I don't intend to ever be friends with a pot user, or to continue polite conversation in a place where it's being smoked. And there's a lot of people that feel the same way as me, but won't have the guts to say it.

So we just need to find a way for the pot smokers to get that weed that they love and think is so important. My acceptance, my approval, they cannot have. Don't see why they would want it -- but you watch. They will push into the public square and the employment arena with a victim mentality. One more group we have to deal with that sees the world as a giant source of rights for them.

Your ignorance is amazing.

Drunken.Broncoholic
11-10-2012, 11:07 AM
I'm assuming universities will not allow it either. College kids are in for a big surprise if they think they can smoke weed. Last thing universities want is federal funding to dry up by allowing a federal law to be broken.

Wonder if you can spark up at the resorts? Now people don't need to hide in the woods off the runs. Or since its on private land it can be banned too? Lots of things to watch play out

nyuk nyuk
11-10-2012, 11:16 AM
States can pass all the local laws they want. It's still illegal on a federal level and therefore illegal, period. You can pass a state law right now to bar blacks from voting, but guess what?

Yes, that's right, you can't do that.

Ironlung
11-10-2012, 11:17 AM
Wow...there's no shortage of ridiculous posts in here.

nyuk nyuk
11-10-2012, 11:19 AM
then apply the laws for drunk driving toward smokin weed too.

its legal to use sleeping pills or drugs that make you loopy but you can be arrested for driving while impaired i believe

They already do.

DAN_BRONCO_FAN
11-10-2012, 12:32 PM
They already do.

btw i voted for that law but at the same time you shouldn't toke and drive your judgement will be impaired .
you shouldn't let children use it
legal limit should be 18
shouldn't be allowed in schools or places that prohibit intoxicating substances ie operating heavy machinery.
the feds can still bust you so toke in public at your own risk .
LEGALIZE MARIJUANA ON A FEDERAL LEVEL
:puff:

DAN_BRONCO_FAN
11-10-2012, 12:33 PM
to the people who think marijuana is so bad tell all of us why you think its bad, and back it up with hard true facts !

Drunken.Broncoholic
11-10-2012, 12:53 PM
to the people who think marijuana is so bad tell all of us why you think its bad, and back it up with hard true facts !

My uncle died of lung cancer. Never smoked a cigarette in his life but smoked alot of weed. Doctors said it was the weed. My cousin died in a car accident where the driver was high on weed. Don't give me this not bad crap when clearly it affects innocent people.

teknic
11-10-2012, 12:54 PM
to the people who think marijuana is so bad tell all of us why you think its bad, and back it up with hard true facts !

There are no "true facts" to support that cannabis is bad. It is possibly the most useful plant in history for its medicinal value and also for the manufacture of myriad consumer goods, especially textiles.

List of scientific studies on the medicinal value of cannabinoids:
http://www.letfreedomgrow.com/cmu/GrannysListJan2012.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jO_ncXj7RE

teknic
11-10-2012, 12:59 PM
My uncle died of lung cancer. Never smoked a cigarette in his life but smoked alot of weed. Doctors said it was the weed. My cousin died in a car accident where the driver was high on weed. Don't give me this not bad crap when clearly it affects innocent people.

It's unhealthy to smoke anything. It's a crude combustion process because it doesn't occur at a high enough thermodynamic temperature, or in an environment with excess oxygen. This "dirty" combustion creates a lot of unwanted byproducts including Nitrogen oxides, which are harmful. That being said, many of the cannabinoids present in the plant have been shown to have significant anti-carcinogenic affect. Most people who use cannabis for medicinal purposes either use a vaporizer or make edibles, thereby avoiding any of the negative health effects.

Prohibition has hurt more people than legalization EVER willl.

OBF1
11-10-2012, 01:05 PM
lemme simplify this :
state law says you can now smoke weed.
federal law says no you cant.
employers can say no you cant smoke weed.
nfl says no you cant either.
lighting a doobie and smoking can impair your judgement
driving while intoxicated or recklessly is illegal
do not smoke and drive you stoners lol


The vote was Tuesday, So now the LAW currently reads you can now smoke, or did just the vote pass and the state still needs to implement it?

Either way, I am laughing my ass off, Colorado is so damn close to becoming what it hates most in the world..... CALIFORNIA with no beach ROFL!

Drunken.Broncoholic
11-10-2012, 01:07 PM
It's unhealthy to smoke anything. It's a crude combustion process because it doesn't occur at a high enough thermodynamic temperature, or in an environment with excess oxygen. This "dirty" combustion creates a lot of unwanted byproducts including Nitrogen oxides, which are harmful. That being said, many of the cannabinoids present in the plant have been shown to have significant anti-carcinogenic affect. Most people who use cannabis for medicinal purposes either use a vaporizer or make edibles, thereby avoiding any of the negative health effects.

Prohibition has hurt more people than legalization EVER willl.


Not only does it cause lung cancer it is now widely known to increase the cause of testicular cancer in young males. I've seen permanent damage that its causes to my family. People can tell me it's harmless and beneficial, but not to me. I have 2 family members gone as a direct result.

Drunken.Broncoholic
11-10-2012, 01:10 PM
The vote was Tuesday, So now the LAW currently reads you can now smoke, or did just the vote pass and the state still needs to implement it?

Either way, I am laughing my ass off, Colorado is so damn close to becoming what it hates most in the world..... CALIFORNIA with no beach ROFL!

California policies mirror the presidents. Everyone sees how California is ****ed up. People just need to look at Cali in what they have to look forward to.

cutthemdown
11-10-2012, 01:15 PM
Companies are working on tests to determine if you are high. Whoever makes the best one that passes the muster in a courtroom will be really rich.

Jay3
11-10-2012, 01:16 PM
What are you even talking about? You do realize something can be legal with limits and regulations, right? You can't drink beer everywhere, you can't smoke everywhere. Neither are decriminalized though, they are legal.

That's precisely the distinction I was drawing -- something can be legal to do, that doesn't mean you have a protected, enforceable right to do it.

It's not an obscure point -- it will come up, in the employment setting. Certain kinds of employers will maintain the policy of no dope.

teknic
11-10-2012, 01:52 PM
Not only does it cause lung cancer it is now widely known to increase the cause of testicular cancer in young males. I've seen permanent damage that its causes to my family. People can tell me it's harmless and beneficial, but not to me. I have 2 family members gone as a direct result.

both of your claims are completely false.

Drunken.Broncoholic
11-10-2012, 01:57 PM
both of your claims are completely false.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48969102/ns/health-mens_health/t/dude-its-your-junk-pot-linked-testicular-cancer/


Tell that to my uncle.

Scientists claims > you

Bronco Yoda
11-10-2012, 02:20 PM
http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu241/Milarc/yoda-smoking-weed.jpg

Talking about again, what were we, hmm?

teknic
11-10-2012, 02:37 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48969102/ns/health-mens_health/t/dude-its-your-junk-pot-linked-testicular-cancer/


Tell that to my uncle.

Scientists claims > you

It's funny that you consider that study to be the claims of scientists. Any academic would disagree with you. The sample size is too small, with too many statistical outliers, no control is present, and no variable was isolated. To draw a clear conclusion from that data is laughable and subject to confirmation bias. I had previously seen that study mentioned, but I have also seen numerous sources discredit the methodology of that study.

If you actually care about studies that follow the scientific method, thereby providing reliable, replicable results, check out the literally THOUSANDS of academic studies that disagree with you.
http://www.letfreedomgrow.com/cmu/GrannysListJan2012.pdf

In regards to your uncle, I don't mean to be insensitive, but you're missing the point. There is no known carcinogen present in cannabis. The use of cannabis did not cause his cancer, the act of inhaling the byproducts of crude combustion did. If you were to smoke ANY plant, it would increase the risk of lung cancer. This isn't because the plants are carcinogenic, but rather the byproducts of combustion are. If he had used a vaporizer or ingested the cannabis instead, then he would not have developed the lung cancer. Many of the compounds present in cannabis have been shown to inhibit tumor growth and destroy cancer cells.

In short, you're wrong.

Drunken.Broncoholic
11-10-2012, 02:53 PM
It's funny that you consider that study to be the claims of scientists. Any academic would disagree with you. The sample size is too small, with too many statistical outliers, no control is present, and no variable was isolated. To draw a clear conclusion from that data is laughable and subject to confirmation bias. I had previously seen that study mentioned, but I have also seen numerous sources discredit the methodology of that study.

If you actually care about studies that follow the scientific method, thereby providing reliable, replicable results, check out the literally THOUSANDS of academic studies that disagree with you.
http://www.letfreedomgrow.com/cmu/GrannysListJan2012.pdf

In regards to your uncle, I don't mean to be insensitive, but you're missing the point. There is no known carcinogen present in cannabis. The use of cannabis did not cause his cancer, the act of inhaling the byproducts of crude combustion did. If you were to smoke ANY plant, it would increase the risk of lung cancer. This isn't because the plants are carcinogenic, but rather the byproducts of combustion are. If he had used a vaporizer or ingested the cannabis instead, then he would not have developed the lung cancer. Many of the compounds present in cannabis have been shown to inhibit tumor growth and destroy cancer cells.

In short, you're wrong.


I'm not going to get in an arguement with you. If you want my uncles doctors phone numbers you can argue with them. Many of the carcinogen and co-carcinogens found in tobacco smoke are also found in marijuana smoke.

teknic
11-10-2012, 02:54 PM
I'm not going to get in an arguement with you. If you want my uncles doctors phone numbers you can argue with them. Many of the carcinogen and co-carcinogens found in tobacco smoke are also found in marijuana smoke.

In the smoke.

You're still missing the point.

Drunken.Broncoholic
11-10-2012, 02:58 PM
In the smoke.

You're still missing the point.

So you're saying to eat it in brownies and you'll be fine. Got it.

This doesn't change anything. My entire Point is saying if you SMOKE it.

bowtown
11-10-2012, 02:59 PM
That's precisely the distinction I was drawing -- something can be legal to do, that doesn't mean you have a protected, enforceable right to do it.

It's not an obscure point -- it will come up, in the employment setting. Certain kinds of employers will maintain the policy of no dope.

Yes, of course it will, but pretty much every single thing that is legal to do in our society has rules and regulations around them, but they are legal. That's not the same thing as decriminalization.

teknic
11-10-2012, 03:00 PM
So you're saying to eat it in brownies and you'll be fine. Got it.

I'm saying that if you smoke anything, it will increase your chance of developing lung cancer. If the combustion were ideal, there wouldn't be any issue. Because our world is not ideal, the combustion doesn't occur in an environment with excess oxygen, or at a temperature high enough to destroy the by-products. Those by-products are responsible for the carcinogens in smoke.

To claim that cannabis causes cancer is factually incorrect. It actually does the opposite.

Play2win
11-10-2012, 03:02 PM
http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu241/Milarc/yoda-smoking-weed.jpg

Talking about again, what were we, hmm?

Actually if Yoda was stoned, he would probably just say:

"What were we talking about?"

Drunken.Broncoholic
11-10-2012, 03:04 PM
I'm saying that if you smoke anything, it will increase your chance of developing lung cancer. If the combustion were ideal, there wouldn't be any issue. Because our world is not ideal, the combustion doesn't occur in an environment with excess oxygen, or at a temperature high enough to destroy the by-products. Those by-products are responsible for the carcinogens in smoke.

To claim that cannabis causes cancer is factually incorrect. It actually does the opposite.


My entire point in here is about smoking it. When I said it cause problems I'm saying it when smoking it. So when I said it increases testicular cancer I'm saying it does when you smoke it. I thought this was plainly clear by being in a thread about smoking it.

teknic
11-10-2012, 03:08 PM
My entire point in here is about smoking it. When I said it cause problems I'm saying it when smoking it. So when I said it increases testicular cancer I'm saying it does when you smoke it. I thought this was plainly clear by being in a thread about smoking it.

Your claim was that cannabis causes cancer. I asserted that it is not the plant which is responsible for the cancer, but the actual act of smoking it. You don't have to smoke it, so claiming that cannabis is carcinogenic is simply incorrect.

By the way, how is this thread about smoking cannabis?
Thread title: NFL Still Bans Denver Broncos From Marijuana Use Even When Itís Legal; Right Or Wrong?

Nothing was implied about the method of use. If you chose to interpret it in that way, that is due to your ignorance. Last time I checked, smoking is not the only method of use.

Drunken.Broncoholic
11-10-2012, 03:09 PM
Your claim was that cannabis causes cancer. I asserted that it is not the plant which is responsible for the cancer, but the actual act of smoking it. You don't have to smoke it, so claiming that cannabis is carcinogenic is simply incorrect.

By the way, how is this thread about smoking cannabis?
Thread title: NFL Still Bans Denver Broncos From Marijuana Use Even When Itís Legal; Right Or Wrong?

Nothing was implied about the method of use. If you chose to interpret it in that way, that is due to your ignorance. Last time I checked, smoking is not the only method of use.

Did I ever say the word "cannabis" before your first post? If I did I'd like to see it.


"It" meant marijuana to me cannabis to you. Guess I should post in crayon next time

teknic
11-10-2012, 03:13 PM
Did I ever say the word "cannabis" before your first post? If I did I'd like to see it.

Sorry, I prefer to use the proper term for the plant, rather than the pejorative term "marijuana" (or "marihuana"), which has racist connotations.

Tim
11-10-2012, 03:13 PM
Marijuana sounds like a cure all, I might start doing it so I'll live longer.

teknic
11-10-2012, 03:13 PM
Did I ever say the word "cannabis" before your first post? If I did I'd like to see it.


"It" meant marijuana to me cannabis to you. Guess I should post in crayon next time

Ignorance.

Drunken.Broncoholic
11-10-2012, 03:13 PM
Ignorance.

Canadian

teknic
11-10-2012, 03:15 PM
Canadian

Yes, I am.

That doesn't change the point that you are completely wrong though.

DAN_BRONCO_FAN
11-10-2012, 03:30 PM
alcohol causes brain damages if done in excess too. so why should marijuana be banned. should anything that might harm a person be banned ?
im 100% for legalizing marijuana also lowing the age to 18 for drinking toking just to be clear on my views .
as far as the nfl goes they have every right to make their own rules on what you can cannot do , i dont agree with it if it dont interfere with performance .

bronco militia
11-10-2012, 03:32 PM
i've got nothing against weed, but this is going to be one big cluster ****. nice going, dumb asses

:cuss:

Jay3
11-10-2012, 03:33 PM
Yes, of course it will, but pretty much every single thing that is legal to do in our society has rules and regulations around them, but they are legal. That's not the same thing as decriminalization.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make -- you asked me "what are you even talking about?" and I tried to clarify. Don't think I can anymore.

This whole thread is supposed to be about whether we think the NFL is "right or wrong" to maintain its policy, and I'm saying I think they're right. I don't know what how the semantics come into it.

If I had to guess, I'd say you feel strongly that it should be clarified the difference between something being "legalized" and "decriminalized." But I thought that got really well clarified right early in the thread.

Can you finish the thought? Are you saying that based on a semantic distinction, the NFL is not within its legal rights to maintain its policy? Because I figure the courts will sort that out if in fact this one state changing means that nationwide employers are required to allow pot smoking. I thought we were just weighing on what we thought was right or wrong.

I do not believe that legalizing the smoking weed creates a protected, enforceable right to smoke it -- all sorts of other rights, such as property rights, contract rights, etc, will come into play to limit the ability of people to smoke it and still be wherever or do whatever they want. There will still be places, jobs, and organizations that say "we don't allow that," and "but it is legal" will not be enough to override that pronouncement.

DAN_BRONCO_FAN
11-10-2012, 03:38 PM
why dont we settle the marijuana causes cancer by providing a link that is credible and deals with medical studies.
couldone weed dealer be adding other substances to the marijuana

Dedhed
11-10-2012, 03:40 PM
So Police, Fire, Nurses, Dr.s can be stoned on the job if its part of their union or employment contracts?
Just asking. I really dont know.

Are Poilice, Fire, Drs, Nurses allowed to drink on the job under union contracts?

Dedhed
11-10-2012, 03:45 PM
Did I ever say the word "cannabis" before your first post? If I did I'd like to see it.


"It" meant marijuana to me cannabis to you. Guess I should post in crayon next time

You should clearly be looked at as a credible source in this argument.



/sarcasm

lonestar
11-10-2012, 04:01 PM
Do you know how many more people are killed by soccer Moms talking to their girlfriends on their cell phones every year? Distraction can't be measured but it is the big killer.

I do not disagree with this premise, even listening to the radio, changing channels, texting and kids or animals in the car are issues.

But those are momentary issues being drunk or high start when they get in the car and end with either an accident or by the Grace of God they get where they are going safely.

Myself I'd rather have the former rather than the latter next to me on the road. The odds are much better.

DAN_BRONCO_FAN
11-10-2012, 04:16 PM
dont get why people are being silly and saying oh if marijuana is legal it would then be a green light for doctors nurses police officers paramedics to get high WHILE ON THE JOB when alcohol is legal and they are NOT ALLOWED TO BE DRUNK ON THE JOB nor do i see why it shouldn't be legal with the excuse people will drive and toke when again DRIVING WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ANYTHING THAT WILL IMPAIR YOUR JUDGEMENT IS ILLEGAL even talking texting doing make up while driving is cause for being pulled over ticketed !
it is stupid and dangerous, ILLEGAL to do anything that will distract or impair your judgement while driving. now come up with another excuse why marijuana should not be legal. :)

Jay3
11-10-2012, 04:17 PM
Myself I'd rather have the former rather than the latter next to me on the road. The odds are much better.

The odds are overwhelmingly better -- alchohol related accidents are one of the biggest causes of untimely deaths in the country. It's very, very significant.

Drunken.Broncoholic
11-10-2012, 04:26 PM
You should clearly be looked at as a credible source in this argument.



/sarcasm



Says the guy who wanted tebow over manning. You shouldn't even be able to spell credible, let alone critique someone else's.

Bronco X
11-10-2012, 06:53 PM
I don't have any problem with employers setting rules that employees can't use marijuana, even in their free time... for now. Ultimately, marijuana should be treated exactly like alcohol and most would object to an employer stating that their employers shouldn't drink in their free time. But it's going to be a long process to get society to open their minds and see this logically... Prop 64 is a big step in the right direction but it doesn't do anyone any good to expect the rest of the dominoes to fall right away.

lonestar
11-10-2012, 07:37 PM
The odds are overwhelmingly better -- alchohol related accidents are one of the biggest causes of untimely deaths in the country. It's very, very significant.

I can say that anytime I've had something to drink inide of two hours I have never drove.

Now I'm no longer a drinker other than an occasional glass of Asti, sake or baileys. So it has been easy for me. I usually am the DD driver because I made it clear to my friends that I do not have to imbibe to have a good time.

After a couple of really crap faced drunk episodes, I figured out that I can be my self and not drink. In other words do not have to drink to loosen my tongue nor inhibitions.

Those are the biggie reason that folks drink in excess, to feel better. To be their yahoo self and still be able to blame the booze or drugs.

I got past that point and just am at peace with who I am.

Saved a ton of money over the past 30+ years. Now when I drink a glass or two it is because I enjoy the taste and not because I want to dull the pain.

I do not understand why others feel the need to be out of their skins. Other than they do not like themselves all that much.

Donning my asbestos suit. Fire away.

Drunken.Broncoholic
11-10-2012, 07:42 PM
I can say that anytime I've had something to drink inide of two hours I have never drove.

Now I'm no longer a drinker other than an occasional glass of Asti, sake or baileys. So it has been easy for me..



Sake. Yummmm. Love it hot

lonestar
11-10-2012, 07:54 PM
I don't have any problem with employers setting rules that employees can't use marijuana, even in their free time... for now. Ultimately, marijuana should be treated exactly like alcohol and most would object to an employer stating that their employers shouldn't drink in their free time. But it's going to be a long process to get society to open their minds and see this logically... Prop 64 is a big step in the right direction but it doesn't do anyone any good to expect the rest of the dominoes to fall right away.

The issue I have with it is the dependency that come with ANY drug or booze.

I have had employees that I saw a drop in effiency in performance reviews and did not really understand until the company came out with a policy on drugs. Some of my best subordinate managers and supervisors turned themselves in because they had become so bad they had no life outside work.

After rehab they once again became outstanding employees. In fact even better in one case.

So I frankly do not believe that it is a victim less issue. While I have had a limited view of it the doctors and nurses I have known tell me much the same thing.

I personally do not care if someone wants to drink or use as long as I, my friends or family are not directly affected.

But again I just do not understand the need.

lonestar
11-10-2012, 07:54 PM
I don't have any problem with employers setting rules that employees can't use marijuana, even in their free time... for now. Ultimately, marijuana should be treated exactly like alcohol and most would object to an employer stating that their employers shouldn't drink in their free time. But it's going to be a long process to get society to open their minds and see this logically... Prop 64 is a big step in the right direction but it doesn't do anyone any good to expect the rest of the dominoes to fall right away.

The issue I have with it is the dependency that come with ANY drug or booze.

I have had employees that I saw a drop in effiency in performance reviews and did not really understand until the company came out with a policy on drugs. Some of my best subordinate managers and supervisors turned themselves in because they had become so bad they had no life outside work.

After rehab they once again became outstanding employees. In fact even better in one case.

So I frankly do not believe that it is a victim less issue. While I have had a limited view of it the doctors and nurses I have known tell me much the same thing.

I personally do not care if someone wants to drink or use as long as I, my friends or family are not directly affected.

But again I just do not understand the need.

Bronco X
11-10-2012, 09:26 PM
The issue I have with it is the dependency that come with ANY drug or booze.

I have had employees that I saw a drop in effiency in performance reviews and did not really understand until the company came out with a policy on drugs. Some of my best subordinate managers and supervisors turned themselves in because they had become so bad they had no life outside work.

After rehab they once again became outstanding employees. In fact even better in one case.

So I frankly do not believe that it is a victim less issue. While I have had a limited view of it the doctors and nurses I have known tell me much the same thing.

I personally do not care if someone wants to drink or use as long as I, my friends or family are not directly affected.

But again I just do not understand the need.

I understand the point of view, but the question I have is, do you think alcohol should be prohibited as well? If you did your perspective would at least be consistent and I'd give you credit for it.

I'm personally very libertarian when it comes to individual rights. The issue of a "victim" should be pretty straight forward. Are you infringing on another persons right to life, liberty, property, welfare? If not, the law should stay out of it. It shouldn't be against the law to be a jerk. It shouldn't be against the law to be self destructive or abusive. People have the right to fail.

Not that I think drinking or using pot is obviously an indication of these things, even if you do. But it's not your business what other people do if they aren't getting in the way of what other people do.

Yes, people can do stupid things when they use pot. That doesn't mean everyone shouldn't have the right to use pot responsibly. People do stupid things with guns. That doesn't mean everyone shouldn't have the right to own a gun responsibly. What the law should address is the actions people take when they use these things irresponsibly. But not simply using them itself when the act alone does nothing to infringe on another's rights.

lonestar
11-10-2012, 09:37 PM
I understand the point of view, but the question I have is, do you think alcohol should be prohibited as well? If you did your perspective would at least be consistent and I'd give you credit for it.

I'm personally very libertarian when it comes to individual rights. The issue of a "victim" should be pretty straight forward. Are you infringing on another persons right to life, liberty, property, welfare? If not, the law should stay out of it. It shouldn't be against the law to be a jerk. It shouldn't be against the law to be self destructive or abusive. People have the right to fail.

Not that I think drinking or using pot is obviously an indication of these things, even if you do. But it's not your business what other people do if they aren't getting in the way of what other people do.

Yes, people can do stupid things when they use pot. That doesn't mean everyone shouldn't have the right to use pot responsibly. People do stupid things with guns. That doesn't mean everyone shouldn't have the right to own a gun responsibly. What the law should address is the actions people take when they use these things irresponsibly. But not simply using them itself when the act alone does nothing to infringe on another's rights.

RIF
I personally do not care if someone wants to drink or use as long as I, my friends or family are not directly affected.


But as I said everything I have seen from my persepctive or professionals i have dealt with or know tells me that it is unlikely that pot heads,or drinkers will always act responsibly.

When they do not they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows.

lonestar
11-10-2012, 09:41 PM
As I have said before in this and other threads.

If someone wants to USE, it is their choice. As long as they know it is against federal LAW, in this case against league rules that were negoiated by their union and the NFL.

No one is forcing them to play football in the NFL. If they wish to do so they should abstain.

Life is made of trade offs.

Bronco X
11-10-2012, 09:58 PM
RIF


I'm not sure what this is an acronym for... the first thing that pops up in google is "Reading is fundamental". If that's what you meant, my intention is to have a respectful debate and I won't be bated by snark. If you mean something else feel free to clarify. I haven't read your other posts, or many posts in this thread. I read your response to my post.



But as I said everything I have seen from my persepctive or professionals i have dealt with or know tells me that it is unlikely that pot heads,or drinkers will always act responsibly.

When they do not they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows.

"When they do". Not when they don't.

lonestar
11-10-2012, 10:18 PM
I'm not sure what this is an acronym for... the first thing that pops up in google is "Reading is fundamental". If that's what you meant, my intention is to have a respectful debate and I won't be bated by snark. If you mean something else feel free to clarify. I haven't read your other posts, or many posts in this thread. I read your response to my post.




"When they do". Not when they don't.

YES RIF reading is fundamental..

I stated once again.. in the post before..

I personally do not care if someone wants to drink or use as long as I, my friends or family are not directly affected.

and the post you quoted before that one.. in a larger context..


So I frankly do not believe that it is a victim less issue. While I have had a limited view of it the doctors and nurses I have known tell me much the same thing.

I personally do not care if someone wants to drink or use as long as I, my friends or family are not directly affected.

But again I just do not understand the need.

and last but not least..

But as I said everything I have seen from my perspective or professionals i have dealt with or know tells me that it is unlikely that pot heads, or drinkers will always act responsibly.

When they do not they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows.


Do not was in response to the end of the sentence before it stating it is unlikely that users will act responsibly..

Not sure how you missed that, perhaps some responsible use tonight?

That is about as respectful as I get..

with or without stimuli..

Boobs McGee
11-10-2012, 11:22 PM
The issue I have with it is the dependency that come with ANY drug or booze.

I have had employees that I saw a drop in effiency in performance reviews and did not really understand until the company came out with a policy on drugs. Some of my best subordinate managers and supervisors turned themselves in because they had become so bad they had no life outside work.

After rehab they once again became outstanding employees. In fact even better in one case.

So I frankly do not believe that it is a victim less issue. While I have had a limited view of it the doctors and nurses I have known tell me much the same thing.

I personally do not care if someone wants to drink or use as long as I, my friends or family are not directly affected.

But again I just do not understand the need.

Rehabbing from pot?

Wow. They must be smoking some incredible **** down there.

Anywho, plain and simple, you're obviously the product of a very narrow perspective. First and foremost, there doesn't HAVE to be any kind of dependency when it comes to booze OR drugs, as you've stated in previous posts (you can now drink to enjoy the taste). Sounds to me like you've experienced the extreme in terms of who you've come in contact with as it pertains to smoking ganj. I know PLENTY of individuals that are brilliant/business owners/managers/musicians/students/ who smoke weed on a regular basis, and no negative impact on their lifestyle/work habits. Yes, I also know a few (literally three) people who've fallen into the category of "ineffectively doing their jobs", but that's more the exception than the rule.

On this particular subject, you come off as uneducated and holier than thou, with a very narrow minded view. Yes, we heard you. As long as it doesn't affect you and yours, then go ahead and do whatever you'd like! but really, you have disdain for those that aren't walking your same path. That's your prerogative, but you still come across as an asshole. It actually seems like a pretty common theme amongst your posts. You really ooze a snobbish/parvenu type of attitude. Whatev.


For the record, I'm in complete agreement with the NFL's decision on this particular matter. If they have a drug policy, then you abide by it.

Bronco X
11-10-2012, 11:44 PM
That is about as respectful as I get..


That much is obvious. I can be more respectful than that and as stated I won't take the bait. Perhaps we are not having the same conversation but I expressed my opinion in a post, you responded, and I clarified my position. I'm only going to have the conversation I started so if you want another one, I'm sure you can have it with plenty of posters here.

lonestar
11-11-2012, 03:07 AM
Rehabbing from pot?

Wow. They must be smoking some incredible **** down there.

Anywho, plain and simple, you're obviously the product of a very narrow perspective. First and foremost, there doesn't HAVE to be any kind of dependency when it comes to booze OR drugs, as you've stated in previous posts (you can now drink to enjoy the taste). Sounds to me like you've experienced the extreme in terms of who you've come in contact with as it pertains to smoking ganj. I know PLENTY of individuals that are brilliant/business owners/managers/musicians/students/ who smoke weed on a regular basis, and no negative impact on their lifestyle/work habits. Yes, I also know a few (literally three) people who've fallen into the category of "ineffectively doing their jobs", but that's more the exception than the rule.

On this particular subject, you come off as uneducated and holier than thou, with a very narrow minded view. Yes, we heard you. As long as it doesn't affect you and yours, then go ahead and do whatever you'd like! but really, you have disdain for those that aren't walking your same path. That's your prerogative, but you still come across as an a-hole. It actually seems like a pretty common theme amongst your posts. You really ooze a snobbish/parvenu type of attitude. Whatev.


For the record, I'm in complete agreement with the NFL's decision on this particular matter. If they have a drug policy, then you abide by it.

As for those that have not been affected, good for them until they are. It is just a matter of time.

As I said before it does not take mind altering drugs for me to speak what is on my mind and how I feel about things. Learned a very long time ago that all that holds you back is your inhibitions.
I realize loads of folk do not like me because if what I say but frankly I do not give a crap. I speak from experience and have been quite successful because I am honest.

Been fired from a couple of jobs because I would not tow the company line when it was a load of crap. But always found a higher paying job shortly thereafter making more money, because there are businessmen that appreciate hearing facts.

That said

In the real business world unless they are in the creative areas of said business the odds are they will Peter Principle out. Or in other words reach their level of in compentcy or dependency.


As for your stance on NFL policy. :thumbs:

Drek
11-11-2012, 06:51 AM
The issue I have with it is the dependency that come with ANY drug or booze.

I have had employees that I saw a drop in effiency in performance reviews and did not really understand until the company came out with a policy on drugs. Some of my best subordinate managers and supervisors turned themselves in because they had become so bad they had no life outside work.

After rehab they once again became outstanding employees. In fact even better in one case.

So I frankly do not believe that it is a victim less issue. While I have had a limited view of it the doctors and nurses I have known tell me much the same thing.

I personally do not care if someone wants to drink or use as long as I, my friends or family are not directly affected.

But again I just do not understand the need.
I'd say this post is a perfect example of why the war on drugs is a failed cause.

No one wants to be a junkie. The reason people use is the same reason you're on this board. Escapism. Something to do. Most people can balance work, family, and recreation appropriately. Some people can't and those people turn into alcoholics, chronic smokers, pot heads, and addicts to other harder narcotics.

To underscore my point - I was watching A Football Life - 1995 Cleveland Browns on replay yesterday and my wife asked me why the hell someone would get so upset over losing a football team. My response to her was how upset would she be if she couldn't decorate for Christmas? A tradition she has had her whole life with her mother and grandmother. People build attachments and crave something to break up the day to day cycle of our lives. For some that day to day cycle is something they're actively looking to forget for various reasons.

This is how drug dependency starts. People looking to forget their problems for at least a short while getting hooked on that feeling of freedom, then getting hooked on the drug itself. Hard drugs like coke, crack, meth, heroin, etc. are especially dangerous because of how physically addictive they are and how destructive they are to one's ability to function without them. The later makes you run back to it from a mental standpoint more and more frequently, the later makes quitting something that is physically painful, even life threatening.

Portugal's former Estado Novo regime allowed rampant heroin use in order to keep the masses docile. When Estado Novo was overthrown and democracy returned to Portugal the nation spent nearly 30 years with some of the harshest criminal penalties for heroin use. The rate of use never showed significant decline.

In 2001 they decriminalized small amounts of any narcotic, turning it into an administrative penalty where you choose between rehab and jail time. Needless to say most choose rehab. They have since seen MASSIVE reduction in heroin addiction, from the high 30/low 40 percent range among young people to now down in the teens.

Junkies don't want to be junkies. Throwing them in jail for becoming a junkie is like throwing someone in jail for getting HIV through unprotected sex. Both result from bad choices and both result in a treatable ailment. We should instead focus on that treatment and making these people effective parts of society again, not sacrificing them to the penal system.

Broncos4tw
11-11-2012, 08:26 AM
Feds will make it very tough for it to become actually legal. They have raided marijuana dispensaries in California. They will arrest people who smoke it in Colorado.

And it will be a huge sticking point with many jobs. A lot of businesses rely on OSHA to obtain a certain level of certification, so they can win bids for larger jobs via the government, larger corporations, etc. Drug testing is a huge part of that. You think a negative drug test will be "ok" after this? No, they will fire the person who tests positive, every time. OSHA is not about to reduce their standards, and so businesses will not either. And it makes sense - if you have 100 construction workers on a site, do you really feel safe if 20% of them test positive? You have no way of knowing if they smoked it last night, or during lunch. There is a lot of personal responsibility involved, but unfortunately, people are not very responsible.

Boobs McGee
11-11-2012, 08:44 AM
I'd say this post is a perfect example of why the war on drugs is a failed cause.

No one wants to be a junkie. The reason people use is the same reason you're on this board. Escapism. Something to do. Most people can balance work, family, and recreation appropriately. Some people can't and those people turn into alcoholics, chronic smokers, pot heads, and addicts to other harder narcotics.

To underscore my point - I was watching A Football Life - 1995 Cleveland Browns on replay yesterday and my wife asked me why the hell someone would get so upset over losing a football team. My response to her was how upset would she be if she couldn't decorate for Christmas? A tradition she has had her whole life with her mother and grandmother. People build attachments and crave something to break up the day to day cycle of our lives. For some that day to day cycle is something they're actively looking to forget for various reasons.

This is how drug dependency starts. People looking to forget their problems for at least a short while getting hooked on that feeling of freedom, then getting hooked on the drug itself. Hard drugs like coke, crack, meth, heroin, etc. are especially dangerous because of how physically addictive they are and how destructive they are to one's ability to function without them. The later makes you run back to it from a mental standpoint more and more frequently, the later makes quitting something that is physically painful, even life threatening.

Portugal's former Estado Novo regime allowed rampant heroin use in order to keep the masses docile. When Estado Novo was overthrown and democracy returned to Portugal the nation spent nearly 30 years with some of the harshest criminal penalties for heroin use. The rate of use never showed significant decline.

In 2001 they decriminalized small amounts of any narcotic, turning it into an administrative penalty where you choose between rehab and jail time. Needless to say most choose rehab. They have since seen MASSIVE reduction in heroin addiction, from the high 30/low 40 percent range among young people to now down in the teens.

Junkies don't want to be junkies. Throwing them in jail for becoming a junkie is like throwing someone in jail for getting HIV through unprotected sex. Both result from bad choices and both result in a treatable ailment. We should instead focus on that treatment and making these people effective parts of society again, not sacrificing them to the penal system.

Incredibly well written. I'm going to be sharing this with some family and friends, as it very eloquently illustrates the main problem and solution to a war that's winnable. Rep to you sir

teknic
11-11-2012, 08:45 AM
Feds will make it very tough for it to become actually legal. They have raided marijuana dispensaries in California. They will arrest people who smoke it in Colorado.

Doesn't matter, no jury in Colorado would convict someone for cannabis.

Jury nullification can be a bitch.

nyuk nyuk
11-11-2012, 08:59 AM
I'd like to know how many of you pro-pot people wouldn't mind your surgeon or nurse using pot.

bowtown
11-11-2012, 09:37 AM
I'd like to know how many of you pro-pot people wouldn't mind your surgeon or nurse using pot.

When, on the job or on their own time?

Boobs McGee
11-11-2012, 09:49 AM
I'd like to know how many of you pro-pot people wouldn't mind your surgeon or nurse using pot.

As long as you aren't lighting up on the job, smoke away.

Beantown Bronco
11-11-2012, 10:57 AM
Rehabbing from pot?

Wow. They must be smoking some incredible **** down there.



<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LEberTUvrsE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

lonestar
11-11-2012, 11:07 AM
I'd say this post is a perfect example of why the war on drugs is a failed cause.

No one wants to be a junkie. The reason people use is the same reason you're on this board. Escapism. Something to do. Most people can balance work, family, and recreation appropriately. Some people can't and those people turn into alcoholics, chronic smokers, pot heads, and addicts to other harder narcotics.

To underscore my point - I was watching A Football Life - 1995 Cleveland Browns on replay yesterday and my wife asked me why the hell someone would get so upset over losing a football team. My response to her was how upset would she be if she couldn't decorate for Christmas? A tradition she has had her whole life with her mother and grandmother. People build attachments and crave something to break up the day to day cycle of our lives. For some that day to day cycle is something they're actively looking to forget for various reasons.

This is how drug dependency starts. People looking to forget their problems for at least a short while getting hooked on that feeling of freedom, then getting hooked on the drug itself. Hard drugs like coke, crack, meth, heroin, etc. are especially dangerous because of how physically addictive they are and how destructive they are to one's ability to function without them. The later makes you run back to it from a mental standpoint more and more frequently, the later makes quitting something that is physically painful, even life threatening.

Portugal's former Estado Novo regime allowed rampant heroin use in order to keep the masses docile. When Estado Novo was overthrown and democracy returned to Portugal the nation spent nearly 30 years with some of the harshest criminal penalties for heroin use. The rate of use never showed significant decline.

In 2001 they decriminalized small amounts of any narcotic, turning it into an administrative penalty where you choose between rehab and jail time. Needless to say most choose rehab. They have since seen MASSIVE reduction in heroin addiction, from the high 30/low 40 percent range among young people to now down in the teens.

Junkies don't want to be junkies. Throwing them in jail for becoming a junkie is like throwing someone in jail for getting HIV through unprotected sex. Both result from bad choices and both result in a treatable ailment. We should instead focus on that treatment and making these people effective parts of society again, not sacrificing them to the penal system.

A good post and will briefly respond before moving on to other posts in the thread.

Mostly you are correct.
But you offer no solutions for the issue. Just like booze you have to have limits and control so it is not abused.

For drugs (hard in particular it has to be zero) and we have to figure out a way to stop it.

As for weed I do not have one. Can't stop morons from being morons other than jail. Even that is a joke in some areas with bribed guards and such.

lonestar
11-12-2012, 01:39 AM
Doesn't matter, no jury in Colorado would convict someone for cannabis.

Jury nullification can be a b****.

Are you aware that judges can override juries verdicts?

They are called directed verdicts.

As judges are sworn to uphold the law. Just hope you do not count on a jury to save your bacon.

lonestar
11-12-2012, 01:40 AM
I'd like to know how many of you pro-pot people wouldn't mind your surgeon or nurse using pot.

I can think of a lot of others big rigs drivers, airline pilots, firefighters, law enforcement, servicemen..

For those that use they will mock commentaries like these because IMO they are weak, young and stupid about the real world.

Thinking they have it all under control.

Drek
11-14-2012, 03:27 AM
I'd like to know how many of you pro-pot people wouldn't mind your surgeon or nurse using pot.

You could make the same argument for the prohibition of alcohol.

Or hell, caffeine for that matter, as multiple studies have shown that regularly drinking caffeine can result in reduced motor control precision.

All aspects of work regulate what you can put in your body while working. What you do in your free time is not regulated based on employment.

I'd be just fine with a nurse or surgeon who smokes pot in their free time, same as a surgeon who likes to throw a few beers back watching football on his Sunday off. A surgeon who is a chronic smoker would give me FAR more pause than weed.

A good post and will briefly respond before moving on to other posts in the thread.

Mostly you are correct.
But you offer no solutions for the issue. Just like booze you have to have limits and control so it is not abused.

For drugs (hard in particular it has to be zero) and we have to figure out a way to stop it.

As for weed I do not have one. Can't stop morons from being morons other than jail. Even that is a joke in some areas with bribed guards and such.
Actually, I specifically spelled out a solution to the issue that is currently working.

Something like weed you just legalize, as its no more harmful than alcohol or tobacco and therefore not worth the government's time beyond regulation of distribution and preventing illegal trafficking and underage purchases.

Everything else you decriminalize (not legalize) at small amounts tied strictly to personal use. Trafficking and large quantity possession is still a felony, but small amounts obviously for personal use are handled administratively. Jail does not fix addiction, rehab does. You said this yourself when talking about colleagues who've cleaned up through rehab. This is where we need to funnel users if the goal is to get them clean and not to feed the penal system with fresh convicts.

Rehab works. Not all the time, but a hell of a lot more often than incarceration. It's also cheaper than incarceration for state and federal governments. So why do we let misconceptions anyone who looks into this can clearly see continue to direct our drug policy?

Agamemnon
11-14-2012, 04:04 AM
Are you aware that judges can override juries verdicts?

They are called directed verdicts.

As judges are sworn to uphold the law. Just hope you do not count on a jury to save your bacon.

Directed verdicts don't work that way. In criminal cases they can only be used to acquit, never to convict.

Jury nullification is a serious hurdle for the Feds in this situation. Don't kid yourself.

Requiem
11-14-2012, 09:48 AM
Sounds like nyuk nyuk and lonestar are jealous because they have never been in a pass da purp rotation.

Rohirrim
11-14-2012, 09:59 AM
A good post and will briefly respond before moving on to other posts in the thread.

Mostly you are correct.
But you offer no solutions for the issue. Just like booze you have to have limits and control so it is not abused.

For drugs (hard in particular it has to be zero) and we have to figure out a way to stop it.

As for weed I do not have one. Can't stop morons from being morons other than jail. Even that is a joke in some areas with bribed guards and such.

No solution? Here's the solution: Eradicate humans. Then you'll have no more irrational behavior.

Nothing causes so much trouble as those who believe in the possibility of a perfect world.

DAN_BRONCO_FAN
11-14-2012, 10:07 AM
marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol .
both also unless you really abuse it leaves no lingering affects.
MODERATION is the key.
reefer madness isnt real stop using that as a source

gyldenlove
11-14-2012, 10:09 AM
Actually, I specifically spelled out a solution to the issue that is currently working.

Something like weed you just legalize, as its no more harmful than alcohol or tobacco and therefore not worth the government's time beyond regulation of distribution and preventing illegal trafficking and underage purchases.

Everything else you decriminalize (not legalize) at small amounts tied strictly to personal use. Trafficking and large quantity possession is still a felony, but small amounts obviously for personal use are handled administratively. Jail does not fix addiction, rehab does. You said this yourself when talking about colleagues who've cleaned up through rehab. This is where we need to funnel users if the goal is to get them clean and not to feed the penal system with fresh convicts.

Rehab works. Not all the time, but a hell of a lot more often than incarceration. It's also cheaper than incarceration for state and federal governments. So why do we let misconceptions anyone who looks into this can clearly see continue to direct our drug policy?

I have never understood why people are so afraid of taxing weed and drugs. By a wide margin the largest 2 problems associated with drug use are crimes committed to support drug use and organized crime associated with production, transportation and retail. By putting long time addicts on a government program where they will be channeled into rehab or put under observation in return for government sponsored facilities for taking drugs and government dispensaries will save society a ton of money. You knock out the petty crime such as turning tricks, shop lifting, purse snatching, home invasions, muggings aimed at supporting the habit and you reduce your health care costs significantly as you don't get people ODing as often or suffering other health issues from taking tainted drugs and you can provide clean materials to reduce the spread of HIV, HEP-B and HEP-C etc.

By removing a large part of the market you also weaken organized crime and by taking away the weakest segment of drug users you make it much more difficult for gangs to control the market which in turn makes them easier to target.

As for weed, just make it like tobacco, put rules on who can sell it, tax it and put an age limit in place for when you can buy it. Like alcohol and prescription medicine you make it illegal to drive or operate heavy machinery while under the influence.

teknic
11-14-2012, 10:56 AM
You could make the same argument for the prohibition of alcohol.

Or hell, caffeine for that matter, as multiple studies have shown that regularly drinking caffeine can result in reduced motor control precision.

All aspects of work regulate what you can put in your body while working. What you do in your free time is not regulated based on employment.

I'd be just fine with a nurse or surgeon who smokes pot in their free time, same as a surgeon who likes to throw a few beers back watching football on his Sunday off. A surgeon who is a chronic smoker would give me FAR more pause than weed.


Actually, I specifically spelled out a solution to the issue that is currently working.

Something like weed you just legalize, as its no more harmful than alcohol or tobacco and therefore not worth the government's time beyond regulation of distribution and preventing illegal trafficking and underage purchases.

Everything else you decriminalize (not legalize) at small amounts tied strictly to personal use. Trafficking and large quantity possession is still a felony, but small amounts obviously for personal use are handled administratively. Jail does not fix addiction, rehab does. You said this yourself when talking about colleagues who've cleaned up through rehab. This is where we need to funnel users if the goal is to get them clean and not to feed the penal system with fresh convicts.

Rehab works. Not all the time, but a hell of a lot more often than incarceration. It's also cheaper than incarceration for state and federal governments. So why do we let misconceptions anyone who looks into this can clearly see continue to direct our drug policy?

Well said. Portugal is a perfect example of how an education/rehabilitation program could be used instead of incarceration.

DAN_BRONCO_FAN
11-14-2012, 10:59 AM
I have never understood why people are so afraid of taxing weed and drugs. By a wide margin the largest 2 problems associated with drug use are crimes committed to support drug use and organized crime associated with production, transportation and retail. By putting long time addicts on a government program where they will be channeled into rehab or put under observation in return for government sponsored facilities for taking drugs and government dispensaries will save society a ton of money. You knock out the petty crime such as turning tricks, shop lifting, purse snatching, home invasions, muggings aimed at supporting the habit and you reduce your health care costs significantly as you don't get people ODing as often or suffering other health issues from taking tainted drugs and you can provide clean materials to reduce the spread of HIV, HEP-B and HEP-C etc.

By removing a large part of the market you also weaken organized crime and by taking away the weakest segment of drug users you make it much more difficult for gangs to control the market which in turn makes them easier to target.

As for weed, just make it like tobacco, put rules on who can sell it, tax it and put an age limit in place for when you can buy it. Like alcohol and prescription medicine you make it illegal to drive or operate heavy machinery while under the influence.


excuse me sir but we dont need your common sense and logic here please get out of here. only reefer madness type hysteria is only allowed in this discussion .
now if you excuse me ........legalizing marijuana will lead to madness nurses and doctors will botch surgeries car crashes will go up 100% school kids will be high in class all the time . cancer rates will go up 900% chaos and anarchy will ensure . civilization as we know it will cease to exist .:)

broncocalijohn
11-14-2012, 11:05 AM
marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol .
both also unless you really abuse it leaves no lingering affects.
MODERATION is the key.
reefer madness isnt real stop using that as a source

What crazy **** are you on?

DAN_BRONCO_FAN
11-14-2012, 11:21 AM
What crazy **** are you on?

stop listening to the anti marijuana hype will you .
god some of you people i swear
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gWQaU40PH24/TSOSVuF5fvI/AAAAAAAAKBo/FzxUm6ozKNo/s1600/facepalm111.jpg

broncocalijohn
11-14-2012, 11:50 AM
^ Obviously, you didnt get it.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gWQaU40PH24/TSOSVuF5fvI/AAAAAAAAKBo/FzxUm6ozKNo/s1600/facepalm111.jpg

DAN_BRONCO_FAN
11-14-2012, 04:11 PM
again there is nothing wrong with smoking weed as long as it is done in moderation just like beer and not while you are on the job doing something that requires you to be sober and alert ie alcohol , NyQuil, marijuana so again yalls acting like those idiots from the government propaganda movie reefer madness so again my reply is this like it or not
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/28827709.jpg ok not all of you just the uptight citizen brigade folk here!
im all for the NFl saying no because the NFL is well national so they cant make rules for one state skipping another.

broncocalijohn
11-14-2012, 04:19 PM
Dan,
Who in the hell are you arguing with? I feel like you are Mock 2.0.

Tombstone RJ
11-14-2012, 04:20 PM
In a perfect world (complete hypothetical here), hemp would be a vast resource upon which the USA could base a huge part of its industrial base, including energy. Marijuana would be legal, taxed and controlled like other stimulates and things like gun control and marriage and abortion would be a state issue where the feds only step in if someone's constitutional rights are violated.

Drek
11-14-2012, 04:31 PM
Well said. Portugal is a perfect example of how an education/rehabilitation program could be used instead of incarceration.

There are a lot of very good programs even in the U.S. at local levels showing how we can find real solutions to this.

For example, right now in the suburbs of St. Louis heroin is on a strong comeback. A sheriff of one of the outlying suburbs has put in a new policy whereby anyone who calls in an overdose and then stays with the person will 1. not be subject to prosecution themselves and 2. neither will the person overdosing as long as they cooperate with the police.

He's said that you get pretty amazing results in terms of junkies turning in their dealers when you just saved their life from an overdose/tainted hit on that dealer's ****. His town is one of the few suburbs of STL that is actually winning the war on the cheap, low grade heroin flooding the suburbs of the city.

Crazy how treating junkies like the victims they are results in massive gains for all involved, huh?

DAN_BRONCO_FAN
11-14-2012, 04:42 PM
you have been reading the outrageous stuff being said here have you like pro marijuana users would then want their kids to be smoking it or doctors and nurses would be stone out of their minds while at work i cant help it but tohttp://images.wikia.com/fantendo/images/6/6a/182832-quadruple_facepalm_super.jpg

Broncolt
11-14-2012, 04:43 PM
i think its right. although its legal in the state, the NFL is an organization, and they have their own rules you need to follow, whether or not its legal in the state.

lonestar
11-14-2012, 07:03 PM
you have been reading the outrageous stuff being said here have you like pro marijuana users would then want their kids to be smoking it or doctors and nurses would be stone out of their minds while at work

you clearly have an agenda. Frankly you are not winning it. Posting while under the influence or being stoned is not helping get it across.

I do not care if most doctors or nurses would not do it.

All it takes is for one doctor one time to be slow on the uptake to lose a life.

Now that one instance might be tolerable for you. It is not for most if not all folks that also believe DUI is wrong.

You hit a school bus while being high is something I would not tolerate..

If smoking could be contained to something akin of the old opium dens. Then have a ball. ..
But we all know that some moron will get behind the wheel just like drinking and kill someone. Because they thought it was under control.

PWUI is not cool like your think it is.

lonestar
11-14-2012, 07:05 PM
i think its right. although its legal in the state, the NFL is an organization, and they have their own rules you need to follow, whether or not its legal in the state.

It is still against federal law. I'll guess that they will shut the law down in the courts.

gunns
11-14-2012, 07:36 PM
you clearly have an agenda. Frankly you are not winning it. Posting while under the influence or being stoned is not helping get it across.

I do not care if most doctors or nurses would not do it.

All it takes is for one doctor one time to be slow on the uptake to lose a life.

Now that one instance might be tolerable for you. It is not for most if not all folks that also believe DUI is wrong.

You hit a school bus while being high is something I would not tolerate..

If smoking could be contained to something akin of the old opium dens. Then have a ball. ..
But we all know that some moron will get behind the wheel just like drinking and kill someone. Because they thought it was under control.

PWUI is not cool like your think it is.

You act as if these things would happen if it were legalized. And most of what you are talking about would happen with alcohol. I get the sense you've never smoked before.

That one doctor or nurse that is dumb enough to smoke and then go to work is the one that is going to do that whether it is legal or not.

Now I know there may be an instance where someone may smoke and drive. That could happen if it's legal or not legal. With marijuana the odds are much, much less than with alcohol because smokers do not lose all inhabitions and think they can drive. Most smokers don't want to drive. And most of the time when a smoker is in an accident and tested positive, it's 3 days later because it takes it so long to leave the system and was not the cause of the accident.

I smoked every day for 40 years. Never had an accident, in fact only one ticket for driving a unregistered car. Never smoked before or at work. Never neglected my children. Quit 3 years ago when work decided to do random drug tests. No withdrawals, no unstoppable cravings, no big deal. Yep, I'd love to do it again and I will but my job is more important right now.

Oh yeah, old opium dens would be akin to bars. Bars, where someone has to drive home. My home is just fine.

Bronco X
11-14-2012, 08:08 PM
The bottom line is any activity should carry with an expectation of responsibility. The notion that adults should be expected to behave responsibly and should be held accountable when they do not is too nuanced for the dogmatic to accept. It's easier for them to accept that no one should engage in certain activity so that a small percentage cannot irresponsibly engage in that activity. Simplistic and dogmatic: an easy pill to swallow.


We all know it is possible to irresponsibly use cell phones. It causes car accidents. We wouldn't want a surgeon trying to send off a tweet on their iPhone 5 while performing a triple bypass now would we? A blanket argument against the use of cell phones would carry just as much logical weight as some of the arguments being proffered in this thread.

bowtown
11-14-2012, 08:15 PM
you clearly have an agenda. Frankly you are not winning it. Posting while under the influence or being stoned is not helping get it across.

I do not care if most doctors or nurses would not do it.

All it takes is for one doctor one time to be slow on the uptake to lose a life.

Now that one instance might be tolerable for you. It is not for most if not all folks that also believe DUI is wrong.

You hit a school bus while being high is something I would not tolerate..

If smoking could be contained to something akin of the old opium dens. Then have a ball. ..
But we all know that some moron will get behind the wheel just like drinking and kill someone. Because they thought it was under control.

PWUI is not cool like your think it is.


Yeah, because getting your hands on it now is virtually impossible.

You realize you can call someone who comes to your house with it in most cities, right? It is literally easier to get your hands on right now than cigarettes or alcohol. But yeah, legalizing is going to open the flood gates on doctors and nurses across this country showing up to work blazed out of their minds. You don't live in reality.

And LOL at opium dens. You live in such a bizarro world of ignorance and fear.

DAN_BRONCO_FAN
11-14-2012, 11:11 PM
you clearly have an agenda. Frankly you are not winning it. Posting while under the influence or being stoned is not helping get it across.

I do not care if most doctors or nurses would not do it.

All it takes is for one doctor one time to be slow on the uptake to lose a life.

Now that one instance might be tolerable for you. It is not for most if not all folks that also believe DUI is wrong.

You hit a school bus while being high is something I would not tolerate..

If smoking could be contained to something akin of the old opium dens. Then have a ball. ..
But we all know that some moron will get behind the wheel just like drinking and kill someone. Because they thought it was under control.

PWUI is not cool like your think it is.

my agenda is level headed logic not irrational hysteria
no offense thar but well ........
http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/129092786498235257.jpg

HighCountryBronco
11-15-2012, 12:53 AM
Stupid thread. Feds will never allow it, move on.

Agamemnon
11-15-2012, 06:49 AM
you clearly have an agenda. Frankly you are not winning it. Posting while under the influence or being stoned is not helping get it across.

I do not care if most doctors or nurses would not do it.

All it takes is for one doctor one time to be slow on the uptake to lose a life.

Now that one instance might be tolerable for you. It is not for most if not all folks that also believe DUI is wrong.

You hit a school bus while being high is something I would not tolerate..

If smoking could be contained to something akin of the old opium dens. Then have a ball. ..
But we all know that some moron will get behind the wheel just like drinking and kill someone. Because they thought it was under control.

PWUI is not cool like your think it is.

As I read your posts I can't help but think of this:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/54xWo7ITFbg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

DAN_BRONCO_FAN
11-15-2012, 12:54 PM
As I read your posts I can't help but think of this:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/54xWo7ITFbg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

thats what i been thinking along with the other hysterical posters here :thumbs: its like they saw and believed that gov propaganda psa.

Rock Chalk
11-15-2012, 01:09 PM
I dont know why this thread is this long.

NFL is a national organization.

Marijuana is still illegal under federal law.

End of discussion.

DAN_BRONCO_FAN
11-15-2012, 08:19 PM
I dont know why this thread is this long.

NFL is a national organization.

Marijuana is still illegal under federal law.

End of discussion.

as you can clearly see it sorta got a bit off topic went from nfl marijuana use to ordinary non nfl people using it go figure thats the way things work around here.
but yeah nfl cant just say everyone light one up now can they
N stands for national