The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Orange Mane Discussion > Orange Mane Central Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-09-2012, 01:59 PM   #51
R8R H8R
Ring of Famer
 
R8R H8R's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Exiled in So. Cal.
Posts: 2,571

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Virgil Green
Default

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.
R8R H8R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 02:32 PM   #52
Tombstone RJ
Ring of Famer
 
Tombstone RJ's Avatar
 
Old School

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Tetons!
Posts: 21,940

Adopt-a-Bronco:
WorrellWilliams
Default

I foresee a lot of NFL and NBA players buying their second home in CO and WA...
Tombstone RJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 03:37 PM   #53
oubronco
John Foneco !!
 
oubronco's Avatar
 
Mile High Magic

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sooner Country
Posts: 19,502
Default

oubronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 03:46 PM   #54
Agamemnon
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoLifer View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 03:47 PM   #55
bowtown
Ring of Famer
 
bowtown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 9,863

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Aaron Brewer
Default

DOOOOOOON'T CAAAAAAAAARRE
bowtown is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 04:06 PM   #56
Drek
Ring of Famer
 
Drek's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 12,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ View Post
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.
Drek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 04:21 PM   #57
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,495
Default

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?
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 04:25 PM   #58
DENVERDUI55
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Nothing new here. A company can make their own rules.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 04:26 PM   #59
DENVERDUI55
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drek View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 04:27 PM   #60
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drek View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 04:29 PM   #61
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DENVERDUI55 View Post
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.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 04:45 PM   #62
Drek
Ring of Famer
 
Drek's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 12,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DENVERDUI55 View Post
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.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
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.
Drek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 04:50 PM   #63
DENVERDUI55
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drek View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 05:01 PM   #64
Drunken.Broncoholic
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DENVERDUI55 View Post
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
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 05:05 PM   #65
Meck77
.
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,598
Default

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.

Last edited by Meck77; 11-09-2012 at 05:07 PM..
Meck77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 05:11 PM   #66
Tombstone RJ
Ring of Famer
 
Tombstone RJ's Avatar
 
Old School

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Tetons!
Posts: 21,940

Adopt-a-Bronco:
WorrellWilliams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meck77 View Post
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.
Tombstone RJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 05:13 PM   #67
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drek View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 05:15 PM   #68
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,495
Default

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.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 05:18 PM   #69
*WARHORSE*
GNASHING OF TEETH
 
*WARHORSE*'s Avatar
 
Let the heads roll.........

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Kailua, Hawaii
Posts: 597

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Lombardi III
Default

Isnt the use and possession of marijuana a federal crime?
*WARHORSE* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 05:18 PM   #70
Lestat
Oreo Lucian Rockefeller
 
Lestat's Avatar
 
Say what again! I dare you!

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 9,236
Default

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.
Lestat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 05:20 PM   #71
*WARHORSE*
GNASHING OF TEETH
 
*WARHORSE*'s Avatar
 
Let the heads roll.........

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Kailua, Hawaii
Posts: 597

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Lombardi III
Default

Its still a federal crime to use marijuana. End of story.



I think.
*WARHORSE* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 05:21 PM   #72
Lestat
Oreo Lucian Rockefeller
 
Lestat's Avatar
 
Say what again! I dare you!

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 9,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by *WARHORSE* View Post
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.
Lestat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 05:39 PM   #73
Bigdawg26
Ring of Famer
 
Bigdawg26's Avatar
 
Just let it happen!!

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,943

Adopt-a-Bronco:
TJ Ward!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by *WARHORSE* View Post
Its still a federal crime to use marijuana. End of story.



I think.
Could it be a federal crime if its legal??
Bigdawg26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 05:41 PM   #74
DENVERDUI55
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdawg26 View Post
Could it be a federal crime if its legal??
Federal Law overrides state law.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 05:57 PM   #75
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DENVERDUI55 View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:37 AM.


Denver Broncos