NFL Still Bans Denver Broncos From Marijuana Use Even When It’s Legal; Right Or Wrong?

[R8R H8R]

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.

[Tombstone RJ]

I foresee a lot of NFL and NBA players buying their second home in CO and WA...

[oubronco]

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by BroncoLifer

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]

DOOOOOOON'T CAAAAAAAAARRE

[Drek]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

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]

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]

Nothing new here. A company can make their own rules.

[DENVERDUI55]

Originally Posted by Drek

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]

Originally Posted by Drek

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]

Originally Posted by DENVERDUI55

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]

Originally Posted by DENVERDUI55

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.)

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

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]

Originally Posted by Drek

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]

Originally Posted by DENVERDUI55

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Meck77

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]

Originally Posted by Drek

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]

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*]

Isnt the use and possession of marijuana a federal crime?

[Lestat]

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*]

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



I think.

[Lestat]

Originally Posted by *WARHORSE*

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]

Originally Posted by *WARHORSE*

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



I think.

Could it be a federal crime if its legal??

[DENVERDUI55]

Originally Posted by Bigdawg26

Could it be a federal crime if its legal??

Federal Law overrides state law.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by DENVERDUI55

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.