HOF
Posted 26 November 2013 - 04:24 PM
Browner is the 7th Seahawk suspended for Substance Abuse/PED's since 2010.
Is that counting himself twice? I'm sure that also doesn't include Sherman, who tested positive but got it overturned on a technicality.
Banned
Posted 26 November 2013 - 04:24 PM
Any suspension for marijuana is dumb and I mean that more for the league than for the player.
Shocking.
You don't care about PED use. You don't care if they are smoking pot. Might as well not test anybody for anything. Let's let addicts run around on the playing fields.
HOF
Posted 26 November 2013 - 04:29 PM
Shocking.
You don't care about PED use. You don't care if they are smoking pot. Might as well not test anybody for anything. Let's let addicts run around on the playing fields.
Considering alcohol is worse, he's right in that it's really stupid that players can get suspended for smoking pot.
Banned
Posted 26 November 2013 - 04:37 PM
Considering alcohol is worse, he's right in that it's really stupid that players can get suspended for smoking pot.
Bottom line is pot isn't legal in most states. You can't have a league that allows players to smoke pot when it's illegal. Once a player is in the substance abuse program they can't drink either.
HOF
Posted 26 November 2013 - 04:43 PM
Bottom line is pot isn't legal in most states. You can't have a league that allows players to smoke pot when it's illegal. Once a player is in the substance abuse program they can't drink either.
I think Mike is just saying that he isn't going to look down on a guy because he got tested for pot....and I agree with that stance.
I also agree that this seems to be too much of a coincidence that this continues to happen up there.
HOF
Posted 26 November 2013 - 04:45 PM
It's a gateway drug. Soon you have a team full of guys smoking weed to a team full of guys smoking crack cocaine.
Ban them all for life and send those who are clean (ahem Russell Wilson) to Baltimore.
Banned
Posted 26 November 2013 - 05:02 PM
I think Mike is just saying that he isn't going to look down on a guy because he got tested for pot....and I agree with that stance.
I also agree that this seems to be too much of a coincidence that this continues to happen up there.
It's one thing not to look down on the average joe for smoking pot. It's another when it's part of your job not to smoke pot. Especially, when you are facing a 1 yr ban and are about to really hurt your team. Very selfish act.
However, it possibly speaks to the biggest misconception out there. That pot is not addicting.
HOF
Posted 26 November 2013 - 05:07 PM
Shocking.
You don't care about PED use. You don't care if they are smoking pot. Might as well not test anybody for anything. Let's let addicts run around on the playing fields.
Addicts? I don't think we're talking about addicts, That's generally a very strong/wrong word to use for people that use marijuana.
HOF
Posted 26 November 2013 - 05:08 PM
Considering alcohol is worse, he's right in that it's really stupid that players can get suspended for smoking pot.
Yeah, the case for that being illegal/something players should be banned for but drinking is just fine is a poor one IMO.
HOF
Posted 26 November 2013 - 05:09 PM
Bottom line is pot isn't legal in most states. You can't have a league that allows players to smoke pot when it's illegal. Once a player is in the substance abuse program they can't drink either.
Most jobs don't test for drugs once you have the job. So are those companies allowing their workers to smoke pot?
Banned
Posted 26 November 2013 - 05:24 PM
Most jobs don't test for drugs once you have the job. So are those companies allowing their workers to smoke pot?
A. if you are caught smoking on the job whats going to happen.
B. Most jobs can subject an employee to a drug test if they have reason to suspect they are on drugs. So if you walk into work enough times and you are noticeably high you're likely to be tested.
It comes with the territory. There is an image these pro sports leagues are trying to uphold.
HOF
Posted 26 November 2013 - 05:32 PM
You didn't answer the question. It also wasn't on the job. Most recreational weed users aren't going to arise suspicion from their employers.A. if you are caught smoking on the job whats going to happen.
Most jobs don't test for drugs once you have the job. So are those companies allowing their workers to smoke pot?
B. Most jobs can subject an employee to a drug test if they have reason to suspect they are on drugs. So if you walk into work enough times and you are noticeably high you're likely to be tested.
It comes with the territory. There is an image these pro sports leagues are trying to uphold.
The Great Cornholio
Posted 26 November 2013 - 05:35 PM
Lemme get two claps and a Ric Flair
Banned
Posted 26 November 2013 - 05:38 PM
You didn't answer the question. It also wasn't on the job. Most recreational weed users aren't going to arise suspicion from their employers.
As for that image, it's not really hurt by players using some pot in private. It's hurt way more by the Ravens bus incident and the like, so what's your punishment for getting drunk in public?
Yeah, something tells me this isn't recreational use.
Sometimes in life you have to be held to a higher standard. End of story on my end.
HOF
Posted 26 November 2013 - 05:44 PM
Yeah, something tells me this isn't recreational use.You didn't answer the question. It also wasn't on the job. Most recreational weed users aren't going to arise suspicion from their employers.
As for that image, it's not really hurt by players using some pot in private. It's hurt way more by the Ravens bus incident and the like, so what's your punishment for getting drunk in public?
Sometimes in life you have to be held to a higher standard. End of story on my end.
Advanced Member
Posted 26 November 2013 - 07:05 PM
Is this sarcasm? I'm not trying to be cheeky, I really can't tell. I will say that the majority of people that smoke pot do it recreationally just like the vast majority of people who drink alcohol do so recreationally. Also, not the whole team was caught with weed.It's a gateway drug. Soon you have a team full of guys smoking weed to a team full of guys smoking crack cocaine. Ban them all for life and send those who are clean (ahem Russell Wilson) to Baltimore.
HOF
Posted 26 November 2013 - 07:11 PM
Mike's right that pot shouldn't be something that's banned by the NFL or by anybody (outside of places where it's use can impair you and endanger others, like driving)
Branden's right that since it is banned, the player's gotta abide by the rules or else he's really hurting his team.
CFB Analyst
Posted 26 November 2013 - 07:49 PM
It's one thing not to look down on the average joe for smoking pot. It's another when it's part of your job not to smoke pot. Especially, when you are facing a 1 yr ban and are about to really hurt your team. Very selfish act.
However, it possibly speaks to the biggest misconception out there. That pot is not addicting.
While your characterization of "addicts running around on the field" is over the top, your point here is one I think everyone should agree on. Regardless of one's views on marijuana use (and I have no problem with it personally) the fact is that the NFL tests for and suspends players for using it. Given that, any player who uses it during the season is just showing a selfish lack of self-restraint and owes his teammates a huge apology if he's caught. No good reason you can't hold off on the weed until the offseason when they don't test.
EDIT: And as for the Seahawks organization, I think it's beyond the point where someone needs to step up and try to get this under control. Paul Allen needs to dust off the old handbook from the Jail Blazer days.
HOF
Posted 26 November 2013 - 08:17 PM
A. if you are caught smoking on the job whats going to happen.
B. Most jobs can subject an employee to a drug test if they have reason to suspect they are on drugs. So if you walk into work enough times and you are noticeably high you're likely to be tested.
It comes with the territory. There is an image these pro sports leagues are trying to uphold.
You're right at the most general level: the NFL has the right to choose to ban and test for whatever they want* (assuming the players' association agrees, of course). Even if marijuana use has been legalized in Washington and Colorado, the NFL has not done so (and likely will not, at the very least until a theoretical national legalization).
However, you are making WAY too many assumptions and jumping to WAY too many conclusions when it comes to your underlying arguments.
*And it should be pointed out again that when the NFL (and other leagues) have such a terrible time with alcohol abuse and the ancillary effects (mostly drunk driving and fights) that come along with it the idea that they take such a hard line on certain substances and not others is ridiculous.
HOF
Posted 26 November 2013 - 08:21 PM
Mike's right that pot shouldn't be something that's banned by the NFL or by anybody (outside of places where it's use can impair you and endanger others, like driving)
Branden's right that since it is banned, the player's gotta abide by the rules or else he's really hurting his team.
Agreed. It's definitely dumb on the players behalf too.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
