detlef Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 An oft-used argument in favor of the NFL's (or any company's) drug policy is that they're really not asking their employees to do any more than follow the law. Another is that they should have the right to conduct their business as they like. The drug code is a contract that you can simply avoid entering if you feel you must do drugs. Rick Will essentially opted out for those reasons. Now, before you get on board with that, think about the trend you are endorsing. As more businesses adopt these policies, we will essentially have more police. Only these police will have more far reaching rights than our existing force. Police can't randomly test you, but your place of work can. Again, as more and more move in this direction, those who don't want to be subjected to such "illegal search" will have fewer and fewer choices of where to work. Of course, if you don't do drugs, you have nothing to worry about, right? What if you speed? An argument could be made that speeding is at least as big a threat to yours and others health as smoking pot. Would it be out of the realm for insurance companies (often the reason sited for adopting drug policies in the workplace) to encourage companies to not allow their employees to speed? Not to simply suspend or terminate you if you get a ticket, but to actually install a device in your car that would randomly check if you'd gone over 70mph in the last few weeks or so? The latter, of course, would be the equivelant to random drug testing. This may never happen, of course. However, if you're cool with the NFL or anyone requiring drug testing but would be opposed to the speeding policy, consider yourself a hypocrite. One can argue the relative dangers of each violation, but both are illegal, and neither "search" would be a violation of your constitutional rights because they'd be done by a business. So obviously, if you're fine with one, you should be fine with the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 An oft-used argument in favor of the NFL's (or any company's) drug policy is that they're really not asking their employees to do any more than follow the law. Another is that they should have the right to conduct their business as they like. The drug code is a contract that you can simply avoid entering if you feel you must do drugs. Rick Will essentially opted out for those reasons. Now, before you get on board with that, think about the trend you are endorsing. As more businesses adopt these policies, we will essentially have more police. Only these police will have more far reaching rights than our existing force. Police can't randomly test you, but your place of work can. Again, as more and more move in this direction, those who don't want to be subjected to such "illegal search" will have fewer and fewer choices of where to work. Of course, if you don't do drugs, you have nothing to worry about, right? What if you speed? An argument could be made that speeding is at least as big a threat to yours and others health as smoking pot. Would it be out of the realm for insurance companies (often the reason sited for adopting drug policies in the workplace) to encourage companies to not allow their employees to speed? Not to simply suspend or terminate you if you get a ticket, but to actually install a device in your car that would randomly check if you'd gone over 70mph in the last few weeks or so? The latter, of course, would be the equivelant to random drug testing. This may never happen, of course. However, if you're cool with the NFL or anyone requiring drug testing but would be opposed to the speeding policy, consider yourself a hypocrite. One can argue the relative dangers of each violation, but both are illegal, and neither "search" would be a violation of your constitutional rights because they'd be done by a business. So obviously, if you're fine with one, you should be fine with the other. 583081[/snapback] So what should the NFL and other pro sports leagues do about performance enhancing drugs which allow players to perform at higher than expected levels and therefore create circumstances in which they are earning significantly more money that they should be? Particularly after the player earns the contract and then stops taking the drugs and performing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 What happened detlef, get pulled over for speeding with a bag of Josh Gordon in your car? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Actually Detlef, it has already happened. I had to fire an employee that we had due to multiple speeding tickets. Based upon the law in Texas anyway, if he was in a wreck on the way to work, his employer has a degree of liability regardless of whether or not he was using a company or private vehicle. The insurance company basically said you can either give him a ride to work or fire him, or we are going to cut your policy limits in half, but keep your premiums where they are. So your hypothetical really isn't a hypothetical at all. It has already happened. I hated having to fire the guy, because he was a good young employee that showed a lot of potential. That being said, there is a degree of personal responsibility in either case. In the case of the guy I had to fire, our employee hand book clearly states that if you get three speeding tickets in a one year period of time you are gone. Our insurance company notifies us of each ticket, and we provide a verbal warning after the first notification, and a verbal and written warning after the second notification. After three you are gone. While I hated to fire the guy, it was his own fault. Just like Ricky he has to be responsible for his actions. I know that is not the PC thing, but it is the right thing, unfortuanately we have gotten too far away from it in recent years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoJoTheWebToedBoy Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Bullsh!t, I spent 22 years in the military, and was randomly drug tested every damm year. And if I came up positive, it was my career. That was one of the rules I had to live by if I wanted to stay in the military. Oh, and believe me, my annual salary was less then what some of these guys spend on a home theater system. You want to play in the NFL, then live by the rules. You can't go take your ass over to Mickey D's, I here they have openings for Fry Boys. Overpaid, pampered, a$$holes...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 30, 2004 Author Share Posted November 30, 2004 So what should the NFL and other pro sports leagues do about performance enhancing drugs which allow players to perform at higher than expected levels and therefore create circumstances in which they are earning significantly more money that they should be? Particularly after the player earns the contract and then stops taking the drugs and performing? 583086[/snapback] While it may seem to be in opposition of what I said above, I endorse policies to test for performance enhancing drugs, because it preserves the integrity of the game. In much the same way that gamblers are punished by the leagues proportionally more than other criminals, I can get on board with this. It is policing it's employees to the extent that the customer maintains confidence with the product. In the case of non-enhancing drugs like pot that argument can't be made. If a player is too stoned to play at a high enough level, they'll be cut for the end result, not how they got there. That would apply to any work place. If a worker is stoned on the job and they drive a fork lift into the wall, they'll affect the work place and will be punished. If they smoke a bong hit at night before bed, they still run the risk of being busted by the cops but shouldn't be a concern to their employer. Similarly, I believe it is fair to maintain that customer confidence by suspending or even banishing anyone found guilty of any laws percieved as particularly objectionable, including drug offenses. I'm not suggesting that they operate in a separate world from the law, just that they should avoid being the police. In terms of how steriods etc. could be considered performance enhancing drugs for laborers, that's likely a non-issue. There's simply not an adequate pay-off to trigger an epidemic where guys will be forced to put their health at risk just to keep up with the others. Like many other laws, you've simply got to assume the market will police itself in that regard most guys wont do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 30, 2004 Author Share Posted November 30, 2004 Actually Detlef, it has already happened. I had to fire an employee that we had due to multiple speeding tickets. Based upon the law in Texas anyway, if he was in a wreck on the way to work, his employer has a degree of liability regardless of whether or not he was using a company or private vehicle. The insurance company basically said you can either give him a ride to work or fire him, or we are going to cut your policy limits in half, but keep your premiums where they are. So your hypothetical really isn't a hypothetical at all. It has already happened. I hated having to fire the guy, because he was a good young employee that showed a lot of potential. That being said, there is a degree of personal responsibility in either case. In the case of the guy I had to fire, our employee hand book clearly states that if you get three speeding tickets in a one year period of time you are gone. Our insurance company notifies us of each ticket, and we provide a verbal warning after the first notification, and a verbal and written warning after the second notification. After three you are gone. While I hated to fire the guy, it was his own fault. Just like Ricky he has to be responsible for his actions. I know that is not the PC thing, but it is the right thing, unfortuanately we have gotten too far away from it in recent years. 583097[/snapback] If you read my post carefully, I wasn't mentioning firing someone who'd been caught for speeding, rather going through measures to police his driving habits yourself. The NFL's policy isn't about suspending you if you get caught by the police smoking pot, but rather testing for pot themselves. There is a huge difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 In the case of non-enhancing drugs like pot that argument can't be made. If a player is too stoned to play at a high enough level, they'll be cut for the end result, not how they got there. That would apply to any work place. If a worker is stoned on the job and they drive a fork lift into the wall, they'll affect the work place and will be punished. If they smoke a bong hit at night before bed, they still run the risk of being busted by the cops but shouldn't be a concern to their employer. 583132[/snapback] So, instead of being pre-emptive, let's wait until the guy drives the forklift through the wall and kills somebody? I think I'd have to disagree here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 While it may seem to be in opposition of what I said above, I endorse policies to test for performance enhancing drugs, because it preserves the integrity of the game. In much the same way that gamblers are punished by the leagues proportionally more than other criminals, I can get on board with this. It is policing it's employees to the extent that the customer maintains confidence with the product. In the case of non-enhancing drugs like pot that argument can't be made. If a player is too stoned to play at a high enough level, they'll be cut for the end result, not how they got there. That would apply to any work place. If a worker is stoned on the job and they drive a fork lift into the wall, they'll affect the work place and will be punished. If they smoke a bong hit at night before bed, they still run the risk of being busted by the cops but shouldn't be a concern to their employer. Similarly, I believe it is fair to maintain that customer confidence by suspending or even banishing anyone found guilty of any laws percieved as particularly objectionable, including drug offenses. I'm not suggesting that they operate in a separate world from the law, just that they should avoid being the police. In terms of how steriods etc. could be considered performance enhancing drugs for laborers, that's likely a non-issue. There's simply not an adequate pay-off to trigger an epidemic where guys will be forced to put their health at risk just to keep up with the others. Like many other laws, you've simply got to assume the market will police itself in that regard most guys wont do it. 583132[/snapback] Josh Gordon could be considered to give players an advantage because of the painkilling apsects. Now, I think it should be legal and not subject to league scrutiny, but as you just posted drug tests are necessary, and Josh Gordon is an illegal drug. So for now, there's really not much to debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 30, 2004 Author Share Posted November 30, 2004 Bullsh!t, I spent 22 years in the military, and was randomly drug tested every damm year. And if I came up positive, it was my career. That was one of the rules I had to live by if I wanted to stay in the military. Oh, and believe me, my annual salary was less then what some of these guys spend on a home theater system. You want to play in the NFL, then live by the rules. You can't go take your ass over to Mickey D's, I here they have openings for Fry Boys. Overpaid, pampered, a$$holes...... 583124[/snapback] Dude, read my post. You're argument comes nowhere near addressing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 30, 2004 Author Share Posted November 30, 2004 So, instead of being pre-emptive, let's wait until the guy drives the forklift through the wall and kills somebody? I think I'd have to disagree here. 583141[/snapback] Well, I suppose nobody should be able to drink anymore either? There's about as much chance of a drunk guy pulling that stunt as a stoned guy. Neither should be allowed to be under the influence on the job. If it's not about businesses taking it upon themselves to be police and they're simply being pre-emptive in avoiding accidents, then there should be no problem in businesses not allowing anyone to drink even on their own time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Josh Gordon could be considered to give players an advantage because of the painkilling apsects. 583147[/snapback] That is utterly ridiculous, unless you have glaucoma. There's a million other legal drugs that provide more pain relief from getting clocked in the head by Ray Lewis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Bullsh!t, I spent 22 years in the military, and was randomly drug tested every damm year. And if I came up positive, it was my career. That was one of the rules I had to live by if I wanted to stay in the military. Oh, and believe me, my annual salary was less then what some of these guys spend on a home theater system. You want to play in the NFL, then live by the rules. You can't go take your ass over to Mickey D's, I here they have openings for Fry Boys. Overpaid, pampered, a$$holes...... 583124[/snapback] I think it's a bit more critical that the people in the military stay drug free versus what athletes due on their time off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 the case of non-enhancing drugs like pot that argument can't be made. If a player is too stoned to play at a high enough level, they'll be cut for the end result, not how they got there. That would apply to any work place. If a worker is stoned on the job and they drive a fork lift into the wall, they'll affect the work place and will be punished. If they smoke a bong hit at night before bed, they still run the risk of being busted by the cops but shouldn't be a concern to their employer. 583132[/snapback] The problem with this is that if you wait to fire the guy until he runs a fork lift into a wall, or another person, you are opening yourself up to all kinds of law suits. You will get sued becasue you should have know he was impaired. This is a byproduct of the litigatious (sp) society that we live in today. Employeers have to cover their ass. Granted in the NFL you don't have the problems with operating heavy machinery, but look at the affect that Micheal Irvin had on the Cowboys. While it may not directly affect the teams performance, it can affect the teams image, and thus affect the organizations bottom line. If you read my post carefully, I wasn't mentioning firing someone who'd been caught for speeding, rather going through measures to police his driving habits yourself. The NFL's policy isn't about suspending you if you get caught by the police smoking pot, but rather testing for pot themselves. There is a huge difference. 583140[/snapback] In a way we have to do that. We have to run driving checks on anyone we hire, and also have to run annual checks after that for liablility reasons. The insurance company provides the service on a more imediate time table, but it is in their best intrest to do so. If we do not do that, and one of our employees gets in a wreck on the way to work and kills some one, we could and would get sued. Agian a product of our litigatious(sp) society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 30, 2004 Author Share Posted November 30, 2004 Josh Gordon could be considered to give players an advantage because of the painkilling apsects. Now, I think it should be legal and not subject to league scrutiny, but as you just posted drug tests are necessary, and Josh Gordon is an illegal drug. So for now, there's really not much to debate. 583147[/snapback] Like Jackass, I don't think the league could force that connection. As far as the fact that they are testing anyway, are they obliged to check for every single drug while they're in there? I'd like to think the union could demand the tests only look for banned substances in the same way that other unions should demand they not be tested for drugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Well, I suppose nobody should be able to drink anymore either? There's about as much chance of a drunk guy pulling that stunt as a stoned guy. Neither should be allowed to be under the influence on the job. If it's not about businesses taking it upon themselves to be police and they're simply being pre-emptive in avoiding accidents, then there should be no problem in businesses not allowing anyone to drink even on their own time. 583160[/snapback] I think you're blending two issues here. Or maybe my reading comprehension skills need work, which is quite possible. You talk about being stoned at work, and compare it to being drunk at work, but then talk about drinking after hours. I'm a bit confused at what point you're trying to make. Drinking while at work would obviously not be acceptable either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 30, 2004 Author Share Posted November 30, 2004 The problem with this is that if you wait to fire the guy until he runs a fork lift into a wall, or another person, you are opening yourself up to all kinds of law suits. You will get sued becasue you should have know he was impaired. This is a byproduct of the litigatious (sp) society that we live in today. Employeers have to cover their ass. Granted in the NFL you don't have the problems with operating heavy machinery, but look at the affect that Micheal Irvin had on the Cowboys. While it may not directly affect the teams performance, it can affect the teams image, and thus affect the organizations bottom line. In a way we have to do that. We have to run driving checks on anyone we hire, and also have to run annual checks after that for liablility reasons. The insurance company provides the service on a more imediate time table, but it is in their best intrest to do so. If we do not do that, and one of our employees gets in a wreck on the way to work and kills some one, we could and would get sued. Agian a product of our litigatious(sp) society. 583174[/snapback] In response to both. I answered the issue about the fork lift when Hugh brought it up. Testing for pot tells you a guy got high within the last few weeks. Hell, he could have been on vacation in Amsterdam when he toked. I have no problem what-so-ever with companies not allowing workers to be impared on the job from any drug legal or otherwise. As far as Michael Irvin, as I mentioned earlier, if a dude gets convicted or gets off on a plea bargain, then it's open season. You're still not getting my point about speeding. In your case, you are still simply acting on information given to you by police records. That is totally cool. It is the police's job to arrest people and you are completely within your rights to judge them based on that record. This is still a long way from actually becoming your own police force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylive5 Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 I'll get down on this by saying.... I don't do drugs and I don't speed. If it is illegal... don't do it. If you can't perform in sports (or at a regular job) without drugs, you need to find something else to do. Unlike the above military person above... in the Navy we were tested no less than 3 times a year on average, but in the position I was in we are talking more like 6 times a year minimum. I don't do drugs... I keep my job, I do drugs... I lose my job. Simple. Personally, I don't think Pro sports do enough when it comes to drugs. And neither does corporate America. But that is just me I am sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 30, 2004 Author Share Posted November 30, 2004 I think you're blending two issues here. Or maybe my reading comprehension skills need work, which is quite possible. You talk about being stoned at work, and compare it to being drunk at work, but then talk about drinking after hours. I'm a bit confused at what point you're trying to make. Drinking while at work would obviously not be acceptable either. 583186[/snapback] Neither is being stoned or in any way impared (as I mentioned to Perch). In fact, I think my reply to Perch pretty much answers yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 In response to both. I answered the issue about the fork lift when Hugh brought it up. Testing for pot tells you a guy got high within the last few weeks. Hell, he could have been on vacation in Amsterdam when he toked. I have no problem what-so-ever with companies not allowing workers to be impared on the job from any drug legal or otherwise. As far as Michael Irvin, as I mentioned earlier, if a dude gets convicted or gets off on a plea bargain, then it's open season. You're still not getting my point about speeding. In your case, you are still simply acting on information given to you by police records. That is totally cool. It is the police's job to arrest people and you are completely within your rights to judge them based on that record. This is still a long way from actually becoming your own police force. 583187[/snapback] Ok, I think we are on the same page regarding the speeding. I guess I get your point about relying on police reports, though I think if there was a practical way of monitoring this other than police reports, the insurance companies would force us to do so. With regards to the pot, in Texas, when there is an accident such as mentioned above, the equipment operator must be tested for drugs. If that test comes up positive, regardless of where or when the guy toked, it only adds to the empolyers liability. So it is in the emoployers best intrest to test. Again, if you choose to smoke pot, I guess that is your choice, but you also choose to limit your employment. It all goes back to personal responsibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Josh Gordon could be considered to give players an advantage because of the painkilling apsects. 583147[/snapback] No no no, imagine a player running around paranoid and not knowing what's going on. He's going to get "Jacked Up!!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 There's a big disinction that isn't being made: if you are in the military, chances are at some point you are theoretically in a position where lives are at stake at any given moment. Heavy equpipment use: forklifts, flying airplanes etc is another area where people's well beings are at stake. Now that a BIG difference from Ricky Williams doing bong hits in his living room between game weekends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 No no no, imagine a player running around paranoid and not knowing what's going on. He's going to get "Jacked Up!!" 583198[/snapback] Waterman made funny! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 There's a big disinction that isn't being made: if you are in the military, chances are at some point you are theoretically in a position where lives are at stake at any given moment. Heavy equpipment use: forklifts, flying airplanes etc is another area where people's well beings are at stake. Now that a BIG difference from Ricky Williams doing bong hits in his living room between game weekends. 583203[/snapback] Sure there's a difference. But, if you are going to issue a contract agreeing to pay someone millions of dollars, is it that far out of line to stipulate that the person receiving the contract can't do illegal drugs and can be subject to fines and punishment if caught in the mandatory testing process? I mean, nobody made Ricky sign the contract and take the Dolphins millions of dollars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.