PDA

View Full Version : Should the league remove MJ from the banned substance list?



JasonJohnHorn
04-05-2014, 11:41 PM
Larry Sanders has been suspended 5 games for smoking MJ.

Chris Webber has been suspended for it in the past.

If memory serves me right, Robert Parish was also suspended.

And the list is much longer than that.

Considering that marijuana has been legalized in two states and that medical use is legal in a great many others, isn't it time that the NBA remove this from the banned substance policy?

This would be like suspending a player for drinking or smoking a cigar.

NYJ - NYY
04-05-2014, 11:42 PM
Marijuana is awesome and should be legalized everywhere with the age of legality being 21 and same stipulations as alcohol and driving

DillyDill
04-05-2014, 11:46 PM
Lol u tricked me I thought u were saying should they remove Micheal Jordan hahahahahaha

Hellcrooner
04-06-2014, 12:08 AM
When its legal in the whole Usa maybe.

Max.This
04-06-2014, 12:18 AM
legalize all drugs and drug kingpins will fall.

FlashBolt
04-06-2014, 12:29 AM
Lame attempt.

Trwood12
04-08-2014, 12:42 AM
As long as they don't use it before or somehow during a game, I don't see the problem. It just shouldn't have an effect on their performance

Hawkeye15
04-08-2014, 12:54 AM
of course it should be legalized. And in reality, its only a matter of time before it is.

That being said, not every business will allow it.

IndyRealist
04-08-2014, 12:55 AM
The Nevada Gaming Comission just banned the use of TRT (Testosterone Replacement Therapy) even though it is completely legal and prescribed by doctors to UFC fighters. While not exactly recreational, TRT is considered a quality of life treatment and not a performance enhancer, per se. So there is a precedent for banning substances that are not PEDs.

And there is the legality issue. In 48 states it is still a crime, and federally it is still a crime. By removing the penalty for it they would in essence be condoning their players to break federal law. And considering how much players fly, and the fact that airports are federally controlled (and thus MJ is banned in all airports, even in Colorado), the NBA would only be asking for trouble.

HoodedSB
04-08-2014, 12:59 AM
Not until it is legal in every state that has a team.

jerellh528
04-08-2014, 01:06 AM
Of course not. Especially not until it's legal nationwide. Until then, I don't think it should be even questioned.

jerellh528
04-08-2014, 01:07 AM
I can see it now. " but but mom! Lbj smokes weed! Pleassseee.

ewing
04-08-2014, 01:23 AM
sure

NoahH
04-08-2014, 01:30 AM
It should but it would cause WAAAAY too much backlash

abe_froman
04-08-2014, 01:39 AM
It should but it would cause WAAAAY too much backlash

i dunno how much it would.

most of the league smokes,i'm sure that all the higher ups know that(you'd have to be extremely niave to not),the nba audience are largely same base of people who want legalization ....really the only backlash would come from the traditional media and people who dont watch anyways

bringbackfredex
04-08-2014, 02:35 AM
When it is completely legalized by the federal government, then yes they should remove it from the banned substance list. However it should not affect performance at work, and just like showing up to a game drunk it could be grounds for serious disciplinary action.

sunsfan88
04-08-2014, 04:58 AM
I can see it now. " but but mom! Lbj smokes weed! Pleassseee.
Lbj is also making millions of dollars and is the best basketball player on the planet. Lbj also paid for strippers and got laid every other night with a different girl before getting into a relationship with the woman who is now his wife. Does that mean kids are gonna say "Mom Lbj has sex with a lot of women, I want to have sex too! Pleeasseeeeeeee"?

If there are any parents out there who think athletes are good role models for their kids, then those parents deserve to be serving time in jail imo.

FYL_McVeezy
04-08-2014, 10:43 AM
In theory yes they should, but how can they unless the federal ban is lifted?

Shammyguy3
04-08-2014, 11:00 AM
If there are any parents out there who think athletes are good role models for their kids, then those parents deserve to be serving time in jail imo.

what a stereotypical statement :laugh2:

torocan
04-08-2014, 11:17 AM
In theory yes they should, but how can they unless the federal ban is lifted?

Easy.

"Our primary concern as a professional sports league is ensuring that all of our players compete on a level playing field. As such, given that the NBA is an international league, we feel that it is not our role to legislate the pursuit of legal medical treatments such as the legal use of marijuana for medical purposes in Canada. We do however feel that it is the role of the applicable law enforcement officials to enforce the laws relevant to their respective states, federal mandates and national laws, and as such will apply the appropriate sanctions to players that are convicted of violating federal, state or national laws regardless of whether they are marijuana related or not. Should we find that players derive any sort of competitive advantage due to marijuana use, at that time we will review our banned substance list."

In Canada it's 100% legal to use marijuana for medical purposes. You actually apply to the government for a license once you get permission from a physician. While the Raptors are a team in the NBA, this gives the NBA an easy out to remove it from the banned substance list.

In other words, it's okay for the Canadians, so as long as it's legal for ANY player to use it legally while they're playing in the NBA, then the NBA has no reason to ban it as long as there's no competitive reason to ban it.

Pierzynski4Prez
04-08-2014, 11:19 AM
It will be taken off the banned substance list, but in no way will teams allow players to use it during the season without punishment.

AIMelo=KillaDUO
04-08-2014, 11:21 AM
legalize all drugs and drug kingpins will fall.

Lol... If you legalize it (in this case lets talk, weed).

In order for it to be legalized, you would have to get the "sources" to unite. And drug lords would never do that. Why would they share/split profit, when they can make 100% from doing it on their own, as they do. Drugs, aren't a tobacco company.

Weed, will never be legal in every country. If it was as easy, as you or a lot of other people think it is, you're mistaken.

TheIlladelph16
04-08-2014, 12:00 PM
Lol... If you legalize it (in this case lets talk, weed).

In order for it to be legalized, you would have to get the "sources" to unite. And drug lords would never do that. Why would they share/split profit, when they can make 100% from doing it on their own, as they do. Drugs, aren't a tobacco company.

Weed, will never be legal in every country. If it was as easy, as you or a lot of other people think it is, you're mistaken.

The idea behind legalization is that the government and/or legally operated businesses would be undercutting the price of street dealers, thus making them irrelevant. They can keep doing what they're doing, but if its legal and cheaper, then people are headed down to the local pot shop rather than the guy on the corner. So he can keep on selling and keeping his profits, but it won't do him much good when his customer base disappears.

The illegality of drugs is what makes them so expensive in the first place.

I think it probably should be taken off of the banned substance policy at this point, but I can understand why the NBA is hesitant to do so. Within a few years, none of this will matter from a legal standpoint anyway though.

torocan
04-08-2014, 12:06 PM
Lol... If you legalize it (in this case lets talk, weed).

In order for it to be legalized, you would have to get the "sources" to unite. And drug lords would never do that. Why would they share/split profit, when they can make 100% from doing it on their own, as they do. Drugs, aren't a tobacco company.

Weed, will never be legal in every country. If it was as easy, as you or a lot of other people think it is, you're mistaken.

You think for a second that if weed was legal nationally that the big tobacco companies wouldn't be stepping in to fill the demand? They already have the equipment, land and resources to grow, package and distribute it.

The only thing holding them back at this point is the US is a huge market and they're trying to avoid backlash. I guarantee that as soon as it goes legal in the US, you'll see Marlboro India...

-Kobe24-TJ19-
04-08-2014, 12:20 PM
no, its a drug.

lets legalize cocaine also so players would never get tired smh

slashsnake
04-08-2014, 12:22 PM
The idea behind legalization is that the government and/or legally operated businesses would be undercutting the price of street dealers, thus making them irrelevant. They can keep doing what they're doing, but if its legal and cheaper, then people are headed down to the local pot shop rather than the guy on the corner. So he can keep on selling and keeping his profits, but it won't do him much good when his customer base disappears.

The illegality of drugs is what makes them so expensive in the first place.

I think it probably should be taken off of the banned substance policy at this point, but I can understand why the NBA is hesitant to do so. Within a few years, none of this will matter from a legal standpoint anyway though.

we will see if that happens. There are still quite a few shootings and robberies here in Denver for illegal weed deals gone bad. The issue is "cheaper". Prices are higher here thanks to the tax (25%), availability, and costs here vs. other countries to produce it. Colorado has had medicinal marijuana ok'd for years with dispensaries, the market evened out and it was going double the black market prices.

The tax will be the big one, and production costs for a labor intensive crop. Look at NYC and cigarrettes. Until they can get prices down below street value, they are stuck with illegal sales dominating.

Look at Amsterdam.. They never had a black market established due to having weed legal there for years. But that is one of the most expensive countries to buy in (twice as much as NY for example). The illegality makes a lot of drugs expensive, but weed is one of the ones where it isn't so.

flea
04-08-2014, 12:24 PM
Considering I think all random drug-testing by employers and the state is an invasion of privacy and unconstitutional, then yeah sure.

*Limited exceptions for occupations such as air-traffic controllers and pilots

1-800-STFU
04-08-2014, 12:27 PM
I dont really care. If you dont have the willpower to abstain from it and it costs you a bunch if money it's your fault only

1-800-STFU
04-08-2014, 12:27 PM
no, its a drug.

lets legalize cocaine also so players would never get tired smh

So is alcohol tho

-Kobe24-TJ19-
04-08-2014, 12:37 PM
So is alcohol tho

Paul George has been too hard on booze lately, dude cant buy a bucket

slashsnake
04-08-2014, 01:44 PM
Considering I think all random drug-testing by employers and the state is an invasion of privacy and unconstitutional, then yeah sure.

*Limited exceptions for occupations such as air-traffic controllers and pilots

Interesting... But if it is important there, shouldn't it be just as important for the guy who built the plane, or does the mechanical work on it?

A lot more people get sick and die from foodborne illnesses than flying (150k hospitalized every year and 3000+ deaths). So shouldn't we test food manufacturing and processing companes?

Driving is by far more dangerous than flying so why not cab and bus drivers and those who need to operate vehicles as part of their job?

And construction workers running heavy equipment and working at heights?

And what about teachers and day care providers who take care of children unable to care for themselves?

Throw in dangerous jobs... logging, fishing, roofing, electrical power contractors, etc... The last thing I would want if I was running a company is to be worried that the guy shutting off the power to a 10k volt line I am working on 50 feet above the ground is on drugs at the time.

Just playing devils advocate here, don't take it personally but it is hard to say where to limit it if you are going to. Personally, I don't think that if I want to go get a certain job, that I have a right to not prove that I am not a drug user. Just as if I gave a child care worker caring for my kid a background check to prove they are not a child molester. I have the right to say no, it just would preclude me from that occupation. I still have a choice. I can choose to not do drugs and work where I do, or choose to do them and find employment elsewhere.

torocan
04-08-2014, 02:00 PM
Interesting... But if it is important there, shouldn't it be just as important for the guy who built the plane, or does the mechanical work on it?

A lot more people get sick and die from foodborne illnesses than flying (150k hospitalized every year and 3000+ deaths). So shouldn't we test food manufacturing and processing companes?

Driving is by far more dangerous than flying so why not cab and bus drivers and those who need to operate vehicles as part of their job?

And construction workers running heavy equipment and working at heights?

And what about teachers and day care providers who take care of children unable to care for themselves?

Throw in dangerous jobs... logging, fishing, roofing, electrical power contractors, etc... The last thing I would want if I was running a company is to be worried that the guy shutting off the power to a 10k volt line I am working on 50 feet above the ground is on drugs at the time.

Just playing devils advocate here, don't take it personally but it is hard to say where to limit it if you are going to. Personally, I don't think that if I want to go get a certain job, that I have a right to not prove that I am not a drug user. Just as if I gave a child care worker caring for my kid a background check to prove they are not a child molester. I have the right to say no, it just would preclude me from that occupation. I still have a choice. I can choose to not do drugs and work where I do, or choose to do them and find employment elsewhere.

Playing devil's advocate... :)

By that extension, shouldn't we have breathalyzers at the work place? How about blood tests for antihistamine's? Random blood glucose level tests? Random tests for fatigue due to lack of sleep?

There are many ways the human mind and body can be impaired. It's why laws for operating under the influence exist and why the penalties are harsh.

Personally, I would much rather test someone when you have reasonable cause or post accident and treat it as a criminal offense versus subject everyone to testing on the remote chance you find out someone is impaired.

Just playing devil's advocate... ;)

Pistol_Pete
04-08-2014, 02:07 PM
Just like others said, it's illegal. That's it. That ends the debate. Federally, it's illegal. You can't allow something in a sport that not actually legal, and you can't unban it in some states and not others (for example, you can't say it's legal for Nuggets players but not Knicks players, and you can't say it's legal for all players when they're in a specific state). You just can't.

If it were actually legal, like alcohol, then yeah, it probably shouldn't be banned. Perhaps they could just not enforce it, but unbanning it isn't an option.

jerellh528
04-08-2014, 02:13 PM
Hate when pot heads just use alcohol as a tool for debate. Come up with something weed dependant as your main premise instead of piggy backing on another substance.

5ass
04-08-2014, 02:34 PM
Hate when pot heads just use alcohol as a tool for debate. Come up with something weed dependant as your main premise instead of piggy backing on another substance.

There are a million reasons why we should legalize. I would've hoped people are more educated these days about it, but still some people are too stubborn. Marijuana is a healer. Amazing medicinal properties. To me, its my all natural, 100% safe migraine medicine. I've been suffering since I was just 6. Now just a small dab of concentrate provides me instant relief. Meanwhile I've tried a billion over the counter drugs, and a few prescription drugs that were nowhere near as effective as marijuana and had dangerous side effects. God knows how much damage these medicines did to my kidneys over the years.

Alcohol aside. You want to go into tobacco? The government is ok selling us and hooking us on cancer sticks. I was a victim for 5 years. You think the government is really looking out for us?

torocan
04-08-2014, 02:40 PM
Just like others said, it's illegal. That's it. That ends the debate. Federally, it's illegal. You can't allow something in a sport that not actually legal, and you can't unban it in some states and not others (for example, you can't say it's legal for Nuggets players but not Knicks players, and you can't say it's legal for all players when they're in a specific state). You just can't.

It's legal in Canada, which last I checked has a NBA team. You CAN choose to take NO position on a law that's unequally applicable across your organization. For example, did you know that many companies that have strict drug random testing policies in the US do not have those policies in Canada? Or other countries?

And the NBA rules already have sanctions for players who break the law in the places they live. It's basically doubling up on a law that isn't universally enforced everywhere the NBA does business.

Why would it be wrong for the NBA to say, "It's a job for the cops, not us"?

JasonJohnHorn
04-08-2014, 02:40 PM
cant buy a bucket

When I read that, I heard it in the NBA JAM announcer's voice... lol

JasonJohnHorn
04-08-2014, 02:43 PM
It's legal in Canada, which last I checked has a NBA team. You CAN choose to take NO position on a law that's unequally applicable across your organization. For example, did you know that many companies that have strict drug random testing policies in the US do not have those policies in Canada? Or other countries?

And the NBA rules already have sanctions for players who break the law in the places they live. It's basically doubling up on a law that isn't universally enforced everywhere the NBA does business.

Why would it be wrong for the NBA to say, "It's a job for the cops, not us"?

I live in Canada. It is NOT legal unless your doctor says you can use it.

Small amounts are decriminalized, so all you'll get is a fine, but it is illegal.

ewing
04-08-2014, 02:45 PM
In theory yes they should, but how can they unless the federal ban is lifted?

b/c the NBA isn't a vice cop. nothing is making the NBA play weed cop other then the NBA

JasonJohnHorn
04-08-2014, 02:46 PM
Just like others said, it's illegal.

So is speeding, but players don't get suspended for that.

A lot of things are illegal because we have antiquated laws. It doesn't mean that we need our own employers policing what we do on our own time.

jerellh528
04-08-2014, 02:47 PM
There are a million reasons why we should legalize. I would've hoped people are more educated these days about it, but still some people are too stubborn. Marijuana is a healer. Amazing medicinal properties. To me, its my all natural, 100% safe migraine medicine. I've been suffering since I was just 6. Now just a small dab of concentrate provides me instant relief. Meanwhile I've tried a billion over the counter drugs, and a few prescription drugs that were nowhere near as effective as marijuana and had dangerous side effects. God knows how much damage these medicines did to my kidneys over the years.

Alcohol aside. You want to go into tobacco? The government is ok selling us and hooking us on cancer sticks. I was a victim for 5 years. You think the government is really looking out for us?


Healing properties? Most illegal drugs on the market have healing powers http://www.oddee.com/item_97276.aspx

ewing
04-08-2014, 02:47 PM
no, its a drug.

lets legalize cocaine also so players would never get tired smh


ok

torocan
04-08-2014, 02:48 PM
I live in Canada. It is NOT legal unless your doctor says you can use it.

Small amounts are decriminalized, so all you'll get is a fine, but it is illegal.

It's legal for medical consumption if you get a possession permit/license. If a player wants to use it for medical consumption, then it's 100% legal. My question is should the NBA be taking a stance on a drug that CAN be used legally for medical purposes in part of their organization? Or is decriminalized ala jay walking?

jerellh528
04-08-2014, 02:50 PM
So is speeding, but players don't get suspended for that.

A lot of things are illegal because we have antiquated laws. It doesn't mean that we need our own employers policing what we do on our own time.

They're your employer. If they choose to test for ILLEGAL substances that have been proven to negatively alter the way a person performs their work, it's their prerogative. There are plenty of jobs that don't do drug testing. It's also how an employer can not hire based on a bad driving record or bad credit. There's thousands of people on the job hunt, why take a drug addict when there's less risk people to hire out there.

5ass
04-08-2014, 02:56 PM
Healing properties? Most illegal drugs on the market have healing powers http://www.oddee.com/item_97276.aspx

Oh trust me I know, opium is used all the time for pain killing, but none are as safe as marijuana. You know damn well that I didn't mean to imply we should legalize all drugs. All I'm saying is if you think the government puts people's well being as a priority you are dead wrong.
Like I said there are a million reasons to legalize, medicinal properties was just one of them.

jerellh528
04-08-2014, 03:08 PM
Oh trust me I know, opium is used all the time for pain killing, but none are as safe as marijuana. You know damn well that I didn't mean to imply we should legalize all drugs. All I'm saying is if you think the government puts people's well being as a priority you are dead wrong.
Like I said there are a million reasons to legalize, medicinal properties was just one of them.
I know our government doesn't care enough about the immediate well being of it's citizens from a substance vantage. For instance our alcohol laws are supposed to be in place to "protect" our underage drinkers for alcohol yet the underage drinker is the one who is disciplined here. Where in other countries the laws do protect the underage because the source gets disciplined, not the drinker, and rates of underage drinking is lower in those countries. US is all about the bucks. I just feel people only want weed legalized to get stoned without worry of bein fined or put in jail, not because of tax benifits, or healing properties or anything beneficial. If they would just come out and say it, they would look far less hypocritical. I mean, the same people who wanted weed legal are the same ones who ***** about the 35% tax rate and still choose to buy from their illegal dealer. The governments are going to take notice of that and say to hell with legalizing. Especially if it only contributes to the problem.

slashsnake
04-08-2014, 03:10 PM
Playing devil's advocate... :)

By that extension, shouldn't we have breathalyzers at the work place? How about blood tests for antihistamine's? Random blood glucose level tests? Random tests for fatigue due to lack of sleep?

There are many ways the human mind and body can be impaired. It's why laws for operating under the influence exist and why the penalties are harsh.

Personally, I would much rather test someone when you have reasonable cause or post accident and treat it as a criminal offense versus subject everyone to testing on the remote chance you find out someone is impaired.

Just playing devil's advocate... ;)

Some places do have those things. Most I know of stick with pre-employment screen and for insurance and safety purposes due a post-injury/incident screen (get hurt, hurt someone or cause X dollars of damage). I have worked in two companies that did randoms.. Where I am currently, we do hair, blood, and urine on every new hire and every accident.

But there are plenty of jobs that test for fatigue in area's where that has been found to be an issue. Drive a truck, gotta show your log. Lots of federal laws on hours worked as well.

The problem is that drug use is an easily detectable, and easily preventable way to impair your mind and body.

And to take your logic on only testing post-incident... Are you saying you'd only want to see employment testing for a bus driver AFTER he pulls in front of a speeding train to find out if he is a PCP user?

-Kobe24-TJ19-
04-08-2014, 03:13 PM
ok

cmon ewing, if JR is high as a kite he would shoot 30 three pointers per game

king4day
04-08-2014, 03:18 PM
It's illegal so no. If it's legalized then sure, since it'd be no different than that of alcohol.

Cal827
04-08-2014, 03:22 PM
cmon ewing, if JR is high as a kite he would shoot 30 three pointers per game

:laugh::laugh:

I would pay good money to see how many he hits or misses.

My prediction would be that against most teams he would go like 3/30, then against the Raptors, he would hit 27/30 lol

ewing
04-08-2014, 03:27 PM
cmon ewing, if JR is high as a kite he would shoot 30 three pointers per game


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h5kg5f8Im0


I can see every stitch

torocan
04-08-2014, 03:38 PM
And to take your logic on only testing post-incident... Are you saying you'd only want to see employment testing for a bus driver AFTER he pulls in front of a speeding train to find out if he is a PCP user?

What I said was "reasonable cause" or post-accident.

And I'm perfectly fine with random testing when there are serious health risks associated, such as pilots. However the NBA has none of those risks. When's the last time that you saw a bystander's health at serious risk during a game due to impairment? And post incident screening is perfectly fine as long as it relates to actual performance. You have reasonable cause at that point.

What I'm not in favor of is random screening without medical basis or competitive basis. Am I the only one that found it odd that they banned marijuana YEARS before they were willing to ban PED's?

I find the NBA's position to be extremely hypocritical given most of the NBA was drugged up during the 80's and 90's and retired players freely admit that MJ use is still prevalent. The NBA's position on marijuana is PR driven, not performance driven.

There is always a balance to be struck between collective and individual rights. And when collective safety is at risk, then it makes sense for it to take precedence over individual rights. However, why should I care if a player does a spliff on his own time as long as he comes in sober on game night? Especially if he's using it in a legal context (like medical marijuana in Canada) or he's using it in an area where it's basically equivalent to a jay walking ticket.

It just smacks of hypocrisy to me.

5ass
04-08-2014, 03:42 PM
I know our government doesn't care enough about the immediate well being of it's citizens from a substance vantage. For instance our alcohol laws are supposed to be in place to "protect" our underage drinkers for alcohol yet the underage drinker is the one who is disciplined here. Where in other countries the laws do protect the underage because the source gets disciplined, not the drinker, and rates of underage drinking is lower in those countries. US is all about the bucks. I just feel people only want weed legalized to get stoned without worry of bein fined or put in jail, not because of tax benifits, or healing properties or anything beneficial. If they would just come out and say it, they would look far less hypocritical. I mean, the same people who wanted weed legal are the same ones who ***** about the 35% tax rate and still choose to buy from their illegal dealer. The governments are going to take notice of that and say to hell with legalizing. Especially if it only contributes to the problem.

So what exactly is that problem? Are you just against them cz they're hypocrites? Or are you just against marijuana's effects?
Where do you suggest they buy their weed if its not from their "illegal dealer" not sure what taxes have to do with it. The fact that they're pushing for legalization means they don't mind paying the tax. All we want is well grown marijuana without the risk of it being contaminated.

slashsnake
04-08-2014, 04:35 PM
well the NBA makes it's money on marketing itself and its image is HUGE. We've sat through 10 years of those stupid "NBA Cares" commercials for one brawl in Indiana. It's definitely not a good PR move for a company that heavily promotes itself to teens and gets its interest from the moms willing to spend the money to say illegal drugs are ok in its business. There it comes for what is best for the business. Same reason you do have the freedom of speech to speak out against gays or Christians, or be a white supremacist if you want, you just shouldn't expect to keep a job as a TV actor or doing commercials for being a spokesman for a company if you do.

It is kind of like the NFL. The safety rules there aren't to keep the players safe in the NFL. It is to put an end to the lawsuits, and most importantly, to convince moms to sign that waiver to let their kids play football because it isn't as dangerous as they thought. No one cared 30 years ago what Lawrence Taylor did in his time off. It wasn't news. Now it is, and when it became a black eye for the league, the league put in rules to stop bad off the field behavior. A player shows up on TV in a picture smoking weed, his parents aren't spending 80 bucks for his jersey for their impressionable kid. He's caught jaywalking they will.

I don't find the rulings on the legality of marijuana being against the rules first odd as it was against the law MUCH earlier. Marijuana was banned for general use in the 30's when steroids were first being developed and immediately listed as a schedule 1 narcotic in 1970 when the US passed the controlled substances act.. I think steroids were only banned in sports for fair play reasons up till the mid 90s when it hopped on the banned list. PED bans came about from the desire in sports for a "fair playing field", whereas recreational drug use came about from a desire to sell its product better.

slashsnake
04-08-2014, 04:37 PM
though I fully agree that weed poses zero workplace danger in the NBA.. Sam Perkins proved that.

albertajaysfan
04-08-2014, 05:16 PM
When it is completely legalized by the federal government, then yes they should remove it from the banned substance list. However it should not affect performance at work, and just like showing up to a game drunk it could be grounds for serious disciplinary action.

That I can agree with.

But a performance enhancer, that is absolutely ridiculous. Never in my life have I thought, getting stoned will help my performance. Unless of course I am trying to watch TV or eat more then necessary. Perhaps turn my mouth into a desert. I perform exceptionally at all of those things.

slashsnake
04-08-2014, 05:23 PM
I think its the same as football, where there is a PED policy and also a drug policy. They sound the same and the media doesn't really differentiate on them, but they are separate.

They are a bit different, in terms of suspensions, reinstatement conditions, multiple time offenders, etc.

ChiSox219
04-08-2014, 05:59 PM
Weed is a PED.

torocan
04-08-2014, 06:03 PM
I think its the same as football, where there is a PED policy and also a drug policy. They sound the same and the media doesn't really differentiate on them, but they are separate.

They are a bit different, in terms of suspensions, reinstatement conditions, multiple time offenders, etc.

The NBA PED policy and testing regime is a joke and wasn't instituted until much later. They still allow a considerable number of substances that are banned in the Olympics.

downsos
04-08-2014, 06:11 PM
Not until it's legal everywhere.

Crackadalic
04-08-2014, 06:58 PM
cmon ewing, if JR is high as a kite he would shoot 30 three pointers per game

Jr spliff would get a triple double high. He almost did a couple nights ago. Hey if it makes him a better player and actually make shots get as high as you want lol

He has made 8 plus 3's in 3 games. Has to be him smoking that good