The Josh Gordon Saga: Reinstated Conditionally
- Thread starter Ed Hillel
- Start date
Come on Roger, weed is legal in a bunch of states. Jeesh. And good thing the Browns passed on Sammy Watkins. 
They apparently didn't know until today! I don't know how that's possible, but one possible reason is Brownstown.ifmanis5 said:Come on Roger, weed is legal in a bunch of states. Jeesh. And good thing the Browns passed on Sammy Watkins.
They knewEd Hillel said:
“@MaryKayCabot: Source tells http://t.co/2S6wzTZ9Xo the #browns have known about Gordon's positive test for 2 weeks.”
ESPN saying GM, pres, and owner knew about this 2 weeks ago, but the coaches weren't told - they only found out through ESPN 90 minutes ago.
On a soapbox note: suspension for pot is ridiculous. It isn't performance enhancing. I get that it is illegal in most states, but why is breaking that law (which shouldn't be a law and is starting to go away as a law) more of a justification for taking away a career than many others that players sometimes break?
On a soapbox note: suspension for pot is ridiculous. It isn't performance enhancing. I get that it is illegal in most states, but why is breaking that law (which shouldn't be a law and is starting to go away as a law) more of a justification for taking away a career than many others that players sometimes break?
On Mobile bit where was that thread where a number of posters were saying the Pats would be dumb not trading for him?
dbn said:
I'm assuming if player X goes to Amsterdam, smokes legally, comes home and is tested... that's a drug violation?
Considering most of these guys look like they're on some sort of crazy PED cocktail, this whole anti-marijuana thing just seems like PR nonsense. Look how tough the NFL is on drugs!
Is it confirmed that it was weed? As far as I know the NFL never mentions the particular substance and it's usually volunteered by the player as Adderall or something.
Not to spark a huge debate, but stories like this make me think about the legalization of pot. The fact of the matter is, it effects everybody differently, and for some people, it is truly a crippling device. Someone like Josh Gordon (and Mathieu when he was at LSU) is going to make millions of dollars in the NFL, all they have to do is not fuck up. That means you can't fail any drug tests, and that includes not smoking weed. Despite the fact that these guys are going to make tons of cash as long as they don't smoke, they still just can't do it. Now, Gordan and Mathieu are probably not Rhodes scholars, but you would still think that they would be able to realize the seriousness of their decisions. It makes me wonder about the impact that pot can have on some people, and how it really can be an unbreakable habit.
That isn't a reason to make it illegal. If booze and cigarettes were illegal how many people would be unable to quit in order to pass a test?Kliq said:
Cellar-Door said:
Again, not to start a huge thing, but my personal opinion the matter is that alcohol and tobacco are plagues on society, but the unfortunate fact is that they have become such institutions in American society, that any serious attempt to ban their sale or the possession of them would be impossible to pass and to enforce on a public that is reliant on both substances. With marijuana, we have a chance to at least somewhat restrict the product from becoming an institution like tobacco and alcohol, and I would like to keep it that way. Now, everyone has their own opinion and if you feel that all American's should have the freedom to put whatever they want into their bodies, then more power to you.
Kliq said:
It can also be an amazing pain killer with many fewer deleterious side effects of some of the pain killers routinely prescribed for some of these guys who sometimes claim they can barely walk on Mondays. As you say, not everyone experience the same effects--THC may well be more effective with fewer bad side effects while being far less addictive for a lot of these guys than many of the opium based prescitption drugs that are routinely doled out like candy.
Kliq said:
I get where you are coming from, but here's the problem with this position: it vastly understates the level to which marijuana use is also an institution in the country. The fact of the matter is, it's huge, which is what makes its use criminalized so problematic in that that fact inhibits a more useful discussion of what the hell is going on.
A big part of me finds it crazy to smoke pot and risk a contract like that. But on the other hand, so many people come out of societies where it's so casual, I can see how it could be weird. I also assume the testing/enforcement regime is pretty screwed up in that I'd expect more people would get popped, so I wonder if it's not lots of people using and only some people screwing up the masking agents or detoxes that is what actually leads to failed tests.
Kliq said:
Except Marijuana is already an institution in America, and we waste billions of dollars each year (instead of gaining billions tax-wise) attempting to fight it. Enforcing Marijuana laws is already impossible for all intents and purposes.
In regards to personal health and other drugs: There's a reason to keep certain harder drugs illegal because of how quickly they can deteriorate someone's health when abused (ie: prescription opiates, coke, meth, etc), but marijuana's harm level is at the very worst no greater than alcohol/tobacco which have already been deemed acceptable.
Edit: Also as an aside, some people need vices to get through life. Just because you personally may be able to get through life without resorting to an escape of your choosing doesn't mean that other people have that ability.People resorting to things like alcohol or drugs to get themselves through life is so entrenched in humanity that it likely predates recorded history. Getting up on a high horse and judging people for doing what they feel they need to do in order to cope with the pressures of life is just incredibly narrow minded and lacks both perspective as well as compassion. And I say all this as someone who doesn't smoke, doesn't use pot, and drinks infrequently at social occasions.
Minor nitpick, but foreigners do not smoke legally in Amsterdam. It's tolerated but not legal. Access to coffeeshops is now also restricted to residents of that city.Comfortably Lomb said:
It's illegal. It's supposedly non-addictive. So don't do it.
The only thing that annoys me more than our arcane Marijuana laws are the Bill Maher types who act as if it is the most important issue to the future of our civilization.
The only thing that annoys me more than our arcane Marijuana laws are the Bill Maher types who act as if it is the most important issue to the future of our civilization.
I agree that marijuana should be legal, but that has nothing to do with the NFL having it as a banned substance. It also doesn't matter that two states have legalized it, and that it appears there are more to follow their example.
What matters is that it is illegal at the federal level. The NFL benefits from the anti-trust exemption probably more than anything else. If they took marijuana off the banned list, then it would be akin thumbing their nose at the federal government and risking the wrath of Congress, which it has no reason to do.
edit: weird wording
What matters is that it is illegal at the federal level. The NFL benefits from the anti-trust exemption probably more than anything else. If they took marijuana off the banned list, then it would be akin thumbing their nose at the federal government and risking the wrath of Congress, which it has no reason to do.
edit: weird wording
Devizier said:
Well, he'll have a lot of time to smoke weed with no practices and games.
ivanvamp said:
He has to put in the service time left on his contract, so he will still be a Brown unless the Browns release him.
I'd just like to say that out of total coincidence I took a huge bong rip before I clicked on this post. So thanks Kliq - I enjoyed that.
We're going on 25 years of electing pot-smoking presidents, yet Josh Gordon is going to get banned from the NFL for doing so? Nobody sees a disconnect here? Starting with Bill Clinton in 1992, and up o Obama in 2016, every president in office has at least admitted to smoking marijuana. Our last two presidents have been known to, and acknowledge, using harder drugs. I'm all for ending the hypocrisy of criminalizing football players for something the leaders of the free world are allowed to do freely, and then wax poetic about in their biographies.
FREE JOSH GORDON
FREE JOSH GORDON
Its not great that past presidents have smoked and yet drug testing is still so prevalent.
This article outlines some of the forces at play: http://m.thenation.com/article/173654-gops-drug-testing-dragnet - though its political bent is a little grating. As usual multiple groups line up together to use drug testing for their own ends: drug test suppliers, morality sticklers and those who wish to reduce spending on unemployment insurance and welfare and one way to achieve that is dropping drug positives off the rolls.
One comment on Gordon vs presidents: the key difference is the presidents did it in the past and are not doing it now. If Gordon was 50 and an ESPN announcer talking about his youthful drug use, he'd get a pass too. Society has a schizophrenic view on pot use, but the views are changing fast and the picture is likely very different in 20 years
This article outlines some of the forces at play: http://m.thenation.com/article/173654-gops-drug-testing-dragnet - though its political bent is a little grating. As usual multiple groups line up together to use drug testing for their own ends: drug test suppliers, morality sticklers and those who wish to reduce spending on unemployment insurance and welfare and one way to achieve that is dropping drug positives off the rolls.
One comment on Gordon vs presidents: the key difference is the presidents did it in the past and are not doing it now. If Gordon was 50 and an ESPN announcer talking about his youthful drug use, he'd get a pass too. Society has a schizophrenic view on pot use, but the views are changing fast and the picture is likely very different in 20 years
Devizier said:
No, but given Gordon's history of making bad decisions when knowing that there will be serious consequences for his actions, I don't know what else the NFL could be expected to do.
Again, what drug he did isn't the issue. That he did so, knowing he was one slip up from a ban, is on him. He'd been told. Why is he not responsible for his actions?
And what does the legality of weed have to do with Josh Gordon's inability to learn from his mistakes? I'm all for legalized weed, I think that there's some good V&N'ing going on here but that has precisely fuck-all to do with Josh Gordon being told, twice before, "doing this will get you banned" and then him doing it anyway.
Fellas, general discussion/posts re: legalizing pot will be moved to other appropriate forums from this point on.Royal Reader said:
Legal issues that specifically tie into Gordon's situation and/or NFL's drug policies are what's relevant here.
I don't know that Haslam is the best evaluator of "professional growth"...although he is used to his employees cheating....
Don't you hippies get carried away. Rice only beat a woman senseless. It's not like he SMOKED WEED!
With the things Roger Goodell and DeMaurice Smith said about medical marijuana during Super Bowl week, I wouldn't be surprised if they quietly dropped marijuana from the banned substances list the next time there are wholesale changes to the league's drug policy. This story is bad for Josh Gordon first and foremost, but it's also bad for the league -- this story is bad PR, and unlike steroid use (or even cocaine use), marijuana use doesn't call into question the integrity of the sport.