NFL Owners May Finally Get Something Right When It Comes to Politics

At the risk of failing to point out that the San Francisco 49ers managed to create four turnovers Sunday in Arizona and still only score two touchdowns and (need we add) lose their eighth game in a row, we’re going to do something you all enjoy -- mix politics and sports.
 
And yes, I hear you sniveling hyenas out there yelling, “Stick to politics. Nobody comes to you for sports.”
 
But a report from Ian Rapoport of the NFL Network indicates that some owners and miscellaneous big shots are interested in revisiting the marijuana issue in light of Tuesday’s election results.
 
And with CTE pun fully intended, ain’t that a kick in the head?
 
NFL owners have been adamant that players (a) should be tougher, (b) shouldn’t be whining about things like medical treatment, (c) should trust the owners on things like pain management because of the owners’ historical interest in their employees’ well-being, and (d) can’t use things like marijuana because they still think Reefer Madness was jobbed out of the Oscar for best Picture in favor of Mutiny on the Bounty . . . which they also enjoyed because it served as a useful primer for labor-management relations.
 
But now, according to that noted rouser of rabble Rapaport, some of the suits are seeing finally that they are on the wrong side of pharmacology, medicine and history, and are tired of the NFL serving as the model for popular scorn.
 
From the Rapoport story:
 
“Based on conversations with 10 NFL team owners and executives over the past few months, marijuana usage could emerge as a key issue when the collective bargaining agreement is renegotiated over the next few years. Each of the owners support additional study and discussion regarding what the league's stance should be on medical and recreational pot use for players. The majority of the sample size supports a decriminalization of marijuana that would make it more difficult for players to be suspended. Two of the principals involved in the issue said they are open to getting rid of marijuana-related suspensions and only issuing fines. Two others said they are worried about sending the message that drug use is tolerated and believe suspensions must remain.”
 
Voters in Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, California and Nevada have legalized the recreational use of pot in some form or fashion. Florida, North Dakota, Montana and Arkansas have also passed medical cannabis referendums recently. Seven NFL teams are in states that allow recreational marijuana use and 16 teams are in states with approved medical use. As a result, according to Rapoport, “Several league executives said the NFL should ‘follow the country’ in the changing attitudes about marijuana use. In addition, the high-profile suspensions of Browns wide receiver Josh Gordon and Cowboys defensive end Randy Gregory also has raised more awareness about the issue."
 
In addition, one of Rapoport’s sources said that potential competitive imbalance issues exist stemming from conflicts between state laws and the league drug policy. For example, if a Tennessee Titan was arrested for marijuana possession, he faces the possibility of an NFL suspension for the arrest, while a Seattle Seahawk or Denver Bronco could legally possess the same amount of marijuana and never be cited.
 
Rapoport also wrote that one executive questioned the fairness of a four-game suspension for testing positive because of second-hand smoke, and another wondered why the NFL is so stringent about marijuana testing compared to other sports leagues.
 
Of course, getting the NFL’s 32 billionaires to agree to something that might serve the players, meet their medical needs better than the harder narcotics prescribed by team physicians or even something that would give players more discretion in general has been a traditionally difficult sell. Moreover, any change in policy would surely be tied to a giveback to management in any CBA negotiation, because nobody gets anything for free in the NFL. Ask any network.
 
Still, the idea that a few rogues are considering it, and that they are considering it enough to mention it to a journalist working for the league’s prime media organ, and that said journalist could post it, indicates that a few owners are considering something that would make them less like district attorneys who need conviction numbers and more like . . . okay, let’s just stop at “less like district attorneys who need conviction numbers.”
 
Wonder how this will play in Washing . . . oops, but there I go, mixing sports and politics again. Evidently I’m too ignorant to be taught. Then again, my parents knew that way before any of you, so shove off. You came too late.