Well now we need a back up RB

@"Canthony" said:

@"suncoastvike" said:

@"Canthony" said:

@"ArizonaViking" said:

@"Canthony" said: It is just weed. Not like he was caught with meth. Stupid that this is even an issue.

It's not just about weed.  It's about maturity, integrity and accountability.  You agree to a certain job, that job comes with certain rules.  You give your word to do that specific job and agree to follow the rules that are in place.  Pretty simple to me. 

Weed shouldn't even be in the rules. It is about to be legalized nationwide soon enough. The NBA doesn't even test for it anymore. I don't see the big issue with someone with a ton of money wanting to smoke some weed. Was it a lot? Sure... He also makes more than any one of us, or most likely, here. Maybe he got a hell of a deal to buy that much.

The difference between the NFL and the NBA in this case is how they perceive the fan bases would react. Plain and simple. The NFL has caved to certain less tolerant elements of their fan base. Everything they do is based on what causes the least waves. In short they don't have as big of balls as the NBA owners do.
As for it being alot. Hell yeah it was. Do we know it was all for him? He is able to afford alot more entertaining then the average person.

That is the questions we don't know. I know from my experiences that if I had that kind of money... I would probably buy that much at a time as you would save a lot of money. I would guess around 3-4 grand give or take with roughly around 9 pounds of weed.

@"Canthony" said:

@"ArizonaViking" said:

@"Canthony" said:

@"ArizonaViking" said:

@"Canthony" said:

@"ArizonaViking" said:

@"Canthony" said: It is just weed. Not like he was caught with meth. Stupid that this is even an issue.

It's not just about weed.  It's about maturity, integrity and accountability.  You agree to a certain job, that job comes with certain rules.  You give your word to do that specific job and agree to follow the rules that are in place.  Pretty simple to me. 

Weed shouldn't even be in the rules. It is about to be legalized nationwide soon enough. The NBA doesn't even test for it anymore. I don't see the big issue with someone with a ton of money wanting to smoke some weed. Was it a lot? Sure... He also makes more than any one of us, or most likely, here. Maybe he got a hell of a deal to buy that much.

Well apparently that's not your decision regarding any company rules.  Like I said it's not about weed, it's about these are the conditions of employment.  Regardless of the type of employment.  If you want the job, here's the guidelines you will be required to follow.

I get your thought process, I do. I understand and follow corporate regulations on a daily. I am just upset that this is still an issue and the kid will lose his employment over a rule that should be changed.

I agree with you.  But with being an adult is about making choices.  Sometimes to achieve a higher quality of life, you might have to surrender certain things.  In Roc Thomas' case...smoking weed.

I haven't smoked weed in about 10 years, but I have no issues with people that want to do it. I chose a different road to better my life. I get it, but it sucks to see a promising player get reprimanded over it.
Have the Vikings cut him yet? I haven't paid that close attention to this story.

@"holmanjp" said:

@"pumpf" said:

@"Purplewhizz" said:

@"purplefaithful" said: What a dumb asz...

According to reports, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at his apartment on Jan. 16 and found multiple glass jars containing marijuana and marijuana wax. The jars contained more than three times the amount of marijuana needed for a felony charge. The jars were found in the living room and bedroom of the apartment.Thomas could be facing up to five years in prison. Even if he is acquitted or pleads guilty to lesser charges, the NFL disciplinary rules regarding controlled substances could lead to a suspension for Thomas. That suspension would stay with Thomas if the Vikings released him and he joined another team.

Officers were led to search the apartment after the building’s manager reportedly received complaints about the smell of marijuana coming from his apartment. Thomas reportedly told officers that he knew of the complaints.

He doesn’t sound too bright, does he?  If he knew about neighbors complaining, you’d think he’d have maybe cracked a window or something.  Sounds like they were smoking tons of the stuff.  

Your last comment is the answer to your initial question.

They found 5 ounces, $500 worth of weed.

Now MN tax payers can dish out how much for is room and board for 5 years in prison.
He would/could have earned 3-5 mill over next 5 years. How much is that, in lost State income taxes alone???

All over a plant that grows in the wild.

One less person that might bump into someone while walking to 7-11 for more Cheetos.
The side walks are now safe.

@"Purple Haze" said:

@"Canthony" said:

@"ArizonaViking" said:

@"Canthony" said:

@"ArizonaViking" said:

@"Canthony" said:

@"ArizonaViking" said:

@"Canthony" said: It is just weed. Not like he was caught with meth. Stupid that this is even an issue.

It's not just about weed.  It's about maturity, integrity and accountability.  You agree to a certain job, that job comes with certain rules.  You give your word to do that specific job and agree to follow the rules that are in place.  Pretty simple to me. 

Weed shouldn't even be in the rules. It is about to be legalized nationwide soon enough. The NBA doesn't even test for it anymore. I don't see the big issue with someone with a ton of money wanting to smoke some weed. Was it a lot? Sure... He also makes more than any one of us, or most likely, here. Maybe he got a hell of a deal to buy that much.

Well apparently that's not your decision regarding any company rules.  Like I said it's not about weed, it's about these are the conditions of employment.  Regardless of the type of employment.  If you want the job, here's the guidelines you will be required to follow.

I get your thought process, I do. I understand and follow corporate regulations on a daily. I am just upset that this is still an issue and the kid will lose his employment over a rule that should be changed.

I agree with you.  But with being an adult is about making choices.  Sometimes to achieve a higher quality of life, you might have to surrender certain things.  In Roc Thomas' case...smoking weed.

I haven't smoked weed in about 10 years, but I have no issues with people that want to do it. I chose a different road to better my life. I get it, but it sucks to see a promising player get reprimanded over it.
Have the Vikings cut him yet? I haven't paid that close attention to this story.

I with what both you and Arizona are saying.  But the fact is he wasn't grown up enough to follow the rules. If making millions of dollars isn't enough of a deterrent to stay away from the hippie lettuce or at least keep it under wraps some what then this guy was doomed to fail.  He either is a very arrogant guy or not very smart.  You can't smoke 5 oz in an evening.  Why not keep 4 1/2 oz in an air tight container hidden in the apartment and use the other half oz for personal use.  Open a window, blow the smoke outside and use a $2 can of air freshener.  If he would have just done that we wouldnt even be hearing this. I may be mistaken but even if weed were legal under the laws Colorado currently has in place Roc would still be in trouble for having 5 oz.  That's where he is screwed here.  The possession charge is a misdimeanor, but because of the amount he will be charged with intent to deliver which is a felony.  Which goes back to him not being too smart.  If he just had under an oz the worst he would be facing would be a 4 game suspension.

I'm all for decriminalization - along with the other 60% of MN's who I have heard also support decriminalization. 

All the dummy had to do was abstain for a couple of years and make some decent coin in the league. I completely agree with other posts here to nut-up and play by the rules of your employer. 

Also could have just used vape - no muss, no fuss, no smell. 

Dumbasz...

His Viking career, and maybe NFL career is up in smoke.  Too bad for him, but I guess he had different priorities.  He may have been a dealer too with that amount, or getting some for friends?  That's quite a bit for a personal "stash".  I suppose some folks have cases of whiskey, vodka, gin or wine, so maybe it was all his.

Too bad.  Doubt he even gets to compete for a roster spot now.

Jerome Simpson II, Dumb ass. "I was gonna go to work but then I got high"....

I know it's not a popular take (like that matters), but I don't think we've fully realized the long-term impact that smoking weed has on people.  That's why I favor keeping it illegal.  We already know SOME of the negative side effects.  And, thanks to all kinds of supporters, we also know the positive effects (as a pain killer, among other things).  I guess- for me- one of the reasons for keeping it illegal is demonstrated in this episode: a guy was willing to put his lucrative career in jeopardy... over this?  It makes me think that there must be some kind of addictive dynamic in place (whether it be chemical or mental), such that he would willingly risk losing his job over it.  To me... that only makes sense when an addiction is involved. 

Of course, people can become addicted to alot of things; that- in and of itself- is not a reason to make it illegal.  But it should- at least- give us pause. 

I think it's inevitable that it becomes decriminalized, like alcohol during prohibition..

And like Alcohol or pain-killers, weed can be a problem for some, not for others. 

All that said, I hope there is a good, open discussion on whether to decriminalize or not and when all the plus/minus is accurately weighed, what's best for society as a whole? 

@pumpf

We already know the long term effects of alcohol yet it's legal. The only reason to not legalize is we'd empty the for profit penal system. It's a complete farce that alcohol is legal and far more lethal than marijuana.

@"ArizonaViking" said: What's really sad is Thomas is a borderline player bouncing between the active roster and the practice squad.  You would think he would have more incentive to avoid these types of situations with his slim NFL career.

True and I understand that your "sad" remark is for his hopes of a football career - but from the perspective of impact on this team, this changes little about the Vikings' needs. Unless Latavius Murray surprisingly returns, we already needed more than Boone, Abdullah - or Thomas - to backup Dalvin Cook.

The long term effects of breathing are always fatal.

I'd agree that the personal effects of pot are well known. It's been used longer by humans than many pharmaceuticals and pills that are studied for approval. We know it's risks, we know it's benefits...

I'd agree that we have no idea what the social ramifications actually are. A lot of people take the "lazy/happy" stereotype and believe suddenly everyone will chill out and get along. I think that's a fantasy. When paranoia starts to creep in and everyone is entrenched in their own beliefs where do we go? When we're all stoned and in a place where we still don't want to agree what then?

Another odd thing from me; I think it's a lowkey performance enhancer. Athletes under the influence is a strange subject because it's easy to assume it just puts you at a disadvantage. It may not be for someone with a low tolerance, but for those who use often it often is described as a substance that narrows the mind and allows for a state of hyper focus. These athletes have the muscle memory and the skill to sleep walk through what they do - with some weed and some real motivation (loving the game) they can flip a mental switch and just go to work.

@pumpf, let's just say "the powers that be" were allowed to suddenly make booze illegal.  Many employers would probably have to follow suit and also enforce this law in their terms of employment by saying employees can't have traces of alcohol in their bloodstream.  If found, they're fired.

I'd be willing to bet people making/drinking home brews, wines, and various forms of moonshine would easily outnumber those that are smoking weed illegally.

Lots of people like catching a buzz, and booze is by far the number 1 choice.  Most everyone is Ok with that because it's legal.

@"BarrNone55" said: @pumpf

We already know the long term effects of alcohol yet it's legal. The only reason to not legalize is we'd empty the for profit penal system. It's a complete farce that alcohol is legal and far more lethal than marijuana.

Seriously, though: here's a science-based article (which I happened upon during my noon perusing of the internet) about this very discussion.  I'd be curious to hear some science-based rebuttals from the Pro-Legalization crowd:
https://thefederalist.com/2019/03/07/7-arguments-legalizing-marijuana-no-one-believe/

From the article:

Whatever
you think about marijuana legalization, it’s important to avoid making bad
arguments. There may be good reasons to legalize marijuana. But if there are,
the following arguments shouldn’t be considered to be among them.

1.
‘Marijuana Is Harmless’

This is perhaps the worst
argument in favor of legalization. It is a well-established fact that marijuana
use carries significant negative health effects, particularly to mental health.
For instance, a 2017 review of research by
the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found that “there
is substantial evidence of a statistical association between cannabis use and
the development of schizophrenia or other psychoses, with the highest risk
among the most frequent users.”

Along those lines, the authors of one study boldly concluded that “evidence
from epidemiologic studies provides strong enough evidence to warrant a public
health message that cannabis use can increase the risk of psychotic disorders.”
Other studies have found a strong link between marijuana use and mood disorders and suicidal
ideation, addiction, altered brain activity, decreased executive function, damage to the brain
(particularly white matter), and negative effects on learning, memory, and attention,
among other things. Need I say more?

The science is very clear:
marijuana is not harmless. It is a
performance-degrading drug that can significantly damage one’s mental health.

“But
what about medical marijuana!?” Well, the term “medical marijuana” is
misleading because it is not actually the marijuana plant that has medicinal
properties, but cannabinoids (namely CBD and THC) found within the plant. Some
research shows these cannabinoids can help with pain management, nausea and
vomiting, and multiple sclerosis spasticity.

We shouldn’t oppose
research and development of cannabinoid-based prescription medicines, provided
they go through the same rigorous regulatory process by which other medicines
are approved. Indeed, several already exist: dronabinol, nabilone, and
epidiolex are all cannabinoid medicines at various stages of FDA approval.
While medical marijuana of this kind is unobjectionable and ought to be
supported, the raw marijuana plant is not medicine.

We
also need to weigh the alleged benefits of marijuana against its negative
health effects. Given the strong scientific consensus in favor of adverse
health effects, is it really all worth it? And should we really start
legalizing marijuana before these effects are known in detail and among the
broader public?

From the same article...


3. ‘Marijuana Legalization Will Increase Tax Revenue’

Any tax revenue generated by legalization will be outweighed by its social costs, which are several times greater than its alleged benefits. A recent study conducted by the Centennial Institute looked at Colorado’s legalization regime and found that for every $1 of tax revenue generated by marijuana taxes, Coloradans paid $4.50 to mitigate marijuana-related social costs stemming from the health-care and education systems, accidental poisonings, impaired driving, and increased court costs, among other things.
Along similar lines, a study looking at the projected costs of legalization in Rhode Islandfound that even by conservative estimates, legalization would incur costs that are at least 25 percent greater than expected revenue. If making money is the goal, then legalization is self-defeating because it will cost more tax dollars than it generates. So if you consider yourself to be a fiscal conservative, then perhaps you should actually be against legalization.
Don’t believe me? Just look at alcohol. Its annual social costs are estimated to be around $250 billion, which is 15 times greater than the amount collected through local, state, and federal taxes. Not exactly a moneymaker, now is it?
Alcohol also causes more crime than all other drugs combined, due largely to its legality and widespread availability. The reason isn’t exactly rocket science: if you make something legal, then you remove barriers to procuring it, which allows more people to obtain it. And the more people who obtain it, the bigger the breeding ground for its negative effects.
So why on earth would marijuana be any different? As a legal drug, alcohol already does enough damage to society. Why we would want to make the problem worse and legalize another intoxicating, mind-altering substance?
4. ‘Alcohol Prohibition Failed, and So Is Weed Prohibition’
The idea that alcohol prohibition was an abysmal failure is a historical myth that never seems to die. Prohibition actually reduced per capita alcohol consumption by around 30–50 percent. Cirrhosis death rates (a good measure of heavy drinking), admissions to state mental hospitals for alcohol psychosis, and arrests for drunk and disorderly conduct also declined dramatically.
As Duke University economist Philip Cook explains: “the Prohibition period was associated with a substantial reduction in per capita alcohol consumption… Mortality rates from alcohol-related diseases were also lower, indicating that the prevalence of chronic heavy drinking was way down during the 1920s.”
Ah, but Prohibition significantly increased crime, right? Wrong. Violent crime remained largely constant during Prohibition. The homicide rate experienced larger increases during the pre-Prohibition period between 1900 and 1910 than during all of Prohibition. Societal and demographic changes occasioned by World War I and increased urbanization during the Roaring Twenties largely accounted for slowly rising crime rates.
What’s more, the number of jurisdictions whose crime rates were being counted also grew during this time, which generated the appearance of rising crime rates. Thus, as sociologist Douglas Eckberg points out, “apparent increases in rates of homicide in the United States between 1900 and 1933 may be illusory.” In fact, there is evidence that Prohibition had a net negative effect on the homicide rate, owing largely to decreased alcohol consumption.
So why did Prohibition end up failing? Historians generally agree that lack of attention to enforcement—and not its impracticality—constituted its downfall.

I really believe pot should be legalized.  The problem I have with limiting the amount a person can have is, why treat it different than alcohol?  As far as I know there is no law that says I can't have 50 cases of beer in in my basement why should they limit how much pot I have? 

Also, I completely agree with Barr, alcohol is much more lethal than pot will ever be. 

As far as corporate rules, if you want to work for a certain company you have to abide by their rules.  If I get tested positive for pot, I'm fired, just the way it is where I work.  Even if pot gets legalized they aren't going to change the company policy. 

@"pumpf" said: So... making ANOTHER problematic substance legal... is a good idea?  That'd be like drafting a fast WR with no hands and no route running ability... because we've already done it.  

Do you view beer, wine, and other forms of booze as a problematic substance?  I don't.  I like drinking beers, but that doesn't mean it's taking over my life.

If I wanted to take a hit or two of some weed, I think that should be within my rights too.  I'm in control of what I consume, and I'd prefer not allowing the government decide that booze is "Ok", but weed is "Bad".  It's just stupid, and I think politics has plenty to do with it.

I think stopping weed from being legal has little to do with health and more to do with big corps freaking out. 

Here's an article pointing out those that lobby against legalizing weed the most.

https://internationalhighlife.com/top-5-lobby-groups-legal-cannabis/

Let’s take a look at some of the biggest industries funding anti-cannabis lobby groups, and the unethical reasons why…
Big Tobacco
A powerful industry like big tobacco can have immense lobbying power, and there are genuine concerns that tobacco companies are eyeing up cannabis as a potential legal investment. But tobacco companies are also still active in anti-cannabis lobby groups.
In Florida, a lobby group called Drug Free Florida has been campaigning hard to get state residents to vote against legalization of cannabis. Upon looking closer at the group, one of their principle lobbyists is a woman named Sarah Bascom, who is also a long-time and prominent lobbyist on behalf of the Dosal Tobacco Corp.

Jeff Sessions, the ex-Attorney General of the United States, received donations from the tobacco company R.J. Reynolds (maker of Camel cigarettes) that were so excessive that some of the money had to be returned! These donations helped him get elected to the Senate back in 1996, and there’s evidence that he acted as a shill for them – and against legal cannabis – consistently since then!

So why would tobacco companies lobby against cannabis if their ultimate aim is to profit from it themselves? Well, the answer may be right there in the question – they lobby against laws that would make it accessible to everyone, while also putting out feelers on how best to take it over themselves.

Like tobacco giant Philip Morris back in 1970, when they “applied for and (were) granted a special permit to grow, cultivate and make marijuana extracts“!

Big Alcohol
Big alcohol companies fund anti-cannabis lobby groups for more straightforward reasons. In the U.S. States where cannabis has become widely accessible in recent years, there has been a corresponding decline in alcohol sales.
In Colorado, Washington and Oregon, beer sales declined across the board since the introduction of legal cannabis, and the decline got even more significant when legalization was fully implemented, according to a report from industry analysts Cowen & Co.

With all three of these states now having fully implemented a
retail infrastructure, the underperformance of beer in these
markets has worsened throughout 2016.

As well as this, another survey showed that the average yearly spend per person in Washington State is now almost identical for cannabis and alcohol.

Male customers tend to spend more annually on marijuana products
($647) than female customers ($634)…For comparison, Americans spend
about $1,000 a year on coffee and $645 a year on alcohol.

While that’s fantastic news for fans of cannabis, it doesn’t take a
genius to understand why it might worry the alcohol industry. In fear of
losing even more of their market share, alcohol companies have been
implicated in funding anti-cannabis lobby groups in California, Arizona, and Massachusetts at least.

Recently, many big players seem to have changed their approach
though. Rather tthanspending money to keep cannabis illegal, they now
invest into cannabis business’. It’s no secret that the edible market is
growing at an insane pace and the alc industry wants a piece of the
pie.

Big Pharma
The tactics employed by big alcohol and big tobacco companies to challenge legal cannabis may be insidious and sneaky, but they pale in comparison to big pharma when it comes to total lack of morals and respect for human life.
By funding anti-cannabis researchers and organizations, lobbying government agencies, and “donating” to politicians, big pharma plays an immense and crucial role in maintaining political opposition to the legalization of cannabis.

Again, this occurs due to the fear of losing out on profits. In U.S. states with legal cannabis, opioid use has fallen considerably, along with the number of deaths associated with their use.

One of the biggest opponents to cannabis legalization is the
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). In 2014
alone, PhRMA spent about $16.6 million on lobbying.

Private Prisons
The private prison industry in the USA (and also in some other countries like the UK and France) directly benefits from the prohibition of cannabis, as it gives them a steady stream of new inmates. Private prisons are set up to profit for each inmate, so a steady stream of them is precisely what they want.
One of the largest private prison companies, Corrections Corporation of America, has stated that keeping drugs illegal is essential to its business success. Since 2008, the corporation has spent around $970,000 per year on lobbying.

Police & Prison Unions
Police unions depend heavily on funding for anti-drug efforts, and also receive money from asset forfeitures when properties are seized as a result of drug crimes. They have a strong interest in maintaining this situation and have consistently donated to lobby groups fighting the legalization of cannabis and other drugs.
In California, a group called the Coalition for Responsible Drug Policies was heavily involved in campaigning against last year’s successful initiative to legalize recreational cannabis.

The funds came from groups representing law enforcement, including
the California Police Chiefs Association, the Riverside Sheriffs’
Association, the Los Angeles Police Protective League’s Issues PAC, and
the California Correctional Supervisor’s Organization.

Prison guard unions fear the legalization of cannabis as it would reduce the need for prison staff, in private prisons that are also profiting from the illegality of cannabis.

In 2008, the California prison union provided funds to help defeat
Proposition 5, a measure to create prison diversion programs for
nonviolent offenders with drug problems.