NFL Players and Owners Should Make Trade Involving Permissible Weed, More Offseason Practice

NFL meetings took place in Arizona last week, and news is still trickling out about what was discussed amongst the league’s power brokers. Earlier today, Mike Florio reported:

"Jones also raised the question of the NFL’s position on marijuana. Jones, per a source who heard the comments, wants the league to drop its prohibition on marijuana use. Jones was reminded that the issue falls under the umbrella of collective bargaining, which would require the players to make one or more concessions in exchange for significant changes to the marijuana prohibition."

It’s easy to see why Jones would advocate this — as Florio notes, the Cowboys have lost Rolando McClain, Demarcus Lawrence, and Randy Gregory in recent years to recreational drug suspensions. As marijuana becomes legal in more states and the idea that, at the very least, it’s not as harmful as alcohol becomes more realized, it is asinine that the NFL voluntarily diminishes its talent pool enforcing prohibition.

Of course, that idea would represent a concession flowing from league owners to players, and if you’ve been following the NFL with even a modicum of attention you know that the owners aren’t an altruistic bunch to just relinquish something like that gratis. They would need something in return.

Well, how many times have you heard coaches or other team officials complain about the 2011 CBA and the reduction of offseason practice time? Two quick examples of many out there: Mike McCarthy said this causes more injuries.  “This new CBA has eliminated a lot of work,” Jon Gruden said in 2014. “Talking to coach [Bill] Belichick the night before the game, they’re used to having 50-something practices before their first game. Now when you cut that in half, players are behind. They really don’t know what they have with some of these young players.”

From the very outside, it seems as though a compromise on these areas of the CBA could be mutually beneficial …….