With Colorado and Washington passing referendums allowing the recreational use of marijuana, they are setting up a huge battle with the Federal government. Federal law trumps State law when it comes to these things, and it seems, according to the NFL, so does their collective bargaining agreement. The NFL has told players in Washington and Colorado that the collective bargaining agreement still bans pot under the NFL substance abuse program, and, in the event of a dispute between State law and the CBA, the CBA will judge their behavior.
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told USA Today ‘s Lindsay Jones on Wednesday morning:
“The NFL’s policy is collectively bargained and will continue to apply in the same manner it has for decades. Marijuana remains prohibited under the NFL substance abuse program.”
In Colorado, Proposition 64 allows state residents over the age of 21 to possess an ounce of marijuana and grow up to six plants in their homes. Washington’s I-502 allows about the same. The law will also establish a standard to determine if users are high at the time of driving a car.
In Washington, the ballot measure was called I-502. One supporter, Rick Steves, said :
“The whole country is going to wake up and look at Washington state and recognize this is the beginning of taking apart prohibition one state at a time.”
There are some though who are adamantly opposed to the law like Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper who said after Colorado’s Proposition 64 passed:
“Federal law still says marijuana is an illegal drug, so don’t break out the Cheetos too quickly.”
Hickenlooper is not speaking from the sting of defeat he is making a valid point. While the Federal government will probably not waste its time going after individual users, they can use the enforcement power of the DEA to go after any stores who sell the product. The Feds can also challenge the law in court as it is established that federal laws trump state laws. Clearly, the NFL feels that its laws do as well.
Aiello said:
“The Colorado and Washington laws will have no impact on the operation of the policy.”
