Skip to content

Sorry, dudes: Legal marijuana in Colorado and Washington does not mean Rockies and Mariners can smoke pot

Nov 7, 2012, 11:32 AM EDT

Tim Lincecum AP

One of the more interesting developments in yesterday’s election was Colorado and Washington legalizing marijuana.

Maybe this is just, like, my opinion man, but given how poor the results of the war on drugs have been, this move should be applauded. And even if you’re not pro-pot in any way shape or form, it’s a great moment for the whole states-as-laboratories-of-democracy thing. Maybe it works. Maybe it doesn’t. But no matter what happens, we’ll actually know more about the pros and cons of our nation’s drug laws in a few years as a result. As of now, we’re just flying blind. And kinda crashing, actually.

Of course it’s great for comedy too because, let’s face it, stoners are rather ridiculous in their own endearing way, and the jokes that arise from this sort of thing can be a lot of fun. Jokes like this one:

But you can save them as far as baseball is concerned. Because the legality of pot in Colorado and Washington will have no bearing on the Joint Drug Agreement:


Which should not be surprising given how the performance enhancing drug rules work. Many PEDs are perfectly legal but banned by the league. And weed is going to stay the same way.

  1. winkeroni - Nov 7, 2012 at 11:34 AM

    Holy Smokes.

    • skids003 - Nov 7, 2012 at 12:53 PM


      If 2 states can legalize this, why cannot Arizona make the immigration law they made 9and are being sued by the AG office). Can you enlighten me, Craig?

      • Craig Calcaterra - Nov 7, 2012 at 12:55 PM

        Because legalizing marijuana does not violate the Bill of Rights.

        It may conflict with federal drug laws, and it will be interesting to see how that plays out with relation to the DEA and the FBI and stuff operating in these states, but unlike the AZ immigration law, there is no citizen in Colorado who can go to court and say “this new law violates my rights.”

      • APBA Guy - Nov 7, 2012 at 1:12 PM

        The DEA has been hammering CA pot clubs and dispensaries despite the state law allowing medical marijuana. The DEA’s activism in the face of clear and plain statewide opinion in favor of marijuana legalization did cost Obama some votes here. The Feds have maintained jurisdiction over drug law enforcement and have been backed by the courts here every time there’s been a challenge. Clearly the Fed position is legal and enforceable, though unpopular.

      • skids003 - Nov 7, 2012 at 1:53 PM

        Thanks guys. I’m no lawyer, but couldn’t the argument be made that it does violates someone’s rights, especially if someone stoned has a car wreck or something with a victim.

        ANd as far as immigration, that’s not a civil right , is it? I mean to be in the country illegally is not a civil right, correct? I’m still a little confused, but evidently these are complex issues.

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Nov 7, 2012 at 2:11 PM

        skids, this issue is that the AZ laws let the police violate the rights of US citizens in the search for illegals. Any Latino person is suddenly “suspicious” and subject to search and detainment. Like Sergio Romo’s shirt read at the Giants’ victory parade “I just look illegal.”

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Nov 7, 2012 at 2:13 PM

      • skids003 - Nov 7, 2012 at 2:22 PM

        Quite complex.

      • badintent - Nov 7, 2012 at 10:07 PM

        Time to break out “Easy Rider” movie soundtrack. Lite up a dube, and listen to “IF 6 was 9 ! ”
        @skids003 Holder sues everyone that wants laws on the books for many years upheld. Love Jan shaking her finger in Odrama ‘s face !! The next Margaret Thatcher !

        I’m Ted Nugent and I approved this message.. you better too or I’ll put you in a “Strangehold”

  2. groundruledoublebourbon - Nov 7, 2012 at 11:43 AM

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t players on the 40-man roster exempt from street drug testing anyway?

    • Old Gator - Nov 7, 2012 at 3:38 PM

      More to the point, man – dig it, how can you give a guy an extra 50 games when there are only 154 games in a season? Like, is he supposed to pitch into January?

      • groundruledoublebourbon - Nov 7, 2012 at 5:18 PM

        As per usual, OG, I have no idea what this is about. Hope those votes get counted up real soon down there, buddy. Godspeed.

      • Old Gator - Nov 7, 2012 at 7:36 PM

        Hey man, if you don’t like the way we vote, come down here and watch how we drive.

      • badintent - Nov 8, 2012 at 12:54 AM

        Old Gator should get the American Medal of Freedom this year. A man that would have stood shoulder to shoulder with Sam Bowie at the Alamo.

      • skids003 - Nov 9, 2012 at 10:17 AM

        Sam must have been Jim Bowie’s brother.

  3. yahmule - Nov 7, 2012 at 11:45 AM

    Good. We need some high profile organization to take this stand. When they are made an example of in court, it will send a clear message to other employers who want to put themselves above the law.

    • jarathen - Nov 7, 2012 at 4:12 PM

      No one else thumb this comment up or down. It’s too appropriate.

    • raysfan1 - Nov 7, 2012 at 8:48 PM

      Workplace testing programs are in place for worker and public safety purposes. No court is going to strike those programs down. They often include alcohol too, so legality of the drug is not an issue.

      • Joe - Nov 8, 2012 at 11:06 AM

        “Workplace testing programs are in place for worker and public safety purposes.”

        And the US invaded Iraq to “spread freedom.” Yeah, some jobs test for public safety reasons, but I had to take a piss test when I was hired at mine and all I do is sit in a cubicle all day. Unless you’re a bus driver or something–and even then, it shouldn’t be anybody’s business what you do on your own time–I’d say the programs are more about indirect enforcement of stupid drug prohibition laws.

      • yahmule - Nov 8, 2012 at 7:40 PM

        Raysfan, what are some jobs that prohibit the lawful consumption of alcohol on an employees private time?

        I understand there is wording within the amendment that allows for companies to set their own policies regarding employment. I just believe there will be court challenges regardless.

  4. personalspaceinvader - Nov 7, 2012 at 11:47 AM

    Lincecum usually gets lit up in Colorado anyway.

    Get it. Lit up.

  5. geoknows - Nov 7, 2012 at 11:50 AM

    I think that Passan’s MLB spokesman is wrong. Remember in 2010 when the Brewers put Jeremy Jeffress on the 40-man roster earlier than they needed to? They did it to protect him from a lifetime ban for weed. They did it because they do not test for weed in the majors, only in the minors:

    “The move came with an obvious ulterior motive, however. Players on the 40-man roster cannot be suspended for testing positive for “drugs of abuse.” Because he had prior positive tests, Jeffress can and will be subject to further testing for “cause.””

    Here’s the link:

    • groundruledoublebourbon - Nov 7, 2012 at 11:55 AM

      Thanks geo — this Jeffress incident was the exact transaction I had in mind when reading this article, too.

      • whatthehellisansky - Nov 7, 2012 at 12:14 PM

        Didnt Elijah Dukes (class act – haha) say a few years agi that he used to play CF stoned out of his mind all the time?

        I would say thats in line with the whole guys on the 40 man roster dont get tested for weed thing..

  6. Stiller43 - Nov 7, 2012 at 11:56 AM

    I do not smoke pot or anything else, but good for those states.

    I get why sports leagues would have rules in place to hurt weed offenders when it is illegal, because their employee is breaking the law and thus making their league look bad. However, weed is obviously not a PED, and since it’s increasingly legal, i feel those rules are going to have to change.

    Or else they might as well suspend guys for drinking (another legal, non performance enhancing activity).

    • Old Gator - Nov 7, 2012 at 7:37 PM

      What about Viagra? It’s been a while since anyone tested me for that, unfortunately.

  7. ryanc - Nov 7, 2012 at 11:56 AM

    Manny Ramirez’s mere existence for all those years proves that Passan doesn’t have all his facts straight.

  8. ys0023 - Nov 7, 2012 at 11:58 AM

    So MLB puts weed in the same category as steroids that enhance performance on the field.
    The federal government considers it more dangerous than cocaine, with no medicinal value whatsoever.
    The vast majority of Americans classify it somewhere between a shot of Jack and a Doritos Locos taco.

    • indaburg - Nov 7, 2012 at 1:25 PM

      The vast majority of Americans who partake eat it with a Doritos Locos taco. Maybe it’s not pot we should be going after. Taco Bell is obviously the gateway drug.

      • cur68 - Nov 7, 2012 at 2:52 PM

        Taco Bell…gateway drug…is there and anal leakage joke to be made here?

      • badintent - Nov 8, 2012 at 12:59 AM

        Starbucks !! I see people go out in freaking snowstorms to get their java ! Gotta be drugs in that crap.It took my wife a entire year to break her addiction to that coffee. And the nasty withdrawal symptoms ! like menopause and a period wrapped in a hissy fit !!. Starbucks is the Gateway drug .

      • indaburg - Nov 8, 2012 at 7:33 AM

        Starbucks is some godawful coffee. It wouldn’t surprise me if they were putting drugs in it to get people to drink it.

      • nbjays - Nov 8, 2012 at 9:16 AM

        Indaburg, the same could be said for Tim Horton’s coffee up here. After drinking GOOD coffee, I realize how nasty that crap actually is. Gotta be spiked with something addictive…

  9. savior72 - Nov 7, 2012 at 12:04 PM

    Now the fans can smoke it and all players can get a contact high. I can see it now, ” pot day at the park”. All fans 21 and older receive a free “bat” shaped like a bat.

  10. sgtr0c - Nov 7, 2012 at 12:04 PM

    Way to take all the fun out of it, Jeff…

  11. crispybasil - Nov 7, 2012 at 12:20 PM

    Still, I think it’d be pretty cool to stand at the plate and watch a Verlander fastball or a Kershaw slider come at you while stoned. I mean, from what I imagine marijuana does to your mind.

    • Francisco (FC) - Nov 7, 2012 at 12:44 PM

      Right. Imagine. Sure.

    • sabatimus - Nov 7, 2012 at 12:46 PM

      That’s basil wrapped up in those spliffs, right?

  12. willclarkgameface - Nov 7, 2012 at 12:24 PM

    Time to grab a rocky mountain high.

    Peace out HBT.

    • koufaxmitzvah - Nov 7, 2012 at 12:52 PM

      I’ve been in a Colorado state of mind since waking up this morning.

    • cur68 - Nov 7, 2012 at 2:54 PM

      Peace out ‘gameface. I would never say this to any other person but you should do more drugs. It’s clearly good for you. Man.

      • indaburg - Nov 7, 2012 at 4:54 PM

        I would rather deal with a contently drowsy stoner than an angry drunk any day. No one gets angry on pot (I’m talking traditional MJ, not the souped up stuff some kids are smoking today). It can even tame willclarkgameface. Forget lithium and thorazine for Bobby V. All he needs to do is smoke a little weed.

      • cur68 - Nov 7, 2012 at 8:10 PM

        Can we still shock him, though? I really want to do that.

      • raysfan1 - Nov 7, 2012 at 8:51 PM

        Yes, you can.

      • indaburg - Nov 7, 2012 at 10:44 PM

        So sadistic, cur.

  13. sophiethegreatdane - Nov 7, 2012 at 12:24 PM

    Of course weed enhances performance. I can go through a whole bag of Doritos before the end of “Dark Side of the Moon” compared to just half a bag if I’m only hopped up on Natty Bohs.

    • whatthehellisansky - Nov 7, 2012 at 12:33 PM

      sophie thats a top 10 comment in my book. f’n hilarous.

  14. jeffa43 - Nov 7, 2012 at 12:33 PM

    There needs to be a 3rd inning stretch now…

    To follow up on the pre-game, and transition into the 7th inning stretch.

  15. cktai - Nov 7, 2012 at 12:37 PM

    Similar to the way the Dutch handle it then. In 2009 defender Purrel Fränkel was banned from playing football for a month when cannabis was found in his blood after a game.

  16. joewilliesshnoz - Nov 7, 2012 at 1:02 PM

    This puts a new twist to the term, SMOKING SECTION !

  17. damnyankee13 - Nov 7, 2012 at 1:13 PM

    How do illegal immigrants hgave more then basic human rights, craig? what p[art of ILLEGAL is not understood? the hispanic nations have found a way way to keep their citizens off their version of welfare,if they have any, and making their problems ours. we have enough problems. Our bill of rights do NOT cover illegals.

    • Craig Calcaterra - Nov 7, 2012 at 1:16 PM

      You probably should either educate yourself or put a helmet on or something before you wade into issues you know nothing about.

      The law has been challenged because it does not require any finding of illegal residence before law enforcement is allowed to so all manner of things such as stop, check for ID and otherwise detain. Which means that actual legal American citizens are at risk of being subject to the law based on nothing other than some inchoate suspicion of illegality, which is almost certainly based on illegal race profiling.

    • kyzslew77 - Nov 7, 2012 at 1:29 PM

      What Craig said. You don’t understand why a law that would drastically affect the rights of citizens and legal immigrants just because cops might think they look like illegal immigrants might violate the Constitution? Go read a book.

      Sorry, hate PoFlaWas, couldn’t help myself this time. Checking out.

    • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Nov 7, 2012 at 1:57 PM

      I wish I could find the article that gives the stats on the Minnesota immigration reform laws and enforcement implemented a few years back. While I don’t remember the exact details, it was something to the effect of $XX millions of dollars spent on this new enforcement program, and the program caught 4 or 5 people without legal status. Yet another solution in search of a problem.

    • If the Shoe Fits - Nov 7, 2012 at 2:02 PM

      Or you can just reference this picture to see who these laws are meant to protect:

  18. revansrevenant - Nov 7, 2012 at 1:25 PM

    If the Feds pull you over, or raid your house, or whatever, because you have enough pot in your possession to reach the federal “intent to sell” limits, you are still going to jail, regardless of what the state law is. The supremacy clause of the constitution means the federal law supersedes the state law. The fact that the state law says that it is legal means that you won’t be getting any trouble from townies or staties, and they probably won’t be too helpful to the feds in an investigation.

    I apologize if my comment makes very little sense. I am drunk. Very drunk.

    • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Nov 7, 2012 at 2:01 PM

      In a state where a person can legally buy pot from an authorized outlet, there is little need for illegal drug dealers, and thus little concern about being busted for possession with intent to sell. I mean, there will still probably be SOME illegal sales going on, just like with alcohol, but nothing like the current drug crime syndicates.

      • gerryb323 - Nov 7, 2012 at 2:34 PM

        But would not every seller still be an illegal seller? As mentioned above, it may not be against state law to sell, but it’s still against Federal law.

        Would not anyone advertising themselves as a pot dealer then just be attracting DEA attention?

  19. sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Nov 7, 2012 at 2:07 PM

    I would imagine partial legality could be a logistical nightmare.
    Where does legal pot come from? I’m sure the legal vendors are not cutting deals with cartels in Mexico and points further south. Do we import it from South/Central American farms not run by the cartels?

    Are there legal pot farms in the US? What level of security is required for such a place? If the legal pot is being shipped on a truck that must drive though multiple states to get to Colorado, is it violating the law in those other states?

    Frankly I am in favor of legalizing (and regulating and taxing) all “drugs of abuse” but I imagine this partial legality will create some brand new issues.

  20. kmaddy17 - Nov 7, 2012 at 2:33 PM

    It would be a mistake to describe these victories as “pro-pot.” Millions of Americans who have no particular affinity for marijuana have decided that it makes no sense to keep spending billions of dollars trying to enforce an unenforceable prohibition when state and local governments could be taking in comparable amounts by taxing and regulating marijuana. They know that legalizing marijuana will deprive criminal organizations in Mexico and this country of profits and power, and enable police and prosecutors to focus resources on serious crimes. They are convinced that arresting 750,000 people each year for possessing a small amount of marijuana is costly, cruel and unjust. And they rightfully believe that young people will fare better with responsible regulations rather than ineffective prohibitions

    • indaburg - Nov 7, 2012 at 4:57 PM

      If you run on this platform, I’ll vote for you.

  21. IdahoMariner - Nov 7, 2012 at 3:05 PM

    what kmaddy said, with a sincere wish that part of the regulation involves no public smoking….stinky…and, those ofus who choose not to indulge can actually do so if there is no public smoking.

  22. kmaddy17 - Nov 7, 2012 at 3:47 PM

    Same standards would apply… No public intoxication just like alcohol, dwi’s etc. Regulated just like alcohol.

    • hk62 - Nov 7, 2012 at 5:50 PM

      Kmaddy – except one thing that those that light up better know – with Alcohol (always request a blood test – free legal advice – better advice, don’t drink and drive, ever!) – the body can motabilize the material relatively quickly and eliminate enough to sometimes get the concentration below the legal limit. With TCH, there is the situation where markers are present up to two weeks AFTER consumption. So unless these states also come up with a “legal TCH level”, you’re looking at guaranteed OWI convictions every time for stoners behind the wheel. First one that kills someone in a car, which by the way is no worse than driving drunk and killing someone (I’m against both!) will make for interesting comments from those that got these laws on the respective ballots.

  23. jdrew506 - Nov 7, 2012 at 4:56 PM

    It seems crazy to me that people in government and outside of government want less involvement of the federal government and more things be handled on the state level until things like legalization of weed and same sex marriages are past on the state level. Also with the failing economy and the debt rises the government can’t see past their noses to see the amount of tax money that can be made and money saved on the so called war on weed.

  24. jdrew506 - Nov 7, 2012 at 6:01 PM

    Hk as much as I agree killing someone in a car accident while drunk or high is terrible and wrong and should be handled appropriately but no one is talking about legalizing driving under the influence. And although this might and probably has occurred it is far less then with drunk drivers or even drivers on prescription pills.

  25. bigdicktater - Nov 7, 2012 at 6:02 PM

    Craig, you protest the profiling of Hispanics in Arizona, yet you gleefully profile poor Timmeh by running his picture with this story on pot. Isn’t that hypocritical? And yes, I know his “history”.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. J. Baez (2451)
  2. B. Crawford (2415)
  3. C. Correa (2396)
  4. H. Pence (2364)
  5. B. Harper (2158)