Should marijuana be allowed by the NFL and or teams

fansince62 said:

I agree. Chiming in…again…that the bad consequences can not only impact the individual….but innocent victims as well. the decision to normalize this…while comically sending messages that cigarette smoking is bad and LEGISLATING slowly but surely to undermine that liberty…..will have impacts.

in a separate department, if someone wants to shuffle their mortal coil, should society allow businesses to sell cyanide pills, etc., to assist the process? it's something someone can do in the privacy of their home without harming others. heck, it might even relieve the burden on foodstamp program costs! should society approve this commercial activity? suppose someone has a terminal, painful illness, what's the harm?

Click to expand...

I think the discussion on the personal decision to end your life is a very good one. I fail to see how it connects to the current discussion past the idea of being able to decide what to do with your body.

As for cigarettes - I think if all tobacco users only did so in private you would not see the public decrying of tobacco use.

If marijuana was legalized and it began to be used the same way tobacco is currently used I think you'd see the same cries for more regulation/laws to stop it. But you don't, and I don't think most people consider legalizing/decriminalizing to mean being able to walk down the street with a joint in your mouth. The same way the legalization of alcohol does not mean people walking down the street with a beer in their hand.

tshile said:

Players receive injections before games and during games on a regular basis to manage pain. Get half way through the season and when people are asked if they're 'healthy' they all say no - everyone's got something hurt, you just play. For decades guys have been getting concussions and then lying about their injury to go back onto the field - the result is believed to be CTC which leads to personality disorders such as aggression/rage and possibly even suicide (research is still in its infancy here.)

Our star quarterback that we traded a ton of picks for can be seen on camera during a playoff game telling our LT that his knee was hurt, an injury he's had all season and been wearing a brace for and a knee he's already had repaired once before, but to not tell anyone because he didn't want to be taken out of the game.

There's a lot of money involved and every play you're on the sideline is a play someone else might be taking your job.

The players in the NFL play through tons of pain. And they manage it with legal substances like pills and injections. I imagine they also use illegal substances, but that's just an assumption. The ability to use marijuana isn't going to change anything other than the substance they use.

Click to expand...

They do play through a ton of pain. And if it was a treatment for the same thing, your statements may have some merit. However, the cannibinoid receptors in the brain that marijuana targets isn't for localized treatment. And it's technically for severe amounts of pain that other drugs can't do well in treating.

With all the annoying doping that goes on already, are you really advocating to make it bigger?

fansince62 said:

I agree. Chiming in…again…that the bad consequences can not only impact the individual….but innocent victims as well. the decision to normalize this…while comically sending messages that cigarette smoking is bad and LEGISLATING slowly but surely to undermine that liberty…..will have impacts.

in a separate department, if someone wants to shuffle their mortal coil, should society allow businesses to sell cyanide pills, etc., to assist the process? it's something someone can do in the privacy of their home without harming others. heck, it might even relieve the burden on foodstamp program costs! should society approve this commercial activity? suppose someone has a terminal, painful illness, what's the harm?

Click to expand...

After spending more time than I want in some assisted care places recently visiting relatives who were basically just "existing" (heartbreaking) I'd be one who was all for Euthanasia, but you're opening a HUGE can of worms here.

Shi no Tenshi said:

They do play through a ton of pain. And if it was a treatment for the same thing, your statements may have some merit. However, the cannibinoid receptors in the brain that marijuana targets isn't for localized treatment. And it's technically for severe amounts of pain that other drugs can't do well in treating.

With all the annoying doping that goes on already, are you really advocating to make it bigger?

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not of much use in a real discussion about the medical parts of marijuana. I have no interest in it - it's not why I believe what I believe on the subject - and I'm likely to make a fool of myself if I try to discuss it.

I was addressing the idea of the players playing in pain - they all do it, on different levels, all the time. They're doing it even when it amounts to severe brain damage leading to suicide and/or destruction of their personal lives and relationships. If all of that has nothing to do with the medical benefits of marijuana vs playing through pain then so be it, like I said, I'm not educated on the matter.

I do not believe marijuana falls in line with the 'annoying doping that goes on already' so your question is not applicable in my opinion.

My only concern about the NFL and pot is that A - they're following the laaws, B - they keep their use private.

If the argument is that they're adults and should control what goes in their body then fine, be adults and do it discretely on your own time and don't market it to the young kids in this country that don't know any better and don't have parents to guide them.

Not sure what bur I put up your butt, but since you singled me out, I'll try to respond, without the indignation.

CounterTrey said:

This debate makes me laugh. It's so comically stupid that Marijuana is illegal and tobacco and Alcohol are not. Yes it SHOULD be legalized for several fairly simple reasons. The prohibition aspects which are an entire discussion alone, the revenue and tax wealth that can be generated from an industry that is not in any way being curbed by law enforcement is well into the billions. It would also create a new source for cash crops and give us the ability to replace the pulp paper industry with hemp paper as well as textiles and many other things that hemp can be made into. It can also give a huge boost to the farming industry. Hemp used to be America's #1 cash crop...but Reefer madness changed that...that's just intellectual incompetence on a massive national level.

Click to expand...

First, I agree that it's "comically stupid that Marijuana is illegal and tobacco and Alcohol are not". I guess where we differ, is that all three are worthless, unnecessary, unhealthy, human indulgences. None should be legal. Two being so, is no more justification for legalizing the 3rd than the man on the moon. Which addresses the first of your "several simple reasons". You don't have to agree.

The possible gains in revenue are certainly intriguing. No way to guarantee what the numbers would be. Or, to foresee what possible trade offs in terms of costs, brought on by doing so. The possibilities are too numerous to try and list. But it doesn't take a very vivid imagination to come up with some.

I agree that hemp farming, and it's many uses, would be a good thing to do. But, since the hemp you grow for paper/textiles, etc... doesn't have to be of the variety that gets you high, it's irrelevant to this discussion.

The elimination of a huge international drug trade, elimination of a LOT of crime, a lot of non violent, otherwise harmless criminals would never see a jail cell and could be contributing members of society instead of financial drains in the prison system & regulation of a huge industry that at this stage has none.

Click to expand...

Elimination of a huge international drug trade? Not on your life. A curb/restructuring? Maybe.

Finding alternatives to non violent criminal incarceration doesn't have to include legalization. But it is a subject indeed worthy of greater attention.

Whatever contributions they MAY make, could just as easily be offset by drains on society. Just because someone doesn't go to jail for smoking pot, doesn't mean they won't go for something else. Or wind up otherwise costing taxpayers. It's an impossible, immeasurable prediction to make.

I don't care if you smoked for two decades or still burn it, if you're making the argument that the ONLY reason anyone could POSSIBLY be arguing FOR legalization is so they can have unfettered stoner sessions you've got zero credibility in this debate. NONE AX. I am a HUGE proponent of legalization for political reasons and it's more than a little insulting when I hear that jackass argument.

Click to expand...

I assume this statement...

Ax said:

Most excuses, and that's what the overwhelming majority of them are, excuses, for condoning marijuana use, are manufactured by users to justify getting high.

Click to expand...

...is what you are referring to. I see the words "overwhelming majority", and "most". I don't see "ONLY reason anyone could POSSIBLY".
But I'll ask, what good reason, other than maybe medical, is there to get high?

It's more of that painting with a broad brush and speaking for a huge group of people that you have no basis for doing so. Your experience means two things when discussing what goes on in other's minds...jack and squat.

Click to expand...

I only mention my own pot use to say I do have a working knowledge of it's use, and effects. It also helped me learn how unnecessary it's use is. And to learn all the BS excuses to use it. I've employed them all. So, you don't have to agree with me, but there's no need to get all puffy. I'm not impressed by it.

By that logic everyone who ever has or has enjoyed a drink is a raging alcoholic. No chance someone could be FOR the personal liberty that allows them to regulate what goes into their body (instead of the GOV) and not be a heavy consumer huh?

Click to expand...

No, not at all. But the mentality that using these things, are the only way to achieve, whatever, is the best, and only way, is a truckload of BS. that's all. And when someone can put something in their body that might affect me adversely, it at least makes me part of the discussion. Mind altering substances deserve closer scrutiny, IMO. But I'm not jumping up an down screaming about it.

As for the NFL, it's whether it's legal or not that's the issue. If it's legal then not much they can really say unless someone proves to have a problem, but until it's legal on federal level I don't see how that's gonna fly. Federal laws still prohibit it and the DEA could technically still come after ya even if your state doesn't. No if I was running things in the NFL it'l stay banned until it's legal federally.

Click to expand...

Mostly agree here. Though I think, that even if legalized, businesses, including the NFL, should be allowed to disqualify users as potential employees.

Ax said:

Elimination of a huge international drug trade? Not on your life. A curb/restructuring? Maybe.

Click to expand...

This is where you and I largely disagree. I think there could be a huge shift in the international drug trade if there was legalization and control the way there is over alcohol and tobacco.

Unfortunately there's no way to prove it. I can bring up countries that have done this and their results, but we all know cultural differences could cause completely different results.

So we just have to disagree on the matter

Treat it like alcohol and be done with it. There is no need to make it more complicated. Most jobs don't allow drinking on the job....same with age issues.

Too bad the internet wasn't around in the 1920's. This would have been a fascinating discussion, vis-a-vis alcohol, throughout Prohibition and it's pre- and post phases.

tshile said:

This is where you and I largely disagree. I think there could be a huge shift in the international drug trade if there was legalization and control the way there is over alcohol and tobacco.

Unfortunately there's no way to prove it. I can bring up countries that have done this and their results, but we all know cultural differences could cause completely different results.

So we just have to disagree on the matter

Click to expand...

I know what you're saying. It's why I said it like I did.
"A curb/restructuring? Maybe."

Ending prohibition put a huge, huge hurting on the bootlegging industry. It did not, however, eliminate it.
The same would hold true for illegal drug trade. IMO
Especially, the international drug trade.

That's all I meant.

Ax said:

Not sure what bur I put up your butt, but since you singled me out, I'll try to respond, without the indignation.

Click to expand...

I dunno maybe the broad brush, insulting comment you made trying to speak for the thought process of a HUGE faction of people. There are a LOT of people who DON'T smoke who are for legalization. Try speaking for yourself not making a weak attempt at speaking for others and you'll avoid "getting up someone's butt".

First, I agree that it's "comically stupid that Marijuana is illegal and tobacco and Alcohol are not". I guess where we differ, is that all three are worthless, unnecessary, unhealthy, human indulgences. None should be legal. Two being so, is no more justification for legalizing the 3rd than the man on the moon. Which addresses the first of your "several simple reasons". You don't have to agree.

Click to expand...

Of course I disagree, I like being treated like an adult with rights instead of a child with none. If you're for a nanny state that regulates everything in your life to the degree that they control what you do in the privacy of your own home I guess that explains a lot.

The possible gains in revenue are certainly intriguing. No way to guarantee what the numbers would be. Or, to foresee what possible trade offs in terms of costs, brought on by doing so. The possibilities are too numerous to try and list. But it doesn't take a very vivid imagination to come up with some.

I agree that hemp farming, and it's many uses, would be a good thing to do. But, since the hemp you grow for paper/textiles, etc... doesn't have to be of the variety that gets you high, it's irrelevant to this discussion.

Click to expand...

No it's not, hemp is illegal because of this whole stupid ban, it's absolutely relevant to the discussion, it goes hand in hand. The fact that it's illegal and you'd need to smoke a wad the size of a bale of hay to get high goes directly to the stupidity and nonsensical process the GOV uses to justify this ban. It's dumber than the ban on Alcohol was by a country mile and it's intellectually insulting to our entire populace.

Elimination of a huge international drug trade? Not on your life. A curb/restructuring? Maybe.

Click to expand...

Not even close. It absolutely would eliminate the black market trade of huge parcels going across the Mexican border. You're kidding yourself if you think it would be cost effective in any way for a cartel to continue running drugs to black market dealers when it's farmed on an industrial level on farmlands more fertile than any soil in Mexico. It would eliminate storing of large shipments for years at a time (ie fresher, cleaner weed that doesn't have mildew and mold in it) and would eliminate all but the very smallest percentage of trade across that border. We get almost nothing by comparison from other sources worldwide and with supply coming straight from home it would make as much sense as importing corn (which we didn't do until Ethanol came along). The pot trade would all but disappear across that border, we sure wouldn't have to dedicate the millions of man hours we do to enforcing it. we could also stop cutting down trees for paper and give a LOT of desperate farmers a LOT of business, great for the economy, great for personal lives and great for the Environment...win/win/win!

Finding alternatives to non violent criminal incarceration doesn't have to include legalization. But it is a subject indeed worthy of greater attention.

Click to expand...

Agreed but we've had decades to find one and have yet to do it in any meaningful and large scale way.

Whatever contributions they MAY make, could just as easily be offset by drains on society. Just because someone doesn't go to jail for smoking pot, doesn't mean they won't go for something else. Or wind up otherwise costing taxpayers. It's an impossible, immeasurable prediction to make.

Click to expand...

No it really isn't if you don't rely on false premises like legalizing will increase pot use or Pot is a gateway drug and Pot smokers are otherwise criminals or pot smoker=stoner (no more accurate than saying if you drink at all you're an alcoholic). It's easier to get now than it would be legalized and regulated so there's just no basis for that assumption.

I assume this statement...

...is what you are referring to. I see the words "overwhelming majority", and "most". I don't see "ONLY reason anyone could POSSIBLY".
But I'll ask, what good reason, other than maybe medical, is there to get high?

Click to expand...

Enjoyment? Same reason to have an occasional drink or two or enjoy the occasional cigar. Look if it's not for you that's fine but many people like me can enjoy a mind altering substance like Pot or Tobacco or Alcohol and do it with moderation (I literally go so long between indulgences I can't remember the last time I indulged...months, we don't even keep beer in the house we have to buy it when someone wants one) and not be complete losers in life. In fact many do and you don't even know it. If it's not for you fine, but I have no idea why some people think it's their place or right to regulate what the rest of us do in the privacy of our homes. Whatever, thankfully rationality, facts, and reason are finally winning out and all the hysterical nonsense is being seen for what it is.

I only mention my own pot use to say I do have a working knowledge of it's use, and effects. It also helped me learn how unnecessary it's use is. And to learn all the BS excuses to use it. I've employed them all. So, you don't have to agree with me, but there's no need to get all puffy. I'm not impressed by it.

Click to expand...

If you think I care what impresses you, you're mistaken. I couldn't possibly care less. You were being a douche and I called you on it...it's really that simple. When people unfairly paint with broad brushes and try to speak for vast constituencies that may or may not include me I'm going to speak up and cry foul as I did here. Not a big deal, I won't lose sleep and I'm sure you won't either and the world will keep turning, just callin it like I see it.

No, not at all. But the mentality that using these things, are the only way to achieve, whatever, is the best, and only way, is a truckload of BS. that's all. And when someone can put something in their body that might affect me adversely, it at least makes me part of the discussion. Mind altering substances deserve closer scrutiny, IMO. But I'm not jumping up an down screaming about it.

Click to expand...

Again how does what someone does in the privacy of their own home affect you at all? So what, do you get a contact high off your neighbor down the street burning a dooby in his living room? Also I am confused about what you're trying to say with the sentence about mentality (medicinal use?). I don't know anyone arguing that the ONLY way to pain relief is smoking pot but I DO know that's a huge befit for cancer patient and others dealing with nausea and pain related to chemo etc. It stimulates appetite while numbing pain and relaxing muscles and evidently does a better job of this than the drugs provided by Oncologists. I've never tried the legalization for medical reason tack because I just think the issue has enough merit legally and politically to stand on its own without a medical argument.

Mostly agree here. Though I think, that even if legalized, businesses, including the NFL, should be allowed to disqualify users as potential employees.

Click to expand...

Agreed I think a private business should be able to hire and regulate their employees any way they want to. Said employees are free to find work elsewhere. Occupation with a specific company is NOT a right.

Oh and Ax....my bad I guess for overreacting. I just HATE when that broad brush comment gets made and I tend to get my panties in a wad over it, meant or not it's always perceived as douchbaggery when I hear/read it. I know you weren't directing it at me but felt myself and many others I know who are together, responsible members of society who OCCASIONALLY indulge were unfairly lumped with idiots of the world.

tshile said:

Well, I'm not of much use in a real discussion about the medical parts of marijuana. I have no interest in it - it's not why I believe what I believe on the subject - and I'm likely to make a fool of myself if I try to discuss it.

I was addressing the idea of the players playing in pain - they all do it, on different levels, all the time. They're doing it even when it amounts to severe brain damage leading to suicide and/or destruction of their personal lives and relationships. If all of that has nothing to do with the medical benefits of marijuana vs playing through pain then so be it, like I said, I'm not educated on the matter.

Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying though, is that it is for different types of pain. That's like saying somebody has a headache, maybe a sprain, and they should take codeine. It's overkill. I'm not speaking to the desires for recreational use and all that. My stance there is that I just don't want to smell it, just like anybody smoking tobacco.

It's just disingenuous to use medical use as an excuse. Somebody with severe enough chronic pain in a way that requires medical marijuana to cope is not somebody that is going to be capable of playing football, as they will need the drug(which ruins the focus needed to play) to make it through the day.

Yea I'm going to need o see some kind of evidence that smoking dope as pain regulator is good for a professional athlete. I'm a proponent of legalization but that sounds like nonsense to me.

CounterTrey said:

Oh and Ax....my bad I guess for overreacting. I just HATE when that broad brush comment gets made and I tend to get my panties in a wad over it, meant or not it's always perceived as douchbaggery when I hear/read it. I know you weren't directing it at me but felt myself and many others I know who are together, responsible members of society who OCCASIONALLY indulge were unfairly lumped with idiots of the world.

Click to expand...

Hey, we've all done it. I'm glad saw this before I responded to your first response. Thanks.

Now we can just talk about, and try to explain our opinions, without pulling knives on each other.

There was a piece on Real Sports last month about the positive effects of pot toward concussions. If that research pans outs is it a game changer for the NFL?

http://www.awfulannouncing.com/2014/january/hbo-s-real-sports-examines-pot-use-in-the-nfl.html

CounterTrey said:

I like being treated like an adult with rights instead of a child with none. If you're for a nanny state that regulates everything in your life to the degree that they control what you do in the privacy of your own home I guess that explains a lot.

Click to expand...

I'm certainly not for the nanny state. And while know I can handle personal responsibility, and it would appear that you can, I have to admit that my faith in fellow my humans to be able to has been severely diminished, after 50+ years of observation. lol
I think the overwhelming majority are incapable of doing what's best for them. And I do see a need to try and limit their possibilities. I also acknowledge that that flies in the face of being for personal responsibility. I'm just not very trusting, I guess.

No it's not, hemp is illegal because of this whole stupid ban, it's absolutely relevant to the discussion, it goes hand in hand. The fact that it's illegal and you'd need to smoke a wad the size of a bale of hay to get high goes directly to the stupidity and nonsensical process the GOV uses to justify this ban. It's dumber than the ban on Alcohol was by a country mile and it's intellectually insulting to our entire populace.

Click to expand...

Well, as I said, I can't think of any reason to NOT allow farmers to grow, and the nation to use, the non/low THC type hemp for it many products potential.

Not even close. It absolutely would eliminate the black market trade of huge parcels going across the Mexican border. You're kidding yourself if you think it would be cost effective in any way for a cartel to continue running drugs to black market dealers when it's farmed on an industrial level on farmlands more fertile than any soil in Mexico. It would eliminate storing of large shipments for years at a time (ie fresher, cleaner weed that doesn't have mildew and mold in it) and would eliminate all but the very smallest percentage of trade across that border. We get almost nothing by comparison from other sources worldwide and with supply coming straight from home it would make as much sense as importing corn (which we didn't do until Ethanol came along). The pot trade would all but disappear across that border, we sure wouldn't have to dedicate the millions of man hours we do to enforcing it. we could also stop cutting down trees for paper and give a LOT of desperate farmers a LOT of business, great for the economy, great for personal lives and great for the Environment...win/win/win!

Click to expand...

I guess my problem is with the idea it would "eliminate" a large criminal force, addicted to money and power. Booze is legal, but there still is a sizable moonshine business going on. Cigs are legal, and there is still illegal trafficking of them as well. The cartels will offer tax free drugs. They will adapt faster than the clowns in our government ever could.

No it really isn't if you don't rely on false premises like legalizing will increase pot use or Pot is a gateway drug and Pot smokers are otherwise criminals or pot smoker=stoner (no more accurate than saying if you drink at all you're an alcoholic). It's easier to get now than it would be legalized and regulated so there's just no basis for that assumption.

Click to expand...

I agree that the absolution of statements like, "is a gateway", are false. Put when put for as "can be" it is 100% accurate. And, at least in my experiences, has been, a great percentage of the time. If for no other reason, than the increased chances of exposure to other drugs. In reality, they are all gateways, in that sense.

Enjoyment? Same reason to have an occasional drink or two or enjoy the occasional cigar.

Click to expand...

Correct. But if there is even a remote possibility, and there absolutely is, that these things can harm you, or your family, or friends, and enjoyment can be found in so many other ways that don't/can't, then why are they necessary? And could not the time and money be better spent on those things? Would our lives not be worth living if none of the three existed? Now, before you think me one of those reformed haters...

Look if it's not for you that's fine but many people like me can enjoy a mind altering substance like Pot or Tobacco or Alcohol and do it with moderation

Click to expand...

...I quit smoking cigarettes 12 or more years ago. Don't miss'em, but can't say I will never smoke'em again. I liked smoking. I quit drinking, almost entirely, for nearly 10 years. I have since started to enjoy my beer again. And HOF44 is to blame for my new bourbon addiction! (jk) And there's nothing wrong with that. I haven't taken illegal drugs for 10 years. But I won't say I'll never do them again. Especially pot. I know that I can handle any of these things. I also know that I'm honest enough with myself, that I can see it, and address it, if I'm ever not. So please, don't think me a prude, tee-total anti enjoyment kind of guy. But as I said earlier, I don't trust most people to be capable of it. And if being illegal keeps people away from it, I think it's a good thing.

Again how does what someone does in the privacy of their own home affect you at all? So what, do you get a contact high off your neighbor down the street burning a dooby in his living room? Also I am confused about what you're trying to say with the sentence about mentality (medicinal use?). I don't know anyone arguing that the ONLY way to pain relief is smoking pot but I DO know that's a huge befit for cancer patient and others dealing with nausea and pain related to chemo etc. It stimulates appetite while numbing pain and relaxing muscles and evidently does a better job of this than the drugs provided by Oncologists. I've never tried the legalization for medical reason tack because I just think the issue has enough merit legally and politically to stand on its own without a medical argument.

Click to expand...

I would say that it's not just being done in the privacy of their own living rooms now. No reason to think that's going to change.

And I do try to keep up with the breakthroughs in potential uses for medical marijuana. I said I'm all for it. What I don't buy is the blanket statement about it being such a great painkiller. Though I'm open to clinical proof.

MikeSr619 said:

Pete,

George Burns. Tobacco and alcohol every day. Lived to a ripe old age. We've seen that, too.

Click to expand...

fansince62 said:

sorry…but I have the last two days been listening to healthcare professionals who state the exact opposite. that regular pot smoking has lasting health and psychological impacts. there are statistical correlations that show regular pot use can and has led to heavier drug use. there is the common sense idea that breathing smoke into one's lungs regularly and altering brain chemistry isn't a "natural" thing. healthcare professionals are pointing out that pot being sold these days is infinitely stronger than it was back in the 60s & 70s. They also note that the THC doesn't just disappear. It stays in the system.

In my mind, the jury is still out. I know I will not be encouraging my kids to smoke pot. Others are free to advocate what they think is best for society and their children.

Click to expand...

I didn't say it didn't have lasting effects, I did say it didn't effect you in the short term. Of course, if you have other health issues, it will complicate them to some degree. No THC doesn't just go away. It takes time, and dependent on body fat percentage, your weight, and your activity level amongst other things. But it does go away eventually.

fansince62 said:

Miles…this simply isn't true. Growing up in the 60s/70s I knew people who died because of pot use. It' not just the impact on the body….it's the decisions people make when high and, say, are sitting behind the wheel of a car. Whether other drugs are approved is, IMO, largely irrelevant. whether you believe you can handle it is not relevant to whether an 18 year old working the engine on an F/A-18 can handle it. there are real consequences when decision processes break down. and there is no doubt in my mind that the evidence overwhelmingly points in the direction of just about any mind altering substance impacting deliberative processes.

what's at issue is whether society believes it is worth accepting the extra risk. there will be a down-side. there always is. it then gets to be a crap-shoot/probability game who chance strikes out and cripples. I think arguing that this is a benign, personal decision that has no unintended consequences ignores reality. again, it's a societal decision. At this point, I'm more interested in how one exacts justice when the unintended consequences become a personal reality.

Click to expand...

I've seen the death toll for all sorts of drugs.Firefighter for 13 years, so I've extricated my fair share of victims. I'm not endorsing people working high, playing pro sports high, or operating equipment or motor vehicles. What I'm saying is, is there really any difference if a person gets home from work, fires up the BBq, and instead of cracking a beer, they somke a joint ? The same way it's exacted for alcohol and prescription drug related realities.

Ax said:

On the contrary, i smoked every kind there was.

Click to expand...

[video=youtube;ljfdg3mPcvY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ljfdg3mPcvY#t=17 4[/video]

fansince62 said:

you are correct. the information I am drawing from was a lengthy interview I listened to the other day among a group of healthcare professionals who work in the area of drug addiction. these people related, anecdotally, that in their experience there was a high correlation between hard drug addiction and those who started down this path with pot. I agree more analysis is needed. it is also obvious that this is not an iron-clad rule for all people. but I'm not going to ignore what these people have to say. I am familiar with folks in my youth who fit that description - and died within a couple years of graduating from high school.

there is the matter of pot use. and there is the matter of the make-up of the people who use drugs. combining the two, IMO, can, and has, had untoward consequences. I have seen it. I return to theme: this is a societal risk acceptance decision IMO.

Click to expand...

I'm sure there's some weight to their assertions, but they base their case on a minority study so to speak, and the worst cases no less. Problem is, there not looking at the majority of people that smoke grass. The vast majority live normal lives, are responsible, productive people. I've also seen the dark side of what drugs, alcohol have done to people. Hell, I went through some rough spots in my misspent youth.

MikeSr619 said:

what about testing? this is where I get confused.

If it is legal in CO to smoke weed and you go in to take a piss test for a job, does it matter if you have it in your system? Will that stop you?

I guess they can have a special law now that they put in place saying they dont allow weed...but outside of that, can you now smoke and get a job?

Click to expand...

Don't know how their working it, but I worked for a company that had their policy posted throughout the building, and the allowable amounts of drugs you could have in your system before you would fail their drug screening. You could basically party a bit with no worries. If you were a hard partyer, you ran the risk of job loss if you got hurt and they tested you.

Shi no Tenshi said:

It's just disingenuous to use medical use as an excuse. Somebody with severe enough chronic pain in a way that requires medical marijuana to cope is not somebody that is going to be capable of playing football, as they will need the drug(which ruins the focus needed to play) to make it through the day.

Click to expand...

I can't agree. Players take some pretty heavy duty pain meds prescribed by team doctors and trainers. Do you honestly think Robert wasn't taking pain meds at least at the beginning of his rehab ? How about making it through the night ? Your body needs sleep to heal itself. Most people don't sleep well when in pain. I can tell my doc my back hurts all day long, and he'll shrug it off. Tell him pain is causing me to loose sleep, and he'll throw pain pills at me in a millisecond.

The entire lack of focus thing is a good topic in itself. People who smoke are viewed as unmotivated sleepy people looking to watch TV, and munch out. While they may not want to munch out, those people are likely unmotivated couch potatoes to begin with. I know countless stony people that do just that, get high and vegetate. Many don't, and have to be focused on what their doing through the day. It may scare you if it was actually publicized how many CEO's of companies are regular smokers... I know two very stony, very successful engineers personally, a few IT people, and a couple mainframe programers / annalists highly regarded in their fields. It has more to do with the individuals personality and basic make up then anything else. While I'd say the the scale are tipped towards the couch potatoes, there's lots of people out there that are focused as any out there, so you have to look at each person individually.

Just an addendum:

apparently there's a recent Columbia University study (I haven't seen it - yet) that documents a tripling of pot related auto accidents over the last 10 years. Extrapolating the trend, analysts believe pot sourced accents will over-take alcohol in the next few years. Now, I haven't seen the study, don't know how the data was collected or the analysis conducted. but it is germane to the present discussion.

Miles,

The best I can get out of this thread, reducing to what I think are the essentials, is that this is about two competing priorities: the right of individuals to inject into their systems whatever they please; the right of society to protect itself from the downside risk of that activity. The former want drug laws liberalized so that society implicitly sanctions their private activities - this is what decriminalization and legal sales is about. Those with kids in schools, cars on the roads, products and services where there is elevated risk prefer not to increase that risk function. one off-shoot, evident in your lengthy response, is to contest the real risks. reasonable response IMO. we'll see over the course of time.

Again, I sit on the fence on this one. But, especially with a 15 year old, I don't believe behavior patterns for those who smoke pot will be any different than those who drink alcohol. there will be a percentage who do it, jump in a car, go to work high, etc., etc. the stats (see above on Columbia University study) are starting to show that there are consequences. If use increases, one can do the statistical projections. I have no idea at this point what the actual stats/standard deviations are that shape the confidence intervals. but I'm not buying into any argument that this is a consequence free adventure on the part of society. we know there have been auto accidents. we know there have been train accidents. we know there have been other correlations. what we don't know is the statistical significance nor overall societal impact - at this point in time.

the only problem with that fansince62 is that it implies that the illegization of pot has somehow mitigated the use of pot and these risks you (and everyone else for that matter) are concerned about, and that decriminalization or legalization is going to somehow significantly alter use to increase those risks.

from my perspective that just isn't the case. the illegalization of the drug hasn't significantly impacted the use of the drug - it's just changed the method of acquiring the drug and the ramifications of getting caught.

you can walk into plenty of schools in northern VA and purchase marijuana within 30 minutes. you just have to know who to talk to and they have to be willing to sell it to you. we're talking about schools. not street corner gang members selling to those willing to venture into the area. we're talking about middle to upper class, non violent children that are capable of access to quantities that allow them to sell to their peers while in school.

acquiring it isn't hard - it's just illegal and potentially risky. usage statistics do not favor the idea the being illegal has deterred use.

so while I appreciate your concern and actually share it with you, I do not subscribe to the idea that we're effectively curbing those concerns/risks or the idea that decriminalization/legalization would significantly increase those risks.

in fact - maybe altering the way we discuss and handle usage of the drug would significantly decrease those risks. there are real life case studies of legalizing drugs and plenty of them show use declining in the most vulnerable demographics - children. and while many of those cases show upticks in 'trying' the drug by adults, they show long term use and dependence staying roughly the same and for more serious drugs actually declining.