Should marijuana be allowed by the NFL and or teams

I have reservations about posting this because of conclusions people may draw that aren't necessary accurate. Take it for what it's worth and draw assumptions as you please.

I haven't been in high school for at least 11 years now. The town I live in is significantly larger than it was when I went to high school. They've built a 3rd high school here and all 3 are still over crowded.

but when I was in high school I knew enough about what was going on that I could, if desired, gain access to any of the main stream drugs at the time. Marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD, mushrooms, a vast array of prescription pills, and while I don't know how easy it would have been to get I certainly knew who to talk to about PCP.

I have a hard time believing it's better now than it was then.

I ran with crowds that mingled with that stuff, for various reasons, so I knew who did what and who to talk to. That was not a problem.

You know what was a problem? Cigarettes. Unless you knew someone that stole them from their parents and resold them, or knew someone with a fake id, it was kind of hard. We had one spot in town that didn't ID, but they were over priced and their cigarettes were often stale. Eventually I started working at CVS and could just sell them to myself, and once I left there I knew enough adults or seniors that turned 18 (and eventually turned 18 myself) that it wasn't a problem.

Alcohol was also a big problem. Majority of it was stolen from our parents in the form of liquor, but that has obvious limits unless your parents are alcoholics. Fake ids that sufficiently worked for a 16 and 17 year old posing as a 21 year old just didn't fly, and we had a lot of ABC ops in the area busting people so it was pretty hard to get access to. We all found ways, but I couldn't buy a case of beer while in school.

But I could likely, on any given day, buy a bag of any of the drugs I listed... if I couldn't I could at least make arrangements to after school or the next day.

I don't know how the rest of your all's teen years went, but for the late '90s and early 2000's that's how mine were.

When I have a 15 year old I'll have no misconceptions about how easily he/she will be able to access any drugs. I know just how easy it is to get them. I also know that the difference between the people that used and didn't use wasn't because of access - it was because of a variety of characteristics about the people.

And that a whole hell of a lot of highschoolers did drugs, did them while in school and after school, did them on a regular basis, and their parents never had a clue. Lots of athletes did drugs, lots of AP students did drugs, lots of upper class white kids from rich families did drugs.

And the adults were completely ****ing clueless.

Good grades and on a sports team or doing well in AP classes? On track for easy admission to 4 year universities? Never had problems in school? Assumed you were not using drugs - which was laughable.

I remember when the captain of the girl's field hockey team, and person in top of the class on track to a full ride to a top out of state school, got called out during a routine drug dog run through the parking lot. It had hit on her car. They searched it and found nothing.

All the adults assumed it was a mistake.

She was one of the biggest smokers in the whole school and everyone knew it. The dogs hit on her car because her and her friends were smoking weed on their way to school. Everyone knew it. Everyone but the adults.

tshile said:

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.

Click to expand...

With all the companies that drug test these days, I would say that quite a few people, that would otherwise have not stopped smoking weed, have. And, if legalized, I'd bet there would be an almost immediate increase in the push to have that practice declared discriminatory, and removed as roadblock. And, if our ever more forgiving society proves nothing else, it eventually gives in to any behavior that has a loud enough voice.

No way to be certain. Just a thought.

From what I know company drug testing happens when being hired, and only if there is an accident/issue where proving the people involved weren't on drugs matters for insurance, but otherwise is largely irrelevant.

Government is different and there are plenty of private sector jobs that are different, but from what I've seen that seems to be the overwhelming trend.

Even the NFL is that way. They have a small window where they'll test, and once you get outside of that you're in the clear for the nest 9-10 months.

It seems more of a formality for insurance purposes than an actual deterrent to use over the long term.

Plenty of smart people smoke weed. But those same smart people know that events can always transpire that would facilitate being tested, again. They're smart enough to know it's not worth the risk. They also know somebody might bust them out to save their own ass, or take somebody with them. I don't how many people it might be. But I do think it's a significant one.

A question for the class.

I assume that most of us would allow our children, at some age, to drink with/in front of us.

If legalized, would you smoke/snort/shoot up with your kids?
Would you allow them to do it in your house/presence?

And if not, is it hypocritical since you let them drink, and even drink with them?

Yeah, I had some of the same experiences with friends parents.

tshile said:

From what I know company drug testing happens when being hired, and only if there is an accident/issue where proving the people involved weren't on drugs matters for insurance, but otherwise is largely irrelevant.

Government is different and there are plenty of private sector jobs that are different, but from what I've seen that seems to be the overwhelming trend.

Even the NFL is that way. They have a small window where they'll test, and once you get outside of that you're in the clear for the nest 9-10 months.

It seems more of a formality for insurance purposes than an actual deterrent to use over the long term.

Click to expand...

Most hospitals do random employee drug testing if all employees now, in addition to pre-hire and post-accident screens. Don't know about other business sectors, but in healthcare you risk ending your career if you use recreationally. Not just your job is at risk, but your career.

Ax said:

A question for the class.

I assume that most of us would allow our children, at some age, to drink with/in front of us.

If legalized, would you smoke/snort/shoot up with your kids?
Would you allow them to do it in your house/presence?

And if not, is it hypocritical since you let them drink, and even drink with them?

Click to expand...

snort/shoot up - absolutely not and I'd hope they're not using those sorts of drugs. i'll accept the idea of the dabbling because of young curiosity, but not to the point of being willing to do it in front of me.

i wouldn't have a problem with smoking weed.

while i wouldn't have a problem with alcohol, i would have a problem with them getting blasted and out of control on a regular basis in front of me.

i don't think it's hypocritical because my stance isn't that drugs are perfectly ok and everyone should be doing them. my stance is that the current laws and the way our society address (or more like doesn't address) the idea of substance abuse is not conducive towards fixing the problem. i think majority of studies prove that without much room for debate. more people are trying more drugs at younger ages.

you know what has significantly improved? tobacco usage, especially among young people. funny how that works...

i don't subscribe to the idea that just because it's legal you should do it. i don't subscribe to the idea that if it were legal more people would do harder drugs. access to the drugs isn't what allows/prevents people from doing it - it's their knowledge of the drug and their decision making process. 12 year olds can find heroin if they want to.

Boone said:

Most hospitals do random employee drug testing if all employees now, in addition to pre-hire and post-accident screens. Don't know about other business sectors, but in healthcare you risk ending your career if you use recreationally. Not just your job is at risk, but your career.

Click to expand...

No one at my wife's hospital has been tested for more than pre-hire purposes.

It's just one system in one area of the country. Obviously where you are they do random testing.

tshile said:

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.

Click to expand...

but why can't you walk down the street with it? because the assessment is second hand smoke has deleterious effects. which then raises the question: does pot have long-term effects. don't know...but there are researchers who respond unequivocally that first hand usage does.

fansince62 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I don't think I've seen anybody here condone smoking and driving, and I think we all agree driving while impaired by any substance or extreme lack of sleep is not acceptable.

fansince62 said:

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.

Click to expand...

While I'm not sure how much of an increase there would be, I think that many of the younger people would not start if the government took it over due to the huge increase in price, and age restrictions. While I'm sure there would still be the black market, it would be much harder to get.

Trust me, I've lived with the question... will my daughter try drugs, and what kinds if so. Scares the living shit out of me to be honest. I know what my youth was like, and the 70's and 80 were still pretty wild. I can only hope my daughter isn't like me in that aspect. Raise them the best you can, hope they make all the right choices, and they live long and happy lives.

Ax said:

A question for the class.

I assume that most of us would allow our children, at some age, to drink with/in front of us.

If legalized, would you smoke/snort/shoot up with your kids?
Would you allow them to do it in your house/presence?

And if not, is it hypocritical since you let them drink, and even drink with them?

Click to expand...

My daughter has been allowed to have a driink from time to time with me and my wife since she was about 15. I know this may sound like bad parenting, but raised in an Italian household, we were given a little wine on occasion at even a younger age. More often then not at Sunday family dinner. We're talking like a double shot glass worth of red wine. It also made drinking less of a big deal as the kids got older, and came of age.

As for grass, it's such a tough call. I have no doubt my daughter knows I use to smoke, but must think I'm a moron. I'm pretty sure she is toking from time to time after her last two visits home. Comes home from being out with friends, and hangs out with me for a while. Goes in her room. Comes out of her room to go to the bathroom, and I get hit with the small of air freshener. Back in her room, I hear her cough a bit here and there. Hmmm, I can still add two and two Guess I need to teach her the old trick of using a TP tube and dryer sheet to exhale out of so her mom doesn't catch on. I'm not thrilled about it, but if given the choice, I rather see her take a toke from time to time then snorting coke, smoking crack, or any other of the countless recreational drugs common now. Heroin use is at record numbers from what I've seen because it's less money then many other drugs. That's kind of scary when you think about it. If grass was legal, and she initiated burning a little, I'd likely take a toke or two. Being it's not legal, I just couldn't do it.

My daughter turned 21 about 3 weeks ago. She was home the weekend after, and we went out to dinner. We killed over a liter of wine, and had a couple shots of limoncello. I'll normally kill at least a half liter myself as the restaurant is my home away from home, and dinner starts about 6, and we normally don't leave till around 10:30 or so. So we just casually drink as we dine, and a cordial after the meal isn't out of the norm. She's a young adult, of legal age, so there's no reason to have a drink with her. Hell, I'm looking forward to going up to her school for a football game and tailgating.

Based on the rate of TBI incidence in the NFL, I'm not so sure if allowing and/or encouraging the use of a psychoactive drug is the best idea for these players...

In all seriousness, since this product is currently illegal, I'm gonna go with "no."

EDIT: I just saw Chris's post about Dr. Mechoulam's research with MJ and TBI. So, I looked up the research and saw some medical experts' theories about the cannabinoid 2-Arachodonoyl glycerol potentially helping protect or treat TBIs. I have never heard this medical claim, but after perusing some of the preliminary research, it's a very interesting concept. If future medical research conclusively shows MJ can help victims of TBI, then yes, I think the subject of marijuana allowance in the NFL should be seriously looked at.

I've read about this recently as well K and one of things that's interesting about it is these cannabanoid-2's coming in different strains than what people are smoking and that it doesn't have a very high THC content. How ironic that smoking what a stoner would call weak weed is actually what's medically beneficial in this case. Fascinating.