Should marijuana be allowed by the NFL and or teams

[CounterTrey]

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.

Yea but you can say that about ANY substance if used too much. Habitual coffee drinkers or soda drinkers have rotting mouths and heath issues related to caffeine, heck you can die from too much water consumption. The obvious here is that it takes personal responsibility and moderation. But the fact that some nitwit can't do that and ruins their life doesn't mean the rest of us should NOT be able to have a drink or a smoke or a toke occasionally. The rationality seems to completely leap off the cliff the second Marijuana comes into the discussion and it's so rife with lies or misleading statements that it's hard to have an honest debate about it. The best statement for me is " A man';s got to know his limitations". This applies to EVERYTHING, heck how many people die from Obesity related conditions like heart attacks diabetes etc, yet we aren't looking to ban junk food. Nope the problem is different body and brain chemistries in every single individual. It's what makes these bans patently stupid. Everyone has to embrace their own limitations and know how to moderate, if they don't something they over-consume or indulge in will kill them. It's shouldn't be the job of the nanny state to stop that.

 

[CounterTrey]

I wouldn't be so fast to believe that.

A corporation is still able to put rules in place for their employees. That area involves a lot of legal stuff that I have zero knowledge on (maybe someone else here does and can chime in?) but I'm pretty sure they can still bar you from using a mind altering substance if they have reason to believe it would impact your work. They have the ability to control your tobacco use and that's legal. There are places in virginia that will not hire you, and will fire you, if you use tobacco. My wife works at one, so I know it's being done.

Then you have all the government workers.

Most of that is way over my head but I think there's a lot more to it than if it's legal then a corporation can't do much about it.

Right but you don't HAVE to work for those companies, that's the difference. They can't affect your freedom. A private company should be able to regulate that stuff.

 

[tshile]

Agree wholeheartedly that the "legalize supporters" use phony pitches that don't help their cause much. I'm sure the anti's do too.

It's not just their pitches either, but also their actions.

When they get medical marijuana approved, then create a rubber-stamp process where people can get a card for simply knocking on a door and no other actual medical reason, they do the entire movement a disservice.

People see right through that stuff. There's a lot of phony nonsense in the discussion created by the people that are against legalizing it - when the people for legalizing add to that phony nonsense it just creates this whole side discussion people get trapped in and never get out of. And it just distracts from the real discussion.

As far as the original topic, sorry that I've played a role in diverting us, I firmly believe the NFL serves the purpose of being a role model. I personally won't allow my kids to use the NFL players as role models, but I recognize a lot of parents don't care to control that or actually think NFL players are actually good role models. So them doing anything that public promotes the use of marijuana would not be cool with me.

There's already a huge substance abuse problem, we don't need 12 year olds having any more reinforcement from society that using drugs is 'cool' or makes you an 'adult'

 

[fansince62]

Correlation does not equal causation.

Do you have a link to those studies? I'm very much interested in them. That type of statement has been proven farce over and over and is still, to this day, used to rail against any legalization discussion. So I'm really curious what new information may have surfaced that justifies that statement, or if it's just more farce.

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.

 

[CounterTrey]

It's not just their pitches either, but also their actions.

When they get medical marijuana approved, then create a rubber-stamp process where people can get a card for simply knocking on a door and no other actual medical reason, they do the entire movement a disservice.

People see right through that stuff. There's a lot of phony nonsense in the discussion created by the people that are against legalizing it - when the people for legalizing add to that phony nonsense it just creates this whole side discussion people get trapped in and never get out of. And it just distracts from the real discussion.

As far as the original topic, sorry that I've played a role in diverting us, I firmly believe the NFL serves the purpose of being a role model. I personally won't allow my kids to use the NFL players as role models, but I recognize a lot of parents don't care to control that or actually think NFL players are actually good role models. So them doing anything that public promotes the use of marijuana would not be cool with me.

There's already a huge substance abuse problem, we don't need 12 year olds having any more reinforcement from society that using drugs is 'cool' or makes you an 'adult'

I don't necessarily disagree with the meat of your post. What burns my biscuits is this mentality coupled with the in your face pushing of alcohol on every sports cast and probably every show we see on TV. WE KNOW from study after study after study that Alcohol (a drug) is exponentially worse for you in EVERY way than weed is yet we get all squeamish about the mere discussion of weed but don't even bat an eye to all the alcohol propaganda being pushed our way during supposed "family friendly" TV. The whole thing is just a textbook demonstration of hypocrisy.

 

[Neophyte]

Great topic but I'm feeling like this is in the wrong place (although I see the tie-in with Sleepy and Williams) so I am moving it over to the NFL Forum.

 

[fansince62]

Yea but you can say that about ANY substance if used too much. Habitual coffee drinkers or soda drinkers have rotting mouths and heath issues related to caffeine, heck you can die from too much water consumption. The obvious here is that it takes personal responsibility and moderation. But the fact that some nitwit can't do that and ruins their life doesn't mean the rest of us should NOT be able to have a drink or a smoke or a toke occasionally. The rationality seems to completely leap off the cliff the second Marijuana comes into the discussion and it's so rife with lies or misleading statements that it's hard to have an honest debate about it. The best statement for me is " A man';s got to know his limitations". This applies to EVERYTHING, heck how many people die from Obesity related conditions like heart attacks diabetes etc, yet we aren't looking to ban junk food. Nope the problem is different body and brain chemistries in every single individual. It's what makes these bans patently stupid. Everyone has to embrace their own limitations and know how to moderate, if they don't something they over-consume or indulge in will kill them. It's shouldn't be the job of the nanny state to stop that.

counter…I get the thrust of your argument. but if one is sitting on the losing end of the draw, with permanent, terminal consequences, no amount of rationalization is going to undo that REALITY. per previous, it gets down to societal risk acceptance. and for that, we need better data, a shared value system, and shared willingness to accept the risk. your pov is credible to me as a political view. it however, is not an unbounded truth. society does not allow many acts - even if the parties are consenting and the only individuals immediately impacted.

I straddle the line on this…if you want a piece of honesty. I knew folks in my youth who handled pot and functioned. I also knew folks who could not and suffered…sometimes terminally. not to be mind-numbingly repetitive, but this is a risk acceptance decision IMO. If society moves in this direction, as it appears to be, I want the accountability end of the dynamic strengthened so that when the bad happens - someone suffers justice proportional to the loss. there will be losers…there always are. look at illegal immigration, those who support it have never reconciled themselves with the murders and crime that have flowed out of this policy. someone, somewhere, decided this was acceptable when measured against what they perceive as the benefits, correctness, whatever standard, they applied. true, not drugs, but the same sort of logic when viewed from a risk management perspective.

we don't live in a risk free society. I agree. but the discussion needs to be held.

 

[CounterTrey]

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.

I think you're underestimating how many professional and "together" people smoke fairly regularly the way some folks come home and have a beer after work. Not getting drunk or stoned but just sitting down and having a nice relaxing drink or toke. I think you might be a bit surprised by how many doctors and engineers and chemists and lawyers and CEO's light up. It's why 70% of our nation is in favor of legalization...it's just not the devil drug it's been made out to be. Not harmless, (it is a mind altering substance after all) but not the devil drug and addictive gateway to hardcore stuff it's made out to be. The folks that are shooting up heroine were gonna shoot up heroin or snort coke if they never took a single hit off a joint. Those are folks with issues much deeper than pot use could ever bring on. It's just a dumb and false equivalence. And hang overs...I have yet to see or hear a stoner talk about a hangover...that's nonsense. Stoners don't miss work from hangovers, Alcoholics do, stoners also don't take smoke breaks...most smokers do and are allowed. The whole thing is just silly to the point of comedy.

 

[CounterTrey]

counter…I get the thrust of your argument. but if one is sitting on the losing end of the draw, with permanent, terminal consequences, no amount of rationalization is going to undo that REALITY. per previous, it gets down to societal risk acceptance. and for that, we need better data, a shared value system, and shared willingness to accept the risk. your pov is credible to me as a political view. it however, is not an unbounded truth. society does not allow many acts - even if the parties are consenting and the only individuals immediately impacted.

I straddle the line on this…if you want a piece of honesty. I knew folks in my youth who handled pot and functioned. I also knew folks who could not and suffered…sometimes terminally. not to be mind-numbingly repetitive, but this is a risk acceptance decision IMO. If society moves in this direction, as it appears to be, I want the accountability end of the dynamic strengthened so that when the bad happens - someone suffers justice proportional to the loss. there will be losers…there always. look at illegal immigration, those who support it have never reconciled themselves with the murders and crime that have flowed out of this policy. someone, somewhere, decided this was acceptable when measured against what they perceive as the benefits, correctness, whatever standard, they applied. true, not drugs, but the same sort of logic when viewed from a risk management perspective.

The problem here is that it's easier now to get than it would be if taken off the black market and regulated. It's also less safe than it would be regulated. So your concern is not unfounded but it's not alleviated by a ban, quite the opposite, The societal effects are worse now. And too many people have smoked and passed on the word fro people to NOT know that weed is basically harmless on a short term basis, so you won't be convincing any kids it's the devil drug anymore...the horse is out of the barn on that one.

 

[fansince62]

Right but you don't HAVE to work for those companies, that's the difference. They can't affect your freedom. A private company should be able to regulate that stuff.

as a consumer….do I have a right to know whether employees and managers producing a product or service I might purchase are getting high?

 

[fansince62]

The problem here is that it's easier now to get than it would be if taken off the black market and regulated. It's also less safe than it would be regulated. So your concern is not unfounded but it's not alleviated by a ban, quite the opposite, The societal effects are worse now. And too many people have smoked and passed on the word fro people to NOT know that weed is basically harmless on a short term basis, so you won't be convincing any kids it's the devil drug anymore...the horse is out of the barn on that one.

don't know. I grew uo in the 60s when the same arguments were being made. and I was able to see that there were folks who could handle it and those who couldn't. and, among those who couldn't, there were often bad, bad consequences. one of the problems, IMO, is that the whole legalized drug discussion also ties into the mental health discussion.

the whole issue is very complicated.

 

[CounterTrey]

as a consumer….do I have a right to know whether employees and managers producing a product or service I might purchase are getting high?

Do you have a right to know whether they went out and had a drink at their local pub the night before? No one is advocating unsafe consumption or driving high, or going to work and getting stoned. That's another false premise that frequents this debate. Driving high is no different that driving drunk and should not be allowed, I have no idea why that leap keeps getting made. Why do people think if pot's legalized that people are going to start showing up high at work that don't already?

 

[tshile]

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.

Agree with you 100% on all points mentioned here. In my opinion, and it's just an opinion, this should be the sole focus of the discussion when it comes to substance (legal and not legal) and national/state policy on said substances. To me, this is where the real discussion is.

To me it doesn't matter what substance you 'start' with. It could be tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, prescription pills, or cocain. The fundamental and underlying issue is substance abuse and that has to do with brain chemistry as well as what kind of support structure you have around you both in terms of physical environment as well as emotional (with friends and family.)

Anecdotally the #1 difference in my experience between someone who uses substances (legal or illegal) for recreational use and someone that becomes dependent on a substance is the structure around them and their environment and how that helps, or doesn't help, them deal with how their body and brain react to regular use of a substance.

I know plenty of people that did tons of coke and became successful people. I know plenty of people that only smoked pot and it led to them letting life get away from them. The substance isn't the issue - it's the person.

That's just my experience though. Truly an anecdote.

I don't necessarily disagree with the meat of your post. What burns my biscuits is this mentality coupled with the in your face pushing of alcohol on every sports cast and probably every show we see on TV. WE KNOW from study after study after study that Alcohol (a drug) is exponentially worse for you in EVERY way than weed is yet we get all squeamish about the mere discussion of weed but don't even bat an eye to all the alcohol propaganda being pushed our way during supposed "family friendly" TV. The whole thing is just a textbook demonstration of hypocrisy.

I'm with you 100%.

 

[fansince62]

Do you have a right to know whether they went out and had a drink at their local pub the night before? No one is advocating unsafe consumption or driving high, or going to work and getting stoned. That's another false premise that frequents this debate. Driving high is no different that driving drunk and should not be allowed, I have no idea why that leap keeps getting made. Why do people think if pot's legalized that people are going to start showing up high at work that don't already?

counter…all you're saying is that it is happening now. that's not a justification. it might be part of an argument about risk acceptance. I get your pov - you believe it is a privacy, individual rights matter. something a Libertarian argues (don't know if you are one or not).

I understand the force of that argument. But I also see and have experienced the force of loss from the exercise of that liberty. which is why, in my reasoning, I view this as a risk decision process. frankly, I believe that, because of larger forces in play (including a need by government for revenues), the relaxing of proscriptive legislation will continue. which is why I am shifting more to thinking about what levers are available when murphy takes a hand.

 

[tshile]

as a consumer….do I have a right to know whether employees and managers producing a product or service I might purchase are getting high?

I think you do depending on the service.

I don't think you have the right to demand if the register person at CVS is getting high. But your doctor? Sure. Your mechanic? Sure.

This opens up a whole can of worms though

 

[tshile]

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?

It depends on the states employment laws.

Companies that work for the federal government, and the federal government in general, can use that against you because it's still against federal law.

In VA, for example, you can easily be fired for that even if it becomes legal. But in VA you can be fired for anything so it doesn't really matter. Right to work state. You can be fired for the shirt you wore.

 

[fansince62]

Agree with you 100% on all points mentioned here. In my opinion, and it's just an opinion, this should be the sole focus of the discussion when it comes to substance (legal and not legal) and national/state policy on said substances. To me, this is where the real discussion is.

To me it doesn't matter what substance you 'start' with. It could be tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, prescription pills, or cocain. The fundamental and underlying issue is substance abuse and that has to do with brain chemistry as well as what kind of support structure you have around you both in terms of physical environment as well as emotional (with friends and family.)

Anecdotally the #1 difference in my experience between someone who uses substances (legal or illegal) for recreational use and someone that becomes dependent on a substance is the structure around them and their environment and how that helps, or doesn't help, them deal with how their body and brain react to regular use of a substance.

I know plenty of people that did tons of coke and became successful people. I know plenty of people that only smoked pot and it led to them letting life get away from them. The substance isn't the issue - it's the person.

That's just my experience though. Truly an anecdote.



I'm with you 100%.

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?

 

[tshile]

Also Mike, as I mentioned earlier, there are places in VA that will refuse to hire, and seriously consider firing, for tobacco use. I imagine marijuana will not get a pass in that regard either.

 

[tshile]

so as long as you aren't getting a fed job in Colorado you can go in with marijuana in your piss?

Unless they now specifically say no to it?

wow..that would have saved me a lot of "masking" money in the 90s lol

It depends on the state's employment laws and the company. I have no idea what Colorado's employment laws are.

In VA that could certainly get you fired or prevent you from being hired even if marijuana was legalized here.

 

[CounterTrey]

counter…all you're saying is that it is happening now. that's not a justification. it might be part of an argument about risk acceptance. I get your pov - you believe it is a privacy, individual rights matter. something a Libertarian argues (don't know if you are one or not).

I understand the force of that argument. But I also see and have experienced the force of loss from the exercise of that liberty. which is why, in my reasoning, I view this as a risk decision process. frankly, I believe that, because of larger forces in play (including a need by government for revenues), the relaxing of proscriptive legislation will continue. which is why I am shifting more to thinking about what levers are available when murphy takes a hand.

No it's not necessarily a justification but neither is your argument that you've witnessed lives ruined by it. A ban hasn't stopped that from happening so why would legalization promote it? I've seen lives ruined by eating too much and food is as regulated as it comes. I hear what you're saying about risk factors but the obvious response is what is a ban and absence of any regulation whatsoever going to do to stop that loss? Education coupled with actual truth absent of any reefer madness propaganda would be the best means for fighting that and I also agree with the premise that environment plays a HUGE part in this. Bottom line is there is only so much we can do as a society, some folks are going to burn themselves out no matter what.

OH and yes I'm a Libertarian and Constitutionalist.