Looks like it worked out well for us after all.
(DeQuinta was a class of 2009 decommit who ended up at Arkansas.)
Looks like it worked out well for us after all.
(DeQuinta was a class of 2009 decommit who ended up at Arkansas.)
But unfortunately, not for him.
It sucks for him and I feel bad for him, but since he plays in the SEC he will probably be back on the field tomorrow.
Transfer to MSU???
i miss pearlie graves.
he is actually a very personable guy. I ran into him at a local establishment here in Lubbock once and witnessed him breaking out in some sweet Michael Jackson moves.
Does anyone know how well Pearlie is doing on the field?
The Freep will pick it up, and bash RR and his lack of values for having recruited him
I don't have Freep fatigue yet, so I still enjoy jokes about it. +1
I was thinking they also might blame Rodriguez for corrupting the kid in their brief period of contact.
If the controlled substance is simply marijuana, that wouldn't be enough for me to be "thankful" that he's not here right now. A guy who has started every game in the SEC at a position of need for us would have been a welcome addition.
I hate to be "that" guy but really? You're not thankful that Michigan isn't dealing with the massive amount of negative press that would come from having a guy arrested on a drug charge? I have to call bullsh-t on that one.
No, what I'm saying is the "dodged a bullet" idea seems to be based on Jones being a bad guy because he got arrested for marijuana possession.
If everyone who has ever "possessed" pot got arrested, a large portion of this country would have a criminal record.
An arrest would be embarrassing if it happened here (that's a big if by the way, i'm not sure driving without a license plate light gets you pulled over in michigan), but I wouldn't think any worse of the guy. He'd get over it, the program would get over it, and we'd have depth on the d-line.
You are exactly right - Jones is a bad guy for getting arrested for possession. He f-ed his team but being stupid and that kind of thing is exactly what Michigan does not need. So, yes, Michigan dodged the "embarassment" bullet and also the "Rodriguez hot-seat" bullet on that one. I, for one, do not want the kind of kid that gets busted for possession on the team. But that's just me.
(Also, for the record, I think you're a bit misinformed if you think a large portion of the country would have a criminal record for possession. Sure, there are lots of people that use, but I doubt the number of regular users would be anywhere near even 20% of the population. That is not a "large portion" in my book.)
He didn't say regular users. He said anyone who has ever used. I believe he is using the "experimented in college" example, as many people say they have experimented with pot at least once or twice. I would say this group is well over 20%. Also, the way things are going in this country (see california prop 19) this will not be a big deal within the next 5 or so years as it will most likely start to gain momentum towards being decriminalized. Yes, UM doesn't need the negative press, but he was caught with a quarter ounce of pot. He wasn't selling coke and shooting heroin.
For the pertinent population, Americans 18-20 years old, the percentage of users in the past month (who could be assumed to be regular users) is approximately 20% (Table 1.5B in link). I say suspend him for a game, then it's cool. I still wish he was on our D. Pretty good bag estimation skills also.
All of these comments presuppose that Jones would have had the same problems at UM. Look at the responses RR has had to this type of situation with other players. Maybe that would have served as an example and Jones might have learned that was not something that would be tolerated. Maybe the "family values" that have been claimed to be absent from the program really are there, and maybe RR really is a coach that cares about his players on and off the field.
That's what I think.
Tate Forcier agrees with your reasoning.
And a bajillion other guys.
If it was pot, I don't have an issue with it at all. Just as with drinking, college kids do it all the time, and it's harmless. Only athletes get it splashed all over the front page of their local paper. If it was crack or meth, though, of if he was dealing, it would be a big problem.
I understand your point but calling "underage drinking and smoking pot" harmless is probably not very accurate.
How many hospital visits on campus each year are related to binge drinking and or being high? We see the deaths on the news all the time. I won't go into how many sexual related crimes or drop outs and stuff of the sort are related to being wasted. Most of us survived those days unharmed as you say, but the activity is hardly harmless.
Look at Frank the Tank, it ruined his marriage.
After my five years of college, I can't remember one case of someone going to the hospital for because they were high. I can, however, think of many cases of people going to the hospital for drinking related injuries, or athletic injuries.
He was smoking pot while driving, which, IMO, is as reprehensible as getting a DUI. It's an embarrassing arrest, but I doubt he'll miss much time on the football field.
If this is true, we at least established a baseline of his intelligence.
That deserves a nice big......Cmon Man!
Most scientific studies would disagree with that statement. Pot alone doesn't impair your driving like Alcohol does. http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2010/06/driving_while_stoned_pot.php
In my opinion, driving under the influence of marijuana is a crime only because marijuana itself is illegal, not because of the ill effects. The one possible justification is that pot is often mixed with alcohol, which is admittedly, a bad combination.
By the way, did you see what he was pulled over for? No license plate lights. WTF is that?
That study is weak. Did they also compare people's driving skills after 2 beers? If someone is baked they can not drive as well as if they are sober. I'm not sure how you test for pot levels, but if these guys were visibly stoned and drove the same as sober I'd be shocked. To think otherwise is silly. What kind of crackpot college is this to do a study with so many holes it. I can only think they got a sizeable chunk of money from the government to do this "study" and they spent 10% on the study and smoked the rest.
It's just one of many studies, i'll leave you to google it.
You're showing your bias here. You don't like pot. I get it. I don't like it either. But it doesn't have nearly the effect on driving abilities as alcohol. There's many causes of auto accidents (excessive speed, drowsiness, in-car distractions, alcohol consumption, etc.), being high on marijuana is not high (no pun intended) on the list.
First google result for "Driving on Pot":
"Marijuana may play a role in car accidents. In one study conducted in Memphis, TN, researchers found that, of 150 reckless drivers who were tested for drugs at the arrest scene, 33 percent tested positive for marijuana, and 12 percent tested positive for both marijuana and cocaine.
Data have also shown that while smoking marijuana, people show the same lack of coordination on standard "drunk driver" tests as do people who have had too much to drink."
I'm not going to argue which is worse, pot or alcohol, but I have a hard time believing pot does not have an effect on motor skills.
That's what you're using to refute? There's not a single scientific cite in there. Additionally, it doesn't say if in addition to pot there was alcohol present in the blood stream. That's a huge difference.
Testing positive for pot means you inhaled sometime in the last 3 or 4 weeks, not in the last few hours.
There's many causes of auto accidents (excessive speed, drowsiness, in-car distractions, alcohol consumption, etc.), being high on marijuana is not high (no pun intended) on the list.
I submit that there are not as many accidents caused by being high because there are not nearly as many incidents of driving under the influence of marijuana as there is of drinking and driving. Of course the numbers will be skewed.
You said, "In my opinion, driving under the influence of marijuana is a crime only because marijuana itself is illegal, not because of the ill effects."
That is crazy. There are scores of studies that state this not the case. To quote some:
1) "Both THC doses alone, and alcohol alone, significantly impaired the subjects performances in both driving tests."
2) "The results of the present study suggest that, for some populations, the risks of driving under the influence of cannabis may now be greater than the risks of driving under the influence of alcohol."
3) "Even after controlling for age, sex, and prior driving record, the presence of cannabis
remained associated with a higher risk of a potentially unsafe driving action"
...I could go on. This literally took my 5 minutes in Google Scholar (don't just Google, folks; look for scholarly materials). I could have found even more if I used U of M's databases.
DUI is dangerous. DUID is a bit harder to measure b/c tests aren't as accurate, but is also dangerous. Just b/c people who are high on dope tend to be mellow (and thus don't start fights, one of the major problems with drunks), doesn't mean they should be taking their slow reaction times out on the road driving a 2 ton vehicle.
I say this as someone who thinks marijuana should be legal (speaking generally; it should not be legal to drive high).
Sources for above quotes, if you care:
Dude, we're on the same page and same "team" on this one.
Thanks for the support. Some things don't take studies.
You are a better driver when
sober not drunk
sober not high
healthy not sick
off phone not on phone
not texting instead of texting
I know what you mean, that logic/common sense should win out, but look at texting and driving. It wasn't until about ~1 year ago when all of these reports from various colleges showed how dangerous "texting and driving" is, where people have started to calm that down/laws being passed.
Laws don't get passed/behavior doesn't change unless a) there's money involved, b) there is a motivated and/or angry constitunecy (e.g., MADD) and/or c) it's so clearly proven the right thing to do (e.g., a whole pile of academic studies).
Sometimes, like with drunk driving (which was seen as a joke and something to laugh about until about the mid 1980s), it takes some of all three.
It's funny you bring up texting. I just saw a news report, where I believe it was the Auto Insurance Industry actually questioned the usefulness of the anti-texting laws. Claiming that it wasn't texting specifically that caused car crashes, but rather distractions in general. They pointed to studies that showed no reduction in car crashes after the passage of anti-texting laws.
I'm not trying to argue that marijuana has no effect on driving abilities, just that studies have shown that it's significantly less than alcohol. Your first beer has an effect, a small effect, but one none-the-less, but it's legal. There's plenty of legal things that affect your driving. I'm not going to condemn someone who has smoked (and that's it) and driven. Would I prefer they stayed in after? Of course. But people make mistakes, this one, to me, isn't the worst one you could make.
"I'm not trying to argue that marijuana has no effect on driving abilities...", yet in an earlier post you said, "In my opinion, driving under the influence of marijuana is a crime only because marijuana itself is illegal, not because of the ill effects." Which is it?
And I agree "people make mistakes", and driving while high isn't as bad as driving while have a .28 BAC or shooting heroin into your eyeball. So what? It's bad. It's a crime -- he was a danger to himself and more importantly, to others. He should be punished for it.
I'm not going to argue (nor have I) that marijuana is as bad for society as alcohol. As I stated before, I think it shoud be legal. But this nonsense that "hey, pot isn't as bad as alcohol" is a false choice: don't drive drunk; also, don't drive high.
Re texting: that study has nothing about causation, just correlation in 4 states. I agree distractions, in general, are bad for driving. The problem is texting (which is relatively new) has become so prevalent, people think they can do it anywhere, including driving down I-696 at 85 miles an hour. It's dangerous and you shouldn't do it while driving - that's the point.
Boooo Ziff, boooo
No booing I got like actual factual support.
I work for a company that is heavily involved with driver training in a variety of vehicles, and I wholeheartedly disagree with the results of that study. I've seen several studies to counter that one.
"A study of over 3000 fatally-injured drivers in Australia showed that when marijuana was present in the blood of the driver they were much more likely to be at fault for the accident. And the higher the THC concentration, the more likely they were to be culpable."
Driving and smoking is dumb. But it isn't even in the same area code with regards to stupidity as DUI.
I don't see the difference. I think they are at least in the same area code.
I think they're probably in the same city limits, considering they're both criminal acts carrying similar punishments. Oh, and possession and use of marijuana is a criminal act as well - drinking is not unless the consumer is under age.
"Just as with drinking, college kids do it all the time, and it's harmless."
Uh......no. Sorry. You may think that way and perhaps a lot of people who are under 30 feel the same, but pot is still frowned upon by the over 30 crowd, and let's face it, the school, athletic department, Big10, NCAA, and law enforcement are still run by that particular demographic.
College kids can do whatever they want "all the time." Athletes (and football players most particularly) can't do this stuff without bringing criticism upon the school, administration, and program.
Maybe the over 30 crowd you know. I know it is taboo to talk about, but a large number of people I know over 30 (friends, family, colleagues) either smoke it, or are generally ok with its use.
Its a lifestyle choice, and some people need to get used to it.
I agree and know many as well. Don't do it, but don't have a problem with those that do as long as they aren't driving or affecting those around them in a negative way.
Plenty of young people smoked pot in the 60's, 70's, 80's, etc. They didn't all suddenly realize, "Holy shit, this devil weed is illegal!" and put down the bong when they reached middle age.
People who smoke weed keep smoking weed. They just lie to their kids about it.
What you say is probably right, but that doesn't make it okay. At the risk of sounding like the morality police, the last time I checked its an illegal activity. As such, people do not need to get used to it, at least not until its legalized.