The Oregon article is pretty interesting as well.
The Oregon article is pretty interesting as well.
"It's the weed capital of the world. Long dreads. Girls with hairy armpits. Where there's hippies, there's weed." -- Former Oregon Duck Reuben Droughns
Given that it's probably hard to focus on both football and school while also being a stoner, I think it's a good move.
and I made it to most of the 330 games
and I was totally stoned the whole time
My opinion? Smoking weed should be treated the same as drinking alcohol. Do as much of it as you want, as long as it isn't affecting other aspects of your life.
If a player isn't putting in the work he should because he's getting stoned - that's a problem. If he's showing up to any team event stoned - that's a huge problem. If he's done with his stuff for the day and wants to smoke a bowl while watching TV or playing video games before bed - or if he wants to spend his Saturday night smoking on the porch instead of hitting up Skeepers? I'm perfectly OK with that.
Perfectly solid opinion. The law disagrees with you.
It also disagrees with you regarding alcohol (when it comes to your age, getting in a car, being out in public while drunk, etc.)
I never made any claims about being drunk and doing any of the things that you mentioned. So the law doesn't disagree with me there.
But if we're going strictly by the law, then an underage player who gets an MIP should get the same punishment as one who tests positive for weed, since they are basically equivalent offenses. Same with any other law breaking. If "the law" is what we're going by for our athletes, then it needs to be the same across the board.
I just kind of assumed MIPs were encompassed in this rule described above. I agree with you it should be the same if it isn't.
is using an illegal substance worse than illegally using a legal substance? I'd say yes, but only because typically punishments are worse for weed than under age drinking (ann arbor excluded)
Yeah, I have to agree that the illegal substance abuse is going to be harsher than abuse of a legal substance just because it is two infractions versus one, but that also feels like semantics. Personally, I agree that weed might as well be treated as alcohol in terms of infractions, but then you'd have to legalize weed in the process.
Weed in Oregon is treated as a lesser offense in some instances in Oregon. Getting caught with less than one oz. of weed in Oregon is simply a violation of the law. I believe it is a Class A Violation which carries a fine of $435, same as driving while suspended or not stopping for a school bus. The joke around police departments in Oregon is that weed is "legal" due to the leniency in penalty/ fact that anyone can get a medical card for anything.
Since your opinion arguably rests on a technicality (marijuana is illegal, alcohol isn't), shouldn't the fact that weed is treated the same as under age drinking in Ann Arbor matter?
Getting caught on campus subjects you to the harsher state laws.
I believe in many cities (ie: A2 & EL) the punishment for possession of marijuana (personal use amounts) is actually less than the punishment for underage drinking.
or if anyone does, but if you are a Michigan resident, and also a college student athlete, and paid your $100, errr...got a prescription for a medical marijuana card (say you have Crohn's disease or something), would the NCAA just not test you for pot, or ignore the pot because you are legally allowed to partake, or is there something in NCAA bylaws that says something to the effect that "we dont care about local laws, if you want to be a scholarship athlete under the regulations of the NCAA then we say you cant, no matter what"?
I'm curious more than anything. Any insight is appreciated
I don't think the NCAA conducts drug tests. It's the individual schools that do.
They pick a certain number of random schools out of a hat, and then pick random sports at those schools. They also test randomly at championship events.
That being said, I doubt they catch 1/10 of what the schools themselves do; usually the schools catch any infractions.
I think the main thing to be worried about here is the munchies though. As bad as having a player suspended is, putting on all the bad weight due to late night runs for Funions, Cheetos, and Doritos would be the real dowside to weed use
a jack and coke still has 120 calories. A beer has 120 or so. As much as it would take to get some of these football players drunk, they'd be consuming a lot of liquid calories.
They're man enough, they don't need.
I don't think the munchies are that big of a deal here, I smoke on a regular basis and maintain less than 7% body fat. It comes down to self control really. I know some people would say smoking pot is a lack of self control, but I really don't see any problem with it, especially factoring in that alcohol is widely considered much worse for you. If a school wants to test however then that is their right and the players should abide by the rules set forth by the program and accept consequences if they are caught.
Full disclosure - I've never smoked, but I have a lot of friends who did/do. and I try not to judge. And I'm not asking this rhetorically:
Wouldn't weed be more likely to negatively affect a player's performance though? Just the whole smoke/lungs/running/athlete thing? While alcohol will cloud judgement and dehydrate, couldn't the means of intake (smoking vs. drinking) make it even more detrimental?
Nah, you could always use a vaporizer. Then it's no smoke. I think there's also been studies that showed no long term lung damage from smoking weed like there is from tobacco. I don't have any links, nor am I a smoker, just relating what I've been told and read.
In the article it talks about how players don't want to use anything like vaporizers or bongs because it leaves evidence. So instead most players smoke the pot out of joints, which I'm pretty sure have some detrimental effects on the lungs.
A bong would be similar in its health effects as smoking a joint, FYI. Both involve the combustion of the marijuana plant which is the process that introduces carcinogens. As opposed to the vaporizer, which extracts the THC from the plant by superheating the plant itself, rather than burning it.
Depends on the manner of intake. Sure, smoking a joint would be more or less like a cigarette (actually probably more tar) and would have adverse effects. However, using a vaporizer that actually cools the smoke and mixes it with water vapor would have much less of an effect.
Of course, if you wanted zero lung guilt and all of the high, they could always go with edibles, which would just be like eating a brownie or a sucker.
The biggest impact I've seen is lack of desire and focus.
Seems to me like the correlation between 'lack of desire and focus' and 'lack of playing time' is likely to be high, particularly while Hoke is the sheriff.
It's called the NBA.
/trying to be funny, but it's true because it is not tested for in their drug screens.
with no apparent long term affects. You don't wake up 'hung over ' , there is no physiological dependency, or a risk of overdose that would kill you such as a respiratory depression risk. There was no wheezing or shortage of breath; if you exercised and or ran, you'd be fit as a fiddle. Its the perfect recreational drug; the biggest downsides are a relative laziness while on the drug and a desire to do it again the next day. Folks that overdo it run the risk of becoming a dreg of society but physiologically I don't believe its been proven harmful .
I've smoked a pretty fair amount of pot while training for half-marathons or being on three recreational soccer teams and two ultimate frisbee teams. I'm not an elite runner, but I managed some really good times. So, no... doesn't have much of an affect.
Also, don't confuse smoking cigarettes with smoking marijuana. They are entirely different substances with vastly different chemicals so they'll affect your body differently. You're going to have to dig pretty hard to find any study of any repute that concludes pot has any long-term effects on your health or body.
I agree with him. I have no problem with weed, and think it should be legalized in general, but even then I think athletic programs should have the ability to make rules against weed, alcohol, cigarettes, etc. Not for moral reasons, but because these are all things that can hurt their performance. Why would a team allow that?
Furthermore, you can't allow kids to break any law based on your opinion of that law. As long as it is illegal, it must be held as a serious offense. What type of message does it send when some laws are ok to break or preferentially (un)enforced?
I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I think there's a lot of merit to this: (Note: In class right now and cannot listen to what this clip says, so I'm just guessing that it's the right one. It looks right.)
Love the clip! I just watched that episode not too long ago...Season 3: Hamsterdam
However, I just started Season 4 and this has always been the best season in my opinion.
I know this is blasphemous, but I didn't enjoy most of The Wire except seasons 3 and 4. Those two were excellent. It's hard to choose one over the other.
Loved Season 3 - my favorite. Season 4 depresses me. Haven't watched Season 5 yet.
My wife and I have been working our way through The Wire and are about to finish Season 5. Sad to say, but Season 5 is a disappointment. Which is a shame, because we both thought the first 4 seasons were some of the best TV we've ever seen. I don't want spoil anything for those of you haven't seen Season 5, but there are some unrealistic plot developments that kind of ruin the whole season. Of course, we'll finish it out (3 episodes to go!), but that's only because the first 4 seasons were so good.
So is the university at a competitive disadvantage for being so weed friendly? I think the track record shows otherwise... DB makes a valid point that sitting kids puts them at a disadvantage, but it is due to the punishment not due to the drug use.
Dave Brandon just continues to prove why he is in the position he is. We don't need athletes around the program that want to partake in illegal activities. If that happens and nothing is done about it, then we become Florida.
Drinking underage is "illegal," and most of the team is underage. You think even half of the underage football players at Michigan don't drink?
Not arguing your point about DB, just saying that they can actually get in more legal trouble for drinking underage (MIP, other illegal actions that being drunk can cause) than smoking weed ($25 fine, slap on wrist).
Most of them participate in an illegal activity or another, some are just more acceptable than others as your comment suggests.
like Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama
The most succesful Olympian in history.
I'm all for following the law. I'm only commenting on the general acceptance of underage drinking compared to the disapproval smoking of weed. Especially when often the only argument for those who disapprove of smoking weed is that it's illegal. Underage drinking is illegal too but that's OK when you're in college, right?
as long as you get your class work done, and don't do anything stupid like DUI ... but maybe that was the 80's
It's still true. I don't think you understood my point. The law is great and all (and by that I mean stupid), but some people that disapprove of smoking weed often overlook the fact that underage drinking is illegal too. That's all.
Worthless? Smoking weed makes you worthless? Have to disagree. I grew up around it and have known a lot of people who smoked, including my parents, who are/were worthwhile productive members of society.
Yeah, that was a pretty harsh post. I don't smoke anymore, but did a lot growing up and still associate with a lot of people who do (my sister and brother-in-law smoke everyday). It's illegal so depending on your view of the importance of the law one could say people shouldn't do it...but breaking laws certainly doesn't make people worthless, or even a bad person necessarily. We just don't know what circumstances people find themselves in that lead to the dsecisions they make.
Having said all that, I think that if a school has agreed to give a person a full scholarship to attend their university and play a sport, they also have the right to make a rule such as this. If the law changes, they probably still have that right. I look at a scholarship the same way I do a professional contract that has stipulations (often many of which mean theplayer can't take part in legal things that the team thinks would be detrimental to their play) around a players choices outside of the sport. I know one of my friends used to love sky diving but is no longer allowed to do it because of his contract.
You made me wonder...
These are not hardly the first people I've heard of who "smoke everyday". But if we knew someone who "drank every day", which is even legal, wouldn't we say he or she had a problem? Or are the majority who smoke every day not really smoking a lot, enough to get high, but are the equivalent of the "having a glass of wine with dinner" crowd?
I would think if you need to get drunk, high, or anything else, every day (yes, even when in college...heck, even I took a night off from the bars), you may have a problem. I mean, someone who has to eat a steak every day might have a problem...and not just health wise. And that's not illegal...it's delicious. But a salad isn't a bad idea either.
that my brother-in-law and sister have a problem. They spend more than $200 a week on pot and trust me when I say they can't afford that. They have three kids who often go without (not without the necessities of life, but without much more than that) because their parents can't kick the habbit.
So yes, I agree with you that people that have to di it everyday do have a problem.
I also laugh when I hear people say that it isn't addictive. I have seen first hand the effects of a person who has smoked weed for a long time and tried to give it up (my brother-in-law). I went to see him one day on my lunch break and he was curled up in a ball covered in sweat shaking and vomitting. He tried to convince me it was a stomach flu that just happened to coincide with him trying to give up pot, but miraculously, when he decided to have a joint (because that always helps when his stomach acts up) he feels better all of a sudden.
It's not necessarily addictive to everyone who uses it...heck, cigarettes and crack aren't for everyone, and they're a lot more addictive...but it CAN be addictive. Drug clinics are full of people who are addicts, and have taken alcohol and/or pot and become addicted to it. Though the bigger problems usually lies when that leads to something else, too. (Though either of those drugs can be more than enough).
The whole concept of "worthless people" is, of course, hugely problematic.
There's also an entire correlation/causation problem in relation to pot use and social success. And this book, taken from readers Andrew Sullivan's blog would seem to suggest that the causation, if any, is far from determinative
You sir have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Students at the University of Michigan are some of the friendliest to weed in the country, and yet we maintain our extremely high ranking and continue on to be active and non-worthless members of society.
Smoking weed does not equal worthless.
Being worthless may often result in smoking weed.
Correlation does not equal causation, blah blah blah.
P.S. Read over your posts. Your spelling is awful. Perhaps that's how you can determine someone is "worthless."
Weed is a civil infraction in A2, and there are medical excemptions in Michigan and a dozen other states for medical use.
Probably wouldn't want to suspend a player for a parking ticket, would ya?
Part of it is a proof problem.
Alcohol disapates at the rate of an ounce per hour. Marijuana can stay in the system up to 30 days after the last usage.
Assume an athlete drinks and smoke marijuana on Friday night. Assume drug testing is done Monday morning. Alcohol would be out of the system on Monday morning, where as the marijuana would not be.
I don't want to read too much into your post, but if you are advocating treating alcohol the same as marijuana, it would require nightly testing.
College kids want to do college kid things, which includes football players and other athletes. that can include smoking weed from time to time. there were plenty of players now playing in the NFL who smoked weed at UM.
You can debate whether or not weed should be legal, but at present it isn't. The fact that others have done it doesn't change the fact that it is illegal. Does the fact that many people steal make it right? Or the fact that there are numerous murders in the run of a year mean that eveyone should be able to do it if they want? I just don't understand your reasoning here.
I was young once and in my youth did a lot of things I probably shouldn't have. I used to smoke weed (and do a lot worse drugs as well) so it isn't like I am some guy straight laced person who never wants anyone to have fun. I just think the arguement that "lots of other people do it and they are all fine" is beyond weak.
Again, whether pot should be legalizes is a valid debate and probably one worth having, but the fact that it isn't makes most of this discussion moot. It's illegal so they shouldn't be allowed to do it, regardless whether others do/have done it in the past.
I've never been one of DB's biggest fans, but this is a pretty solid decision IMHE.
"Does the fact that many people steal make it right? Or the fact that there are numerous murders in the run of a year mean that eveyone should be able to do it if they want?"
The difference is that there are victims in your examples, so they aren't relevant to the discussion. There's no victim if someone smokes pot. It should be legal and the fact that it isn't doesn't make this discusion moot if we want to discuss it.
ok....so speeding then, how about speeding? It's illegal, but since there isn't victims should people just get to decide they want to drive 180 if they feel like it with no reprecussions?
You also missed my point. I clearly said that the debate as to whether or not weed should be legal is a good one, but as long as it isn't legal the discussion of whether or not people should be punished for doing it is moot, because the law is what counts.
The law is what it is and if it changes then revisit your rules if you wish, but at this point in time smoking weed is illegal and players should be punished for doing it. As far as I'm concerned it isn't the fact that they smoked weed that's the problem, it's that they broke the law.
Should players be suspended for speeding?
on the institutions stance. I don't make the rules for universities but believe that it is in their best interest to make sure their athletes live within the confines of the law. I think it is reasonable to believe that all laws aren't equal and breaking some would carry more punishment than others. How a university decides to grade those laws would but up to the individual institution. I do think that players should be punished for breaking the law (whatever law it is). Suspended for speeding? No, I don't hink so for a first offense, but some form of punishment? yes, I do. I also believe those punishments should escalate if offenses continue.
If a player gets a ticket for doing 75 in a 65, no. If a player is arrested for doing 130 in a 35, yes.
Here's where the Ann-Arbor-Is-Pot-Friendly part comes in though. in Ann Arbor proper the fine for marijuana isn't a big deal, and it's a fine, just like a 10mph-over speeding ticket.
So I'm not sure that the weed vs. speeding anaolgy works, but I think depending on how egregious the offense, yes, someone could be suspended for speeding.
I completely agree with what is posted above.
At the current time its not about one's moral view of smoking weed, the fact remains that it is illegal (outside of medical usage). Therefore the policy stated by DB is completely viable under his duties as an athletic director. If some day in the future marjuana is legalized and this policy is still in place then you can start grabbing the pitchforks and torches. Until then it still is a priviledge for these student atheletes to play for Michigan, and as such thier conduct comes with a higher set of standards than the average college student.
Marijuana is illegal (outside of medical usage). Alcohol is illegal (unless the user is 21 or older). It's all how you phrase it. What about perscription drugs? Illegal (unless you have a persciption). Guns? Illegal (unless you have a permit). The list goes on and on.
I'm not making this point to say we shouldn't test for marijuana or suspend players for positive tests. But using the illegal nature of marijuana as the basis for the suspension seems silly, especially when the analogous "crime" of underage drinking normally goes unpunished.
I'm sometimes surprised by how conservative and patriotic people are on this blog. I'm curious if this is representative of Michigan alumni as they age, or whether this can be attributed to the fact that this is for the most part a sports blog. Anyhow, when I was attending school at M, the student body seemed in general to be liberal, and certainly smoking pot was de facto legal.
but this has nothing to do with patriotism, conservatism or liberalism...it is strictly about the law. If weed were legal I would say go ahead and fill your boots personally, while aknowledging the fact that a University should have the right to make rules more stringent than current laws for students they provide scholarships to for various reasons.
I can't say why the law is what it is. Personally the only thing I find wrong with smoking weed is that it is against the law, and my values and beliefs tell me breaking the law is wrong (full disclosure, it took me a long time to come to this point).
but it's a strange sort of morality.
The law is always changing and assuming that lawmakers are always right is pretty thick-headed, IMO.
It's not hard to think of situations where breaking the law is obviously the 'right' thing to do.
I didn't say that at all, but what I or you think about whether a law isn't what's in question. If it's a law I do my best to abide by it, whether I agree that the law has merits or not (this is something I didn't necessarily practice in my youth). Just because I obey the law doesn't make me thick headed nor does it mean I agree that it should be the law.
Civil disobedience has saved us from ourselves on more than one occasion. Obeying unjust laws could be considered passive consent.
... Now I need to go get high (fight the good fight).
that you don't do anything to embarass the University including smoking weed or DUI, ect., and a set policy on the consequences. (Just like the ROTC scholarship I had.) You have three choices: don't accept the scholarship so you can be free to go untested and do what you please, accept the scholarship and take a risk at getting caught and suffering the consequences, accept the scholarship and follow the stated rules.
I don't see an issue here. The player is still free to make their own choice.
I have a feeling I beat you to your #1 Screenname choice.
I'm sorry but if DB cracked down on all illegal activites, that would include underage drinking, and half of our underaged players would be ineligible. What do you think recruits do when they come here? If you remember the pic of Garnett when he was visting, there was a pic of him at the Heidleberg. I was there, the pic was taken at like 1 am, what activities do you think he was partaking in?
= ALL athletes.
Or at least 95% of them. Good luck fielding a team of people who don't break laws. Your best-case scenario is being BYU (but, since we're a public school, without the religious association). And even they struggle with discipline issues.
I think it's a good move, and I like the standardization. Now someone just needs to remind me of this when I bitch and moan after some key player gets suspended for the biggest game of the year.
Pursuant to your post on eighteen April in the year two thousand twelve at eleven fifty-five eastern daylight time, you are not allowed to be pissed about the suspension of (insert player here). At that time, you stated that enacting this new rule was a "good move" and furthermore that you "like the standardization." This is your reminder to not "bitch and moan" as requested.
LSA Aught One
The Bobby Bowden quote is ridiculous.
"I know of a lot of schools, and I don't want to say something I shouldn't say -- but you don't have to drug-test," he says. "If you don't want your boys to be caught with drugs, don't drug-test them."
Bobby has a legitimate point. Law enforcement is not the athletic departments job. Are they out patrolling the streets to make sure none of the kids speed when driving? That's actually more dangerous.
Stay classy Mr. Bowden.
Brandon's take makes sense. Plus, it's the law.
But my question would be: How prevalent is pot use among certain player and specific sport populations and is it endemic everywhere? If so, long term, the policy is still going to be only partly effective.
There was an article a while back, that I may have read here, I don't recall, that rated drug and alcohol use by sport. I think lacrosse was the highest use for pot.
Mandatory drug testing isn't the law for the vast majority of people. I coach a sport at the high school level. If a bag of weed falls out of their bag and I see it or I can tell they're stoned shit is going down. Parents will be involved, they'll probably be suspended from the team etc. I'm sure some of them do smoke pot and I bet I have a fair idea of which ones, but I have no interest in taking a proactive role in catching them unless I think they're in danger or abusing. Kids experiment in high school and college experiment. I don't think it's the ADs role to try and root this type of behavior out.
that testing was the law, just that pot is illegal so that tends to necessitate a tough stance. Appreciate the knowledgeable response, and tend to agree. I really think a lot of angry kids and kids under pressure pacify in a fairly constructive way with pot, that it helps them deal, so tend to be sympathetic when they get nailed. Part of that's the culture that comes with it. . .
10% for first offense
33% for second
1 year suspension for 3rd.
Wow, that's harsh. I thought all schools adhered to the "10 days in timeout" following a "driving while high/in possession of marijuana" bust.
Well.... 10% kind of is just about 10 days. It's basically one game, followed by 4 games followed by the whole season.
I'm sure this policy will deter some players, but there are plenty of other guys out there who might like Michigan more bc of it, not to mention their parents liking the policy as well. Nicely done DB.
drug testing was a standard thing in the NCAA. Sounds like they're screwing this up too. The NCAA should make a drug testing policy mandatory. Maybe they have a fear of what happened to MLB.
Why should drug testing for weed be centralized at the NCAA? I can see testing for HGH or steroids, as those provide competitive advantage, but there are a lot of things that are illegal and the NCAA has no policies regarding them. It should be up to each school to act as they see fit.
even tougher to build a quality LAX program then I previously thoght! Zing
I know I am beating a dead horse.....but Saban's comments about how players are dismissed because an offense, and not subsequently educated, is not ironic at all.
He doesn't want to dismiss guys (let's not kid ourselves, he is talking about his top guys) because of drug offenses but will dismiss a guy for no reason whatsoever.
P.S.: I don't think you should dismiss guys for weed violations....cocaine, meth, etc. is a different story.
But did you see how red Brandon's eyes were when he made those remarks? He was covered in Cheeto dust, too.
In all seriousness, I can attest that I've "toked" with a number of Michigan's current and past players. It comes part and parcel with the house party culture, especially since underage athletes don't want to get caught at bars. These were legitimate skill players and starters. Didn't seem to hurt some of their performances...
If you're a mature individual (which I'm sure plenty athletes are, though not all), you can juggle your responsibilities and the occasional illicit recreation. If you're me, you accidentally go to PolSci 300 with an eighth in your sling (separated shoulder) and sweat bullets for 50 minutes.
I guess I'm fine with the policy because "it's the law," but those are some serious consequences. We live in Tree City, for Marley's sake.
but between you and me, does his name rhyme with Schmen Schmoethlisburger? Huge shocker if true.
Is Findlay in SW Ohio? /lulz
That's not really the most sound logic in the world. 1st of all Ben has had plenty of problems in his life so I'm not sure I'd use him as a measure of stability. 2nd you could easily say alcohol must not have affected Mickey Mantle because he won all of those world series...but of course his liver might have another opinion on the matter.
David Brandon shopping at Meijer.
I think it's silly that weed is illegal. It's so much healthier than alcohol. Before I had a job that drug tested I hardly ever drank alcohol and used marijuana instead. I could get high and hang out with friends all night and feel totally normal the next day. Try drinking alcohol all night long and tell me how you feel the next day. I don't get why employees of all energy companys are forced to participate in a random drug test pool, but a brain surgeon doesn't. I should get into the medical business.
Energy = government oversight = drug tests.
i think more emphasis needs to be placed on PEDs instead of weed. regardless of if you believe weed should be legal or not, hopefully you agree that PEDs are more dangerous than weed.
Without discussing the Michigan side of the article, can we all just agree that ESPN running a huge expose on kids at the University of Oregon smoking pot is beyond ridiculous?
"Brandon instituted a more aggressive drug-testing program, which screens athletes more frequently and punishes offenders more severely. "Student-athletes are going to be no different than other students in getting caught up in marijuana, unless there is clarity around the fact it's wrong and there are consequences if you do it," he says."
That quote makes no sense. Other students aren't tested and can use with near impunity.
MARIJUANA SHOULD NOT BE ILLEGAL. IT SHOULDN'T BE LEGAL EITHER. IT SHOULD BE LIKE CARROTS! ARE CARROTS ILLEGAL OR LEGAL? THAT SOUNDS ABSURD! THEY ARE PLANTS!
is reading this...because he and his band of criminal influencers are certainly doing it.
I get sick of the whole weed isn't as bad as cigarettes for you argument. A single joint is a lot worse for you than a single cigarette. The thing is you just don't get addicted to weed.
That's like saying one Snickers is worse for you than one potato chip. Except when you eat a bag of potato chips a day for a year, that's a lot worse than a Snickers once a week.
Doesn't really change the problem I have with people saying weed isn't bad for you. It is. Is smoking weed once every couple of weeks better than smoking a pack a day? Yeah. But don't try to rationalize your drug use by saying it's not unhealthy.
I'm not a user. I was just objecting to the way you phrased your statement with the acknowledgement it's not near as habit forming.
You should do your research. Weed isn't bad for you. Recent studies have shown that it doesn't kill brain cells as many have assumed, it only slows them temporarily. It may have a long term effect on memory, but no significant results have been found.
Additionally, other research has found no significant effect on your lungs or respiratory function. In fact, those that smoke weed often show better lung capacity because of their practice of inhaling larger amounts of air.
There is no comparison between cigarettes and weed. Weed is only psychologically addictive and are without withdrawal symptoms if one decides to "quit" (of course they may be sad that they can't get high anymore, but you could say the same about chocolate).
Just my factual 2 cents.
You can qoute whatever studies you want, but I have seen first hand what a person who is actually addicted to weed (not someone who smokes a few joints a week...someone who smokes 8-10 a day) goes through when they try to stop. I posted this above but will here as well. My brother-in-law tried to give it up once and when I stopped by his house at lunch time he was curled up in a ball on the floor sweating like a pig, shaking and vomitting. Those are classic withdrawl symptoms. When I told him what he was going through he angrily denied it and said it was just a "stomach flu" and said a joint always made him feel better under such circumstances. By miracle of miracles after he smoked his joint he felt fine. Now tell me again how people don't suffer withdrawl symptoms from weed?
Now M-Wolverine has made me feel a little selfconscious about sharing this but in this instance I will, I am a cardiologist so I have read a lot of studies that say just what you said in your post...weed isn't addictive (other than psychologically) and people don't suffer withdrawl when stopping, but I have seen with my own eyes that is not the case. I know withdrawl when I see it and that is exactly what my brother-in-law was experiencing. If it was only psychologically addictive, that wouldn't happen.
I'm sure at one time people thought smoking cig's wasn't addictive and drinking alcohol wasn't addictive. I bet they even did studies to show that it wasn't. They were wrong then and these studies are wrong now. Unless my brother-in-law is some mutant being and is the only human ever created that is capable of becoming addicted to pot, those studies are wrong.
Well, that settles it then. /s
I could give a lifetime of anecdotes that contradict yours and back up the studies. I've known countless people who smoked from waking until sleeping (for years), who then stopped cold turkey for weeks (in order to pass a drug test), without anything more than being annoyed by the party being put on hold.
To dismiss scientific studies... Seemingly based (for the most part at least) on a single anecdote?... You're a cardiologist?
BTW- It sounds more like your BIL was overdosing on weed. It can happen. It usually involves 10-30 minutes of what you describe. After which you feel fine and can even go right back to smoking.
... Unless something's changed in the last 10-15 years.
See, you know he's a cardiologist because he tells you. In every post.
You don't think that for every study you provide that states pot isn't addictive I couldn't pull up 4 that say it is? Then you finish by saying "unless something has changed in the last 10-15 years"....are you kidding me? What hasn't changed in the last 10-15 years? there is probably people on this blog who weren't even alive 15 years ago.
Let's just look at pot specifically. I used to smoke 15 years ago and I can tell you what I smoked 15 years ago is nothing like what people are smoking now. What I used to smoke had a nice, sweet smell to it but when I smell what my sister and brother-in-law are smoking it smells like a damn skunk. So yes, even what people are smoking and calling pot has changed from 15 years ago.
Now you can choose to believe me or not, it really makes no diference to me whatsoever, but if you think that because a medical study 10-15 years old says pot isn't addictive it makes it true when plenty of studies say otherwise your kidding yourself. I can also say that I know the difference between an overdose and withdrawl. My brother-in-law was experiencing those symptoms after not having smoked any pot for 28 hours...pretty hard to be overdosing under those circumstances.
Also, my stance on the matter isn't based on a single anecdote, it is based on medical evidence from numerous studies that contradict the ones you are talking about and confirmed through actual experience.
Listen, I'm not judging you or anyone else for smoking pot, as I said before I used to do enough of it in my youth as well. I am simply saying that there is a very big misconception out there when it comes to whether or not the stuff is addictive. I'm also not saying that every person that smokes weed will become an addict...it doesn't work that way. Just like everyone who drinks a lot won't become an alcoholic. A good example is my sister who smokes every bit as much as my BIL (maybe more) but has had no problem stopping for months at a time while she was breastfeeding her kids. But just because everyone who tries it doesn't become addicted, doesn't mean it isn't addictive.
The 10-15 years comment was simply meant to point out that my firsthand experience with very heavy smoking isn't exactly up to date. Not that I'm basing my opinion off of studies from 10-15 years ago, or that I'm not aware that the availability of high potency weed has gone through the roof since then (trust me, Im aware).
" A good example is my sister who smokes every bit as much as my BIL (maybe more) but has had no problem stopping for months at a time while she was breastfeeding her kids. But just because everyone who tries it doesn't become addicted, doesn't mean it isn't addictive."
It kinda does.
Unless you're talking about psychological addiction... Like chocolate, gambling or masturbating.
So you thinnk that if a substance is addictive, that everyone who uses has to become addicted....I guess there is no point in continuing this conversation if that is your understanding of how addictions work.
I am going to give you one very simple example and end it at that: Alcohol. What is the magic numer of time you have to drink or the amount one must consume in order to become an alcoholic? From what you are saying you think there is this magic threshold, that when crossed, everyone would become addicted. I'm not trying to be funny, but do you know how completely wrong that is?
Some people become addicted to heroine after their first use, others use it multiple times and don't become addicted. Some people smoke cigarettes only when they drink for years and never get to the point that they are addicted, others become addicted after a few months. Your view of addictions is very simplistic and in actuality, totally wrong.
One last thing...in case you didn't know chocolate has caffiene in it which almost all coffee drinkers will tell you is physically addictive. I really have to question where you are getting your information.
but you would be wrong if you say that smoking weed is worse for a person than smoking cigarettes if you are speaking from a health perspective (if you are speaking morally, I won't get into that because everyone has different morals). As much as I hate to admit it, in spite of all I know on the subject I am a smoker and have been for a long time. For whatever reason I gave up smoking weed when I was in my mid-twenties, but I have never been able to kick smoking.
There has been no study I have ever seen that would corroborate your claim that smoking weed would be worse from a health perspective than smoking cigarettes. Cigarettes can cause lung disease, heart disease, throat cancer and numerous other health issues.
I have stated below that I believe pot is addictive and because of that can cause personal issues, but from a health perspective there is no question that smoking cigarettes is worse for you than pot.
You can get addicted to weed. It's not as addictive as nicotine, or heroin, but there are people physically dependent on it. The rate of addicts to users is roughly comparable to that for alcoholism.
Have a reference for that?
of which there have been a few recently, reveal a divide in the "community" here. We need a consensus to know what is safe to post. It's ok for students but not athletes? It's ok for our players, but not our rivals? It's ok in the living room but not in the car? It's ok but don't get caught? It's ok when you are in college but not in high school? What other substances are ok? Where are the lines to be drawn? Inquiring minds want to know.
Athletes can and should be held to a higher standard than the average student. They represent the school, and in return they get a free education (whereas their average classmate will graduate tens of thousands in debt). Not to mention that they need to be in top shape physically, and very focused and able to budget their time between school and their sport. Smoking weed does not help any of those things.
Not to mention that they need to be in top shape physically, and very focused and able to budget their time between school and their sport.
It's not really a free education given this. And the school makes millions off them.
Call it what you want, but it's the other end of the bargain. They don't have to pay tuition or room and board in return for giving their all on the athletic field.
As for the university "making millions" off them, it's not like they're stashing it all away in a Swiss bank account. All the profit just flows back into the programs. That's how these guys have a palatial locker room with iPads in their lockers and all that.
Dave Brandon is no longer trying to sell Domino's pizza and suddenly pot is bad for people.
Whenever you bring up weed, you always hear the same ol' shit.
It's quite humorous. I wish I had a little electronic scoreboard on my computer screen that was a counter and tallied how many times I read that.
The elderly also have problems with addiction. Source. The real problem is we've committed to a prohibitionist strategy in the war on drugs. Latin American leaders want some form of legalization to lessen the power of the cartels. Source.
Salvadoran President Mauricio Funes said combating organized crime is a priority for the region, particularly for El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.
The four countries are grappling with some of the highest homicide rates in the world and have been battered in recent years by the incursion of Mexican drug cartels seeking to expand their territories and use Central America as a drug transshipment point.
of banned topics on mgoblog. Their are too many former pot heads on here. This thread will never end.
I believe weed usage grows with age.
Just happen to be listening to my favorite band, The Who. "Hey you smoking Mother Nature, this is a bust."