Weed, ESPN, and Dave Brandon
David Brandon pops in with his opinion on this front page ESPN piece about weed.
Most interesting paragraph:
"Wolverines are now suspended for 10 percent of their team's competitions after the first positive drug test and 33 percent of competitions after a second, and they receive a one-year suspension from all activities after a third positive result. "I think it's a competitive disadvantage to have a program where there is drug usage as part of the culture," Brandon says. "I don't look at it as a competitive disadvantage if we have to suspend a student-athlete from time to time to make a point.""
Discuss.
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.
April 18th, 2012 at 12:41 PM ^
David Brandon shopping at Meijer.
http://annarbor.com/news/more-than-70-marijuana-plants-seized-at-nail-s…
April 18th, 2012 at 12:51 PM ^
April 18th, 2012 at 12:53 PM ^
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."
Uh, yeah...
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.
April 20th, 2012 at 10:35 AM ^
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.
- Alcohol is deadlier!
- No reported deaths from weed!
- It should be legal!
- It makes you think outside of the box!
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.
April 18th, 2012 at 10:08 PM ^
I believe weed usage grows with age.