Marijuana and Football Players

[Junior]

That's right, they are still human beings and they can choose how they want to live their life. And football teams can set reasonable limits on their behavior. They can choose to avoid that garbage in their lives or they can choose to get drunk, high, or eat like sh#t and they can do something other than play D1 football. It's not rocket science.

Look at it this way, you take your team of drinkers, tokers, and fast food fatties and put them up against my team, where that behavior is not allowed, all other things being equal, who's going to win that contest 9 out of 10 times? Spare me the "but they're just college students like everyone else" bs. They are high level athletes that can be held to a higher standard. The choice is theirs.

Everything in moderation. Getting high/drunk the night before a game is obviously a huge issue. Getting high/drunk in July isn't. (Provided they are doing things that are legal, of course)

 

[suh_fan93]

Some of the greatest athletes have smoked weed.

 

[JJ Husker]

I agree Junior, there is some room for leniency out of season. I haven't been proposing a zero tolerance policy and I don't feel weed is necessarily any worse than alcohol. My only point is that these guys can and should be held to a higher standard. If they don't want to be held to a higher standard, nobody is stopping them but, they may not be cut out for high level collegiate sports. Nothing wrong with that- I sure as hell wouldn't have made it through my college years without drinking enough alcohol to preclude my participation. (Plus I just wasn't any good...)

 

[True2tRA]

That's right, they are still human beings and they can choose how they want to live their life. And football teams can set reasonable limits on their behavior. They can choose to avoid that garbage in their lives or they can choose to get drunk, high, or eat like sh#t and they can do something other than play D1 football. It's not rocket science.

Look at it this way, you take your team of drinkers, tokers, and fast food fatties and put them up against my team, where that behavior is not allowed, all other things being equal, who's going to win that contest 9 out of 10 times? Spare me the "but they're just college students like everyone else" bs. They are high level athletes that can be held to a higher standard. The choice is theirs.

I'd say we have a fine mixture of tokers, fast food fatties, and I know for a fact we got some drinkers on this team. So you're right, we win 9-10 times......
You hit the nail on the head though about the choice being theirs. I think that may be precisely the reason we still aren't quite the team we should be. I don't think some of them are not quite all in the way they need to be if they want greatness. That's just my read on things.

 

[True2tRA]

Still, you know the teams of the past had their share of these guys too. I wonder how the great ones pull it off? God knows plenty of great players and great teams have had some big time drinkers and stoners. I'd still say the alcohol is probably far harder on your body than weed can ever be.

 

[JJ Husker]

Still, you know the teams of the past had their share of these guys too. I wonder how the great ones pull it off? God knows plenty of great players and great teams have had some big time drinkers and stoners. I'd still say the alcohol is probably far harder on your body than weed can ever be.

Yeah, it's no guarantee abstinence will make them play better. When I was there in the early eighties, a well known offensive backfield starter was doing some illegal stuff in season. Saw it myself at a party. It didn't seem to hurt his performance but I wonder if he could've been even better. He had more than a decent NFL career.

 

[Abdullah the Butcher]

Still, you know the teams of the past had their share of these guys too. I wonder how the great ones pull it off? God knows plenty of great players and great teams have had some big time drinkers and stoners. I'd still say the alcohol is probably far harder on your body than weed can ever be.

Yeah, it's no guarantee abstinence will make them play better. When I was there in the early eighties, a well known offensive backfield starter was doing some illegal stuff in season. Saw it myself at a party. It didn't seem to hurt his performance but I wonder if he could've been even better. He had more than a decent NFL career.

Except during the Orange Bowl?

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Michael Phelps seemed to do alright for himself.

 

[True2tRA]

Michael Phelps seemed to do alright for himself.

Yea, the whole "bad for the lungs" thing kind of takes a back seat, with him anyways.

 

[The Dude]

Michael Phelps seemed to do alright for himself.

I first had my suspicions when I heard he ate 10,000+ calories a day.

 

[Abdullah the Butcher]

The NFL wants to allow medical marijuana for players so I don't see any harm.

 

[Glendower]

Von Miller still got suspended from the Broncos for smoking weed.

That said, I'd rather them be smoking weed than drinking. Not addictive like alcohol nor can it kill people like alcohol can.

I think that is just a personal opinion. I actually know way more people who smoke on a regular basis, than people that smoke. They are both equally addictive, in my opinion.

I respectfully disagree and I have numerous friends that were marijuana users in their past that would disagree with you too.

And I have friends that are/ were addicted to weed. It certainly can be addictive, not for everyone, but just like booze, a person can be an addict. To say otherwise is not true.

It is not physically addictive. Your friends may have been psychologically addicted (that is it had become a habit), they were using it to treat an undiagnosed psychological disorder like depression or anxiety, or they may have just liked it a whole lot (like being "addicted" to food). I'm not saying that those other types of addiction can't be serious or potentially destructive; the second one is a serious symptom of something that needs professional treatment. Something like 15% of high school aged kids (I don't know the age group of your friends when they were smoking a lot) have a diagnosable psychological disorder that is going unaddressed and all they know is that when they smoke some pot, get drunk, or do whatever else, they feel better.

This thread has people using multiple conceptions of "addiction" without clarifying. What I'm saying is that everyone is right. Pot is addictive, but not physically the same way that alcohol and most harder drugs are/can be. You'll never see anyone die of marijuana withdrawal the same way that people die of alcohol withdrawal, for example.

That being said-- I think schools should follow their respective state guidelines primarily to avoid the headache of enforcing a confusing policy. As for athletes showing up under the influence-- treat it the same way that you would a student showing up drunk. I don't get why there is this bizarre narrative out that suddenly a huge percentage of the population will be high all the time if pot were to be legal. Most people who would show up to class, practice, or work stoned already have access to and are frequent users. How many people here get drunk before work? This hasn't borne out in Colorado and probably not in Washington, either.

 

[Glendower]

Back to the original question. Just because something is legal in your state, doesn't mean it can't be a violation of team/company rules.

From the perspective of my company, drinking alcohol at 6AM is legal. But my company rules state that you can't be drinking before you jump on a forklift. If one of my warehouse guys come to work smelling like booze, they are dismissed for the day. Too many times of this happening and they are dismissed for good.

The same would go for weed if it becomes legal in Minnesota for recreational use.

Problem is, you can knock back a sixer of Busch every night after work and be sober for work the next day. If you take a few puffs on a j every night, the THC may still be in your system even though the use may not be high.

No. This is wrong. THC is quickly metabolized by the system. What can be detected in a test and what is present in the system (stored in fat, and so on) are metabolites of THC-- i.e. non-psychoactive molecules that are formed after THC has been oxidized by the liver. Alcohol is the same way-- the alcohol doesn't give you a hangover, it's the toxic metabolites that remain in your system. These are what are detected by most urine tests. Active THC can only be detected in the blood for a short time.

-if you want to read more: Huestis, M. A. (2009). Human cannabinoid pharmacokinetics. Chemistry & Biodiversity, 4(8), 1770-1804.

ETA: The primary metabolite of alcohol can be detected in the system for several days after drinking. So, really, you can "knock back a sixer" and be, for the intents of this immediate discussion, in the same boat as someone who smoked some pot.

Also, I don't quite understand why it matters whats in anyone's system if, as you say, they aren't high.

 

[Glendower]

It all depends on what you are talking about as far as addiction. Is it a Physical dependency or Mental. A mental dependency means you use it for the high and how that part makes you feel. Physical means you use it as a tool to be able to manage a physical part of your life. Both can be known as an addiction but not both of them are bad.

I understand the difference, but imo if you're addicted you're addicted. I'm not going to differentiate why, you are using to make up for something.

Watch people going through opiate or alcohol withdrawal and tell me that there's no difference.

 

[HUSKER FREAK]

Athletes and injuries using Medical Marijuana compared to the narcotic drugs they are prescribed now, I mean do the research, it is hands down better for your body in the long run than the narcotic drugs they have to take now. I have never tried pot but if the research is correct I really don't understand why anyone would argue that Medical marijuana is a horrible thing. And not only for pain, I have diabetes in my family horrible and I often wonder after reading articles how that could have changed the quality of life for some of them.