NFL to revamp policy on the cannibus

[gkekoa]

Again, those only discuss development.


Among adults, it has been proven to have no long term effect on mental ability.

Am. J. Epid.

Here are a couple of excerpts dealing with long-term brain effects and they are in adults.


"Although imaging studies (functional MRI; fMRI) in chronic users do show some consistent alterations, the relation of these changes to cognitive functioning is less clear."

"Long-term marijuana use may actually shrink certain parts of the brain and have lasting effects on mental health."

"Researchers found that the hippocampus, which is thought to regulate memory, was an average of 12% smaller among marijuana users, compared with people who didn't smoke pot. The amygdala, involved in emotion and memory, was an average of 7% smaller."

 

[Sharkinva]

I agree that it will be legalized. I am even fine with that. I am also fine with businesses still saying employees cannot take it while working for them.

Just because it's legal, doesn't mean the NFL has to accept the use by it's players. If they cave to the NFLPA then so be it but it's just another bargaining point for the owners.

I also realize under-age kids will take it and I'm fine with that as well because it won't be my child.

These two wont really fly because there is already legal standing to say a company can NOT make those kinds of decisions on how an employee must handle their time when they are off the clock. The NFL can ban it now because its illegal. Companies can test for it now because its illegal. But the reality is, after 24 hours its out of your system unless you do a blood or hair sample test. So enforcing it becomes problematic because no team is going ot do daily urine tests to keep players from doing something on their own time that is legal.

 

[JDM]

It stays in your piss for up to a month as well. I'm not sure where you're getting that information.


At gkekoa, that study followed over 1000 people for 12 years and compared the brain changes among those who smoked various amounts and those who didn't smoke at all. There was zero difference in cognitive change or function. That trumps the shit out of your research on kids smoking, which I have admitted is bad. It is, however, proven to be harmless to adults.

 

[Sharkinva]

It stays in your piss for up to a month as well. I'm not sure where you're getting that information.


At gkekoa, that study followed over 1000 people for 12 years and compared the brain changes among those who smoked various amounts and those who didn't smoke at all. There was zero difference in cognitive change or function. That trumps the shit out of your research on kids smoking, which I have admitted is bad. It is, however, proven to be harmless to adults.

JDM... for lab tests yes a month is usually the time frame. But to police it on the level the NFL would need to do in order to keep it out of football after its legalized, teams would be forced to use the 24 hour cups test. I dont see the league expending the kind of money needed to police a legalized substance beyond the 24 hour quick cups that most jobs use during the interview process these days.

 

[gkekoa]

It stays in your piss for up to a month as well. I'm not sure where you're getting that information.


At gkekoa, that study followed over 1000 people for 12 years and compared the brain changes among those who smoked various amounts and those who didn't smoke at all. There was zero difference in cognitive change or function. That trumps the shit out of your research on kids smoking, which I have admitted is bad. It is, however, proven to be harmless to adults.

What study are you referring to?

The studies I showed weren't of kids. It stated the long-term effects of abusers of marijuana.

 

[Sharkinva]

What study are you referring to?

The studies I showed weren't of kids. It stated the long-term effects of abusers of marijuana.

So just curious, based on that stance of it being a study of the long term effects of abuse, is it your conclusion that any recreational use (IE not perscribed by a doctor) would be termed as abuse??

 

[gkekoa]

So just curious, based on that stance of it being a study of the long term effects of abuse, is it your conclusion that any recreational use (IE not perscribed by a doctor) would be termed as abuse??

I don't know how they would define abuse off the top of my head. I'd have to look at the study and see the variables.

For me, I just don't like paying for other people's mistakes.

 

[Sharkinva]

I don't know how they would define abuse off the top of my head. I'd have to look at the study and see the variables.

For me, I just don't like paying for other people's mistakes.

And thats understandable. But seriously the way you come off on this topic its like you are saying Weed and Alcohol should both be illegal because of the potential for being abused and thus causing you to maybe have to pay for some one elses mistake. Look Im not going to be the one who says no one can ever be addicted to weed, or that no one ever made a poor choice under the influence. But to say well the choice should be taken away from every one because of what a few have done or might do is more than a tad bit extreme. To say that companies have the right to tell their employees how to live their lives outside the office is totalitarian and also a bit off the mark. I agree if it gets out of hand, then it needs to be dealt with. But in the grand scheme of things, the use of weed is not going to be what drags this country down any more than Budweiser has.

 

[gkekoa]

And thats understandable. But seriously the way you come off on this topic its like you are saying Weed and Alcohol should both be illegal because of the potential for being abused and thus causing you to maybe have to pay for some one elses mistake. Look Im not going to be the one who says no one can ever be addicted to weed, or that no one ever made a poor choice under the influence. But to say well the choice should be taken away from every one because of what a few have done or might do is more than a tad bit extreme. To say that companies have the right to tell their employees how to live their lives outside the office is totalitarian and also a bit off the mark. I agree if it gets out of hand, then it needs to be dealt with. But in the grand scheme of things, the use of weed is not going to be what drags this country down any more than Budweiser has.

Actually that's exactly what I am saying Shark. I am all for freedom, total freedom. People shouldn't be able to hide behind freedom and then ask for others to pay for them. They should get ZERO "government assistance" because it is their decision that gets them into the situation.

I think companies should have full autonomy in their rules of the workplace because nobody is forced to work for them. If a company wants to have a zero tolerance policy for drugs, then that should be their prerogative.

 

[Sharkinva]

Actually that's exactly what I am saying Shark. I am all for freedom, total freedom. People shouldn't be able to hide behind freedom and then ask for others to pay for them. They should get ZERO "government assistance" because it is their decision that gets them into the situation.

I think companies should have full autonomy in their rules of the workplace because nobody is forced to work for them. If a company wants to have a zero tolerance policy for drugs, then that should be their prerogative.

Have to disagree dude. Because if Companies are allowed to pick and choose how we live our lives off the clock, then whats to stop companies from saying well I dont want to hire any one who is black, or Jewish or gay. Use of drugs and or alcohol off of company time and in situations where it has no effect on company business should not be company concern. And if you really want to say that peoples personal life choices should not be funded by tax payer dollars... there are a WHOLE lot of other personal choice situation that cost us alot more which i would gladly see them put an end to way before saying well lets ban the use of these substances because some people might not be able to act responsibly under the influence of these substances.

 

[JDM]

Companies can pick and choose how you live your life off the clock already. Just don't work for invasive companies. Problem solved.

I will never work anywhere that requires a piss test, for example, even if it substantially increases my salary and I haven't partaken in over a year.

 

[gkekoa]

Companies can pick and choose how you live your life off the clock already. Just don't work for invasive companies. Problem solved.

I will never work anywhere that requires a piss test, for example, even if it substantially increases my salary and I haven't partaken in over a year.

This is choice. This is freedom.

You have a right not to work for companies you don't agree with. The companies, being owned by people, should also be free to not condone certain behaviors in their employees.

 

[JDM]

I'm not saying they don't. I'm saying their policy is absurd and the player's association will probably get it removed next CBA.

 

[gkekoa]

Have to disagree dude. Because if Companies are allowed to pick and choose how we live our lives off the clock, then whats to stop companies from saying well I dont want to hire any one who is black, or Jewish or gay. Use of drugs and or alcohol off of company time and in situations where it has no effect on company business should not be company concern. And if you really want to say that peoples personal life choices should not be funded by tax payer dollars... there are a WHOLE lot of other personal choice situation that cost us alot more which i would gladly see them put an end to way before saying well lets ban the use of these substances because some people might not be able to act responsibly under the influence of these substances.

Honestly, I think a company should be able to not hire somebody because of things such as black, Jewish, or gay. If they refuse to hire the better employee, they are hurting their own business. Also, people who disagree with their practices can harm the company by not purchasing from them.

There is no independence from the company. A company invests time, training, and usually medical expenses into their employees. Drugs and alcohol increase costs and medical expenses.

I would love to see personal choices get what they have coming. The whole litany.

The thing about forced acceptance is it doesn't actually change public opinion. It increases hatred and animosity.

 

[Sharkinva]

So tell me exactly what does one have coming because they choose to drink or smoke weed socially??

 

[gkekoa]

I'm not saying they don't. I'm saying their policy is absurd and the player's association will probably get it removed next CBA.

I'm not disagreeing with this statement either.

It may get removed; however, it is a bargaining chip for the owners.

 

[Sharkinva]

And the real problem with forced acceptance is, the only people who tend to favor it are the ones who dont feel it will negatively affect them.

 

[Sharkinva]

I'm not saying they don't. I'm saying their policy is absurd and the player's association will probably get it removed next CBA.

the actual players would have to vote to dissolve the NFLPA which wouldnt be in their best interest. And if there is no union, exactly who do the owners agree to a CBA with??

 

[TBBishop]

Unless the NFL is getting rid of their marijuana policy all together, it's not going to be enough IMO.

 

[gkekoa]

So tell me exactly what does one have coming because they choose to drink or smoke weed socially??

Nothing at all. But you and I also know that it seldom remains just social.

I am not even saying that I hope people get hooked on either of these substances and yes I have drank socially (never been drunk, at least since I was 4).

Here's what I am saying:
1) Marijuana has an affect on people whether they admit it or not.
2) The "eye test" you like to quote, shows a "lazy effect" on people who smoke weed.
3) The poor have a higher percentage of people smoking weed than the middle and upper class. This is my biggest problem. The poor are on some form of government assistance and make claims such as I use "my own" money to pay for weed. If you have enough money to buy weed, then you don't need my tax money. It's very, very simple. If you smoke weed then you should not get a dime in SNAP, welfare, Medicaid, or any other form of government assistance to include housing.