Randy Gregory

[Babybluejeans]

The NFL suspended Cowboys' DE for at least a year for smoking weed again. The dude's had numerous warnings and lower-level punishments before this, so it's hard to feel sorry for the guy. He obviously doesn't have control of himself when it comes to the stinky green. randy-gregory-dallas-cowboys-suspended-least-one-year-violating-nfl-substance-abuse-policy.

But at some point the NFL is going to have to reckon with the fact that it recently suspended a guy who serially abused his wife for one freakin' game while it suspends players full seasons for using a substance that's legal in over a half-dozen states (and decriminalized in one manner or another in nearly all states).

So, what's the NFL's purpose for imposing harsh penalties on players for using non-performance-enhancing drugs? If it's to "protect" the players then that's hypocrisy of the highest order. If it's to obfuscate the league's utter lack of commitment to moral behavior, well, then maybe we're on to something.

[brandx]

You make a good point. Tens and tens and tens of millions are on opiates legally. We know that this opiate use leads to heroin addictions and deaths - but the league fully allows the players to use these hard-core drugs and then suspends players over a minor drug.

Unbelievable!

[rocket surgeon]

  "a minor drug"


there is no such thing as a "minor drug"   please realize, from the moment this "minor drug" is planted follow it's path of destruction.  the people who grow it, transport it, to the families and jobs and lives it ruins.  that's not to mention it's gateway to more addicting drugs, synthetic versions, etc.  ask rashaan saalam for example. hoe "minor" this drug is.  well, it's to late because he committed suicide a couple months ago

kids are used as mules to transport the stuff, turf wars lead to killings, young children being raised by pot smoking parent(s) relatives, friends...

you own a business-do you hire some dude who smokes to come work for you?  these people don't just toke a little to unwind after work.  they're hittin it all throughout the day...it's legal, 'ey?

[mu03eng]

  "a minor drug"


there is no such thing as a "minor drug"   please realize, from the moment this "minor drug" is planted follow it's path of destruction.  the people who grow it, transport it, to the families and jobs and lives it ruins.  that's not to mention it's gateway to more addicting drugs, synthetic versions, etc.  ask rashaan saalam for example. hoe "minor" this drug is.  well, it's to late because he committed suicide a couple months ago

kids are used as mules to transport the stuff, turf wars lead to killings, young children being raised by pot smoking parent(s) relatives, friends...

you own a business-do you hire some dude who smokes to come work for you?  these people don't just toke a little to unwind after work.  they're hittin it all throughout the day...it's legal, 'ey?

The only reason it isn't a minor drug is because of Richard Nixon. His administration decided to make it a schedule 1 drug, which is considered the most "dangerous" of drugs and those to be targeted by law enforcement. Schedule 1 drugs are considered to have no acceptable medical usage and are unsafe even under medical supervision. Other schedule 1 drugs? Heroin, Ecstasy, LSD and Peyote. Some schedule 2 drugs? Meth, PCP, Cocaine, Oxy, and Fentanyl to name a few. I'm no doctor but there are a fair number of schedule 2 drugs that are far more dangerous than pot.

All the danger associated with pot comes purely from the federal governments decision to criminalize it. If you go back to the late 1920s and early 1930s you would see all the same issues you bring up like kid's muling, violence in the street, etc associated with alcohol thanks to prohibition. For god's sake, the mob largely exists because of prohibition and pot isn't really different than alcohol. It's only a gateway drug because people who are interested in pot have to go to the same people that are pushing the more addictive drugs like meth, cocaine, oxy and the dealers want to get their customers on the higher margin drugs. Where pot is legal or significantly decriminalized there is no evidence that the incident of "harder" drug use is higher in pot users than non-pot users.

Don't know why I feel I need to add this part, but I've never used pot or any other drug in my life, so this isn't me defending some lifestyle I'm a part of. I just think we are so stupid when it comes to drug use and enforcement that it is costing people their lives and perpetuating the myth that pot is somehow this root of all drug evil is just irresponsible.

[Spotcheck Billy]

The only reason it isn't a minor drug is because of Richard Nixon. His administration decided to make it a schedule 1 drug, which is considered the most "dangerous" of drugs and those to be targeted by law enforcement. Schedule 1 drugs are considered to have no acceptable medical usage and are unsafe even under medical supervision. Other schedule 1 drugs? Heroin, Ecstasy, LSD and Peyote. Some schedule 2 drugs? Meth, PCP, Cocaine, Oxy, and Fentanyl to name a few. I'm no doctor but there are a fair number of schedule 2 drugs that are far more dangerous than pot.

I would go further back in history to the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937:

Some parties have argued that the aim of the Act was to reduce the size of the hemp industry largely as an effort of businessmen Andrew Mellon, Randolph Hearst, and the Du Pont family. The same parties have argued that with the invention of the decorticator, hemp had become a very cheap substitute for the paper pulp that was used in the newspaper industry. These parties argue that Hearst felt that this was a threat to his extensive timber holdings. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury and the wealthiest man in the US, had invested heavily in the Du Pont family's new synthetic fiber, nylon, a fiber that was competing with hemp.

BTW, the last commercial hemp fields were planted in Wisconsin in 1957.

[forgetful]

I would go further back in history to the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937:

Some parties have argued that the aim of the Act was to reduce the size of the hemp industry largely as an effort of businessmen Andrew Mellon, Randolph Hearst, and the Du Pont family. The same parties have argued that with the invention of the decorticator, hemp had become a very cheap substitute for the paper pulp that was used in the newspaper industry. These parties argue that Hearst felt that this was a threat to his extensive timber holdings. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury and the wealthiest man in the US, had invested heavily in the Du Pont family's new synthetic fiber, nylon, a fiber that was competing with hemp.

BTW, the last commercial hemp fields were planted in Wisconsin in 1957.

This, and the resistance to legalize it in the modern era stems from international relations.  We pressured most of the known world to make it illegal against their will.  Now, us legalizing it angers many of these nations.

Pot being illegal is one of the dumbest things in this nation.  People are serving a decade in jail for selling pot; meanwhile recently an 18 year old who kidnapped a disabled kid and raped him with a coat hanger got probation and community service...Priorities...merika'

[mu03eng]

This, and the resistance to legalize it in the modern era stems from international relations.  We pressured most of the known world to make it illegal against their will.  Now, us legalizing it angers many of these nations.

Pot being illegal is one of the dumbest things in this nation.  People are serving a decade in jail for selling pot; meanwhile recently an 18 year old who kidnapped a disabled kid and raped him with a coat hanger got probation and community service...Priorities...merika'

Could you imagine the revenue stream that could be created at the federal level simply by legalizing pot and taxing at the same levels as alcohol or cigarettes? That'd plug a few hundred holes in a budget.

Oh and a wall with Mexico isn't really necessary anymore since the demand for the harder drugs (cocaine, heroin, etc) goes down as the pot users aren't escalating into them so the movement of pot and other drugs into the US is greatly reduced.

Boom, cost savings everywhere

[MU B2002]

Doesn't matter how many states pot is legal in, as it is not permitted by the NFL Code of Conduct. Which Randy Gregory signed and agreed to follow in order to make millions of dollars playing football. (Assumption by me, as I don't know how it actually works.) 

[brandx]

Doesn't matter how many states pot is legal in, as it is not permitted by the NFL Code of Conduct. Which Randy Gregory signed and agreed to follow in order to make millions of dollars playing football. (Assumption by me, as I don't know how it actually works.)

I don't think we are disagreeing with your point, but rather saying that these types of agreements are archaic. I find it fascinating that the Code of Conduct does not ban opiates.

[mu03eng]

I don't think we are disagreeing with your point, but rather saying that these types of agreements are archaic. I find it fascinating that the Code of Conduct does not ban opiates.

And ironically (I think) pot could likely be used as a replacement for some of the opiate usage in the NFL. It is known to be correlated to strong pain management ability within the medical community. Any person you can put on pot instead of an optiate is a win in my book.

[RJax55]

I find it fascinating that the Code of Conduct does not ban opiates.

There's no way it could. The NFL needs them to keep players playing.

[RJax55]

And ironically (I think) pot could likely be used as a replacement for some of the opiate usage in the NFL. It is known to be correlated to strong pain management ability within the medical community. Any person you can put on pot instead of an optiate is a win in my book.

This Outside The Lines piece is very interesting and illustrates a major issue for the league:
http://www.espn.com/espn/eticket/story?page=110128/PainkillersNews

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Could you imagine the revenue stream that could be created at the federal level simply by legalizing pot and taxing at the same levels as alcohol or cigarettes? That'd plug a few hundred holes in a budget.

Not too mention all the money you save on enforcing, prosecuting, and incarcerating people who use pot. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[muwarrior69]

...and I thought we wanted people stop smoking and eating sweets.

[Babybluejeans]

  "a minor drug"


there is no such thing as a "minor drug"   please realize, from the moment this "minor drug" is planted follow it's path of destruction.  the people who grow it, transport it, to the families and jobs and lives it ruins.  that's not to mention it's gateway to more addicting drugs, synthetic versions, etc.  ask rashaan saalam for example. hoe "minor" this drug is.  well, it's to late because he committed suicide a couple months ago

kids are used as mules to transport the stuff, turf wars lead to killings, young children being raised by pot smoking parent(s) relatives, friends...

you own a business-do you hire some dude who smokes to come work for you?  these people don't just toke a little to unwind after work.  they're hittin it all throughout the day...it's legal, 'ey?

If there's a "path of destruction," it exists because only it's been outlawed and disproportionately vilified--not because of the inherent nature of marijuana. I much prefer drinking cocktails to smoking a little jazz cabbage, but I'd have to admit that alcohol is by its nature a far more destructive drug than mary jay.

[rocket surgeon]

  "I'd have to admit that alcohol is by its nature a far more destructive drug than mary jay."

  no you don't.  they are still doing the studies on the chronic effects of THC on the gray and white matter.  not to mention the ill effects of SMOKING on the lungs-remember?  smoking very very bad.  any drug ingested into our bodies is a toxin.  we know the deleterious effects of long-term alcohol on the body.

  exhibit I-cheech marin and jeff spicoli. tommy chong actually cleaned up quite nicely 

actually, you could probably include sean penn as exhibit II

 

[jesmu84]

https://youtu.be/CJlqsdezhhk

Some good info on the legal status of marijuana.

Also, "gateway" drug is such crap. Demonstrated as crap over and over again.

The same people who demonize weed have no seeming problem with alcohol or cigarettes. IMO, it's all bad for you, especially in copious amounts.

Also, confession, I've never done marijuana

[brandx]

https://youtu.be/CJlqsdezhhk

Some good info on the legal status of marijuana.

Also, "gateway" drug is such crap. Demonstrated as crap over and over again.

I don't know about that.

I always considered water a gateway drug to alcohol. Every known alcoholic drank water before they ever had their first sip of alcohol.

[rocket surgeon]

https://youtu.be/CJlqsdezhhk

Some good info on the legal status of marijuana.

Also, "gateway" drug is such crap. Demonstrated as crap over and over again.

The same people who demonize weed have no seeming problem with alcohol or cigarettes. IMO, it's all bad for you, especially in copious amounts.

Also, confession, I've never done marijuana

i submit this from the new york times-
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/04/26/is-marijuana-a-gateway-drug/marijuana-has-proven-to-be-a-gateway-drug

and yes, it depends on who you talk to

ok, i believe what is meant by "gateway" drug is that most chronic drug abusers have started with pot. not many skipped right into heroin or coke.  i'm sure many(probably most) had been drinking as well when introduced to pot, and some have continued right up the drug ladder.  some are looking for the next buzz or a better buzz whether it be more intense, or longer lasting or what have you.

      in any case, most of these people are using "stuff" to try to replace what the brain which is in short supply of; endorphins and enkephalins and probably lower levels of dopamine and serotonin or decreased output and or faster re-uptake.  essentially, abusers body's have an imbalance of the neurotransmitters needed sans some type of drug. couple this with some character flaws and "stinkin thinkin" and presto!  you've got your garden variety addict 

[rocket surgeon]

  "All the danger associated with pot comes purely from the federal governments decision to criminalize it."

as with many health issues, research is constantly coming in and even though the use of pot continues to be downplayed, i still lean toward the, not much good can come come out of pot smoking for recreational purposes and/or legalizing it.  yes, there probably are some medicinal benefits, but those should be handled by and under the supervision of ones healthcare provider. if the drug is incorrectly scheduled(i.e. I, II, III, etc) then correct it.  but i'm still of the belief that not much good is coming out of the legalization of another mind altering substance, rather just the continued dumbing down of our population might, which just might be the nasty little secret of the powers that be.  yes, i know, putting this genie back in the bottle ain't going to be easy if not probably impossible

   with that being said, this just in-

  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4114634/Marijuana-DOES-cause-schizophrenia-triggers-heart-attacks-experts-say-landmark-study-slams-drug-s-medical-benefits-unproven.html

[GGGG]

Look rocket, to be perfectly honest I think you are a little biased given your background.

Some people can drink nearly every day, sometimes to excess, and neither be addicted nor have it be a problem how they live their life.  Others cannot.

Ditto with pot.  Is it a "gateway drug?"  For some people sure.  For others, they don't have a problem drawing the line. 

The issue is whether or not the number of people who are harmed by legalization is high enough to warrant government interference.

EDIT TO ADD:  I also think addicts, who aren't treated, are going to find something to become addicted to.  Alcohol, pot, something else, etc.

[rocket surgeon]

Look rocket, to be perfectly honest I think you are a little biased given your background.

Some people can drink nearly every day, sometimes to excess, and neither be addicted nor have it be a problem how they live their life.  Others cannot.

Ditto with pot.  Is it a "gateway drug?"  For some people sure.  For others, they don't have a problem drawing the line. 

The issue is whether or not the number of people who are harmed by legalization is high enough to warrant government interference.

EDIT TO ADD:  I also think addicts, who aren't treated, are going to find something to become addicted to.  Alcohol, pot, something else, etc.

sultan-there isn't much with your statement that i can disagree with.  can you say the same with my opinion?  you know that i'm NOT a "big gubmint" guy, but i believe there are more issues here with pot-the drug as opposed to pot-the recreational high.  for one, drugs are dispensed by pharmacies with the guidance of a physician or trained professional; the dosages, refills etc...  with the strengths of cannabis being largely unknown and getting more and more potent, the potentials for more harm continues to grow. at least with alcohol, you can't get anything stronger than 100% or 200 proof if you will.  yes, i realize one can drink themselves to death by merely tipping the bottle.  btw, how do they measure ones blood THC levels short of a blood test which would be pretty difficult to do roadside.  where are all these people who decry the harms of smoking, obesity, lack of exercise, etc and the drain on our healthcare?   there is more to pot than many are willing to admit

bottom line-i am uncomfortable with the lassez faire attitude surrounding the legalization issue of pot

[GGGG]

I understand your opinion.  I'm pretty agnostic on the entire issue.  I know many high functioning people who drink regularly.  I don't know many who smoke pot regularly.  That could be because I don't know many people who smoke pot however.

[rocket surgeon]

I understand your opinion.  I'm pretty agnostic on the entire issue.  I know many high functioning people who drink regularly.  I don't know many who smoke pot regularly.  That could be because I don't know many people who smoke pot however.

i had a bro-in-law who, the first thing he did in the morning was roll a joint.  most everyone else was having a cup of joe.  he would then regularly light one up throughout the day until he went to bed.  weekends, he would really let his hair down.  interesting people.  i had a roommate my sophomore year at MU-pretty much the same thing-he was gone before the end of the semester.  had the room by myself

the pot that is smoked today makes the stuff that, ahem...we grew up with feel like drinking one beer.  today, one or two wacks from a bong or joint and it friggin paralyzes you...it's just what i've heard though

[GooooMarquette]

I don't smoke pot, but it is FAR less dangerous and addictive than cigarettes....