Goodell: NFL would consider allowing medical marijuana

[House]

I've smoked plenty of it. And nearly every other hard drug mentioned. If you'd like to know the effects just ask.

I have no clue why this post made me laugh as hard as I did.

[The Laughing Man]

Gabriel,

 

Thank you for taking up this fight. I must have missed all of this negative information about marijuana when I was wrapping up my master's in C.J. and writing on drug policy. Interesting.

 

If anyone is interested, the most damning finding that is consistent in the literature concerns changes in impulsivity and decision making (gambling studies show that people under the influence are prone to make riskier decisions). Studies that have tried to link marijuana use to violence have actually found that the drug inhibits aggression. Concerns about psycopharmacological crimes with concern to this drug are overblown for this reason.

 

On the topic of addiction, the overwhelming majority of studies show that adolescents, not adults are the most prone to develop dependency, making it a moot point of discussion concerning NFL players, who we're concerned with. It's also a completely unsurprising finding and not a terrible referendum on marijuana in and of itself. The human brain develops into your late teens (and perhaps your early 20s according to isolated studies) with the prefrontal lobe being among the last areas to develop. Introducing stimuli during this critical developmental stage has consequences. Obviously, the circumstances are not the same with adults, whose incurred risks by nature of using are insignificant in comparison.

 

And as for D.A.R.E. It's actually probably for the best that Gabriel never encountered it. The research on the effect of the program is dubious. There are actually a number of findings that suggest that, like the Scared Straight program, it actually had an iatrogenic effect. Glad you have no idea what it is.

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

You literally have no clue what you are saying anymore do you?

The placebo effect is giving one group the treatment. And then giving the control group nothing, but telling them it's something I.E a sugar pill instead of an allergy pill.

In the case of weed, the weed itself isn't causing any type of withdrawal. It's the brain convincing someone it is. That type of effect can happen with any substance. Such as experiments done on people drinking non alcoholic beer, yet thinking their drunk. It's fake. Not real. Thus not the weed is not at fault. It just the individuals imagination. Meaning it isn't an actual withdrawal.

And even then the "mental" withdrawal, which we are both agreeing isn't real, still isn't like withdrawing from heroine, or hard drugs. Not even close.

Please don't accuse me of smoking something I don't smoke, just because I've worked in a field that requires me to understand drugs and their effects. You might be better served educating yourself, then attacking those who know.

You're still missing my point about the Placebo effect...

Also if you wanna accuse me of "Talking out of my butt" I will accuse you of what I want. 

[House]

You're still missing my point about the Placebo effect...

Also if you wanna accuse me of "Talking out of my butt" I will accuse you of what I want.

I'm not missing a thing. You have an agenda and don't understand the points you are trying to make. Especially when you are arguing that people's brains are making pot more harmful then it actually is. That they are imagining symptoms that aren't there, or caused by smoking marijuana. Which is counter intuitive to your overall stance.

Its clear you have very cursory knowledge of what you are talking about. Clearly you've heard things, and never bothered to question them. But whoever told you that pot can simulate, even in people's own imaginations, the severe effects that harder drugs cause did you a tremendous disservice.

Please point me in the case studies you've read, or the experiments you've conducted that support anything you are saying. Until then, yes you are just making things up, and "talking out of your butt."

Edit:

http://adai.uw.edu/marijuana/factsheets/dependence.htm

That sound worse then this?

http://www.timberlineknolls.com/drug-addiction/heroin/signs-effects

Or even remotely similar.

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

Gabriel,

 

Thank you for taking up this fight. I must have missed all of this negative information about marijuana when I was wrapping up my master's in C.J. and writing on drug policy. Interesting.

 

If anyone is interested, the most damning finding that is consistent in the literature concerns changes in impulsivity and decision making (gambling studies show that people under the influence are prone to make riskier decisions). Studies that have tried to link marijuana use to violence have actually found that the drug inhibits aggression. Concerns about psycopharmacological crimes with concern to this drug are overblown for this reason.

 

On the topic of addiction, the overwhelming majority of studies show that adolescents, not adults are the most prone to develop dependency, making it a moot point of discussion concerning NFL players, who we're concerned with. It's also a completely unsurprising finding and not a terrible referendum on marijuana in and of itself. The human brain develops into your late teens (and perhaps your early 20s according to isolated studies) with the prefrontal lobe being among the last areas to develop. Introducing stimuli during this critical developmental stage has consequences. Obviously, the circumstances are not the same with adults, whose incurred risks by nature of using are insignificant in comparison.

 

And as for D.A.R.E. It's actually probably for the best that Gabriel never encountered it. The research on the effect of the program is dubious. There are actually a number of findings that suggest that, like the Scared Straight program, it actually had an iatrogenic effect. Glad you have no idea what it is.

 The whole point of this is whether or not to use Weed for medical reasons in the NFL. My point is why? There are more proven, and more successful muscle relaxers/painkillers that are already legal league wide. My hunch is that we will see a lot more injuries show up that "necessitate" the use of Medicinal Marijuana. Also we all know how easy it is to get MM prescribed to you. 

[House]

The whole point of this is whether or not to use Weed for medical reasons in the NFL. My point is why? There are more proven, and more successful muscle relaxers/painkillers that are already legal league wide. My hunch is that we will see a lot more injuries show up that "necessitate" the use of Medicinal Marijuana. Also we all know how easy it is to get MM prescribed to you.

Because the "more successful muscle relaxers" are more harmful to you, then eating a cookie that has marijuana in it. So it would be an alternative for those who don't want to run the risk of a serious addiction, and damage to the kidney and liver.

[IndyTrav]

 The whole point of this is whether or not to use Weed for medical reasons in the NFL. My point is why? There are more proven, and more successful muscle relaxers/painkillers that are already legal league wide. My hunch is that we will see a lot more injuries show up that "necessitate" the use of Medicinal Marijuana. Also we all know how easy it is to get MM prescribed to you. 

 

Because, it may actually work. Which is the whole point.

 

If Marijuana can do the job of the oxy/vicodin, while alleviating concerns of prescription pain killer addiction/dependance it is something the NFL should look at very closely...Established medical communities as well...

 

The science behind marijuana is now being taken legitimately, and hopefully we will find out these answers....If it turns out it does in fact not have any medical purposes then the point is moot. But as the research has grown in the past 10 years, it is becoming somewhat clear there are medical benefits to this.

 

Its not the 1950's anymore. Scare tactics and racism are hopefully no longer a deterrent in the exploration of medical practices when it comes to pot.  

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

I'm not missing a thing. You have an agenda and don't understand the points you are trying to make. Especially when you are arguing that people's brains are making pot more harmful then it actually is. That they are imagining symptoms that aren't there, or caused by smoking marijuana. Which is counter intuitive to your overall stance.

Its clear you have very cursory knowledge of what you are talking about. Clearly you've heard things, and never bothered to question them. But whoever told you that pot can simulate, even in people's own imaginations, the severe effects that harder drugs cause did you a tremendous disservice.

Please point me in the case studies you've read, or the experiments you've conducted that support anything you are saying. Until then, yes you are just making things up, and "talking out of your butt."

I don't know where I'd read case studies but these links seem to cite studies, and they're pretty damn reputable:

 http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/06/marijuana.aspx

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/marijuana-abuse/marijuana-addictive

These support that Marijuana has addictive qualities, and withdrawal symptoms. 

 

Also I have no idea where I said that "pot can simulate, even in people's own imaginations, the severe effects that harder drugs cause" pretty sure I did not ever say that. 

 

In regards to this ". Especially when you are arguing that people's brains are making pot more harmful then it actually is. That they are imagining symptoms that aren't there, or caused by smoking marijuana." I'm not sure what you're arguing. Smoking pot leads to psychological dependence (in some cases) and because of this your mind can create withdrawal symptoms even though Pot is not physically addictive.  Please clarify what you are not understanding about that and how it is counter-intuitive to my point? 

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

Because, it may actually work. Which is the whole point.

 

If Marijuana can do the job of the oxy/vicodin, while alleviating concerns of prescription pain killer addiction/dependance it is something the NFL should look at very closely...Established medical communities as well...

 

The science behind marijuana is now being taken legitimately, and hopefully we will find out these answers....If it turns out it does in fact not have any medical purposes then the point is moot. But as the research has grown in the past 10 years, it is becoming somewhat clear there are medical benefits to this.

 

Its not the 1950's anymore. Scare tactics and racism are hopefully no longer a deterrent in the exploration of medical practices when it comes to pot.  

racism? 

[IndyTrav]

racism? 

Yes. 

 

"The intense anti-marijuana movement of the 1930s dovetailed nicely with the intense anti-Chicano movement of the 1930s. Marijuana was associated with Mexican Americans, and a ban on marijuana was seen as a way of discouraging Mexican-American subcultures from developing.

Today, thanks in large part to the very public popularity of marijuana among whites during the 1960s and 1970s, marijuana is no longer seen as what one might call an ethnic drug--but the groundwork for the anti-marijuana movement was laid down at a time when marijuana was seen as an encroachment on the U.S. majority-white culture."

 

"In the early 1900s, the western states developed significant tensions regarding the influx of Mexican-Americans. The revolution in Mexico in 1910 spilled over the border, with General Pershing’s army clashing with bandit Pancho Villa. Later in that decade, bad feelings developed between the small farmer and the large farms that used cheaper Mexican labor. Then, the depression came and increased tensions, as jobs and welfare resources became scarce.

One of the “differences” seized upon during this time was the fact that many Mexicans smoked marijuana and had brought the plant with them, and it was through this that California apparently passed the first state marijuana law, outlawing “preparations of hemp, or loco weed.”"

 

For example. 

[House]

I don't know where I'd read case studies but these links seem to cite studies, and they're pretty damn reputable:

 http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/06/marijuana.aspx

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/marijuana-abuse/marijuana-addictive

These support that Marijuana has addictive qualities, and withdrawal symptoms. 

 

Also I have no idea where I said that "pot can simulate, even in people's own imaginations, the severe effects that harder drugs cause" pretty sure I did not ever say that. 

 

In regards to this ". Especially when you are arguing that people's brains are making pot more harmful then it actually is. That they are imagining symptoms that aren't there, or caused by smoking marijuana." I'm not sure what you're arguing. Smoking pot leads to psychological dependence (in some cases) and because of this your mind can create withdrawal symptoms even though Pot is not physically addictive.  Please clarify what you are not understanding about that and how it is counter-intuitive to my point? 

 

Didn't even bother to read your own links. Rookie mistake.

 

"Marijuana addiction is also linked to a withdrawal syndrome similar to that of nicotine withdrawal"

 

"Ninety percent of individuals will be able to use it in a way they find nonproblematic in terms of dependence but 10 percent will run the risk of developing dependence, and for that, effective treatments should be available,” says Mason, the principal investigator for a National Institute on Drug Abuse-funded study of the neurobiological effects of marijuana use"

 

Meaning only 10 percent of people will have some problem with dependency, and its very likely that that very same 10% are just individuals who have chemical imbalances that make them more susceptible to addiction and dependency. And when they do get addicted its no worse then that of a nicotine addiction.

 

Saying Marijuana withdrawal symptoms are like a placebo is counter intuitive because you can make the exact same argument about Pepsi. Nothing in Pepsi makes you addicted to it, but people can experience "withdrawal" from not having it. Not the fault of the substance. Just the individuals own mind. Can be applied to almost anything.

 

Your whole point is based on the idea that the "psychological effects are devastating" which is only moderately true. Even if you have a mental dependency to something, it doesn't mean your side effects are real. Your body can't create serious withdrawal symptoms like when you are coming off of crack, heroin, or prescription drugs. You wont feel like your skin's ripping off your body, or get high fevers. So the range of harmful withdrawal effects is limited greatly. certainly much less dangerous then the "successful muscle relaxers."

 

Worst case scenarios from marijuana withdrawal include "Irritability, sleeplessness, decreased appetite, anxiety, and drug craving"

 

Worst case scenarios from Vicodin withdrawal include "Agitation, anxiety, muscle aches, increased tearing, Inomni, runny nose, sweating, yawning, abdominal cramping, diarrhea, dilated pupils, goose bumps, and nausea and vomiting.

 

Which of those sound more "devastating?" If you are a player looking for a viable alternative to prescription drugs which one are you likely to chose?

[JerodMayo51]

He cant..and he wont

 

 

Its not legal in all NFL states..

 

...and even if it is.....there's liability in authorizing players to get high..

 

..anything that happened to them that could be even remotely blamed on weed would be on the NFL..

 

I disagree, the liability would be on the Drs who prescribe it just like it is with every other medication.  The NFL wouldn't be authorizing anyone to get high, they would simply be removing Marijuana from their list of banned substances since it has been determined to be a legal and effective medical treatment for some conditions.

 

HGH is prescribed to people regularly with injuries or people going through rehab, but thats a banned substance as well.  The liability is not on the NFL in these scenarios, it always has and always will be on the Dr who prescribes them and its up to those doctors to go over all the pros and cons to taking certain medications.