Pot Politics -- NBA compared to NFL


		Pot Politics -- NBA compared to NFL (Top Posts - Social/Legal - 072007 to 072307, updated 040209) Compilation on posts, replies, and responses to replies made on July 20-23, 2007, along with an update posted April 2, 2009: --- July 19, 2007 by Paul Armentano and Mark Stepnoski http://reason.com/news/show/121497.html --- Excerpts [with inserts, not part of originating article, included in brackets]: ... it seems that the sports world—and the NFL in particular—is fixated on pot. This spring the 'big story' was that three of the NFL's top draft picks ... admitted exper- imenting with marijuana while in college. [The revelations, supposedly made in con- fidence, no longer will be part of the NFL's so-called 'confidential' interview questions.] ... In reaction to the media's salvo, spokesmen for the NFL commented that the players' past pot use is a reflection upon their "character." NFL officials declined to comment on why the league tests specifically for pot-a non- performance enhancing substance-but fails to screen for known athletic enhancing agents like human growth hormone. [The NFL, just a part of the U.S. government's demonization of drugs efforts, primarily focus being to create an enemy that promotes the suspension of freedom and liberty in the name of a so-called 'greater good' -- tied closely to promotion of authoritarianism, hierarchical con- trol of human behavior, religion, ruining human lives, and acting as if having a tight ass and kissing the butts of those in power is what life should be (and, in fact, has become in America to a great degree these days) about.] Earlier this summer, beleaguered Miami Dol- phins running back Ricky Williams sparked a similar media maelstrom when he failed an NFL drug test for marijuana. Already having sat out multiple seasons as punishment for his off-field pot use—Williams claims he smokes marijuana to overcome social anxi- ety—the former NFL rushing champion likely faces another long, possibly lifetime, dismis- sal from professional football. According to the US government, approxi- mately 40 percent of the US population over age 12—that's some 94 million Americans— admit they've smoked pot. ... The New York Times once estimated that 70 percent of NBA players smoke marijuana. (Unlike the NFL, the NBA doesn't suspend players for pot.) ... It's time for the sports world to admit a dirty little secret: professional athletics are, and have long been, awash in intoxicants. The Colorado Rockies play baseball at Coors Field. Athletes celebrate playoff wins by dous- ing one another with champagne. For over a decade, some of women's tennis most presti- gious events were sponsored by Virginia Slims. Ditto for NASCAR, which until 2003 had many of its biggest races subsidized by Winston cigarettes. There isn't a child alive who watched pro foot- ball during the 1980s that doesn't know that Miller Lite beer "tastes great" and is "less filling." [The NFL, among the most hypocritical when it comes to alcohol, enriching itself in large measure off of alcohol profits gained from promotion of alcohol during NFL games, yet 'banning alcohol' from its flights and from NFL-sponsored events, by act of the com- mish, recently.] ... Paul Armentano is the senior policy analyst for NORML and the NORML Foundation in Wash- ington, DC. Mark Stepnoski is a five-time NFL Pro-Bowler who won two Super Bowl championships with the Dallas Cowboys (1993, 1994). He retired from the NFL in 2001 and now serves on NORML's Advisory Board. --- end excerpts -- - - - In reply to posters who responded: >> If you were to take the money that is spent on pot now and >> put half towards taxes, we would be able to fund a war on >> really really bad drugs like heroin or speed > [...] > > Meth is one of the most dangerous drugs in the world.. It > kills 100 percent more people than pot, which barely kills > anyone. In fact, I am willing to say tylenol kills more people > than pot.. which is true.. Tylenol is disasterous to the organs > if taken too long. - - - March 24, 2007 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17760130/ - - - Excerpts: ... used three factors to determine the harm associated with any drug: o the physical harm to the user, o the drug's potential for addiction, and o the impact on society of drug use. The researchers asked two groups of experts — psychiatrists specializing in addiction and legal or police officials with scientific or medical expertise — to assign scores to 20 different drugs ... Most dangerous drugs Research recently published in the medical journal The Lancet rates the most dangerous drugs (starting with the worst) as follows: 1. Heroin 2. Cocaine 3. Barbiturates (sedatives) 4. Street methadone (opioid) 5. Alcohol 6. Ketamine (anesthetic) 7. Benzodiazepines (sedatives) 8. Amphetamine ("speed") 9. Tobacco 10. Buprenorphine (opioid) 11. Cannabis 12. Solvents 13. 4-methylthioamphetamine (amphetamine derivative) 14. LSD 15. Methylphenidate (i.e. Ritalin®) 16. Anabolic steroids 17. GHB ("date-rape drug") 18. Ecstasy 19. Alkyl nitrates (nitrite inhalants, "poppers") 20. Khat (plant-derived stimulant) - - - http://stopthedrugwar.org/home - - - Excerpts: ... Clinton Promises to End Federal Raids on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Posted in Chronicle Blog by Scott Morgan on Wed, 07/18/2007 - 8:13pm Hillary Clinton continues to get the drug policy questions right: During a visit to Manchester, New Hampshire on July 13, Len Epstein of Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana told the senator and presi- dential candidate: "Twelve states allow med- ical marijuana, but the Bush administrations continues to raid patients." Clinton replied: "Yes, I know. It's terrible." "Would you stop the federal raids?" Epstein asked. "Yes, I will," she responded firmly. [MPP] As I've said before, it's exciting to hear the democratic front-runner taking the right posi- tions on our issues. Clinton has now pledged to fight racial profiling, reform the crack/pow- der sentencing disparity, promote treatment instead of incarceration, and now vows to end the federal war on medical marijuana patients and providers. ... Showtime's "In Pot We Trust" is a Must-see Posted in Chronicle Blog by Scott Morgan on Wed, 07/18/2007 - 4:31pm Wow, man. There's lots of heady nugs in this movie. Just pack your favorite bong, zap some popcorn, and get ready for the ride of your life. Actually, no. In Pot We Trust doesn't make you want to smoke pot. It will make you want to give all your pot to Jacqueline Patterson. Jacqueline has celebral palsy, which mani- fests itself most notably in the form of a severe stutter. When she uses medical marijuana, Jacque- line can speak much more quickly and clearly, because the drug relieves her muscle ten- sion. The difference is so obvious, I don’t know how anyone could watch this and say marijuana isn't medicine. ... The film is invaluable because patients them- selves make the best spokespeople for med- ical marijuana. The ulterior motives so often attributed to the medical marijuana legalization effort become irrelevant here, as we meet the actual people whose health and wellbeing lies at the center of this controversy. ... - - - end excerpts - - - - - - In reply to a poster who responded: > Methamphetamine is more wide spread and also is > extremely dangerous in its making process. In one > apartment where there was a meth lab... everyone in > the apartment tested possitive for the drug.. children, > old people, etc... > > Meth is simply dangerous and in no way should be > legalized. > > Tobacco and Alcohol kill far more people than any > drug on the streets though...and anything that can > alter a person enough to act out in public should not > be legalized.. LSD should not be legalized... When one is assessing risk, one must take into account the fact that drug pro- hibition is in effect, and has been in effect for a long period of time. The result? Part of the result is outlined by you above. Other results include a dramatic increase in the prison popula- tion, most of which has occurred due to imprisonment of drug users. For a comprehensive look at the issue of drug prohibition, it would be wise to take a look at how alcohol prohibition failed in the U.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States Excerpt: A quote from a letter, written in 1932, by John D. Rockefeller, Jr., a wealthy industrialist states, "When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognised. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before." - - - end excerpt - - - Then, consider the following: Arguments for and against drug prohibition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_for_and_against_drug_prohibition - - - In reply to a poster who responded: > Your argument technically doesnt work because the drugs > causing the most death at this current time are drugs that > are legal. The Lancet, a medical journal, lists alcohol at 5, tobacco at 9, cannabis at 11, and meth at 13. The argument you made says meth is bad, meth is prohibited (along with almost every drug on that top 20 list), and prohibi- tion resulted in the situation you men- tioned. Your argument fails to take into account that alcohol prohibition failed, and drug prohibition has been yet another disaster on many levels. Another flaw in your argument is the assumption that drugs 'neath prohibition are the same potency/risk as drugs 'neath legal distribution. They're not. - - - In reply to a poster who responded: > By all means, legalize weed and some other less lethal > drugs... but do not legalize meth. We should be grateful > enough that its killing as few people as possible as it is... Why is it listed as less harmful than alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis by the Lancet? You do realize that water can kill you. Rare, that, but it can happen, so don't over-drink that legal sub- stance. Use caution when ingest- and/or mixing any drug with other drugs, legal or not, especially if any of the drugs are street drugs of an unregulated nature. - - - In reply to a poster who responded: > Meth is one of those things. The war against Meth needs to > be reformated. Simple as that. Reformatted? Some meth facts: o It's available as a prescription drug, Desoxyn and Desoxyn Gradumet, used to treat Attention Deficit Hyper- activity Disorder (ADHD) and obesity after other diets or medications or procedures have failed o Amphetamines have a long history of use, perhaps going back 50,000 years * o In World War II, both Axis and Allied troops were habitually fed ampheta- mine tablets, estimated dispensing running into hundreds of millions of tablets * o From 1966 to 1969, the U.S. Army dispensed more amphetamines than all the combined forces of Great Britain and the U.S. in World War II * o Intravenous injection of ampheta- mine was used in the 1960s as a treatment for heroin addiction * * Encyclopedia of Psychoactive Substances, by Richard Rudgley - - - In reply to a poster who responded: > Your facts are silly at best. Amphetamines are ranked as 8th riskiest, meth as 13th riskiest, yet that 8th riskiest drug was pushed like candy to the military during WWII and the Vietnam war. Puts the lie to the notion that the U.S. govern- ment has any moral standing whatsoever when it comes to their drug war. That war, by the way, is a war on us, all Americans, and the prisoners of war are those drug users unfortunate enough to end up having their lives destroyed by devastating prison sentences, and in the worst cases, having their lives taken by cops or by the war on the streets caused by drug prohibition. - - - In reply to a poster who responded: > Cocaine is used in medicine but over-all the > street drug known as crank and meth is > extremely deadly and even if you were > to make it legal for people to buy at the > grocery store it would become just as > deadly. So, of the top 20, you're for prohibition of _?_ and legality of _?_. > Not only that it is hazardous to the health of > people and people around it. Prohibition worsens the problems where adults are concerned. You've mentioned decriminalization for users. Do you intend to have the drugs they use be unregulated and illegal? Wouldn't it be wiser to have them regulated, taxed, and distributed in a controlled manner, legally, along with education on the risks and benefits in- volved? - - - In reply to a poster who responded: > Drugs are ASTOUNDINGLY safe to use, > that is why so many people use them! Addendum: One final comment added on April 2, 2009: Only proper usage of any substance offers the potential for gain. Paint, for example, useful when used properly, dangerous if used improperly. Insecticides, well, the ones that don't harm the environment, a net gain, the ones that do, many of them have been legitimately banned. Alcohol and drugs, little is said by the drug war types about the gains they provide, -but- loads of propaganda are pushed about the abuse of such substances. Cigarettes, can be addictive. I didn't get addicted to them when I dabbled with their usage. Pot, when I dabbled with that, I was surprised that its effect was so innocuous. Alcohol, before my pre- scription for antidepressants in 2005, it was the primary reason I stayed alive. It brought me tremendous relief from life-long depression. I use much less, now, simply because after taking the antidepressants that worked, I no longer suffer from depression. Other drugs, legal and illegal, there is valuable information on the web about them, and the greatest risk, now, is due to the drug war on the American people, the unregulated distribution of those drugs, the criminal environ- ment entailed in the distribution of those drugs, the insane and unjust imprisonment of the users of those drugs. Drug prohibition, end it. Drugs, regulate and distribute them. Patrick Henry quote : "Give me liberty, or give me death", should inspire us to find a much better way of dealing with usage of substances than we have to-date. - - -