Marijuana is a Schedule I drug.  Which means according to the DEA/U.S. government it is worse than cocaine, methadone, PCP, oxycodone, morphine, Xanax, etc.  Before the NFL would ever permit marijuana use the U.S. government needs to relax the restrictions to at least a Schedule II then maybe we might get better research into possible medicinal uses.

Regarding addiction, we have a epidemic of narcotic addiction in this country.  There is a difference between addiction and physical dependence.  If you take narcotics regularly you will become physically dependent upon them and if not weaned off will go through withdrawal.  Addiction is when people misuse or seek controlled substances inappropriately.  It can occur while under a physician's care.

The NFL is an organization which denied repeated blows to the head had any detrimental affects upon a person's health for years.  Not only did they deny it, they actively tried to suppress the research.  So I wouldn't expect the NFL to act upon any research related to medicinal marijuana use.

(08-07-2016, 06:24 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Did you bother to look at the posters avatar? If you did, did it not occur to you that he is a Seahawks fan? 

Or, much like the majority of the Bengal fan base, do you willingly and blissfully ignore facts that don't support your beliefs? 

Using that logic you're a Bengals fan because there is a Bengals reference in your avatar.

(08-07-2016, 04:55 PM)CINwillWIN Wrote: I was reading the article on NFL.com about the suspension given for Bryant, and how the Steelers could possibly be a winning offense without him. Blah, Blah, Blah, Sammie Coats, Blah, Blah, Blah...then I read the comments from the article.



Is...this ever going to be allowed?

I don't think this will ever be allowed in my life-time. (IMHO)
The NFL represents themselves as an influential, inspirational, and family oriented event. It would send the wrong message to kids if marijuana, medicinal or not, would be allowed in the NFL.

I posted this in smack, because of the mentality of the Steelers fans...(as shown in the comment above).

if its allowed medicinal nation wide wouldn't you be able to sue your employeer for firing/punishing. you for taking a prescribed medication? 

Good discussion starter, unfortunately it being in smack means we'll have to deal with dumb bickering about teams.

Should it be allowed? Absolutely. Pot shouldn't be illegal to begin with and the league shouldn't test players as it can be great for the injuries that they get.

(08-10-2016, 08:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Good discussion starter, unfortunately it being in smack means we'll have to deal with dumb bickering about teams.

Should it be allowed? Absolutely. Pot shouldn't be illegal to begin with and the league shouldn't test players as it can be great for the injuries that they get.

Thanks for your post, along with the others above!

I think some can agree it might have a use in the league, but the legality of the issue is null. 

Honestly wanted to hear from different fans' perspective hence the 'smack talk' post...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/reefer-sadness-feds-keep-restrictions-143632589.html

Quote:The federal government reconfirmed Thursday that it believes there is insufficient evidence to show that marijuana’s “known risks” outweigh any “specific benefits” its use might offer. The Drug Enforcement Administration concluded that weed has no “currently accepted medical use’” because its “chemistry is not known and reproducible; there are no adequate safety studies; there are no adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy; the drug is not accepted by qualified experts; and the scientific evidence is not widely available.”

Unbelievable.  So the DEA isn't going to reschedule marijuana because there are no adequate safety studies, but the Schedule I classification makes it almost impossible to conduct adequate safety studies.

(08-11-2016, 02:41 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: https://www.yahoo.com/news/reefer-sadness-feds-keep-restrictions-143632589.html

Unbelievable.  So the DEA isn't going to reschedule marijuana because there are no adequate safety studies, but the Schedule I classification makes it almost impossible to conduct adequate safety studies.

but cigerettes and booze are still legal?

(08-12-2016, 11:48 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: but cigerettes and booze are still legal?

It doesn't make any sense. If I suffered from chronic pain I would want to know the risks and benefits of medical marijuana versus narcotics so I could make an informed decision regarding my treatment options. 

The government makes it so difficult for researchers to conduct the studies they claim they need that the researchers don't want to deal with the bureaucracy. I think the majority of doctors believe marijuana has some medical benefits just like any other controlled substance when used in a therapeutic manner. But, I can't think of a single doctor who would say the same about tobacco or alcohol. Whoever is making these decisions is completely ignoring the science that is available. 

Additionally, the government sells the marijuana grown at the University of Mississippi to researchers overseas. Then they only report the findings which confirm their conformational bias. 

(08-12-2016, 01:20 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: It doesn't make any sense. If I suffered from chronic pain I would want to know the risks and benefits of medical marijuana versus narcotics so I could make an informed decision regarding my treatment options. 

The government makes it so difficult for researchers to conduct the studies they claim they need that the researchers don't want to deal with the bureaucracy. I think the majority of doctors believe marijuana has some medical benefits just like any other controlled substance when used in a therapeutic manner. But, I can't think of a single doctor who would say the same about tobacco or alcohol. Whoever is making these decisions is completely ignoring the science that is available. 

Additionally, the government sells the marijuana grown at the University of Mississippi to researchers overseas. Then they only report the findings which confirm their conformational bias. 

Actually a study just came out from DEA

It found: 1. No evidence it does help medically 2. Found the secondary smoke is worse than tobacco 3. Found it is an addictive drug

(08-12-2016, 01:55 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Actually a study just came out from DEA

It found: 1. No evidence it does help medically 2. Found the secondary smoke is worse than tobacco 3. Found it is an addictive drug

I would like to read that study if you would direct me to it. Thanks. 

Marijuana is a Schedule I. Cocaine is a Schedule II. Where is the research indicating marijuana is more dangerous than cocaine?  There isn't any. The reason marijuana is a Schedule I instead of a Schedule II like cocaine is for historical reasons, not medical or scientific reasons.


The DEA is bullshitting us and they think we're stupid enough to not know they are bullshitting us while they are bullshitting us.

If you have the chance or the inclination read about the history of marijuana laws in America. I thought it was really interesting and it challenged a lot of information I was taught growing up that I just assumed was true. But, it turns out much of what I was taught about marijuana is false. 

(08-12-2016, 02:32 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I would like to read that study if you would direct me to it. Thanks. 

They discussed it yesterday or day before on "the Five". They cited the DEA recent study as the source

(08-12-2016, 05:42 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: They discussed it yesterday or day before on "the Five". They cited the DEA recent study as the source

I googled, "the five dea study" and didn't see it.

But, I did find this.

Quote:The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration for the first time approved smoking marijuana as legitimate medical research.

That article is dated April 22nd, 2016 so clinical trials wouldn't be over yet, let alone published.

A long time ago in another lifetime when I was a young man in the Army, I would hear 'AR so and so says blah, blah, blah.'  I'd say, "Show me."  The majority of the time they couldn't or they were wrong.  I don't know who "the Five" is, but I already don't trust their information.  That isn't a veiled insult at you, so please don't take it that way.  I'm legitimately interested in reading the study.

(08-12-2016, 02:53 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Marijuana is a Schedule I. Cocaine is a Schedule II. Where is the research indicating marijuana is more dangerous than cocaine?  There isn't any. The reason marijuana is a Schedule I instead of a Schedule II like cocaine is for historical reasons, not medical or scientific reasons.


The DEA is bullshitting us and they think we're stupid enough to not know they are bullshitting us while they are bullshitting us.

If you have the chance or the inclination read about the history of marijuana laws in America. I thought it was really interesting and it challenged a lot of information I was taught growing up that I just assumed was true. But, it turns out much of what I was taught about marijuana is false. 

Damn cotton farmers.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

(08-12-2016, 01:20 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: It doesn't make any sense. If I suffered from chronic pain I would want to know the risks and benefits of medical marijuana versus narcotics so I could make an informed decision regarding my treatment options. 

The government makes it so difficult for researchers to conduct the studies they claim they need that the researchers don't want to deal with the bureaucracy. I think the majority of doctors believe marijuana has some medical benefits just like any other controlled substance when used in a therapeutic manner. But, I can't think of a single doctor who would say the same about tobacco or alcohol. Whoever is making these decisions is completely ignoring the science that is available. 

Additionally, the government sells the marijuana grown at the University of Mississippi to researchers overseas. Then they only report the findings which confirm their conformational bias. 

There's comfirmation bias on both sides of legalization issue, however.  There's a number of pro legalization studies that revolve around bad science and going into it with a loaded agenda, too.  There are a lot of half truths put out by manipulating or misleading stats by both sides.

As far as using marijuana to treat chronic issues, it's not appealing because people quickly build a tolerance to the drug, which requires larger and larger doses to get the same effects over time.  

(08-16-2016, 05:53 PM)Whatever Wrote: There's comfirmation bias on both sides of legalization issue, however.  There's a number of pro legalization studies that revolve around bad science and going into it with a loaded agenda, too.  There are a lot of half truths put out by manipulating or misleading stats by both sides.

As far as using marijuana to treat chronic issues, it's not appealing because people quickly build a tolerance to the drug, which requires larger and larger doses to get the same effects over time.  

I agree with your first paragraph. It ranges from opponents like the DEA chief claiming medicinal marijuana is "a joke" to proponents like Tommy Chong at one point claiming it cured his prostate cancer. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle and we need more research. 

Narcotics have the same tolerance issue, they cause physical dependence, possibly withdrawal if suddenly discontinued, the potential for addiction, and I believe there were about 14,000 deaths due to narcotics last year in the U.S. alone. 

(08-16-2016, 06:05 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I agree with your first paragraph. It ranges from opponents like the DEA chief claiming medicinal marijuana is "a joke" to proponents like Tommy Chong at one point claiming it cured his prostate cancer. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle and we need more research. 

Narcotics have the same tolerance issue, they cause physical dependence, possibly withdrawal if suddenly discontinued, the potential for addiction, and I believe there were about 14,000 deaths due to narcotics last year in the U.S. alone. 

Ah, but that's a misleading statistic.  There is no national standard for what classifies a drug as a narcotic, and what qualifies varies by area.  In some places, any illegal drug including pot is considered a narcotic.  Typically, there are between 18-34 drugs classified as narcotics, so we're talking less than 400-800 deaths per year, on average, per drug.  It's a loaded argument to compare a single drug to an entire classification of drugs, in any case.  Weed is involved in over 2,000 traffic deaths a year, so is it more dangerous than the average narcotic?  Illicit drugs like heroin are commonly classified as narcotics, so how do they impact those statistics as compared to prescription painkillers?  Also, keep in mind that psychological addiction is harder to break over time than physical.

(08-16-2016, 11:12 PM)Whatever Wrote: Ah, but that's a misleading statistic.  There is no national standard for what classifies a drug as a narcotic, and what qualifies varies by area.  In some places, any illegal drug including pot is considered a narcotic.  Typically, there are between 18-34 drugs classified as narcotics, so we're talking less than 400-800 deaths per year, on average, per drug.  It's a loaded argument to compare a single drug to an entire classification of drugs, in any case.  Weed is involved in over 2,000 traffic deaths a year, so is it more dangerous than the average narcotic?  Illicit drugs like heroin are commonly classified as narcotics, so how do they impact those statistics as compared to prescription painkillers?  Also, keep in mind that psychological addiction is harder to break over time than physical.

Where are the studies indicating people using medicinal marijuana develop tolerance and require more and more marijuana to treat their chronic medical condition and the studies indicating it is psychologically addictive?

Please bear in mind physical dependence and addiction are two separate things. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-addiction/201007/physical-addiction-or-psychological-addiction-is-there-real

And according the CDC, the number of deaths due to opioid analgesics in 2014 was 18,893. I don't know where you got your information there is no national standard for what is a narcotic, but there are medical standards on what a opioid analgesic is. 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/health_policy/AADR_drug_poisoning_involving_OA_Heroin_US_2000-2014.pdf

(08-12-2016, 05:42 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: They discussed it yesterday or day before on "the Five". They cited the DEA recent study as the source

Using Fox's "The Five" as a source of information.

I have asked to see three studies supporting three claims. I have yet to see any of those studies.

That's my point. I've been told the same information since I was a kid and I took it at face value. But, as an adult in the healthcare industry, when I started looking for the studies that supported these claims it turns out much of the claims are unsubstantiated. Much of it is misinformation which can be traced back to Henry Anslinger.