Fmr Browns coach Rutigliano: "relaxing NFL rules on marijuana would be a 'catastrophe"

[badnews]

Thank you! I think I had finally got that song out of my head only last week....

 

[tonyl711]

Which is why there are harsh penalties like I pointed out.

but you say that its ok to drink, then sound as if you think smoking weed is going o somehow make you a drug addict or something, im wondering how? I see alcohol as a lot orse for you than pot, I have used both, and I can honestly say that I am much more in control of my actions when getting high as opposed to when I get drunk. alcohol has made me do things that I never would have done sober, pot has never done that to me. I knows it just my personal opinion, but I gave up drinking because of the way it made me feel the next day and not liking how I acted sometimes when drinking, go to a bar and stay sober one night, watch the transformation in everyone else as they get drunk. pot I really don't see myself stopping it because I don't see any negative results and I have been getting high for about 30 years now.

 

[The Rammer]

It's so stupid having weed as a illegal drug, anybody in their right might would see this.Having weed as a class 1 drug alongside coke and heroine is ludacris as well. Our government wants to keep it illegal for obvious reasons.

 

[-X-]

but you say that its ok to drink, then sound as if you think smoking weed is going o somehow make you a drug addict or something, im wondering how? I see alcohol as a lot orse for you than pot, I have used both, and I can honestly say that I am much more in control of my actions when getting high as opposed to when I get drunk. alcohol has made me do things that I never would have done sober, pot has never done that to me. I knows it just my personal opinion, but I gave up drinking because of the way it made me feel the next day and not liking how I acted sometimes when drinking, go to a bar and stay sober one night, watch the transformation in everyone else as they get drunk. pot I really don't see myself stopping it because I don't see any negative results and I have been getting high for about 30 years now.

+1

When I was younger I used to drink quite a bit, and I (or one of my friends) would get in a bar fight or a party brawl at least once a week.
Years later, after I tapered off the drinking and switched over to herb, I had no interest in it whatsoever. In fact, I broke up a few fights instead.

"What's all the hostility about, dudes? Chilllllllllllllllllllllll."

 

[lockdnram21]

aint nothing wrong witha little Gonja. It aint never hurt nobody.

 

[HometownBoy]

An old white man sees things in an old white man view. More at 11.

 

[RamzFanz]

There is evidence on both sides of the "gateway drug" discussion, enough on either side that there is enough of a risk that I would prefer it was discouraged among athletes during their career. Also the message to kids is a very valid point and is one I hadn't actually thought of.

I agree that it won't lead to increased usage since penalties would still be in place, and I also agree that as more states make it legal it'll be hard to drop the hammer on a guy who lives and plays in several places where it's no longer against the law.

It's a tough one, but it isn't going to change for 8 more years or so since the CBA is already in place. I suppose they could change the rule anyway but I hope it stays as is for now at least.

If it's not tested and punished, it would have no effect on kids as they would probably never know some players use it. They don't test and punish alcohol. How many kids drink because their sports idol does?

From much personal knowledge myself with friends (I went to highschool in Hawaii), I would come down on the side that it's not a gateway drug. People who smoke pot only smoke pot only. People who do harder drugs, will also often do pot. The only reason they will often do pot FIRST, IMHO, is because it's cheap and easily found.

In real world perspective, I have zero issues with pot. I know many people who function 100 times better because of it. Self treating things like ADD successfully without Pharms that are far far worse for you long term. I have a good friend, a self made person, worth over 100 million who can't focus without a little weed. I hate when he drinks. True story.

Most drugs, especially booze, are destructive. If I were to choose one that was the least, it would be weed. And I really don't like weed at all. I wish I did.

The US needs to grow up and stop promoting myths that originated from racism. It's just not smart.

/end rant/

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

The trouble with weed from an employers point of view is that many pot smokers will light up before work, at lunch, and after work. Unless your company has a random drug testing policy you cannot prevent it. If a guy comes into work drunk it is obvious, but if he comes in mildly high it is subtle. So the cool high guy is on the floor running machinery and is a safety risk to himself and coworkers. Plus he lights up after work and drives home high. I dont want to leave the parking lot with him. And I don't want to be on the road with him.

If pot smokers would just treat it the way that most of the multitude of alcohol drinkers do and take part after hours, then fine. My wife and I don't make unnecessary errands on Friday, Saturday, and Holiday nights. You can avoid being on the road for the most part. Nobody should drive drunk, but they shouldnt drive high either. But so many pot smokers think there is nothing wrong with it. I had young men on my crew and they smoked throughout the day. If I was certain enough, like I caught them in the act, I could send them home. Otherwise I was powerless and honestly wasn't able to tell if they were high most of the time because they were high so often that it was hard to detect. But that didn't mean they were not safety risks. We had a full size backhoe that we operated in a local park/rec facility. People would walk and drive by it and it took awareness and quick reaction to avoid them at times. I found a pipe made out of a soda can in the tractor. It was crushed but I learned to check such things. I couldn't prove who's it was so I sent them all home. It made me sick. I wanted to kick the shit out of the dickhead that did it. If he was drunk I could clearly tell with no need of a drug test.

If I am paying someone to work for me I don't want them to be pot smokers. If I am paying them millions to be the best football players in the world, then I don't want them to be chronic pot smokers. If it is recreational and not daily then fine. I also don't want a daily drinker on my team. With many of the players, once it is 'okay', I think there will be an increased frequency of use. And I don't care what any potheads say, their reaction time is slowed and their thought process is retarded, not just when high, but from chronic use. If I was an NFL owner I would not lighten up the policy.

 

[thirteen28]

The war on drugs is an utter failure; the war on weed is absolute insanity. Prohibition works about as good now as it did in the 1920's, i.e. not at all.

It's no more of a gateway drug than masturbation is a gateway to rape.

The NFL can do what they want, whether weed is legal or not. Doesn't necessarily mean they should though.

 

[DR RAM]

The trouble with weed from an employers point of view is that many pot smokers will light up before work, at lunch, and after work. Unless your company has a random drug testing policy you cannot prevent it. If a guy comes into work drunk it is obvious, but if he comes in mildly high it is subtle. So the cool high guy is on the floor running machinery and is a safety risk to himself and coworkers. Plus he lights up after work and drives home high. I dont want to leave the parking lot with him. And I don't want to be on the road with him.

If pot smokers would just treat it the way that most of the multitude of alcohol drinkers do and take part after hours, then fine. My wife and I don't make unnecessary errands on Friday, Saturday, and Holiday nights. You can avoid being on the road for the most part. Nobody should drive drunk, but they shouldnt drive high either. But so many pot smokers think there is nothing wrong with it. I had young men on my crew and they smoked throughout the day. If I was certain enough, like I caught them in the act, I could send them home. Otherwise I was powerless and honestly wasn't able to tell if they were high most of the time because they were high so often that it was hard to detect. But that didn't mean they were not safety risks. We had a full size backhoe that we operated in a local park/rec facility. People would walk and drive by it and it took awareness and quick reaction to avoid them at times. I found a pipe made out of a soda can in the tractor. It was crushed but I learned to check such things. I couldn't prove who's it was so I sent them all home. It made me sick. I wanted to kick the crap out of the dickhead that did it. If he was drunk I could clearly tell with no need of a drug test.

If I am paying someone to work for me I don't want them to be pot smokers. If I am paying them millions to be the best football players in the world, then I don't want them to be chronic pot smokers. If it is recreational and not daily then fine. I also don't want a daily drinker on my team. With many of the players, once it is 'okay', I think there will be an increased frequency of use. And I don't care what any potheads say, their reaction time is slowed and their thought process is retarded, not just when high, but from chronic use. If I was an NFL owner I would not lighten up the policy.

I think you make some great points. Nice post.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

I wonder what coaches think of it. Maybe they should be lighting up too. "Practice? Screw practice, let's go eat!".

I guess in the End if it affects a players performance he will get benched, or cut. I just hope it is a replaceable player.

It is sad that while Pot is still against the rules, not to mention illegal, that a twenty something young man with potential to earn millions and have a promising career, thinks smoking pot is so important to him that he will risk his career. It also speaks of their character that smoking is more important than their obligation to the team, coaches, franchise.

 

[Mojo Ram]

I think you make some great points. Nice post.

From an employers POV...sure.

 

[LesBaker]

An old white man sees things in an old white man view. More at 11.

What does his race have to do with his opinion.......

Would an old black man see things differently or an old Indian.

Shame on you.

 

[Thordaddy]

The trouble with weed from an employers point of view is that many pot smokers will light up before work, at lunch, and after work. Unless your company has a random drug testing policy you cannot prevent it. If a guy comes into work drunk it is obvious, but if he comes in mildly high it is subtle. So the cool high guy is on the floor running machinery and is a safety risk to himself and coworkers. Plus he lights up after work and drives home high. I dont want to leave the parking lot with him. And I don't want to be on the road with him.

If pot smokers would just treat it the way that most of the multitude of alcohol drinkers do and take part after hours, then fine. My wife and I don't make unnecessary errands on Friday, Saturday, and Holiday nights. You can avoid being on the road for the most part. Nobody should drive drunk, but they shouldnt drive high either. But so many pot smokers think there is nothing wrong with it. I had young men on my crew and they smoked throughout the day. If I was certain enough, like I caught them in the act, I could send them home. Otherwise I was powerless and honestly wasn't able to tell if they were high most of the time because they were high so often that it was hard to detect. But that didn't mean they were not safety risks. We had a full size backhoe that we operated in a local park/rec facility. People would walk and drive by it and it took awareness and quick reaction to avoid them at times. I found a pipe made out of a soda can in the tractor. It was crushed but I learned to check such things. I couldn't prove who's it was so I sent them all home. It made me sick. I wanted to kick the crap out of the dickhead that did it. If he was drunk I could clearly tell with no need of a drug test.

If I am paying someone to work for me I don't want them to be pot smokers. If I am paying them millions to be the best football players in the world, then I don't want them to be chronic pot smokers. If it is recreational and not daily then fine. I also don't want a daily drinker on my team. With many of the players, once it is 'okay', I think there will be an increased frequency of use. And I don't care what any potheads say, their reaction time is slowed and their thought process is retarded, not just when high, but from chronic use. If I was an NFL owner I would not lighten up the policy.

Gnome I've had the same experiences with alcohol and although you may think you can detect it you can't with the reliability you think, when they are hammered sure but buzzed is a lot less apparent and I've had guys who hid bottles at work and would consume about an oz of alcohol an hour and I didn't catch on, same with drivers , once they left the plant there was no way unless you caught up to them and tested them.
One of the things you do when hiring people is tell them ,if you get hurt the first thing you'll get is a drug test same if you hurt someone else, if you are drunk or stoned the insurance company will deny you coverage or you will be charged with reckless endangerment of your fellow employees.
The NFL will likely secure the right to test on suspicion , but the current rules that try to govern a players time off with thresholds that detect and punish even when the player isn't under the influence are so antithetical to the spirit of our legal system basic premise of presumption of innocence it's a travesty.
We've gone too far down the road of trying to protect people from themselves in this country and created a government in the process we need protection from , but there is nothing to protect us from it,their investigative methods have gone full on into entrapment which when I was a child was such a taboo police officer prosecutors even judges lost their jobs over it,now it's SOP.
We learned the lesson of prohibition way faster about alcohol ,which is one of the reasons I believe this current living populous is less intelligent than those ,but we sure as hell think were smarter and keep legislating all these laws protecting people from their own bad decisions.
Nah man if player X goes home after a Sunday game and smokes his brains out to unwind and sooth the pain and he doesn't take harder more damaging drugs to come down (BTW I consider alcohol a harder more damaging drug) or to soothe his pain (massive NSAIDS) it's a good thing, if he comes to work high ,really high, I'd be able to tell as fast as if he was drunk and IMO teams SHOULD be able to ascertain a player isn't high on anything when he's playing,so set the rules to where they govern what the league has the right to govern and go on.

I'll stop with that 2cents worth,,but I've got $1,000 worth to say on this subject as in the war on drugs should be converted into a war on politicians who profit from it and it would be over in less than two years.

 

[Thordaddy]

What does his race have to do with his opinion.......

Would an old black man see things differently or an old Indian.

Shame on you.

Whoa now Les, I think he's absolutely correct,there is a distinct element to this that would tend to change your perspective based on race.
Item: You can't have a "War on Drugs" they are inanimate objects that can't fight they do nothing but for the actions of people, so it is a war on people, if you want to know what or which people a war is being conducted against take a look at the POW's,the fact that on old white man has like a 10% chance of having a grandson who's done time for drugs compared to an old black man isn't something IMA let any PC standards make me ignore the expected effects on their perspective.
I completely detest Jesse Jackson but in the instance of drug enforcement his hyperbole that "We didn't land on Plymouth Rock, it landed on us" rings pretty damned true to me.
Actuarialy speaking ,old white men don't live in drug ravaged neighborhoods at the rate old black men do ,they just don't,the efforts to have a color blind society don't have to make ya blind to the different experiences your color hand you and how they effect your perspective. I gave that post a like and stand by it.

 

[PhxRam]

The "gateway drug" argument is so played out.

 

[Thordaddy]

The "gateway drug" argument is so played out.

Yeah ,if you smoke pot you went through the gate before then,probably with a bottle of beer ,spinning out in the front yard until you were dizzy fell down and laughed your ass off.

Gotta rid ourselves of the lies before we can get to the truth,which is pot, opium ,shrooms didn't destroy civilization before we came along in the 20th century in all our intellectual arrogance and outlawed them, but our prohibition is doing a hell of a job of it.

 

[DR RAM]

From an employers POV...sure.

Yes. I have no problem with someone using it for pain, comfort, or recreationaly, yes, I made that word up, but I didn't even want to use it while I was still playing sports. It doesn't help you perform better, that is for sure, and if I was getting paid big bucks, and know that I could get tested, I think it's irresponsible to use, because of the possible detriment to your team.

 

[thirteen28]

Well, if we're going to have this thread, then we need to have this clip from Walk Hard: