Well now we need a back up RB

[Guest]

@pumpf

We already know the long term effects of alcohol yet it's legal. The only reason to not legalize is we'd empty the for profit penal system. It's a complete farce that alcohol is legal and far more lethal than marijuana.

[Guest]

@ArizonaViking said:
What's really sad is Thomas is a borderline player bouncing between the active roster and the practice squad.  You would think he would have more incentive to avoid these types of situations with his slim NFL career.

True and I understand that your "sad" remark is for his hopes of a football career - but from the perspective of impact on this team, this changes little about the Vikings' needs. Unless Latavius Murray surprisingly returns, we already needed more than Boone, Abdullah - or Thomas - to backup Dalvin Cook.

[Guest]

The long term effects of breathing are always fatal.

[Guest]

I'd agree that the personal effects of pot are well known. It's been used longer by humans than many pharmaceuticals and pills that are studied for approval. We know it's risks, we know it's benefits...

I'd agree that we have no idea what the social ramifications actually are. A lot of people take the "lazy/happy" stereotype and believe suddenly everyone will chill out and get along. I think that's a fantasy. When paranoia starts to creep in and everyone is entrenched in their own beliefs where do we go? When we're all stoned and in a place where we still don't want to agree what then?

Another odd thing from me; I think it's a lowkey performance enhancer. Athletes under the influence is a strange subject because it's easy to assume it just puts you at a disadvantage. It may not be for someone with a low tolerance, but for those who use often it often is described as a substance that narrows the mind and allows for a state of hyper focus. These athletes have the muscle memory and the skill to sleep walk through what they do - with some weed and some real motivation (loving the game) they can flip a mental switch and just go to work.

[Guest]

@pumpf, let's just say "the powers that be" were allowed to suddenly make booze illegal.  Many employers would probably have to follow suit and also enforce this law in their terms of employment by saying employees can't have traces of alcohol in their bloodstream.  If found, they're fired.

I'd be willing to bet people making/drinking home brews, wines, and various forms of moonshine would easily outnumber those that are smoking weed illegally.

Lots of people like catching a buzz, and booze is by far the number 1 choice.  Most everyone is Ok with that because it's legal.

[Guest]

@"BarrNone55" said:
@pumpf

We already know the long term effects of alcohol yet it's legal. The only reason to not legalize is we'd empty the for profit penal system. It's a complete farce that alcohol is legal and far more lethal than marijuana.

So... making ANOTHER problematic substance legal... is a good idea?  That'd be like drafting a fast WR with no hands and no route running ability... because we've already done it.

Seriously, though: here's a science-based article (which I happened upon during my noon perusing of the internet) about this very discussion.  I'd be curious to hear some science-based rebuttals from the Pro-Legalization crowd:
https://thefederalist.com/2019/03/07/7-arguments-legalizing-marijuana-no-one-believe/

[Guest]

From the article:


Whatever
you think about marijuana legalization, it’s important to avoid making bad
arguments. There may be good reasons to legalize marijuana. But if there are,
the following arguments shouldn’t be considered to be among them.


1.
‘Marijuana Is Harmless’


This is perhaps the worst
argument in favor of legalization. It is a well-established fact that marijuana
use carries significant negative health effects, particularly to mental health.
For instance, a 2017 review of research by
the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found that “there
is substantial evidence of a statistical association between cannabis use and
the development of schizophrenia or other psychoses, with the highest risk
among the most frequent users.”


Along those lines, the authors of one study boldly concluded that “evidence
from epidemiologic studies provides strong enough evidence to warrant a public
health message that cannabis use can increase the risk of psychotic disorders.”
Other studies have found a strong link between marijuana use and mood disorders and suicidal
ideation, addiction, altered brain activity, decreased executive function, damage to the brain
(particularly white matter), and negative effects on learning, memory, and attention,
among other things. Need I say more?


The science is very clear:
marijuana is not harmless. It is a
performance-degrading drug that can significantly damage one’s mental health.


“But
what about medical marijuana!?” Well, the term “medical marijuana” is
misleading because it is not actually the marijuana plant that has medicinal
properties, but cannabinoids (namely CBD and THC) found within the plant. Some
research shows these cannabinoids can help with pain management, nausea and
vomiting, and multiple sclerosis spasticity.


We shouldn’t oppose
research and development of cannabinoid-based prescription medicines, provided
they go through the same rigorous regulatory process by which other medicines
are approved. Indeed, several already exist: dronabinol, nabilone, and
epidiolex are all cannabinoid medicines at various stages of FDA approval.
While medical marijuana of this kind is unobjectionable and ought to be
supported, the raw marijuana plant is not medicine.


We
also need to weigh the alleged benefits of marijuana against its negative
health effects. Given the strong scientific consensus in favor of adverse
health effects, is it really all worth it? And should we really start
legalizing marijuana before these effects are known in detail and among the
broader public?

[Guest]

From the same article...


3. ‘Marijuana Legalization Will Increase Tax Revenue’

Any tax revenue generated by legalization will be outweighed by its social costs, which are several times greater than its alleged benefits. A recent study conducted by the Centennial Institute looked at Colorado’s legalization regime and found that for every $1 of tax revenue generated by marijuana taxes, Coloradans paid $4.50 to mitigate marijuana-related social costs stemming from the health-care and education systems, accidental poisonings, impaired driving, and increased court costs, among other things.
Along similar lines, a study looking at the projected costs of legalization in Rhode Islandfound that even by conservative estimates, legalization would incur costs that are at least 25 percent greater than expected revenue. If making money is the goal, then legalization is self-defeating because it will cost more tax dollars than it generates. So if you consider yourself to be a fiscal conservative, then perhaps you should actually be against legalization.
Don’t believe me? Just look at alcohol. Its annual social costs are estimated to be around $250 billion, which is 15 times greater than the amount collected through local, state, and federal taxes. Not exactly a moneymaker, now is it?
Alcohol also causes more crime than all other drugs combined, due largely to its legality and widespread availability. The reason isn’t exactly rocket science: if you make something legal, then you remove barriers to procuring it, which allows more people to obtain it. And the more people who obtain it, the bigger the breeding ground for its negative effects.
So why on earth would marijuana be any different? As a legal drug, alcohol already does enough damage to society. Why we would want to make the problem worse and legalize another intoxicating, mind-altering substance?
4. ‘Alcohol Prohibition Failed, and So Is Weed Prohibition’
The idea that alcohol prohibition was an abysmal failure is a historical myth that never seems to die. Prohibition actually reduced per capita alcohol consumption by around 30–50 percent. Cirrhosis death rates (a good measure of heavy drinking), admissions to state mental hospitals for alcohol psychosis, and arrests for drunk and disorderly conduct also declined dramatically.
As Duke University economist Philip Cook explains: “the Prohibition period was associated with a substantial reduction in per capita alcohol consumption… Mortality rates from alcohol-related diseases were also lower, indicating that the prevalence of chronic heavy drinking was way down during the 1920s.”
Ah, but Prohibition significantly increased crime, right? Wrong. Violent crime remained largely constant during Prohibition. The homicide rate experienced larger increases during the pre-Prohibition period between 1900 and 1910 than during all of Prohibition. Societal and demographic changes occasioned by World War I and increased urbanization during the Roaring Twenties largely accounted for slowly rising crime rates.
What’s more, the number of jurisdictions whose crime rates were being counted also grew during this time, which generated the appearance of rising crime rates. Thus, as sociologist Douglas Eckberg points out, “apparent increases in rates of homicide in the United States between 1900 and 1933 may be illusory.” In fact, there is evidence that Prohibition had a net negative effect on the homicide rate, owing largely to decreased alcohol consumption.
So why did Prohibition end up failing? Historians generally agree that lack of attention to enforcement—and not its impracticality—constituted its downfall.

[Guest]

I really believe pot should be legalized.  The problem I have with limiting the amount a person can have is, why treat it different than alcohol?  As far as I know there is no law that says I can't have 50 cases of beer in in my basement why should they limit how much pot I have? 

Also, I completely agree with Barr, alcohol is much more lethal than pot will ever be. 

As far as corporate rules, if you want to work for a certain company you have to abide by their rules.  If I get tested positive for pot, I'm fired, just the way it is where I work.  Even if pot gets legalized they aren't going to change the company policy. 

[Guest]

@pumpf said:

So... making ANOTHER problematic substance legal... is a good idea?  That'd be like drafting a fast WR with no hands and no route running ability... because we've already done it.
 

Do you view beer, wine, and other forms of booze as a problematic substance?  I don't.  I like drinking beers, but that doesn't mean it's taking over my life.

If I wanted to take a hit or two of some weed, I think that should be within my rights too.  I'm in control of what I consume, and I'd prefer not allowing the government decide that booze is "Ok", but weed is "Bad".  It's just stupid, and I think politics has plenty to do with it.

I think stopping weed from being legal has little to do with health and more to do with big corps freaking out. 

Here's an article pointing out those that lobby against legalizing weed the most.

https://internationalhighlife.com/top-5-lobby-groups-legal-cannabis/