///M wrote:
It's all about the money. Marajuana is in direct competition with the alcohol industry. The alcohol industry has big bucks lobbying congress to keep marajuana illegal. Also, alcohol is heavily taxed, so if marajuana was ever legal, then people would grow it themselves; therefore, less tax money.
Money doesn't convince the lobbied. Evidence, persuasive arguments, and facts do.
cowboybob wrote:
Hey, if you are old enough to vote, do so and tell all your friends and playmates to do the same. New generation, new rules and new legislation. Until then, it is illegal...
Young people have been smoking dope pretty consistently since he 60's, and yet, it isn't close to being legal. When you grow up and have some kids, your perspective will change. All at once you'll start looking at all your failure former friends who are still dopeheads, and you'll ask yourself if you want the same for your kids. Yeah, they may dabble in it, but if it were being sold at the local 7-11, it could easily become a problem.
Then why is tobacco still legal? I think there is overwhelming evidence that it is harmful to the body. It is because the tax revenue and the big bucks the lobbyist pay to keep it legal.
cowboybob wrote:
Hey, if you are old enough to vote, do so and tell all your friends and playmates to do the same. New generation, new rules and new legislation. Until then, it is illegal...
What fairy tale land are you living in? You think a vote is going to make it legal?
The people of California voted to make it legal but the federal government does not recognize it as so. So much for the vote.
The OP didn't ask why it was illegal, so stop talking about that. Why is it banned in competition? It provides no benefit. I get that they want athletes to be good role models, but why test for marijuana?
The NBA does not test for weed. It is the drug of choice for most professional basketball players. It would be nice if the IAAF could be as enlightened. You can drink yourself to death ala Mickey Mantle, but smoking mj is bad? I do not get it.
I have to say that just because tobacco is worse than weed, logic doesn't follow that weed should be legal. Say you have 5 bad things. If you make one of them illegal, that is still good progress.
I have heard weed in a performance enhancer in the sense that it calms nerves, for things like marksmen, or gymnasts.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
...and as it involves smoking, bad for your running!
not really.
http://www.gotvape.com/asdfasdf wrote:
read it again wrote:And what does that have to do with the OP's post or the reply?
1) It's a statement like "not one death recorded from chronic cigarette smoking". You can't point at any one lung cancer patient death and say it's absolutely because of smoking, because plenty of people who don't smoke get lung cancer as well. It's an argument that's semantically correct but at its core misleading. Chronic marijuana usage certainly is associated with a number of health problems. I support its legalization because it's an expensive fight that can't be won and I don't think the government should be legislating what we put into our bodies good or bad, but it certainly isn't good for you.
2) Mumia was guilty.
If you would actually do some reading every once and a whole you would see a medical study was published recently showing that there are no major health risks attributed to long term use with marijuana.
There are numerous studies that show that cigarette smoke and marijuana smoke have a similar make-up. (Actually more benzopyrene in marijuana than tobacco) In addition, there are numerous studies to show that marijuana smoke has shown to damage DNA in lung cells at a greater rate than tobacco. A probable cause of lung cancer. Be sure to look at long term effect on hormone production in marijuana smokers.
Marijuana is a banned substance because, as some have already said, it is beneficial to certain athletic areas. (shooting e.g.) I don't think we do event or sport specific testing in the OG.
I'm no goody two shoes, but major dopers need to get a grip on this whole legalization of pot issue. If you think the medicianl marijuana gig works in CA you are out of your minds.
asdfasdf wrote:
read it again wrote:And what does that have to do with the OP's post or the reply?
1) It's a statement like "not one death recorded from chronic cigarette smoking". You can't point at any one lung cancer patient death and say it's absolutely because of smoking, because plenty of people who don't smoke get lung cancer as well. It's an argument that's semantically correct but at its core misleading. Chronic marijuana usage certainly is associated with a number of health problems. I support its legalization because it's an expensive fight that can't be won and I don't think the government should be legislating what we put into our bodies good or bad, but it certainly isn't good for you.
2) Mumia was guilty.
Actually, it's been widely proven that marijuana IS IN FACT good for you. Studies done by the science and medical departments at various institutions such as UMichigan, UPenn, UCLA, have shown marijuana does no long-term damage to the lungs or heart, and long-term use has been linked to increased lung capacity. THC (the main chemical in marijuana-what causes the "high") has also shown to stimulate brain cell growth. This is in addition to the plethora of other medical (both psychological and physiological) benefits that myriad studies have already proven marijuana has. So perhaps its banned because it is too good for you.
asdfasdf wrote:
read it again wrote:And what does that have to do with the OP's post or the reply?
1) It's a statement like "not one death recorded from chronic cigarette smoking". You can't point at any one lung cancer patient death and say it's absolutely because of smoking, because plenty of people who don't smoke get lung cancer as well. It's an argument that's semantically correct but at its core misleading. Chronic marijuana usage certainly is associated with a number of health problems. I support its legalization because it's an expensive fight that can't be won and I don't think the government should be legislating what we put into our bodies good or bad, but it certainly isn't good for you.
2) Mumia was guilty.
Actually, it's been widely proven that marijuana IS IN FACT good for you. Studies done by the science and medical departments at various institutions such as UMichigan, UPenn, UCLA, have shown marijuana does no long-term damage to the lungs or heart, and long-term use has been linked to increased lung capacity. THC (the main chemical in marijuana-what causes the "high") has also shown to stimulate brain cell growth. This is in addition to the plethora of other medical (both psychological and physiological) benefits that myriad studies have already proven marijuana has. So perhaps its banned because it is too good for you.
Twitched wrote:
///M wrote:It's all about the money. Marajuana is in direct competition with the alcohol industry. The alcohol industry has big bucks lobbying congress to keep marajuana illegal. Also, alcohol is heavily taxed, so if marajuana was ever legal, then people would grow it themselves; therefore, less tax money.
Money doesn't convince the lobbied. Evidence, persuasive arguments, and facts do.
We live in a capitalist country. If you honestly think money isn't what convinces the lobbied you need to wake up an look at the facts. Why do you think cigarettes are still legal even though they have the most annual deaths DIRECTLY linked to them each year? Because the tobacco industry is probably the biggest money maker consistently in history. Money is just about the only thing that motivates the politicians that run our country.
asdfasdf wrote:
read it again wrote:And what does that have to do with the OP's post or the reply?
1) It's a statement like "not one death recorded from chronic cigarette smoking". You can't point at any one lung cancer patient death and say it's absolutely because of smoking, because plenty of people who don't smoke get lung cancer as well. It's an argument that's semantically correct but at its core misleading. Chronic marijuana usage certainly is associated with a number of health problems. I support its legalization because it's an expensive fight that can't be won and I don't think the government should be legislating what we put into our bodies good or bad, but it certainly isn't good for you.
2) Mumia was guilty.
I think he's just pointing out that marijuana has no known lethal dosage as opposed to other hard drugs and alcohol.
I was under the impression that marijuana could be used as a masking agent for other PEDs. Maybe I misunderstood what I read though.
ray wrote:
If you think the medicianl marijuana gig works in CA you are out of your minds.
Could you please elaborate? I live on the east coast so I don't have much perspective on medical marijuana in CA.
Most of you are arguing about a false assumption. Under the WADA rules, pot is banned IN COMPETITION. It is not banned out of competition.
Under the current WADA rule, you can get high on your own time. You can't be high while competing.
Really not saying that's good or bad. My own experience is that pot seems to turn people into lazy losers which probably isn't good for training, but maybe they were going to be lazy losers to begin with. But anyhow, it's only banned in competition.
What USADA says:
Substances and Methods Prohibited In-Competition
This section focuses on substances that are prohibited only in-competition. These substances may be used when athletes are not competing. USADA does not test for these substances out-of-competition. It is very important to be aware of the definition of “in-competition.” Each International Federation may have a different definition of “in-competition” and it may vary by event. For some events, “in-competition” may be defined as “12 hours before the start of the competition” and different rules may apply to multi-day events (for example, the Olympic Games). It is very important for athletes to understand the definition of “in-competition” for the sporting events in which they compete. Athletes must ensure that all substances prohibited in-competition have completely cleared from their body before competition. If this is not possible, or if the chronic use of one or more of these medications is needed, the athlete should apply for a Therapeutic Use Exemption.
...
S8. Cannabinoids
Natural or synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and THC-like cannabinoids (e.g. hashish, marijuana, HU-210) are prohibited.
Advisory:
1. Athletes should be aware that cannabinoids may be retained in fat tissue following chronic use and may be detected weeks after use. There have been situations where sudden weight loss has caused cannabinoid metabolites stored in fat to be released in detectable levels. USADA strongly advises athletes not to use cannabinoids at any time.
http://www.usada.org/prohibited-list/athlete-guide/
However, you will be glad to know that