The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I just saw a report on the local news saying that Ricky has failed another drug test. If true, it will be his fourth failed test, and that could mean a year suspension.

Man...

     I was hoping this was a joke.  But looks like it's official

Dolphins' Williams tests positive for drug use BY JASON COLEjcole@MiamiHerald.com

  Dolphins running back Ricky Williams faces at least a one-year suspension from the NFL after testing positive for drug use a fourth time under the league's substance abuse policy.

  Two sources confirmed a report by WSVN-TV that Williams had failed the test, although neither would say the substance Williams used. On three previous occasions, Williams had tested positive for using marijuana.

  Dolphins spokesman Harvey Greene declined to comment Sunday night.

  ''Because of the confidential nature of the league's substance abuse policy, we can't comment on any aspect of that program,'' Greene said.
 
  Williams returned to the NFL this season after retiring for the 2004 season. He missed the first four games of the season and was fined an additional four weeks of salary from the second and third violations of the substance abuse program.

  Those positive tests had occurred in December 2003 and in the 2004 offseason. Williams returned to have a productive season.
Williams has spent much of the offseason in Northern California studying yoga and holistic medicine.


     Let's look at it this way, this time we're not really screwed because of this now that we have Ronnie.  Thank God for Ronnie!

That's horrible for the dolphins. At least it happened before the draft.

Main reason I'm so disgusted is that Ricky finally kept his shit together long enough to generate some trade value, and now all of that is gone.

Ricky shafted Miami twice... Sure, the Phins are far more capable of weathering his screwup now than they were last time, but it still sucks majorly.

Fuck!!!  There goes whatever trade value he had... not to mention our insurance in case Ronnie goes down.

See ya in 2007 Ricky!!!

I hate to say "I told you so..."

but...

I KNEW IT.  DAMN YOU, ASSHOLE.

Long Live Ronnie Brown.

I'd love to see what you Ricky apologists have to say now.  All you people that said "he'll never do it again," "he's a changed man," and who bashed me for continuing to hate this jackoff, and for not welcoming him back for fear that he'd jump ship again....

At least this time, it doesn't hurt as bad.  I'm just praying Ronnie stays healthy and doesn't wear down at the end of the upcoming season. 

I still love you, Ricky.
 :-*

I'm sure he'll share his bongload with you... ::)

 Â    I guess the Broncos won't take him now.  We had some trade value on this guy and lost it.  Because he decided to get back on the hippy lettuce.  Well, let's get our 8.6 million back and move on.  If Coach Saban still wants a two back system, he'll find a way to do it.

 Â Ricky shafted the Dolphins yet again, this time it doesn't hurt as bad, but I feel duped in believing that this guy had actually gotten his act together.  Well Ricky, you better apply for finacial aid at school because those yoga, aroma/massage threapy classes aren't going to be that cheap anymore.

I'm dissapointed in the Miami Dolphins franchise. Ricky Williams is a child. They knew this. How did they leave him unattended from the end of the season? They should've known he was just a fucking retarded man-child who would light up again without 24/7 supervision.

Oh well, now we get the $8.6 Million back and Ricky can't afford it, nor can he promise to play for us if we forget about it. He will have to file for bankruptcy and he will lose everything. His home, his cars, his collection of Faberge Bongs. All gone. "Up in smoke" if you will.

<--- stands and applauds Brian.....

So what's the xcuse this time? He forgot to use his masking agent?

I'm not as pissed about him failing the test...I figured he'd fall of the wagon...I am pissed we again got nothing...

New Slogan....

Long Live Ronnie....

So,Is there a hot prospect back in the later rounds of the draft?

I wonder if all those guys selling Ricky jersies on Ebay know the value of those jeresies,just fell through the Floor..AGAIN! HA...sorry that was my only joy in this....

I couldn't have said it better myself!

And when I called him Pothead all year long, what did people say? "stop hating"

dammit, I didn't have a chance to put my jersey on ebay yet!  SCREWED AGAIN!

Yeah, for the 2nd time in less than 2 years my Ricky Williams jersey is useless. I never thought my Sam Madison jersey would've outlasted him.

What a friggin tool.  His brain cells have clearly all been burnt out.

HAHAHAHA Just hurd!!! Good Ricky's a dumb ass.

I warned, warned, and warned you Dolphin fans who still loved him, and the Dolphins' organization about this.  I told you he could no longer be trusted, that he was a waste of time, but to NO AVAIL.  No one listened to me, everyone loved him again after doing stuff like throwing away his jerseys and burning them.

NOW LOOK at how stupid your organization looks.  This is worse then T.O.  This is much much worse then that.  Ricky Williams is, was, and always will be the Lawrence Phillips / Darryl Strawberry / Roy Tarpley of South Florida now - and all you gullable fans bought into it that "he's changed his ways".  Pot-heads never change, they just try to get away with it some more. 

Goodbye Williams.  You are about to become the butt of all NFL drug related jokes.  You can hide from society and move to Bangkok, but as long as I, and many other people live, you will have a permanent tattoo of shame and disgust, and it's slapped right across your stupid forehead for the whole sports world to see.  You have disgraced the National Football League and everything it stands for, and everyone who believed in you and gave you a second chance.

Don't EVER show your face on national TV again.  You have permanently lost your right to ever play professional sports, at any level, or to use your name or likeness in any way, shape, or form.  Go work at McDonalds so you can join the rest of your dope-smoking teenage pre-pubescents.

and yet, we're going to have 20 more 60 minutes updates from Mike Wallace because they have nothing better to waste their airtime on than this piece of crap.

I believe Mr. Fein, myself, and about 2 other members here never "loved him again".

We were clearly in the minority, though...

philly can i join that group

SKOLNICK: Williams saga goes in a sad direction
Published February 19, 2006, 11:35 PM EST


Let this not be true.

Let this be shoddy testing. Shady sources. Switched samples. Sabotage. Something.

Let this be some sort of explainable mistake, instead of the widely predicted end.

Say this won't stick, Rick.

Ricky Williams didn't fail another drug test. He didn't subject himself to another suspension, this one at least a year. He didn't prove right all the wiseguys who said he could never stay clean. He didn't jeopardize his financial health.

Did he?

Those were the disturbing reports Sunday, from Mile High to the Magic City. Those were the knowing chuckles from everyone who said this would happen. This observer had been one of those once. I was against his 2005 return, after he ditched the team just before 2004 began. I couldn't comprehend why Nick Saban WOULD open the guest room to the man who burned the last house down. I feared the distraction, the disruption.

I had been proven wrong.

Ricky Williams didn't just rebuild his reputation. He reinvented himself. He worked. He tutored his replacement, Ronnie Brown. He was Mr. Team Guy, far as anyone could tell. Heck, he was the co-winner of the media's Good Guy Award, for speaking openly and without end. Maybe he hadn't changed at his core. Who does? But he adapted. With debts over his head, and a contract below par for his ability, he did not complain. He made the best of it.

He got you to root for him, even if you had been reluctant.

And, for some of you at least, he did it with how he was acting as well as running.

So this isn't about the drugs, even though the drugs may have done him in again --again, if reports are true. You can take issue with the nation's marijuana laws and with the league's enforcement, and still believe that an employee should obey his profession's stated rules, especially with the alternative clearly known.

This is about a seemingly decent man continuing to do harm to himself.

So there is no shock or outrage at this news, as there was when he left teammates in a lurch in 2004.

Just disappointment, and just for Williams. For the Dolphins? Why? Many fans will bemoan the loss of Williams' trade value, but what was the most you could reasonably expect, considering Williams' circumstances? A conditional sixth? Is that the pick on which this franchise's fate will rest?

Williams is a wizard at what he does. He may not love football enough to protect his right to keep earning pay for it, but he sure can play it. He lost weight in the year off, not his natural gifts -- just ask the tacklers he juked in Jacksonville in the preseason. When he had his chance again near season's end, he was dynamic as ever, with 280 yards over his final two games. He finished with 743, on a healthy 4.4 average.

He is a more instinctive, more explosive runner than Ronnie Brown right now, but the Dolphins had too much invested in Brown to stay with Williams much longer anyway. So this won't hurt them much. They had prepared themselves for this prospect -- some would say inevitability -- in a way the previous regime could not. They knew they could lose this player, even if they chose to keep him.

The story here was about the person. It was a redeeming story, the sort of story we like to see in sports, even if we must strain to see it. That person had seemingly turned a better, less self-destructive direction. All season, during his fascinating postgame chats, Williams spoke of wearing white because it represented purity. It was one of countless interesting revelations from an interesting, appealing, intelligent guy who has this terrible habit of leaving us blue.

All this for tweed? I freely admit to being lifetime cheeba enthusiast.

However, even I have set the pipe aside before for meaningless jobs like working at a golf coarse. Ricky could have bonged hits of the finest herb on this earth for the rest of his life. All he had to do was find a different fix (alcohol, pain killers etc.) for a couple of years.

It's quite mind boggling.

Oh well. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I guess that means shame on me.

I'm a man. I can live with it.

Oh man i really hope this isnt fuckin true.

Yeah i suppose we were SLIGHTLY gullable in believing that Ricky had changed, should've known better to be honest, cos every fuckin Pothead that i know is a waster.

But his "changed" attitude that we all witnessed and admired last season seemed to function in sync with the rest of the Dolphins team, and the politics of Coach Saban.

Therefore, could we not be forgiven for believing that he had begun to love being a part of the Dolphins Franchise? Given that its finally being run in a professional, and successful (inevitably) manner? Given that we wasnt carrying the ball on 1st, 2nd, and 3rd? And that the team has finally looked like it could achieve something in the near future.

Oh and by the way!

If you're lookin to shift some of those Williams Jerseys that yiz have, i'll be lookin for 2 of 'em fairly soon!!

I have a white XL.  Will that fit you?

OK, I'm ready to take my beating now.  I was one of the ones who kept on believing that Ricky quit in 2004 because he didn't want to play for Wanny.  This latest incident has definitely proven me wrong. 

its weird, but all I can do is laugh. I don't know why its so funny to me, I guess its just thinking about how truly cursed my beloved franchise is.  Well now all the ronnie brown jocklovers get their wish. We get to see if our "savior" can walk on water alone this coming season.  I honestly hope we finally get to see him as money well spent, and not benchwarmer material.  P.S. atleast ricky did no damage, besides taking away the best running back on the team, but he was making the league minimum.  For the record, I never said he was a changed man, I just had no beef with the dude, I got over my anger from a year ago, unlike a few on this board, and gave him another chance.  He couldn't keep his nose clean, but hey I'm sure he'll find a gig being a motivational speaker just like the ultimate warrior.


P.S. why hasn't this story broken on NFL.com or their network?! 

Rumor has it he was simply out of the country.   What will you say if it turns out to be a simple misunderstanding?

Also did you have to use GD?

My sincere apologies.  I didn't mean to be offensive.

I hate Ricky.  He's screwed us over too many times.  I was aggrivated when I heard this. 

But I wonder how many of you will take him back yet again if he tries to return a third time?

From PFT.


POSTED 8:51 a.m. EST; UPDATED 9:19 a.m. EST, February 20, 2006

 

RICKY VIOLATION WAS A MISSED TEST


A league source tells us that Dolphins running back Ricky Williams violated the NFL substance abuse policy not through a positive test but by failing to report for a scheduled test.


Players who are subject to the drug program face regular requirements to submit to testing.  Once notified of the obligation to provide a sample of kidney Kool Aid, the player has a specific time period within which to do so.  (Per the drug policy, the player has four hours from the time of the scheduled test to produce an Italian astronaut.)


As a participant in Stage Three of the program, Williams is subject to up to 10 unannounced tests per month. 

 
Meanwhile, The Miami Herald has revised its story regarding the failed test to leave the door open for the possibility that it was, indeed, a failure to show up for the test.


The difference is technical.  Either action is a violation of the substance abuse policy, and a violation (for Williams) most likely will trigger a minimum suspension of one year.  During the suspension, he still will be expected to submit to testing and other aspects of his treatment plan. 

In addition - to clarify -

The reports are Ricky was in India thus missing his drug test.  In the NFL, a missed test = a positive result.

News flash - you know you have to be tested, take the damn test.  Missing a test because you're taking Yoga classes in India is no excuse, and doesn't garner any slack in my book.  You've been tested ten times a month for the past year, why do you think its ok to miss it now?

Here's where I fall in on this subject:  If it's a missed test, and he was in India when he was supposed to take the test, and didn't want to fly the 20 hours every few days to take the test, can you blame him?  It's the off-season, and he's doing his thing, studying whatever it is he wants to study, and the NFL tells him he needs to lose 2 out of every 3 days (10 tests per month equals one every 3 days, and 20 hours travel from India to the U.S. and back adds up to nearly two days).  I'd have a problem with this if I were Ricky Williams.  If the scenario I described is the issue, I think Williams has a good case on his hands.  Is he supposed to lose the freedom to travel and study because he failed drug tests in the past?  I'll wait on the facts before passing judgment.

Before you all jump on me as a Williams apologist:  I don't care one way or another if Williams is on the team next year.  From a football perspective, I viewed him as a luxury the team could afford to have because Ronnie Brown is on the roster.  This news is not devastating to the team, as, relistically, the Dolphins could not have traded him for more than a mid-round pick, and Williams had become a complementary piece to the team, not its focal point.  His loss will only hurt in the sense that on days when Ronnie Brown is either hurt or not getting it done, there will be no Ricky to turn to.

If RW was in India, then I wonder how players are done when they want to travel in the offseason?   

I know the NFL has its policies, but players should be able to travel.

With the most recent update to the story I have to agree with Jvides. I am curious how much notice they give before the test. It can't be much notice given the fact that they don;t want to provide a warning. If Ricky was out of the country and missed a test, how long has he been gone, when was he informed about the test, Would the NFL allow an Indian testing facility to administer the test?

There seems to be a lot of questions here.

  I will not pass judgment, but the NFL only gives players 4 hours to submit to a test once they have been notified.    I agree that if a player wants to travel out of the country during the offseason, then he should be able too.  I hope the NFL has a procedure on this.

Miami probably could have gotten more from a team like Denver prior to this.  However, even if this turns out to be nothing more than a misunderstanding it still brings it to the front of other teams minds that might have been interested in him.

4 hours to submit, & I guessing no way in h-e double would the NFL allow someone else to do the testing.

The NFL expects players to drop whatever they are doing & run to get tested.  4 hours is pitiful.   If you have been using then it would remain in your system for 24 hours.      A day should be plenty of time for a player to finish whatever he is doing & find his way to get tested.

Frankly I thought they simply showed up at your door with a sample bottle.

CONSPIRACY THEORY ALERT  ::)

OK So i'm looking ot trade for Williams,  but his value to a team is unsure, given his past, and looking at what he has just done this season.  There's a sure fire way to ascertain his value, make it zero by starting rumours of failed drugs tests, knowing full well the NFL can't comment on such things as it violates their policy.

Less conspiracy theory like, is the idea that someone just decided to start a rumour because they knew it would upset Williams, Saban, the dolphins, everything.

Admittedly there's a lot of people saying he's failed something, either drug test or failure to show for one, but i'd rather wait for an official announcement before accusing Ricky of something which is currently only unconfirmed rumour

I did, too.  It's because I'm confused as to what happened and what should've happened that I can't pass judgment just yet.

Hey man, if you play in the NFL, you know the rules.  No excuse.  He gets paid a lot of money (even the league minimum is a boat load of cash).  He knew of the rules, regardless of how unfair it is or how little time you have to report to your off-season drug test.  You sign a contract = you abide by that contract, otherwise, find another career.  Simple as that.

Ricky didn't show up to his drug test.  That = violation of drug-policy, which is his 4th offense, which in turn = 1-year automatic suspension, which makes him = worthless.

Goodbye Ricky.  Have a nice life.  Those cows in india don't shit dollars, so you're gonna have a hell of a time paying $8.6 M. 

Then, if you were Ricky Williams, you should quit the NFL.  That little piece of paper called a contract that you signed couldn't give two shits whether you have a problem with it, or not.  If you HAD a problem with it, you should have contacted your agent, and asked him if he could negotiate a little reworking of the contract to allow you your off-season free time without interruption for silly things like drug tests - something that would NEEEEEEEEVER be a problem for you anyways.

I severly doubt that the NFL gives their players a total of 4 hours to submit a drug test / attend a drug test.  They probably did for Ricky, because he's a repeat offender, but not for regular NFL players.  And i'm sure he could have called the NFL and said "hey guys, I'm in India, but i'll hop on the first plane outta here and come do the drug test as soon as I land".  I'm guessing he didn't, and just ignored the call / e-mail / fax.  That's responsible.

I don't think Ricky will have to pay back the 8 Mil anymore.  The first time he quit -- so the judgement for him to pay back the money was based on his unwillingness to work.  This is a totally different case.

Jtex, I don't know what you do for a living, but I know you post at all hours of the day, which means you must post while you're at work.  Unless you own your own business, you're probably in violation of your company's policy regarding personal use of its computers.  I sincerely doubt that if you got fired over this, you'd feel it was justified, that you knew the rules, no excuses, blah blah blah.  You seem almost singularly unable to view anything from another person's perspective.

Funny you bring this up...  According to Joe Rose on NBC6 news at midnight last night, a Denver TV station broke the news.  I thought the same thing....  Funny how its in Denver, huh?

Unless something was worked out behind closed doors he technically still owes the money. The Dolphins never followed up on the settlement, that said he had to return the money, after Ricky came back to play. I don't think his coming back put that settlement aside.

I'm just sick about this.  I hope there is a mistake and somehow Ricky will be in a Dolphin uniform .  

I just can't understand why he would do something like this.  Maybe he was intentionally doing it to get suspended.  That way, he doesn't have to play, and he doesn't have to pay the money back.  I'm disappointed on two levels. The obvious one is that this hurts the Dolphins.  The second is that I really like Ricky.  I like that he's a little odd.  He interesting and seems like a really nice guy.  I liked having him on the team.  

There is no need to say "I told you so".  All of the Ricky supporters knew this was a very real possibility.  

Until I hear something official from the NFL, I'll just keep hoping that it's a mistake.

pothead!!!! good riddance.... SEE YA IN HELL, RICKSTER!!!

No excuse. Williams must give the NFL notice on his plans prior to leaving when you're under the policy. Shannon sharpe stated this morning, that the NFL WILL send someone for you whether your in india, china, canada, dosent matter. When you're name pops up for testing you must be accesible. Williams lost all rights of a regular NFL player when he entered the substance abuse program. He just didnt give a damn and know he's DONE!!!!!!


IMO its no big loss. Brown is the franchise running back, and unlike the last time the dolphins have plenty of time to absorb the blow. Miami can easily overcome this.

I'm sorry UK, but you need a reality check about this.  I actually quite baffled that you can't understand why he would do something like this.  It's more like why wouldn't he do something like this.  

He clearly has a problem with drugs.  He didn't fail or refuse to show up to the NFL drug test once.  He failed to do so twice, then a third time, and now a fourth time!  He is a very selfish human being, IMO.  He is, and has been for years, very well aware of the NFL rules and how it effects his team and his teammates when he gets caught and suspended for his actions - and he does and repeats them anyways - TWICE.

There is no good that can come out of this story.

I have no problem with most of this point of view IF the NFL sent people to Ricky and Ricky was unavailable for testing.  Like I said, I don't much care one way or another if Ricky Williams is on the team next year.  As for the "Ricky lost all his rights" stuff...please.  Convicted felons lose rights like that, not guys who screwed up at work.  There's a difference in severity.  The guy smokes weed (and though I don't and never have, I understand this is quite prevalent in our society) and you want to strip him of his rights? 

Predatory...  Best post on this thread,  bar-none!  I'm with ya on this one. 

Wouldn't this be mud in everyone eyes who started calling him names, if this is the case.

From PFT:

 RICKY MIGHT HAVE A DEFENSE


It's now well know that Dolphins running back Ricky Williams missed a drug test, supposedly because he is in India.


But the fact that Ricky's trip to the land of the Dell computer call center staffers caused him to apparently miss one of his unannounced tinkle tests doesn't make his case open and shut.


A league source tells us that the testing process becomes complicated when a player travels outside of his home territory.  The player has an obligation to advise the league of his precise travel plans.  The league then has the responsibility to ensure that the player is properly notified as to the location of the testing facility to which he must report, if he ultimately is required to submit to testing while on the road.


If a player like Williams fails to show up under such circumstances, it might have happened because of something the player failed to do -- or it might have happened because of something the league failed to do.  If, for example, the league accidentally tried to contact Williams at a number other than the number he had provided, Williams wouldn't have known about the testing obligation, and his failure to report for testing wouldn't be his fault.


Under the NFL substance abuse policy, Williams has the right to appeal the alleged violation to the Commissioner for a hearing.  As part of the preparation for the hearing, the timeline and other nuances regarding the ultimate responsibility for the snafu will come to light.


Per the source, it wouldn't be the first time that a player who initially was found to have failed to show up for a test was later exonerated.


We're not suggesting that Williams definitely will be off the hook.  Instead, we're saying that Ricky might be able to show that the failure to report for the test was the result of a mistake made by the NFL, not by him.

 

The NFL cannot comment, so its services can't either.

     I thought about this for most of the morning, and I can't help get the sinking feeling that something doesn't smell right about this story.  How in the bluest of blue hell does a TV station located in Buttfuck, Colorado receive "supposed" information on an NFL athletes drug testing results?  If they do have the "connections" that they say they have how come they haven't broken other testing results in the past?  Where were they when Onterrio Smith or Travis Henry failed their respective tests?

With rumors swirling about Ricky ending up in Denver, some enterprising young journalist probably used up every connection he / she had to get the scoop.  He's an interesting story in Denver, so...

It's now in ESPN is reporting williams failed a drug test, but the substance is unknown.

Well, if that's the case, vaya con Dios, Ricky Williams.  May you find happiness and never again find the inside of an NFL locker room.

The way I understood the situation last year was that Ricky was ordered to pay the 8 mil for not fulfilling his contract. The Dolphins then agreed to waive the payment, providing Ricky fulfilled his new contract. Since he failed to do this, the 8 mil kicker should be back in effect. IANAL, of course, so it's possible that there's a loophole for him somewhere, but this was how the situation was represented, IIRC.

Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.

from NFL.COM!

Two different news sources are reporting that Dolphins running back Ricky Williams has failed a drug test, though team and league officials have not confirmed the reports.

The Miami Herald as well as Denver television station KDVR are reporting that Williams has violated the NFL's substance abuse policy, but neither has said whether Williams missed a required test or failed it.

If Williams does fail another test, it would be his fourth and he would face a one-year suspension by the NFL.
 


How the hell does NFL.com not know if its true or not? Something stinks about this whole situation.

Maybe he just decided to quit again.  ???

Sources: Williams' drug violation a failed testESPN.com news services


Sources have told ESPN's Hank Goldberg that Miami Dolphins running back Ricky Williams' violation of the NFL's substance-abuse policy is not a matter of a missed test. Williams has failed a drug test, the sources said, but the substance for which he tested positive is not known.

 
Dumbass......

Crack maybe?

I hope for his sake it was crack.  No one can expect a crackhead to think logically.

more from finheaven.com



 It appears that RB Ricky Williams may not face severe punishment from the NFL for his latest run-in with its drug program.

On Monday, media outlets scrambled to clarify and correct themselves and their stories regarding Williams "failing" a drug test.

As it turns out, Williams did not fail any drug test. Rather, he simply failed to report for a scheduled testing session.

As a participant in Stage Three of the NFL's substance abuse program, Williams is subject to up to 10 unannounced tests per month. And failing to show up for one of these tests is the same as testing positive, according to the NFL.

ProFootballTalk speculates, however, that this development may not in fact be an open-and-shut case.

It is possible that there was an error in communication between Williams and the NFL regarding his travels outside the country (Williams is reportedly in India at the moment). If a player was unaware of testing obligation, then he cannot be faulted for failure to show up.

Williams has the right to appeal to the Commissioner for a hearing. The website goes onto state that, per their source, it wouldn't be the first time that a player who initially was found to have failed to show up for a test was later exonerated.

It's not marijuana.

What did he fail for then? Taking the H train uptown? Sucking the glass dick? What?

Hello, your local troll.

From what I recall.  Miami won the right to seek repayment & that is where it stopped. 

If it turns out he failed to show up for a drug test due to a communication error, then there is a good chance he can be let off the hook.  For that to happen he must:

1.  Take a drug test ASAP (assuming it comes out negative)

2.  Contact the Commissioner's office ASAP and let them know what happened, as well as provide more ways to contact him.

3. Break his silence.  Not saying anything and letting the rumors swirl is only hurting his situation.  If I were his agent, I would be planning a press conference right now.

On NFL Network tonight Adam Schefter said no one is sure RW is even aware of this.

Hmmm... Has it crossed anyone elses mind yet that this might all be a load of crap?

The story coming COINCIDENTALLY from Denver who are strongly linked with Ricky at the moment.

Maybe they're just trying to stir some shit? Trying to reduce Ricky's trade value to near nothing before approaching Miami for his services?

I'm not gonna commit to one opinion or another, but i will say that this doesn't seem totally right. A situation like this would be trypical of the Media, and i wouldnt be suprised if we see Ricky playing with us next year.

At least thats what im hoping for anyway.

It came out of Denver because the Broncos had the right to ask the NFL about it.  It's NFL policy.  If a team is interested in a trade then they can ask about the player.  The Broncos asked and found out Ricky had failed again.  That's the connection.  It's not a conspiracy IMO  :)

At this point it is widespread enough that we can count out the story being bunk.

Nah, sorry lads.

I question the validity of this altogether.

ME tOO!  Whose business is it if he smokes weed anyway?  Who gives a shit?  Oh yeah I guess people like Brian Fein, who like to make fun of potheads as if they are all heroin addicts or something.  You can't play football if you smoke pot?  To me, it would sound just as strange to hear that you can't play football if your favorite food is pizza.  Fuck the NFL, and good for Ricky for doing what ever it is that he wants to do.  Leave him alone Brian.  Go pick on someone who is actually doing something wrong.   :o

Um, lovehate, smoking weed is illegal, and therefore wrong according to our country's laws.  Pizza is legal, just really fattening.  I'd imagine O-linemen eat constantly eat pizza.  What you do on your time is your business, and I won't make fun of you, criticize you, or whatever for it, but the drug is illegal and specifically banned from the NFL through collective bargaining.  The man chose to work in a profession where drug testing happens, much like if you elected to join the police force, or FBI, or countless other professions where drug testing is a prerequisite to employment.  You couldn't stand before the chief of police and tell him F%$ you, I smoke weed, deal with it. 

I guess I can go out and rob a bank, then?  who cares?  I don't think there's anything wrong with it, what I do on my own time is my business!  Who gives a crap if robbing banks is illegal...?

I certianly hope you're kidding...

We all live by rules and laws.  What makes marijuana less legitimate than say crack?  Why is smoking weed "OK" in your book, but murder is not?  Where do you draw the line?

Unless you're an advocate of murder as well....

There is a big difference. In our society we have groups who live strictly by what the government tells us. We also have groups who think more outside the lines and do not have problems with victimless crimes. Murder obviously is not a victimless crime. I think as a general rule most marijuana smokers are not robbing people to support a habit, they are not driving recklessly like a drunk person, they are not violent, etc. It is becoming a social norm in some circles and still taboo in others. You really cannot compare everything that the government considers illegal though. The crimes just don't line up.



I wanted to modify because I knew someone would use the same fact JVides pointed out below. That little fact is easily corrected. Alcohol cause a lot of murder during prohibition too. I don't see Miller lining up and shooting anyone now though.

Not to go all "socio-economic" on you, but the drug trade is not victimless, either.  And I don't just mean the cocaine industry from Colombia, either.  Marijuana is big business, and those that produce and sell it in mass quantities (not someone with a hydroponics kit) commit murder to continue on with their business if they see fit, and... Aw, crap!  The thread's gone all "political"!

yes, lets stop talking about the stupid, racist, non-sensical ban on marijuana and get back to the issue at hand.....RICKY WILLIAMS!!!  before i call homeland security on your asses....

so aynwaysssss......  i wonder when we'll have an answer to this ricky saga

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?

It was illegal for Rosa Parks to sit in the front of the bus.
It's illegal every time you drive over the speed limit.
Lots of things are illegal for the wrong reasons (weed being a good one) and it takes resistance to change those things.

I think that speeding laws have an established reason for existing, Dave.  Not everyone can drive at 100 MPH and come out of it alive.  The law exists for public safety reasons.


So smoking weed is a civil rights issue?  Every time I have this argument with a user, I ask the same question (why should it be legal?) and invariably, after the lame "hemp has many uses" line, and the "what about medicinal use" red herring (do YOU have glaucoma?), I get "because I want it to be legal".  Well, whoopee-dee-doo, I want a Maserati.  Weed is illegal because it can be addictive (for every study that claims it's not, there's one that claims otherwise) and yes, I know, alcohol can be addictive too, but the fact that the law is hypocritical does not necessarily make it wrong. 

I personally don't know whether weed should be legalized or not  (I lean towards no, but don't feel strongly about it either way).  I've never used it, never would if it were legal.  I need no "mind alteration" to live a good life.  I just simply abhor the "because I like to do it it should be legal" argument (not saying that's your argument, Dave).  It's narrow-minded and does not take into account all the variables that legalizing marijuana would entail.

I never suggested that they didn't have a reason.  I was using this point to illustrate that all crimes are not equal.  Above, Brian was using the argument "a crime is a crime". 

Where would you even get this?  I mention Rosa Parks because that was a BAD LAW...but a law none the less.  If you think that I was calling weed smoking a civil rights issue because I mentioned it alongside Rosa Parks, I think that you should work on your reading comprehension.


Look, man...I don't even smoke pot. ...or do any drugs for that matter.  But I believe in free choice, and letting people do what they want with their lives so much that it doesn't violate other people's rights.  Marijuana is illegal for the wrong reasons -- for its financial threat to the cotton industry ages ago.  If you think it's illegal for public safety, you're off your rocker.

- sugar
- cigarettes
- caffeine
- alcohol
- over the counter cold medicines

All of these are habit forming -- moreso than marijuana.

Making weed illegal puts money into the hands of drug dealers, jacks up the price of the product, and takes money away from a taxable income for the government.  Think of booze -- when it was illegal, crime was created because moving illegal booze made money for the crooks.

Putting people in jail for a plant that grows in the ground is moronic.

Regardless of our individual thoughts about legalizing pot, the fact of the matter is that pothead's employer (the NFL) has deemed it unacceptable, in conjunction with his union during the Collective Bargaining Agreement. No one is forcing him to play in the NFL. He left once, and did not have to come back. He chose to come back. By choosing to come back, he knew he was in the substance abuse program and would be subject to testing for ALL substances that were banned, of which I'm sure he was given a list  (since Doug was able to find it, I'm sure the NFLPA gives it to its members).

If it was the NBA, where they don't ban pot, we wouldn't be talking about this. But its the NFL.

End of story.

I apologize if I misunderstood you.  I have argued with people that believe this to be a civil rights issue, and I suppose I may have lumped you in.  However, your three sentences provided no "transitional phrases", so let's not go after my reading comprehension skills, shall we?



I did not know this, and I've done some searhing (not much) for Congressional records (these records describe the intent behind laws passed) that would back this statement up.  So far, zilch.  I'm not gonna take the word of legalization proponents, and my searches have so far only turned up hits on proponents' web sites.


That statement is purely speculative.  Besides, I've never seen anyone rendered useless for 3 hours because he had a Hershey's bar, a Red Bull, and a couple of smokes, have you?  I have had to send employees home because they showed up high on weed, though.  (Drunk, too, but like I said, hypocritical does not mean wrong.)


Ah, you appeal to my accountant side, I see.  No arguments there.  As I said, I don't really know what to think about the legalization issue.



I can think of several things you can do with plants that are HIGHLY illegal.  You think they make cocaine in a factory out of car parts or something?  Before you say it, I know there's a difference:  Cocaine is processed and handled whereas Mary Jane is not (well, it is, but to a much lower extent).  You used a blanket statement, I couldn't let it pass.

Dave, murder was an extreme example.

If my job said that I'd get in trouble for speeding in the parking lot, and I ended up getting disciplined for speeding in the parking lot, why do I (or anyone) have a right to bitch?

I violated my job's rule, and the law.  Period.  What makes it "OK" cause its weed?

the real reason weed was banned in the first place has its roots in a night when  a drunk & stoned mexican killed a white man...they blamed it on the weed as an excuse (because at that point in time weed was mostly used by minorities) and used it to go after black & mexicans (the mexicans were the ones bringing the plants here from down south).  also at that time, the current "drug czar" launched a personal crusade against weed (influenced by a bunch of factors, one of which was previously mentioned above) in the same vein as the McCarthy communism issue.  it was such a fast & intimidating blitzkrieg (back then in the 30's the general public was much more easliy controlled) that today, after generations of government propoganda (ie all the thigns you THINK you believe about pot, addictiveness, how it works, health effects, social impact (all lies)) people have developed extreme misunderstanding about pot.  prohibition continues to destroy the lives of normal, everyday law abiding citizens by arresting them for no rational reason, and Ricky Williams is just the latest in a long line of people whose lives have been turned upside down by it.

ps - Philly hit it on the head.  even tho theres nothing wrong with pot, it IS banned by HIS employer (as well as mine) and therefore he should have had enough self-control.

Fair enough.  I shouldn't attack the speaker anyways...bad arguing on my part.


And you probably won't find anything in law about this.  The reason that it's in the books is probably for public health reasons, but in reality, people high up in government had stakes in the cotton industy.  ...and hemp was a threat to them.  By outlawing weed for puritanical reasons, they eliminated their competition.  ...now all of your shirts are made of cotton.

No, but is marijuana's danger in that people become lethargic?  Sugar is a main killer in the US....and we all know that cigarettes cause case after case of cancer.  I just used those examples to point out that the government does not care about your health.  ...at least not enough to outlaw things that are bad for it.

I do not condone drug use on the job (or at all for that matter.)  I think that just like any substance, it needs to be used responsibly.  


Nor should you have to.  If I were king, coke would be legal too.  Let people do what they want, I say.  Realistically, this will never happen, though....and I think that we should start with baby steps.

For alcohol to be legal, and pot to not, makes no sense.  Alcohol is more dangerous, more imparing, worse for your body, and causes people to be aggressive and problematic.  Hypocrisy bothers me.

I think it's a bad rule.  But I'm not saying it's okay for Ricky to smoke weed.  He signed a contract forfeiting that right.  I don't really think that it's the NFL's business what Ricky does that doesn't affect his job duties.

if someone can be a pothead AND lead the NFL in rushing, that man deserves a bust in canton!!!

I can honestly say that this thread is the first time I have ever heard anyone say being hypocritical is not wrong.

Maybe you guys don't understand the concepts behind the NFL's substance abuse policy.

These players are supposed to be role models.  They do charitable actions, United Way, Big Brothers, etc.  The NFL pimps out their players as people kids can look up to.

Do you want your kids saying "I wanna be just like Ricky Williams when I grow up" as he sparks up a fattie?

I'm not saying anything about weed itself.  I could give a rat's ass whether people smoke up or not.  I'm just saying that if your job requires you to stay away from it, all it takes is a little will power and self control to abide by it.  If you don't, and you get caught, its no one's fault but his own, so stop making excuses for his blatant disregard for his employers policies.

I got in trouble when I worked at Publix many times for not wearing an apron, or "polishable shoes" but did I say "My shoes are in India so I can't wear them..."?  Polishable shoes doesn't affect my ability to do my job, but it was the employer's policy, and it must be adhered to.

The problem with the world is that most people think athletes need to be role models. Athletes are athletes. I wouldn't want my kids thinking someone is a role model because they are good at sports.

There we agree, but legalizing would cause a furor, and outlawing the other stuff would be even worse, so I don't ecpect anything to change.

I know, pretty cool, huh?  I couldn't believe It as I was typing it, either. 

Laws are all hypocritical, though, as similar circumstances often lead to different punishment, even when the crimes are the same (one murdered gets life, the other gets "lit up").  That doesn't make the laws wrong, though.

Dave, I just wanted to say, I've found that alchohol does not cause people to be aggressive and problematic, rather, it decreases one's inhibitions and therefore allows people to act on their will, rather than listen to their conscience and higher reasoning/planning functions. In essence, when this part of your brain is shut down, impaired, or stymied, you become a pure animal or a baby. Achohol does not cause it, it merely makes it more likely and more probable.


I agree with you here, though I've never seen any scientific study which fingers sugar (which type of sugar, and, furthermore are they complex or simple carbohydrates?) as a main killer in the US. I think the logic behind this goes this way: you're going to die no matter what. What we're really concerned about is whether or not you turn off your conscience. It is agreed that alchohol does this as well, however, you've got to think of the mode of ingestion and the consequences therein as well. WIth Alchohol, it is ingested through the stomach, broken down in acids, and finally passed through into the bloodstream via the small intestine, etc. With Mary Jane, you smoke it, and this immediately passes into your respiritory system and your pulmonary system. It immediately affects two of your main organs, instead of just one. Then, I believe, though I have no problem being corrected if anyone knows better, it is immediately passed into the brain from the blood, as the oxygenated cells drop off their payload on the brain. The blood brain barrier, however, often slows the affect of liquid substances on the brain.

Therefore, because of the way it is ingested, it is a more deadly substance, and has quicker (and strangely, longer lasting) effects. True, the affects are often lethargy, but this is still a terrible effect. Negligence can lead to as much (if not more) bad things than can overt negative actions. And that's just if you only consider the consequences of an action. The morality of an action is not dependant upon its consequences, you know.

I probably shouldn't have gotten into this debate, but I figured I'd just throw in my two cents. I look forward to your reply, Dave.

SCFinFan, you called weed deadly (unless u were referring to the alky?).  No one has ever died from smoking weed.  EVER.  maybe by driving stoned, or somethign liek that, but not from smoking.

It also has no long-term health effects to the brain like the government like to scare you into believing.

I think I should reply and state that anyone who thinks marijuana effects last longer than alcohol has a fundamentally wrong argument. Have you ever seen a smoker wake up in the morning still impared (minus the use of alcohol)?

The reason pot is illegal.  The Gov cannot control who grows it & therefor cannot collect tax money.  Its about the money.  Sure smoking too much of it is bad for you, just like too much of anything is bad for your body.  Too much H2O can kill you if you drink enough of it in a short time span.

From what I've heard Pot is less harmful for you than Oxycontin, but which one is legal & which one is illegal.  Why do you think that is?

As Chris Rock says.  Don't by their drugs, buy ours drugs.

Sounds like a dare, a double dog dare!  >:D

He's right though.  In it's 5000 years of existence, NO ONE has ever died of marijuana use. 

By the way, what type of work do you do, JVides, that you have to send people home for being high?  I'm surprised that they still have jobs after pulling a stunt like that. 

In my younger years, I worked as a store manager for the infernal video rental business formerly owned by Wayne Huizenga.  A few times, my employees showed up stoned and couldn't even operate a register or computer.  So I'd send 'em home, then fire 'em.  The average "infernal video rental business formerly owned by Wayne Huizenga" employee is a 20 year old college student, so someone showing up visibly high or drunk happened at least twice a year.

Now, I'm an accountant, and busy as hell.  I'm posting here in between tax returns, sort of a rest before I get to the next one...

I don't know how true this is....

If Cypress Hill can put that quote inside one of their record labels, there has to be some truth to it.

As my tax law professors say: Always quote primary authority.  And if Cypress Hill isn't primary authority...

Oh, how silly of me, Cypress Hill is the foremost authority on everything.  They've never said anything that wasn't true...



::)

You know how much of a lawsuit they would have on their hands if they had posted on their record label "In its 5000 years of existence, no one has ever died of marijuana usage" and someone actually did?

Actually, I believe I said marijuana is "more deadly" than alchohol, using comparison.  I'm saying it is more dangerous, and more detrimental than alchohol, not that it kills people in and of itself (just like when I said that alchohol itself does not cause belligerence or stupidity, it only makes it easier). Look:

(Emphasis mine)

As for impairment rates, well, I'd say their about equal. I've always asked my doctor about this kind of stuff, and he usually treats the two substances as equal in danger. You may not wake up with a hangover, like someone said, but in the case of long term impairment, I'll believe my doctor over someone on a message board.

That said, I can only continue on with the following. Every substance that we ingest (beside necessary ones, like air) we can become dependent on, either psychologically or physically. Therefore we can have that bad meme, or schema of thought, which makes us think we need whatever substance to which we are addicted. Addiction has caused havoc in my life, and I'd be willing to contradict anyone (and sharply at that) who would say that it would have no negative effects. And because things like this can be abused, we can never say that they can be used 'responsibly' really.  Who is to say what is responsible or not? Each to his own, yes? Well, frankly, that is what gets addicts into their addiction in the first place.

i hate the whole "these guys are role models crap".... puh leease.

most of these guys are thugs from the geeheettoo. not that that is a bad thing, in fact you could build a pretty kick ass football team off of the streets of carol city (many in the nfl are from that part of town). anyways, anyone really looking to demonstrate these guys as role models to kids is really insane. They are merely entertainers and nothing more.

its unfortunate that some of the nfl rules governing players off field behaior are pretty stupid. That is what they are though and ricky is basically a dumbass. the hypocrisy of the nfl is really starting to become a problem however in this younger generation of atheletes. most of the best players are hardcore thugs, and that is the nature of the sport. so on the field they want those types of players, but off the field they want clean cut wally beaver types to serve as "role models". they can't have it both ways...

Why would that be a lawsuit?  People make incorrect statements in writng all the time.

weed is only a mental dependency, not a physical one, unlike alcohol.  many doctors have also been indoctrinated with the same propoganda that the rest of society has been...

Tony,

Not to start anything, but then, what counts as propaganda? Anything that disagrees with you? Please, don't start calling the other side propaganda. That's balogna. It's a weak, name-calling defense that demonstrates a lack of logical reasoning.

Also,

I don't see the point in a doctor saying: "Don't do this, it will hurt you", unless he truly accepts what he's saying as scientifically true.  If a doctor is thinking as a businessman, then won't he want you to come back in? Won't he want you to come to him, pay the co-pay and then prescribe you expensive drugs which have been advertised to him? You bet he would. Everything has a business side, Tony. If he's thinking as a businessman (or, should I say, if he's been indoctrinated by the propaganda of the business aspect of his job?) then he'd want you to come back in. C'mon man, gotta come up with some better logic chopping than what you have above. That shit's weak.

You do make a point about  psychological dependency though. Still you have a choice: take a drug and only get ONE dependency, or don't take one and never have to worry about such things as all. Case closed for me.

I may be wrong on this, but I seem to remember that marijuana has considerablly more tar than cigarettes.  While it may not be chemically addicting, it isn't healthy for you.  The tar is a key cause of lung cancer.

By the same token, I could say that no one has ever died of cigarette use.

The Cypress Hill record label clearly states how marijuana originated (in ancient Greece), how it was smoked, and what it was called in those days.  It then goes on to say:

Over 100,000 Americans die each year from lung cancer or emphesyma because of smoking cigarettes

Over 250,000 Americans die each year from drunk driving crashes because of drinking alcohol

But, in its 5000 years of existence, no one has ever died of marijuana. 

Tommy- u really sound like an idiot sometimes. ( i say that in a friendly way)

And how, exactly, would we track who gets lung cancer or emphesyma because of smoking marijuana?  We already know that marijuana produces carcinogens in an equal or greater amount than tobacco*.

So the most optimistic argument you could make for marijuana is that no one has ever died from smoking it because it's prohibited, which doesn't exactly help the case for legalization.

*edit:  For reference: http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html

Marijuana use also has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory tract because it contains irritants and carcinogens(12, 13). In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke(14). It also produces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their carcinogenic form—levels that may accelerate the changes that ultimately produce malignant cells(15). Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana may increase the risk of cancer more than smoking tobacco.

Nice work there Spider-Dan.

^^^^
but you only take a few puffs of marijuana once every while...you cant compare it to the sheer volume that a pack a day smoker can plow through.  and it doesn't have ANY of that extra chemical additive BS like ammonia and what-not that cigarettes have a plethora of

medical studies have shown that because of the very small volume that marijuana smokers inhale, the risk is neglible.  this is another example of skewed statistics

I sound like an idiot because I quoted something from a record label?  Why not get that record label and see for yourself?  It was the album with their "Insane in the brain" song. 

what they were referring to was the fact that no one has ever died from an overdose of marijuana.  no one's saying that over time you cant develop cancer from it, but its not possible to overdose on THC.  the amount it would take to kill you would be like 60 pounds or something.

No, you sound like an idiot because you are quoting Cypress Hill as if they are a medical journal.

I also don't see cigarette smokers inhaling a full lungful and holding it in for 5-10 seconds.

And as far as volume goes, if cigarettes were illegal, do you think we would still have people who smoke 2 packs a day?  Supply is a factor.

Even without that "extra chemical additive BS," marijuana is still more carcinogenic.  If it were legalized, they'd be adding the same chemicals that they add to tobacco.  No matter how you slice it, if you're going to blame cigarettes for causing deaths, then you would have to do the same for legalized marijuana.

From the article I quoted:

"Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke."

That doesn't sound like a "very small volume" to me.

I have not done any scientific research on the matter, to be fair.  That said, I agree that the alcohol does not CAUSE those things.  People still have free will, however, just from my own experiences, I've seen people drink and get violent MANY, MANY, MANY times.  I've seen people lose control of themselves from alcohol -- pass out to where they are unconscious, etc.  I've also seen many people smoke weed on many different occasions.  The resulting high is not the same.  It is a lethargic mood.  Whether the drug CAUSES or simply ALLOWS these states is inconsequential.  I don't condone Marijuana use as a healthy lifestyle choice, but in comparison to alcohol, it is less damaging to the individual, as well as the society around them, in all cases I've ever seen.

Show me a person why gets high every day until they're 40, and someone who gets drunk every day until they're 40.  -- You may have two losers, but the alkie will be a lot worse off.


I'm not really looking at stats, nor do I study the harmful effects of sugar in my free time, but my understanding is this:
An abundance of partially hydroginated corn syrup (SUGAR) is causing an obesity epidemic in this country.  Obesity is a leading contributor to heart disease.  Heart Disease is a leading cause of death in the US.  We can both probably agree that being obese isn't healthy, without having to see studies on the subject.


I don't know the medical explanation behind it, but I don't really see the difference.  In my experience, the affects of alcohol and weed are comparable in how quickly they impair you.  However, given equal amounts of "fuckedupness", alcohol takes way longer to get you back into your normal state.  Again, I've got no data to support this, other than I've been drunk at night, and woke up drunk.  Weed doesn't stick with you like that.


This just isn't true.  I can drink a beer and feel it pretty much halfway through the first sip.  Sidestory -- I took a college class on drugs.  It was one of the best courses I've ever had.  One of things had to do with how long it took to reach your altered state of consiousness.  It turns out that starting to act (be it drinking, smoking, watching TV to get into a zombie state, or a child spinning around looking to get dizzy) often tells your body that "it's time", and you start feeling your high right away.  I don't know how that applies to the convo, but I thought it was pretty cool.


Totally.  It's possibly that someone can smoke a bunch of weed, not go to work, and therefore not have money to feed their kids, I guess.  But so can lots of other stuff.  You use the word "morality", and that seems to be a good choice.  I guess the bottom line is that I don't like the government using it's morality (whatever that is) to tell me what I can put into my own body.  I don't think it's their job to babysit us.  If a guy wants to smoke a bunch of weed and do nothing with his life, who am I to say that he shouldn't?

I wrote this for MPP, two years ago, when he first was suspended, after the third positive test: 

NFL star Ricky Williams is the victim of a double standard that punishes private, adult use of marijuana while turning a blind eye to flagrant alcohol abuse, the Marijuana Policy Project announced today.

As the sports world rushes to criticize the former Miami Dolphins star running back for retiring from professional football after testing positive three times for marijuana use, MPP instead points to Williams as the latest in a decades-long list of victims of marijuana prohibition.

"Marijuana is not what is ending Williams' career. Rather, it is marijuana prohibition that has harmed Williams. Our society and the NFL tolerate public alcohol use and even abuse, while absurdly prohibiting the private adult use of marijuana," noted MPP Executive Director Rob Kampia. "Marijuana prohibition destroys lives and careers and does little to reduce abuse, particularly among young people. Sadly, there will be many more Ricky Williamses until Congress takes action to end our nation's war on marijuana users."

Williams is reported to use marijuana to cope with his debilitating social anxiety disorder, one of the causes of his sometimes-erratic behavior. Williams had tried using Paxil to treat his disorder, even acting as the drug's spokesperson for a time, but had to discontinue treatment after experiencing undesirable side effects.

According to the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 40.8 percent of Americans aged 26 and older have used marijuana at least once in their lifetimes.

-----------

Simply:

Science, statistics and anectdotal evidence (as Dave lays it out) clearly concludes that marijuana use is less harmful than the use of alcohol and tobacco.  No one has died as a result of using marijuana -- truly, the same cannot be said for the other two.  In Portugal, the cops actively promote soccer fans to use marijuana, because the drunken fans get too rowdy.  Why, then, should we not care about a player (or laud them, even) who "winds down" with a martini, and suspend that player that "winds down" with a joint?

For some statistics:

http://www.mpp.org/common_q.html

Quite simply - BECAUSE ITS AGAINST HIS EMPLOYERS POLICY OF CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT!

This is not an issue of "should pot be legal?" or "are the NFL's policies justified?"  Until marijuana is legal in all 50 states, the NFL will continue to require that all of its employees rafrain from its use.

They're not a medical journal.  If one of their members said something like that, that's one thing.  But they actually printed it on their record label....a record label that was sold to a mass audience.  There's gotta be some truth to it. 

Dave, that was an excellent reply. Allow me to attempt one myself now.


I disagree, based on some of Spider-Dan's logic. As it is right now, because of supply and the laws based upon supply, it is impossible to become as dedicated a smoker as it is to become a drinker. AS it is, pot is illegal. So, I doubt that people can smoke as much as they can drink. Furthermore, you have to think, what does alchohol affect vs. smoking? Well, like i said, smoke goes directly to your lungs-heart. Drinking goes to your liver. You liver is important, but, your lungs and heart are probably the most important part of your body (which is why they are so adequately protected, evolutionarily, by your ribs). So, biologically, I doubt your conclusion here. One the other hand, I also doubt your logic if you mean "socially" they are better off. With beer, unless your the odd man that drinks alone, drinking is a social thing. So, though it may cause a man to get violent, it will at least keep him in contact with the outside world. Smoking need not be this way, and, when one thinks about it, it would make sense. The more lethargic and relaxed it makes you, the less you really care about who's there and who's not. Eventually, you will find yourself all alone, dependent upon your substance, and that's all.


Agreed, totally. I unsure of what you meant by "sugar".


No, it doesn't, but that's based on how much you digest as well. A joint's not as much substance as a long-neck. And yet, as you say, they affect(impair) you at about an equal rate. Try smoking and equal amount of substance to what you would drink, and then you'll see what I mean.


Ahh a government/morality/ethics question. Much more my forte than science. You say you don't like their "morality" placed upon us? Well, I would argue that yes, indeed you do. It is that same morality that allows you freedom of speech, safe and unfettered travel from state to state, capitalism in business, etc. What your gripe appears to be, is that you don't like them interfering with things that you would deem "personal choice" right? To me, that sounds like the "right to privacy" and is always a sticking point. How much should the government stick it's nose into the private lives of its citizens? How do they legislate it once they get there (if they do)?

The trouble with saying "it's my personal choice" is that it is too widely applicable and leads to too much of a slippery slope. When you start relegating stuff to the 'private action' sphere, what you're doing is promoting the value of 'freedom' above every other value. And that just can't work. Laws must limit freedom for the good of society. The absolute application of freedom is anarchy, and I don't think you want that. "But I don't want to go that far," you say. Indeed, I don't think many people want to. But I would say this, the government does have a right to stick its nose in where "commerce" is in question, and in this case, commerce is definitely in question. When you purchase a substance which you will ingest, that's commerce, and that is regulated by the US. The government has every right to tell you "yes" or "no" to it. It's just one of the thigns it can do. Its a similar rule to the one that allows the government to end a strike when national communications are threatened.

man, spyder dan and SCFinFan youse guys logic is so weird, you guys are arguing in circles, and bringin up irellevant points to try and make a point that doesnt exists.  bottom line = you will be eating crow in 10 years, not us.

You're right about that.  The laws are meant to protect people.  Everyone has the freedom the U.S. offers, but those laws are in place to keep you from infringing on other people's freedoms.  That's the whole concept behind democracy. 

Man this is crazy.  I've just noticed this thread has the same amount of posts as the TDMMC T-shirts thread, but it's only been open for FIVE DAYS!!!!

People have gone wild here!!!!

OK. See, here is why you are an idiot. You feel that because they printed it on a record label, it has to be solid gold, gospel truth. An artist can print whatever the hell they want on a record label.

This thread has quickly climbed to #5 all-time on the TDMMC most popular threads list...

How can you even begin to compare an equal amount of two different substances? How do you know a joint would be less substance than a longneck?

for me personally, the high i get off of 1 fatty J is the equivalent of the buzz i get off of downing a six-pack of beer, so i don't see how you can compare the relative quantities of 2 substances that are in COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PHYSICAL STATES.  have you ever taken chemistry and learned the differences between solids, gases, and liquids? 

pound for pound, smoke for smoke, yes, weed has similar, perhaps nominally larger amounts of tar and carcinogens than cigarettes.  BUT YOU DONT SMOKE A PACK OF JOINTS A DAY.  the difference in "serving sizes" of the two are astronomical.   also, joints have less weed in them as compared to the amount of tobacky crammer in a cig, and it only takes a few hits of a joint to get high.  its kinda like the alky content in beer vs vodka...you can't compare the 2 by volume...a gallon of beer or a gallon of vodka?  one will make you very drunk, the other would kill 95% of people.

comparing weed to cigarettes by volume is another trick by the prohibitionists to skew statistics.

I am much enjoying this conversation, but I'm not going to post about it here anymore, since this has gotten way off topic.  If anyone wants to continue this discussion, I'll be in the Off-Topic, where it belongs.  This thread is supposed to be about weed's place in the NFL....not its comparison to alcohol.

^^^ yeah i was thiknking the same thing, i was gonna ask an admin to move it or start a new topic about it.  i tried to stop and get it back on track before it got outta hand, but shortly thereafter it exploded

I think we all thought the same thing, but once it went of topic I thought about how hard it would be to just start up a new thread. We probably would have just reposted almost everything we had in this one.

Actually, making marijuana illegal was not a move to protect infringements of other's rights.  It was a racist move since pot was considered a hispanic or mexican drug.  The US did a similar racist move towards Asians by making opium illegal. 

I actually believe that making pot (because it is the most popular drug) legal will significantly reduce crime.  Thus making the country and reducing infringement on others.  If you make it legal, the supply increases and the price drops significantly.  If the price drops, there is not incentive for dealers to risk their lives bringing the drugs into the country and dealing on the streets.  Not to mention that our prison population and expenses will decrease.  The government would have to impose similar laws to alcohol - don't drive or work high.  Another side effect of legalizing marijuana is that cigarette consumption would go down (since pot is a substitute).  I guess there is some controversy as to whether or not that will bring down lung cancer incidences.

By the way, I've never tried any illegal drug so I'm not biased because I'm a user.

I wasn't talking about why certain drugs were made illegal.  I was talking about the concept of democracy.

What does this have to do with democracy?  We didn't vote on making marijuana illegal.  And where in the constitution does it say that the job of the government is to protect us from ourselves?

Read further back.  My explanation of democracy didn't have anything to do with making drugs legal or not.  Rather, it had to do with the boundaries of freedom.  Everyone has certain rights in democracy that are not usually granted in other types of governments like dictatorships.  However, the concept of democracy is your rights end only when they infringe on someone else's rights. 

That's because potheads are extremely defensive.... and got nothing else to do. 

run_to_win....  what kind of ignorant, nonsensical, biased statement is tat?

Did you get that off a record label?  Because that isn't the definition of democracy that I know.  Democracy gives people the power to vote to elect their leaders and lawmakers - the concept of majority rule.  It has nothing to do with the goverment protecting you - especially from yourself.  But if you are going to take democracy to mean that, you should read my earlier post.  I explained my belief that legalizing marijuana might actually reduce the amount of "infringement" you are claiming it imposes on others.

Beef, I see your point, but that vacuum (pot dealers having no pot to deal) would be filled by other illegal activities (harder drugs, guns, something else...).   So long as crime is more lucrative than flippin' burgers, there's always going to be something to smuggle, something illegal to sell.  That's why I don't know if it should be legalized.  Too many variables in the equation.

I'm willing to listen to arguments both ways, but as with every argument, those that oppose marijuana legalization want you to believe neurosurgeons are going to start showing up to work "fit shaced" and those that propose its legalization point to utopian societies where the poor are not forced into lives of crime; and crime has been largely eliminated.  Bunk on both ends.

I agree that is a possibility.  I'm assuming that the hard drug and gun market already has enough suppliers and it won't be easy for the old pot dealers to enter that market.   

I was referring to rights in general, not about marijuana.  And yes, democracy calls for people to have power to vote and elect their leaders and lawmakers.  Totalitarian governments have elections too.... with only one candidate. 

NOOOOOOOO!!!!

Dave, Brian, PLEASE don't lock this thread.  I'd love to see it break the record.... become the most popular on TDMMC!!!

Tommy, if you aren't talking about marijuana or Ricky Williams then what are you talking about?  Do you want to discuss the pros and cons of a dictatorship now?

I'm going to give this thread the old lock --

It's gone off-topic of off-topic.  Ricky didn't even test positive for weed, from what we know, so this thread seems completely out of place.  Feel free to discuss the pros / cons of weed, Cypress Hill, and totalitarian governments in the off-topic.

I'm sure another Ricky thread will pop up as more info arises.