Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, July 04, 2014

To get rid of marijuana, baseball has to get real. | SportsonEarth.com : Dirk Hayhurst Article

OK, detectives, who was it?

While I was in spring training with the … You know what, I’m not going to tell you. Too many potheads still in action there. Let’s just say that while I was in spring training with a certain organization, a group of guys on the team got robbed. They were all staying in a house together, splitting the rent through the course of the spring, their luxury rides all parked out front in a row, leaving at the same time every day. It wasn’t hard for the local criminal element to figure out who they were and the schedule they kept. When these criminals decided to hit the house, they made off with all manner of high-end accessories, televisions, gaming systems and other tech toys.

That part was in the news: Pro athletes getting robbed, that’s kind of a big story, and the organization didn’t try to run from it. The team painted it as a tragic and slightly scary example of what can happen if you show off your wealth without thinking of the ramifications. Live and learn, and next time consider a gated community.

What didn’t make the news was the other stuff that got taken. I may have been naive enough to believe the news reports, but then you start to hear things on the locker-to-locker information superhighway. First, one of the guys really liked his firearms and had a couple of automatic assault rifles, including some AK-47s. Next, a large collection of porno DVDs had gone missing. Finally, the pillow-case-sized bag of weed that had been sitting on the kitchen table, next to its accoutrements. All of it gone, none of it reported.

Jim Furtado Posted: July 04, 2014 at 04:08 PM | 98 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: drug use

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: July 04, 2014 at 04:31 PM (#4743428)
So, Rays in '11 w/ Longo, Price, and Brignac - right? (Longoria's gun theft was a big story at the time.)
Wonder why Dirk was so (relatively) explicit here?
--
EDIT: It's a good article.
   2. Pat Rapper's Delight Posted: July 04, 2014 at 04:37 PM (#4743433)
I'm kind of shocked that Hideki Matsui would have been living with roommates.
   3. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: July 04, 2014 at 04:41 PM (#4743443)
The first comment after the article speculates that it was Price, Longoria, and Brignac, and the second comment links to an article that more or less confirms it.

Also, I don't know where the headline comes from. Nothing in the article really suggests that Hayhurst thinks MLB needs to get marijuana out of the game. He's only suggesting the league get rid of the inconsistency in its rules regarding pot. I might be projecting, but the article read to me as much more in favor of just letting everyone smoke than it was of testing the 40-man rosters for marijuana use.
   4. boteman Posted: July 04, 2014 at 04:47 PM (#4743452)
I honestly wonder how long (in years or Human generations) it will take until American society stops dancing around the topic of Mary Jane? If the thieves had made off with a cases of alcohol I'm guessing that might have made the news at least in some capacity; I assume it would've been reported to the police because it's legal and thus been reported by the news ignorencia.

The U.S. is just in this weird transition period where the laws against pot are falling one by one, so nobody is really sure what the score is. I saw this oversized pick-em-up truck in my bank parking lot recently painted all green with a certain leaf design all over it, advertising an "energy" drink based on cannabis. I had to ask the driver what he thought of the chances of the upcoming Florida ballot referendum on medical 420 and without hesitation he replied, "Oh, it'll pass. No doubt about it."

In the meantime, where does that leave institutions like MLB and its internal regulations, to say nothing of the varying local laws in each of its home team markets? Then there's the thorny question of the Federal law and its international obligations which have been mentioned when the topic of drugs is raised.
   5. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: July 04, 2014 at 04:51 PM (#4743461)
Well if the thieves had stolen alcohol the players would have been happy yo report it. If they reported a bunch of weed stolen they would be admitting a crime, potentially a felony, and that isn't happening.

I don't really care about weed one way or the other but as long as it's illegal no one is going to report it stolen.
   6. madvillain Posted: July 04, 2014 at 05:00 PM (#4743468)
I honestly wonder how long (in years or Human generations) it will take until American society stops dancing around the topic of Mary Jane?


It's already happening. It's completely legal in WA and CO and a few states (I know of DC, Oregon and MI) will have ballot measures this fall to start the legislation process.

This is a good link to see the legal status of marijuana in every state.

I live in Seattle and smoke, it's almost ubiquitous here: the smell is in the air when you walk around, cannabis clubs dot the streetways, stuff like that.
   7. bobm Posted: July 04, 2014 at 05:44 PM (#4743557)
FTFA:

Oddly, when rumors of what else had been stolen started making their way around the locker room, none of us were surprised. Lots of players had at least one of those things in their possession at any given time. Hell, a former teammate of mine actually had his own company called Four Dollar Porn and sold it from his locker!


Deadspin: Hayhurst: Inside the Spring Training Market for $4 Porn

Funny, you could get fined hundreds of dollars if you had your sister in your hotel room or didn't show enough sock when in uniform, but there was no charge for vending pornography in the locker room.
   8. Dale Sams Posted: July 04, 2014 at 05:58 PM (#4743594)
But Price looks nothing like...

Wonder why Dirk was so (relatively) explicit here?


Aren't the Rays the ones who call him out every time he writes a Baseball article? Call him a failure and a never-was?

   9. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: July 04, 2014 at 06:30 PM (#4743623)
I live in Seattle and smoke, it's almost ubiquitous here: the smell is in the air when you walk around, cannabis clubs dot the streetways, stuff like that.


It's true. Every time I'm near Pike Place (which is admittedly not that often) I catch a whiff. Of course, it's not legal to smoke in public, but I think the only way you're going to get in trouble is by smoking right in front of a cop and blowing it in his stupid monkey face. And then he'll write you a ticket. For $27.

It is a little annoying walking down the street in the U district and winding up in a cloud of marijuana smoke when you aren't expecting it, although I can't say it's any worse than walking behind a cigarette smoker.
   10. Bhaakon Posted: July 04, 2014 at 06:49 PM (#4743630)
It's already happening. It's completely legal in WA and CO and a few states (I know of DC, Oregon and MI) will have ballot measures this fall to start the legislation process.


Even in the states where it's legal (medically or recreationally), you're usually only allowed to have a handful of plants or an ounce or two of the finished product. Having a pillow case full of bud in your house might still get you arrested on suspicion of dealing without a license
   11. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: July 04, 2014 at 07:04 PM (#4743635)

I live in Seattle and smoke, it's almost ubiquitous here: the smell is in the air when you walk around, cannabis clubs dot the streetways, stuff like that.


Said as if it is a good thing. Unfortunately we have swung to far the other direction from 'pot is horrible' to 'pot is harmless'.
   12. McCoy Posted: July 04, 2014 at 07:14 PM (#4743640)
Most of the harm caused by marijuana is either because we criminalized it or by our own choice. If we're not going to outlaw alcohol, cigarettes, 40 grams of fat meals, 50 gram of sugar snacks, and a whole host of stupid and dangerous things then there really is no reason to outlaw marijuana.
   13. cardsfanboy Posted: July 04, 2014 at 07:21 PM (#4743644)
It's completely legal in WA and CO and a few states (I know of DC, Oregon and MI) will have ballot measures this fall to start the legislation process.


It's not completely legal, it's legal as long as the feds decide not to make a deal about it.

   14. Bruce Markusen Posted: July 04, 2014 at 07:26 PM (#4743646)
Good point, Robert. There are lots of medical people still questioning the notion that marijuana has no harmful effects.
   15. cardsfanboy Posted: July 04, 2014 at 07:30 PM (#4743648)
Said as if it is a good thing. Unfortunately we have swung to far the other direction from 'pot is horrible' to 'pot is harmless'.


Agree. I'm pro legalizing, but any friend I know who actually partakes of it, acts like it's a proven safe product. Even when told that there are 21(?) known carcinogens in pot, their response "only if you smoke it...if you use a vaporizer that is not true." saying the people who I have almost never seen take it other than as a joint/bong/one hitter.
   16. madvillain Posted: July 04, 2014 at 07:35 PM (#4743652)
Said as if it is a good thing. Unfortunately we have swung to far the other direction from 'pot is horrible' to 'pot is harmless'.


On the harm scale it's below alcohol and above aspirin. Kids shouldn't smoke pot. Adults should be free to choose either way, just like with booze.

It's not completely legal, it's legal as long as the feds decide not to make a deal about it.


It's completely legal. The day after WA legalized the Obama White House very clearly signaled they are not going to step in. It's been over a year since then and go figure, they haven't stepped in.

Good point, Robert. There are lots of medical people still questioning the notion that marijuana has no harmful effects.


And most of them are on big pharma or the NIH's dole. Nobody is going to argue that marijuana doesn't have some detrimental health effects, but just in my personal life I'm surrouned by highly successful people of all backgrounds (a PHD post doc, a programmer for Valve, a product lead at Microsoft, myself a small business owner doing well) that use, and continue to have success in their life and produce in society.

but any friend I know who actually partakes of it, acts like it's a proven safe product.


If you can find a single study that links a higher incidence of lung cancer to pot smoking (and not poly users of cigs and weed) I will concede the point. But you won't be able to find one. In fact, more evidence is coming out that there is something in pot that inhibits cancerous growths.

As for lung function, nobody is going to argue that it helps, but the effects are exaggerated. Half the NBA smokes FFS and they seem pretty capable of running up and down at max effort for 82 games a year.
   17. AuntBea Posted: July 04, 2014 at 07:56 PM (#4743655)
I'm 2/3 of the way drunk right now, which is the only reason I'm posting on this thread. That being said, as a longtime resident, student and very serious partier in both Berkeley and San Francisco, I can assure you that pot is for the most part far more harmless than virtually any other drug available, definitely including alcohol, and I sorely wish it didn't make me so paranoid or I'd be smoking up right now rather than drinking this swill.

   18. cardsfanboy Posted: July 04, 2014 at 07:58 PM (#4743656)
It's completely legal. The day after WA legalized the Obama White House very clearly signaled they are not going to step in. It's been over a year since then and go figure, they haven't stepped in.


Correct, but that doesn't mean that it's going to stay that way under the next administration.

If you can find a single study that links a higher incidence of lung cancer to pot smoking (and not poly users of cigs and weed) I will concede the point. But you won't be able to find one. In fact, more evidence is coming out that there is something in pot that inhibits cancerous growths.


It's not about the higher rate, it's about the false belief that pot is perfectly safe. Everyone knows it's safer than alchohol or cigarettes or other recreational drugs, only complete idiots claim differently, but only complete idiots also claim it's perfectly safe.
   19. Dale Sams Posted: July 04, 2014 at 08:00 PM (#4743658)
No one going mention Schizophrenia triggers? I don't care personally other than the smell making me retch.
   20. McCoy Posted: July 04, 2014 at 08:06 PM (#4743662)
Everyone knows it's safer than alchohol or cigarettes or other recreational drugs, only complete idiots claim differently, but only complete idiots also claim it's perfectly safe.

Seems to be a pedantic strawman point to start a 500 post debate. Nothing on the planet is perfectly safe and anyone who takes the perfectly safe claim seriously needs to be introduced to the word hyperbole and how humans tend to exaggerate.
   21. madvillain Posted: July 04, 2014 at 08:19 PM (#4743667)
Correct, but that doesn't mean that it's going to stay that way under the next administration.


It could happen but it it's more likely to happen with a socially conservative president and going after states' rights as a major policy plank both in the runup and post election would be a great way to piss off a large chunk of his intellectual (ahem) base.
   22. cardsfanboy Posted: July 04, 2014 at 08:19 PM (#4743668)
Seems to be a pedantic strawman point to start a 500 post debate. Nothing on the planet is perfectly safe and anyone who takes the perfectly safe claim seriously needs to be introduced to the word hyperbole and how humans tend to exaggerate.


I said "acts like it's a proven safe product"...then madvillian responded with "find a study saying it's worse than cigarette." That was the strawman argument. I never said it was safer than cigarettes, but pot smokers are paranoid enough that any study that says anything negative "that study came from big pharma"....the truth is that pot studies are still in their infancy, to think that smoking something doesn't have a harmful effect, goes contradictory to common sense.(it's fully possible that is true, but there are no where near enough studies to prove either side, and until there are...common sense should be the direction people are leaning)

Again, I'm fully in support of legalizing it, outlawing it was one of the biggest waste of money / oppressive things this government has ever done, and that includes 4 or so full scale wars.
   23. cardsfanboy Posted: July 04, 2014 at 08:21 PM (#4743670)
deleted: too political..wrong thread.
   24. madvillain Posted: July 04, 2014 at 09:09 PM (#4743690)
the truth is that pot studies are still in their infancy


Sorry man but this is just not correct. The US executive branch has been funding research with the express purpose of demonizing pot for the better part of the last 100 years. For all the money they have spent, they haven't come up with much.

In fact, the contemporary research into Marijuana suggests that the human brain might in fact have evolved in tandem with people using pot. There are areas on the brain that seem highly tuned to the compounds found in marijuana, perhaps a bit too "tuned" to suggest happenstance.

I'm not some "burned out stoner" pushing weed as the cure for all that ails humanity (in fact I can't stand most "granola crunchers" with their silly "it's all natural bro" bs), but I'm very curious about science in general and the the more science that is done on weed that isn't with the express goal of keeping it demonized and illegal seems to suggest there might just be something to the idea that weed is a pretty amazing substance that deserves closer inspection.

On a personal note, my pops died a very nasty death from esophegeal cancer and chemo (#### chemo). Weed was literally the only thing that made him feel life was worth even bothering with anymore. Denying weed to to cancer patients is cruel as all heck.
   25. cardsfanboy Posted: July 04, 2014 at 09:23 PM (#4743695)
deleted again....Sorry...not really wanting to have this conversation here...basically all I'm saying is that Pot is not perfectly safe, and pot heads like to pretend it's some miracle drug with no negative effects and is only illegal because the man is keeping them down... (paranoid much?)
   26. McCoy Posted: July 04, 2014 at 09:44 PM (#4743708)
Someone needs to introduce you to hyperbole. It will make your life so much easier.
   27. cardsfanboy Posted: July 04, 2014 at 09:53 PM (#4743712)
Someone needs to introduce you to hyperbole. It will make your life so much easier.


I'm thinking others just need to read. When I said that it wasn't completely legal, I was 100% correct. If they were just saying something hyperbolic, they just should assume I'm being pedantic and go on. To argue the point was ridiculous as I was 100% correct in my comment, and they weren't. I have no problem being called pedantic on that issue. I was being pedantic, it wasn't a big deal, but to argue with me, when I was 100% correct was just silly.

Same in regards to Robert's point in post 11 about how much people have gone over board the other way on pot.
   28. Dale Sams Posted: July 04, 2014 at 10:01 PM (#4743716)
Pot does inhibit driving also doesn't it? Just asking. (yes yes alcohol, sleep deprivation)
   29. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: July 04, 2014 at 10:14 PM (#4743719)
Nothing is "perfectly safe." I've spent my evening with a 6" cigar in my mouth and a glass of scotch at my side. I suppose the ice cube in the scotch glass is good for me but the rest of it is pretty crappy. I am willing to trade off some long range concerns for the relaxation and enjoyment that brought me. I am not a doctor but marijuana seems likely to be similar. If I light up from time to time (and to Dale's point, don't try and drive 75 miles an hour or operate a jackhammer afterwards) I'm not going to turn into an after school special but at the same time some recognition that it isn't a miracle drug is probably wise.
   30. NJ in DC (Now with Wife!) Posted: July 04, 2014 at 10:17 PM (#4743721)
   31. morineko Posted: July 04, 2014 at 11:48 PM (#4743758)
Re TFA, the article is by a guy who admits to a pills addiction in his latest book but then goes off because almost everyone in baseball smokes pot. Considering how much pain your average player is probably in on a daily basis, what's worse: the pills or weed?
   32. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: July 05, 2014 at 12:22 AM (#4743768)
On the harm scale it's below alcohol and above aspirin. Kids shouldn't smoke pot. Adults should be free to choose either way, just like with booze.

Better than alcohol is an incredibly low bar. Alcohol is a disaster for society. I agree adults should be free to choose, but to be clear, they should choose not to partake.

but just in my personal life I'm surrouned by highly successful people of all backgrounds (a PHD post doc, a programmer for Valve, a product lead at Microsoft, myself a small business owner doing well) that use, and continue to have success in their life and produce in society.

Yes, some people can handle it and some cannot. It's not a perfect correlation, but no one ever said it was. Overall rampant pot use is a negative for a productive society.
   33. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: July 05, 2014 at 03:45 AM (#4743796)
In fact, the contemporary research into Marijuana suggests that the human brain might in fact have evolved in tandem with people using pot. There are areas on the brain that seem highly tuned to the compounds found in marijuana, perhaps a bit too "tuned" to suggest happenstance.


There is actually extremely little research on marijuana in the US, because it has been illegal or virtually impossible to do because of federal law. We're really in uncharted waters in terms of actual epidemiologic evidence. In the very limited range of studies, there was a study several years that showed an association between marijuana smoking and increased incidence of dissociative events in people with schizophrenia, but that only indicates that those with schizophrenia-related disorders shouldn't smoke marijuana, which we probably knew anyway. That population is likely to self-medicate in some way, and marijuana is probably safer than alcohol as far that goes. Otherwise there's really almost nothing except some evidence that it's good for pain.

Evolutionary hypotheses about development of the human brain and marijuana are purely speculative and have no basis in experimental science.

Yes, some people can handle it and some cannot. It's not a perfect correlation, but no one ever said it was. Overall rampant pot use is a negative for a productive society.


Public heath wise, I'd probably agree, but I think the War On Drugs is so much more worse for society than legalizing marijuana that it's not even remotely close. It's a no-brainer to legalize marijuana. The trick is to do so in a way that minimizes the negative effects that marijuana can have. It's going to be an interesting next 20 years while we figure out the best policies for managing this stuff. The problem is that there is an insane amount of money to be made in being the Anheuser-Busch of marijuana, and that money may influence policy in a way that doesn't have the best interests of society at heart.

EDIT: From what I've seen, marijuana is going to be marketed in a way that's similar to energy drinks and dietary supplements, which I find incredibly annoying. Enjoy!
   34. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 05, 2014 at 06:40 AM (#4743804)
The problem is that there is an insane amount of money to be made in being the Anheuser-Busch of marijuana, and that money may influence policy in a way that doesn't have the best interests of society at heart.

Sort of like e-cigarettes, with their teen-friendly flavors and added nicotine punch. Already we're seeing this go from a smart alternative to cigarettes to being just another way to introduce new smokers to the real thing. One more reason why simple decriminalization of the existing supply and demand chain is infinitely preferable to allowing Big Money to smell an opportunity to rationalize the distribution and created a whole new set of users.

   35. Lassus Posted: July 05, 2014 at 07:08 AM (#4743805)
It's true. Every time I'm near Pike Place (which is admittedly not that often) I catch a whiff.

People smoking in public in NYC has never been that unusual a sight.
   36. BDC Posted: July 05, 2014 at 08:53 AM (#4743825)
I guess it's generally accepted that marijuana is non-toxic, and doesn't lead to chemical dependency in the way that opiates do. That said, it's an intoxicant and it's a smoke, and one can absolutely see the interests that a professional sport might have in discouraging its use, legal or not: just as they'd discourage alcohol or tobacco. Of course (as #s 33-34 imply) they might go the alcohol route and rename the Denver stadium Mile High again and sell weed at hundreds of concession stands while the fine print says "Smoke Responsibly," yeah right.

I don't mean to be down on the stuff, though I don't use it myself (30+ years ago, I really did find that it impaired memory and concentration). But its widespread open use will cause problems, as #s 28 and 32 note, in terms of more risk of DUI at least. I mean, not to kid oneself, there are plenty of stoned drivers as it is, but legalization will mean more of them. The tradeoff may be worth it, but will be there.
   37. The_Ex Posted: July 05, 2014 at 09:07 AM (#4743831)
Does baseball have to get rid of marijuana? I don't think its a performance enhancer.
   38. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: July 05, 2014 at 09:52 AM (#4743840)
I agree adults should be free to choose, but to be clear, they should choose not to partake.


You should choose to keep your ####### thoughts to yourself.

I don't smoke pot, by the way.
   39. Joey B. has reignited his October #Natitude Posted: July 05, 2014 at 11:07 AM (#4743855)
I think the only way you're going to get in trouble is by smoking right in front of a cop and blowing it in his stupid monkey face.

Absolute classic Red Diaper Doper Baby Think Factory right here. Bravo.
   40. CrosbyBird Posted: July 05, 2014 at 11:35 AM (#4743863)
Better than alcohol is an incredibly low bar. Alcohol is a disaster for society. I agree adults should be free to choose, but to be clear, they should choose not to partake.

This is absolute nonsense. Alcohol, used responsibly, enhances life. Moderate drinkers have higher life expectancy than heavy drinkers, who have higher life expectancy than non-drinkers.

It's not the New England Journal of Medicine, but Time Magazine is pretty reputable.

If you don't have a medical condition that specifically makes alcohol dangerous (and I'd consider alcoholism to be such a condition), you should choose to partake if you enjoy it. Let's not forget that pleasure is its own reward; happy people live longer, but more importantly, they live better.

Yes, some people can handle it and some cannot. It's not a perfect correlation, but no one ever said it was. Overall rampant pot use is a negative for a productive society.

Rampant is doing a lot of the heavy lifting there. Casual pot use by responsible adults may well be a net positive for society (because it replaces less healthy forms of intoxication, because it's pleasurable, and because there are medical benefits).
   41. Dale Sams Posted: July 05, 2014 at 11:57 AM (#4743878)
heavy drinkers, who have higher life expectancy than non-drinkers.


Heavy drinkers have a higher LE than non-drinkers?
   42. McCoy Posted: July 05, 2014 at 11:57 AM (#4743879)
Hell, without alcohol we wouldn't have a society. We'd all still be hunter/gatherers dying off after bad winters and water contamination.
   43. McCoy Posted: July 05, 2014 at 11:58 AM (#4743880)
Heavy drinkers have a higher LE than non-drinkers?

Who'd want to live long as a tea-totaler?
   44. Dale Sams Posted: July 05, 2014 at 12:20 PM (#4743895)
Well personally I wish E would replace whatever as America's drug of choice.
   45. CrosbyBird Posted: July 05, 2014 at 12:38 PM (#4743911)
Heavy drinkers have a higher LE than non-drinkers?

I was surprised myself.
   46. tshipman Posted: July 05, 2014 at 01:06 PM (#4743939)
I support legalized pot, but the constant reek at any outdoor (and some indoor!) venue for music, sports, whatever is really ####### annoying. It's not enough to make me re-think my position, but it's super obnoxious.

This thread is a great indicator of the other annoying thing about pot, where potheads tell you that it's suuuuuper awesome and totally not unhealthy or dangerous in any way.
   47. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 05, 2014 at 01:20 PM (#4743958)
I support legalized pot, but the constant reek at any outdoor (and some indoor!) venue for music, sports, whatever is really ####### annoying. It's not enough to make me re-think my position, but it's super obnoxious.

I've never smoked it, but the smell of pot doesn't particularly bother me. Maybe spending countless nights as a non-smoker in smoke-filled pool rooms helped immunize me from reacting to smoke in almost any form.

This thread is a great indicator of the other annoying thing about pot, where potheads tell you that it's suuuuuper awesome and totally not unhealthy or dangerous in any way.

Proselytizers will proselytize. Hey, you wanna hear about the top 50 movies of all time?
   48. Sunday silence Posted: July 05, 2014 at 01:35 PM (#4743972)

Sorry man but this is just not correct. The US executive branch has been funding research with the express purpose of demonizing pot for the better part of the last 100 years. For all the money they have spent, they haven't come up with much.


how does this disprove the idea that pot studies are in their infancy? NOthing you've said here rebuts that.

Putting smoke in your lungs on a habitual basis cannot be good for them. I smoked pot for 23 years and I would periodically get shortness of breath and some sort of minor pain in my neck.

I was not convinced they were connected to pot, they might be but the breath could just be from humidity or getting older. They werent serious, they didnt last long, it was no big deal. After I quit those symptoms disappeared in about 6 months. Have not experienced either for the past 8 years.

So my anecdotal evidence is that smoke can injure your lungs. As for weather the stuff is better or worse than alcohol it really depends on how much of either one you are using. Both are dangerous both should be used in moderation.

I was going to say that weather pot is better/worse than alcohol is not relevant. But then again there is an argument about hypocrisy and the war on drugs. So in that sense, yeah I guess that's a fair comparison. On the politics of pot.

But as for health, to say something is better or worse is hardly valid from the health stand point. its like saying amphetamines are safer than alcohol so go ahead and take speed every day....

Lots of silly comments in this thread.
   49. Sunday silence Posted: July 05, 2014 at 01:38 PM (#4743974)

Heavy drinkers have a higher LE than non-drinkers?


this is not yet established from what I have read. It seems to be true that moderate drinkers have better LE than non drinkers. There are all kinds of issues as for why that might be. I think the jury is still out on heavy drinking.

But if it makes you feel you are doing something healthy go ahead and have 12 beers.
   50. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: July 05, 2014 at 02:07 PM (#4744008)

This is absolute nonsense. Alcohol, used responsibly, enhances life. Moderate drinkers have higher life expectancy than heavy drinkers, who have higher life expectancy than non-drinkers.


Wow, now this is funny. What horsesh!t. You tell yourself whatever you have to...

This thread is a great indicator of the other annoying thing about pot, where potheads tell you that it's suuuuuper awesome and totally not unhealthy or dangerous in any way.

Yup, barganing is awesome.
   51. CrosbyBird Posted: July 05, 2014 at 02:08 PM (#4744011)
I support legalized pot, but the constant reek at any outdoor (and some indoor!) venue for music, sports, whatever is really ####### annoying. It's not enough to make me re-think my position, but it's super obnoxious.

I'm fine with any venue that makes the free choice to ban smoke of any kind for the nuisance factor. I believe pretty strongly in legalization but I don't want to get on a plane or sit in a movie theater full of pot smoke. If they want to sell edibles, which are entirely internalized, no right-minded person should object.

Bear in mind that legalized pot makes vaporization more feasible, which eliminates about 95% of the nuisance and all of the external health concerns. At that point, it's just an odor that you either like or dislike, and if that really bothers you then you should wear noseplugs in public.

This thread is a great indicator of the other annoying thing about pot, where potheads tell you that it's suuuuuper awesome and totally not unhealthy or dangerous in any way.

I wouldn't say there are no risks at all. If you drink too much water, you can die. Aspirin can kill you.

What I will say is that there has never been a single documented case of marijuana toxicity in human beings. The amounts that have been found to be fatal to rats in a laboratory are so absurdly high as to be all-but-impossible for human dosing.

We know that marijuana has some health benefits and that there are some emotional effects that are a mixed bag and highly personalized (and mostly customizable through strain selection). We know that marijuana is not physically addictive but can be psychologically addictive. We know that there's a good chance that marijuana has some negative effects on the developing brain, which is a good reason to keep it away from children and adolescents. The mechanism of smoking any substance is not good for your lungs; water filtration reduces that harm, and vaporization/consumption eliminates that harm.

I don't think I'm at all unrealistic about the wonders/harms of marijuana. It is generally a pleasurable experience, and it can address some medical issues more cheaply than a number of alternatives, with fewer side-effects. It a substance that can be used safely and if abused can cause harm. It's fair to say, however, that we're talking about relatively small harm, and a substance that is fairly difficult to abuse.
   52. CrosbyBird Posted: July 05, 2014 at 02:10 PM (#4744012)
Wow, now this is funny. What horsesh!t. You tell yourself whatever you have to...

My source is Time Magazine. The link is in my post above.

I'm willing to entertain rebuttal evidence that is from a source more reputable than your ass.
   53. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: July 05, 2014 at 02:15 PM (#4744017)
I'm willing to entertain rebuttal evidence that is from a source more reputable than your ass.

Zinger! Good for you. That must feel good.
   54. CrosbyBird Posted: July 05, 2014 at 02:24 PM (#4744025)
Zinger! Good for you. That must feel good.

I think it was a remarkably tame response to "you tell yourself whatever you have to" and "bargaining is awesome." I'm not even a particularly big drinker, although I enjoy a hard beverage on occasion.

This isn't a matter of an uninformed opinion or wishcasting on my part. It's based on legitimate scientific research.
   55. cardsfanboy Posted: July 05, 2014 at 02:31 PM (#4744033)

What I will say is that there has never been a single documented case of marijuana toxicity in human beings. The amounts that have been found to be fatal to rats in a laboratory are so absurdly high as to be all-but-impossible for human dosing.


It hasn't prevented coroners from making that call though.

Gemma Moss, 31, from Boscombe in Bournemouth, had moderate to high levels in her system.

A post-mortem examination found she died as a result of cannabis toxicity. It is thought she may have suffered a cardiac arrest triggered by the drug.


Mind you, it's arguable that this was an incorrect conclusion, but there has been at least one official human death from cannabis toxicity. (and there have been several deaths linked to pot smoking, in which the primary cause might have been heart attack, but the trigger was listed as pot smoking) (of course the paranoid nature of pot smokers, means they refute it by saying "this was people looking to blame pot smoking, and had a chance.")

Zinger! Good for you. That must feel good.


Not only the Time magazine but Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research
detailed a study conducted by psychologist Charles Holahan and a team of scientists at the University of Texas at Austin, that showed people who drank in moderation lived longer that non-drinkers.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/life/health/a-sobering-truth-drinkers-live-longer-than-non-drinkers/article/363956#ixzz36cVhlCfd



There are several studies that reach that same conclusion, it is not a controversial conclusion.
   56. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: July 05, 2014 at 02:42 PM (#4744036)
Absolute classic Red Diaper Doper Baby Think Factory right here. Bravo.


It was a Simpsons reference, you humorless moron. Classic dumbass Joey, really living up to his clueless assholery. You bring absolutely nothing of value to this site with your angry 12 year old brand of snark.
   57. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: July 05, 2014 at 02:53 PM (#4744044)
Sorry man but this is just not correct. The US executive branch has been funding research with the express purpose of demonizing pot for the better part of the last 100 years. For all the money they have spent, they haven't come up with much.


If they've been doing research, then they haven't been sharing much of it with the scientific community or publishing it. There's very little out there for policymakers or scientists.
   58. CrosbyBird Posted: July 05, 2014 at 03:05 PM (#4744051)
Mind you, it's arguable that this was an incorrect conclusion, but there has been at least one official human death from cannabis toxicity. (and there have been several deaths linked to pot smoking, in which the primary cause might have been heart attack, but the trigger was listed as pot smoking) (of course the paranoid nature of pot smokers, means they refute it by saying "this was people looking to blame pot smoking, and had a chance.")

It sounds like "had a heart attack with marijuana in the system" and not "marijuana-induced heart attack" to me, but I'll concede the point that it is not zero documented cases. (To my defense, this was less than a year ago and not in the US, but I was still incorrect.) I don't think it has much to do with angry anti-pot rhetoric; marijuana does slightly elevate heart rate and if someone has a heart attack with a heart-rate-elevator in their system, it's at least a worthy suspect.

This is at least a bit more reasonable an argument than "some guy got really stoned and jumped off a building, so the marijuana killed him."
   59. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: July 05, 2014 at 03:07 PM (#4744052)
There are several studies that reach that same conclusion, it is not a controversial conclusion.


I think there's a little controversy. The issue is that the population who doesn't drink at all is a little funny. Often they're lower income on average, they're often a little more unhealthy (perhaps they don't drink because they have underlying health problems unrelated to alcohol), sometimes the studies don't exclude people who were actually problem drinkers in the past and are now dry. Being able to drink moderately is kind of a sign of health - it means you're healthy enough to drink.

Even with those complications though, I think there's pretty good evidence that moderate alcohol consumption is generally good for cardiovascular health. It can be an issue for breast cancer, though.
   60. cardsfanboy Posted: July 05, 2014 at 03:17 PM (#4744059)
It sounds like "had a heart attack with marijuana in the system" and not "marijuana-induced heart attack" to me, but I'll concede the point that it is not zero documented cases. (To my defense, this was less than a year ago and not in the US, but I was still incorrect.)


It was also the second one, both from the UK, and both cases are widely debated as to whether or not the coroner was correct in their conclusions. (although many people are using the argument...there was never a case before, therefore there can't be a case again)

There was a case in 2004 also, which was the first person to be said to die of cannabis toxicity. Again, those conclusions are fully under debate(although much of the debate is being spurred by pro-pot groups) and it seems that the argument is that pot is getting stronger due to better methods of growing.

   61. cardsfanboy Posted: July 05, 2014 at 03:22 PM (#4744060)
I think there's a little controversy. The issue is that the population who doesn't drink at all is a little funny. Often they're lower income on average, they're often a little more unhealthy (perhaps they don't drink because they have underlying health problems unrelated to alcohol), sometimes the studies don't exclude people who were actually problem drinkers in the past and are now dry. Being able to drink moderately is kind of a sign of health - it means you're healthy enough to drink.


I guess it's like saying Dante Bichette led the league in homeruns in 1995...there is no debate there, but it's not the same as saying he was the best power hitter in the league that year. There really isn't a debate that moderate drinkers have longer life expectancy, just whether there is any reasonable conclusion to be reached with that piece of data.
   62. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: July 05, 2014 at 03:31 PM (#4744066)
I guess it's like saying Dante Bichette led the league in homeruns in 1995...there is no debate there, but it's not the same as saying he was the best power hitter in the league that year. There really isn't a debate that moderate drinkers have longer life expectancy, just whether there is any reasonable conclusion to be reached with that piece of data.


Yeah. What we want to know is whether alcohol 'causes' a shorter or longer lifespan, but it can tricky to tease out causation from that kind of raw observational data. What you want to be is the type of person who drinks moderately.
   63. formerly dp Posted: July 05, 2014 at 06:17 PM (#4744263)
I support legalized pot, but the constant reek at any outdoor (and some indoor!) venue for music, sports, whatever is really ####### annoying. It's not enough to make me re-think my position, but it's super obnoxious.
Your problem is with the venues, not the laws-- I've never lived in a state where pot was legal or quasi-legal, but the reek is still as constant. Getting rid of it doesn't require us to jail anyone, just enforce the anti-smoking regulations that are already in place at these venues.
==
People smoking in public in NYC has never been that unusual a sight.
They really cracked down on that over the past decade-plus, AFAIK-- used to be they'd just ask you to put it out, now they will arrest you for it. Saw it happen a lot in the East Village.
   64. bjhanke Posted: July 06, 2014 at 01:27 AM (#4744546)
The alcohol argument here seems to be a matter of language. The study did conclude that MODERATE drinking might actually be healthful, at least in terms of life expectancy. But the first dust-up was over a claim that a study had shown that HEAVY drinking was healthful. I know of no studies concluding that at all anywhere. My guess is that, if you took all the people here who are now mad at each other and sat them down individually,they'd come to the same conclusion - moderate drinking, possible; heavy drinking, not the same thing.

On pot. I graduated from college in 1968, and spent the next 4 years resisting the Vietnam draft. Anyone who thinks that I have NOT done LSD, magic mushrooms, peyote (mescaline), marijuana or hashish just isn't connecting the dots. I call these the "Nixon drugs" because Nixon was so out to criminalize them that he made it impossible for anyone OTHER than the federal government to try to honestly study them, because no one else could get legal access, much less publish results. The Nixon drugs have no business being classified in the same class as heroin. But they are so classified, so there's no serious way to study them, because they are illegal to possess. I think that may be why the Federal government keeps them illegal, but has, as of now, taken the stance that they're not going to punish people in states where it is legal. That way, they still retain the enormous hammer that allows police to do ridiculous things, and also prevents real study from being done. We, really, know about 2 or 3 percent of what we SHOULD know about all of the Nixon drugs. But you can't get a supply of them to study, if you're just a respected research university.

So, on pot. First, as with any other drug, dosage is everything. A guy who tries to keep up with the legend of Cheech and Chong is going to be stoned almost all the time, although he still probably can't smoke as much weed as a tobacco smoker can of his drug. After a while, you just get so stoned that you forget that you were going to take another toke. One thing I have found out is that there are VERY few driving problems caused by stoned drivers. The reason is that MJ mostly makes you want to lay back and relax, not get out and try to drive a car. It does happen, but it's a nothing problem compared to alcohol. Here in Missouri, where right-wing nonsense is our primary export, we tried linking pot and alcohol together as Driving While Intoxicated, as if pot and alcohol were the same thing. I have asked several State Highway Patrolmen what the percentage of DWIs were from pot and what percent were from alcohol. They have said, basically unanimously, that less than 1 (that's ONE) percent were from pot.

I have never been, nor met anyone who has ever been, paranoid about pot. I have met MANY people who are paranoid because they have weed in the house and Missouri laws, taken to the extreme, actually allow the police to seize your HOUSE if they find enough pot in it. THAT will make you paranoid. The pot itself, I have grave doubts. Never seen it.

Different people respond differently to the same drug. What pot does mostly to me, and what I use it exclusively for, is make me want to go to sleep. There are times when I can use a good sleeping pill (I have the horrible problem of taking my problems to bed with me; pot won't let me hold my thought together that long). It's sort of like Ambien.

My personal position on pot is that it might be slightly more dangerous than tobacco, except that nicotine is ungodly addictive (I think studies have shown that it is the MOST addictive thing we put in ourselves, including alcohol, the opiates and amphetamines), and the few studies that have been done have shown no effect, or next to none, of pot on the lungs. It seems counterintuitive, because it's smoked, and that's how the reports of the studies all start out - this is unintuitive, but we just can't find any lung cancer or tar or anything similar in pot smokers. If it's there, we can't find it. If that holds up, then it is clear that pot is the most harmless recreational drug we use. Not devoid of any effect, but less effect than anything, because tobacco is so addictive. Of course, what we could really use is a statement from the Federal Government that it was no longer going to enforce laws restricting academic study of pot - and all the other Nixon drugs. Then we might find out something that we would have some confidence in. - Brock Hanke (favorite recreational drug: magic mushrooms; alcohol consumption: nil. I just can't stand the taste of alcohol, no matter how much fruit juice it's drowned in. I also don't smoke tobacco, for the same reason - it tastes terrible, and then you hack and cough, and then I found out how addictive it was.)
   65. CrosbyBird Posted: July 06, 2014 at 02:43 AM (#4744564)
favorite recreational drug: magic mushrooms; alcohol consumption: nil. I just can't stand the taste of alcohol, no matter how much fruit juice it's drowned in.

You can't stand the taste of alcohol, but you can force down magic mushrooms?
   66. Bhaakon Posted: July 06, 2014 at 04:54 AM (#4744570)
It does happen, but it's a nothing problem compared to alcohol. Here in Missouri, where right-wing nonsense is our primary export, we tried linking pot and alcohol together as Driving While Intoxicated, as if pot and alcohol were the same thing. I have asked several State Highway Patrolmen what the percentage of DWIs were from pot and what percent were from alcohol. They have said, basically unanimously, that less than 1 (that's ONE) percent were from pot.


Not particularly surprising. Pot use is, by necessity, less social and less public than alcohol use. You have to know the guys you're smoking with aren't narcs, which means that you're mostly getting high at home or a friend's house instead of a bar, restaurant, or some other public venue that's not either your own home or somewhere that you can crash until you're sober enough drive.

If legal pot-smoking bars become a thing, there will absolutely be idiots stopping in to tie one on and then driving home baked.
   67. vivaelpujols Posted: July 06, 2014 at 05:40 AM (#4744576)
Interesting thread and a great post by Brock.

The one thing I can say for sure about pot is that it can have a wide array of emotional effects. Personally, pot usually makes me paranoid, anxious and uneasy, but it also makes me way better at music and helps me reassess my life and think philosophically which is sometimes hard to do when I'm so focused on day to day life and tangible goals. Not to say that it's bad to focus on that stuff, but it's also important to keep the balance. I know some people, like Brock, can fall asleep real easy after they smoke. For me pot is a crazy stimulant and keeps me up for hours. One of my best friends smoked too much pot and it made him depressed for awhile. Another smokes 3 joints a day and seems perfectly fine. That's the other thing about pot - it doesn't take much to get stoned of your ass, so there's really an upper limit of how bad it can be for you physically.

I think it's kind of ridiculous to say that people shouldn't smoke pot in a productive society. The idea that anything bad for you physically or psychologically should necessarily be discouraged is alien to me. Sometimes those things are necessary in order to shake up your life and have new ideas. If you want to have a perfect body, live to be 100 years old, have a high paying job and always be on the right path to whatever, you probably don't want to smoke too much pot. But there are plenty of other ways to live your life that are equally productive to society.

Another thing about pot, and this is purely speculation, is that it can be beneficial for Elliot Rodger, Taxi Driver type people. So many of these ###### up people are screwed because they are so hyper focus on one thing that they are lacking in there life and everything becomes filtered through that. Pot forces you to notice things outside yourself, it increases empathy and allows your mind to wander. People who commit crimes are often on some kind of substance, but I doubt it's ever (just) pot.

So I'd say that pot can definitely have bad physical and emotional (especially) effects. Those can lead good things down the road and there are also plenty of immediately positive effects as well. Take the good with bad and use in moderation and I think pot h is a net positive in the world.
   68. vivaelpujols Posted: July 06, 2014 at 05:47 AM (#4744577)
Not particularly surprising. Pot use is, by necessity, less social and less public than alcohol use. You have to know the guys you're smoking with aren't narcs, which means that you're mostly getting high at home or a friend's house instead of a bar, restaurant, or some other public venue that's not either your own home or somewhere that you can crash until you're sober enough drive.


But this isn't the only difference. Pot and alcohol simply have drastically different effects. Alcohol removes inhibitions, can make you aggressive and prone to emotional swings and impairs motor skills. Pot might make you spacier but I doesn't effect motor function and generally makes you more timid and lazy. Whenever I or my friends drive stoned, we drive way slower that when we're not.
   69. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 06, 2014 at 06:47 AM (#4744579)
Pot might make you spacier but I doesn't effect motor function and generally makes you more timid and lazy.

What, are you crazy?
   70. BDC Posted: July 06, 2014 at 09:01 AM (#4744593)
Interesting comments by all. I think Brock makes a key point in that different substances have different effects on different people. When I smoked quite a modest amount of marijuana in the late '70s, as I said, I found it hard to study and connect ideas clearly – though God knows how many other factors might have played a role there. I was also depressed and drank a lot. Sobering up after drinking I'd feel sharp as ever, mentally, if sometimes headachy. But more and more, there was no getting straight again after smoking; I was slipping into a kind of continuous fog.

As an older adult, I am probably the archetypal moderate drinker from the studies. One glass of wine at 5pm every day, two beers while I'm cooking an elaborate meal (which I do 2-3 times a week), basta: never get drunk, have two drinks at a party and move to seltzer water by 9pm or so. I can keep bottles of whiskey in the cabinet for years without temptation. Whether cause or effect, I have also had ridiculously good health my entire life. Between the ages of 38 and 45 I didn't drink alcohol at all: I didn't perceive a problem, I just stopped (and stopped caffeine for 5 years or so in the middle as well; now I have two cups of coffee at 6am every morning and none the rest of the day). People with my personality, as some above have suggested, are probably also likely to eat balanced meals, lots of fruit and veg, exercise, etc. The attitude toward drink is a part of it.

Which is also to say, I'd be loathe to generalize from my experience. Pot is not for me, but I see people use it without much impairment, and I'll bet there are people who are moderate users just as I use alcohol (or caffeine) moderately; and that's quite cool with me. As I said, it does and will have some effect on drivers. But I'd bet not anything like ####### cellphones.

   71. Joey B. has reignited his October #Natitude Posted: July 06, 2014 at 09:21 AM (#4744599)
It was a Simpsons reference

Oh, and you're also a God-damned full of sh*t liar.
   72. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 06, 2014 at 10:05 AM (#4744609)
Oh, and you're also a God-damned full of sh*t liar.

Time for your momma to change your sh*t-stained diaper again, little Joey.
   73. BDC Posted: July 06, 2014 at 11:25 AM (#4744650)
Oh, and you're also a God-damned full of sh*t liar

I rarely comment on another poster's demeanor here, frequently being an idiot myself, but unless that's also a Simpson's reference, it's not really called for. People are making jokes about weed on the Internet, man. Mellow out.
   74. Greg K Posted: July 06, 2014 at 11:36 AM (#4744655)
Aren't the Rays the ones who call him out every time he writes a Baseball article? Call him a failure and a never-was?

Maybe?
J.P. Arencibia did that once when he was with the Jays (Hayhurst was an analyst for the Jays channel as his first MLB media job I believe)
   75. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: July 06, 2014 at 12:24 PM (#4744680)
As for weather the stuff is better or worse than alcohol

True. Severe heat or cold can kill you. Also, tornadoes, hurricanes, typhoons, etc.
   76. Mirabelli Dictu (Chris McClinch) Posted: July 06, 2014 at 12:46 PM (#4744683)
It was a Simpsons reference

Oh, and you're also a God-damned full of sh*t liar.


It's pretty unimpeachably a Simpsons reference:

http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/scripts/weekend-at-burnsies

Key line: Marge, it's making my eyes better. And it's legal. I could walk up to the President and blow smoke in his stupid monkey face, and he'd just have to sit there groovin' on it!
   77. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: July 06, 2014 at 02:47 PM (#4744726)
Oh, and you're also a God-damned full of sh*t liar.


If you are as miserable in real life as you come across on this site, then I apologize. I'm sorry I got mad at you earlier - you lash out with such regularity and venom that it makes me think you're in a lot of pain. I don't know if you use this site as some kind of therapy where you blow off steam and you're somehow a well-adjusted person in other areas of your life, but it makes me sad. It makes everyone here sad. I hope that we're absorbing the pain and hurt that you would otherwise have unleashed on your loved ones, and that you have other dimensions to yourself than what you show here.
   78. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: July 06, 2014 at 04:01 PM (#4744757)
Oh, and you're also a God-damned full of sh*t liar.

You could sure use a joint. Or get laid. Or something.

   79. bjhanke Posted: July 06, 2014 at 04:12 PM (#4744760)
Crosbybird (#65) - Hah! I see you've been few places, too. The thing about mushrooms is that I can toss a gram in my mouth, chew a couple of times, and swallow. Then, something that tastes real good, and the tongue is happy again. With alcohol, sure, I could take ONE drink. In fact, on the three occasions that I have felt it important to get drunk (theater disaster, college frat teasing my brother about his lightweight older brother, and a party where my girlfriend was being teased about my refusal to drink), I just find a bottle of ever clear, down a about 4-5 stiff fingers of it in one Big Gulp, and follow with something that tastes good. An hour later, when I have not had to go worship the porcelain goddess, I stopped being fodder for teasing, because none of them, who drank every day, could hold down what I'd just done. But I have no long-term wear down from daily alcohol. I can handle a few ounces of 190 proof, once every 20 years.

vivaelpujols (#68) was very interesting. You've been with a much wider mix of people that I have; I have literally never seen pot make anyone paranoid, or make anyone energetic. The people I know fall into the stoner stereotype of just wanting to sit back and say, "MAN, am I wasted." Obviously, no interest in driving cars. I do, however, know one guy who stays mildly stoned during his entire workday. He's an ironworker. Yes, he goes out to walk on I-beams, stoned. He has said that practically everyone he worked with is the same. Apparently ironworking is painful to do (what a surprise), and the pot keeps them from seizing up or cramping. Me? On an I-beam? Stoned? That will never happen.

I very much like the attitude of BDC (#70). He doesn't do well with pot, so he doesn't smoke it. There are plenty of recreational drugs. Stay away from the viciously addictive. Stay away from the ones that make you mean, or paranoid, or anything else that is negative. Start out with the weakest effects - on your mind, and as addictive (don't start out with tobacco or alcohol; they will get you hooked). If you find something good, start out with light doses, and build gradually until you find your happy place. You'll eventually find something you like. Or not, in which case, find something that happens in your life that IS fun, and do that. That is what "recreational" means anyway, right? - Brock
   80. CrosbyBird Posted: July 06, 2014 at 07:45 PM (#4744835)
Crosbybird (#65) - Hah! I see you've been few places, too.

Peyote is still on the bucket list. I have a deal with myself that at age 70, I'm allowed to try heroin should I have the desire, but not a moment before. :)

According to my father, I missed out on the greatest drug known to man, the Quaalude. That man makes me look positively Republican.
   81. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: July 06, 2014 at 08:31 PM (#4744852)
I have a client (runs a private equity firm) who is very bullish on this marketplace (weed producers/infrastructure, not the penny stocks) and has met with some of those dispensaries and had some amusing stories about how disorganized and somewhat paranoid these dispensary owners are about investors. This is a guy that wants to park a large chunk of $$ into this market (on the infrastructure) and some of the dispensary owners and other people involved in this business are downright hostile towards people at these meetings. They don't understand why the investors want the dispensary to open up their books and explain their finances to these would be investors, as if they should just 'invest the money bro, it's all good'. Part of their fear and ignorance I'm sure comes form the general distrust for banks, as they can't really finance their operations with a FDIC insured institution in the first place (yet).
   82. base ball chick Posted: July 06, 2014 at 10:46 PM (#4744900)
ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: July 05, 2014 at 03:07 PM (#4744052)

I think there's a little controversy. The issue is that the population who doesn't drink at all is a little funny. Often they're lower income on average, they're often a little more unhealthy (perhaps they don't drink because they have underlying health problems unrelated to alcohol), sometimes the studies don't exclude people who were actually problem drinkers in the past and are now dry. Being able to drink moderately is kind of a sign of health - it means you're healthy enough to drink.

Even with those complications though, I think there's pretty good evidence that moderate alcohol consumption is generally good for cardiovascular health. It can be an issue for breast cancer, though.


- let me see if i got this right

healthy people who never drank alcohol in their whole lives and don't WANT to drink, are going to die younger than all the people who drink "moderately" (whatever the heck THAT means)

i don't believe it. where is the PROOF?
hahahaha






   83. bjhanke Posted: July 06, 2014 at 11:16 PM (#4744911)
I found Quaaludes to be as odd as drug as ever there was. My dad had them prescribed as sleeping pills way back, possibly when they first came out. He quit cold turkey after 6 months, because he could no longer sleep without them. He'd become that hooked that fast. I can't imagine how hooked someone would be who'd been doing them for years.

Anyway, he gave me his 20 or so leftovers, and I tried them. I found that, after about 15 minutes, I was about as horny as I could possibly be. Yeah, horny, on a sleeping pill. But then, another half-hour later, all that collapsed very quickly and I just passed out. Not that entertaining, and VERY addictive. I stayed away.

I've never had actual peyote cactus. What I got was called "synthetic mescaline." It was just like magic mushrooms - same effects, same duration, the same. Looking back, I have no proof that this was actually "mescaline extract from the cactus" or anything. In any case, I did not throw up, which is supposedly almost universal with the cactus. If I were considering peyote now, I'd read one of Carlos Castaneda's books first. Very helpful. Also there's an old book from 1973 called "Recreational Drugs", which was written by a married couple who just happened to be researchers in the field. I find it completely accurate up through 1973, which means the book knows about cocaine but not about crack or any of the versions of ecstasy. By 1973, you could no longer do the sort of really good research that this couple did. Recommended highly (pun intended).

Tulo's - I'll bet that what the dealers are conditioned to worry about is money actually kept accurately tracked on the books. An investor has to have that. A pot dealer has always had NOT to have it (you always carry a gun because you always carry cash), and the dealers are worried that the laws will go backwards, or the Feds will get involved, in which case, the books cook the dealer, so to speak. - Brock
   84. cardsfanboy Posted: July 07, 2014 at 12:24 AM (#4744923)
i don't believe it. where is the PROOF?
hahahaha


There isn't "proof", there is just multiple studies saying that is the case. Hard core proof would require a more controlled study, which might not really be possible. A couple of them have been linked in previous comments.

But here are is the most quoted one.
The time magazine article which references Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research which concludes abstaining from alcohol does tend to increase one's risk of dying, even when you exclude former problem drinkers. The most shocking part? Abstainers' mortality rates are higher than those of heavy drinkers.

   85. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: July 07, 2014 at 12:41 AM (#4744927)
You can't stand the taste of alcohol, but you can force down magic mushrooms?


Break them up into small pieces and eat them with chips and salsa.

Salsa hides the taste, chips cover the texture and remember, less is more (you can always take more once you know where you've gotten) ...

Tea (lots of honey) is also a good way to go.
   86. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: July 07, 2014 at 01:01 AM (#4744933)
There isn't "proof"


I think your joke detector might need a budweiser. Or you're just being thorough. Either way, here's to booze. Maybe one day we'll be reading similar studies about weed. I doubt it, but who knows.

I do wish Time had provided a link to the actual study, or at least mentioned the authors' names. I didn't get in to science for the glamour, but it makes me sad to see people get no recognition.
   87. PreservedFish Posted: July 07, 2014 at 01:54 AM (#4744946)
The time magazine article which references Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research which concludes abstaining from alcohol does tend to increase one's risk of dying, even when you exclude former problem drinkers. The most shocking part? Abstainers' mortality rates are higher than those of heavy drinkers.


Can someone explain these statistics to me? Mortality rate ... everyone still dies, right?
   88. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: July 07, 2014 at 03:57 AM (#4744966)
   85. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: July 07, 2014 at 12:41 AM (#4744927)
You can't stand the taste of alcohol, but you can force down magic mushrooms?


Break them up into small pieces and eat them with chips and salsa.

Salsa hides the taste, chips cover the texture and remember, less is more (you can always take more once you know where you've gotten) ...

Tea (lots of honey) is also a good way to go.


using to rice crispy marshmello treat as bread makes them taste like heaven. much better than a Busch light chaser. Sadly I know this from experience.
   89. Canker Soriano Posted: July 07, 2014 at 04:35 AM (#4744967)
Mortality rate ... everyone still dies, right?

Mortality rate measures deaths per population per time. If something increases the mortality rate in a population, then it means (simply) that more people will die earlier because of that thing. So in this instance, the article is saying that non-drinkers will die (on average) sooner than heavy drinkers (all other things being equal, theoretically at least - it's that last part that can be hard to figure because so many things can contribute to someone's death, it's hard to tease out what weight to give each factor and it's really hard to control for all of them in hopes of getting a "true" comparison on just one variable).

The title of the article (for those who want to seek it out) was: Late-Life Alcohol Consumption and 20-year Mortality. It's in the November 2010 issue of Alcoholism.
   90. BDC Posted: July 07, 2014 at 09:53 AM (#4745040)
Mortality rate ... everyone still dies, right?

Actually my great-uncle Henry drinks a half-bottle of Madeira every afternoon and shows no signs of aging. He's 256.
   91. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 07, 2014 at 09:58 AM (#4745046)
I'm driving back to Colorado next week for the first time in a year. I fully expect to see an enormous cloud of smoke visible several miles from the border with Wyoming.
   92. formerly dp Posted: July 07, 2014 at 10:18 AM (#4745072)
I'm driving back to Colorado next week for the first time in a year.
You taking orders?
   93. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 07, 2014 at 10:31 AM (#4745094)
We'll be on our way to Santa Fe for opera season, if I see George RR Martin at his favorite local restaurant I'm taking orders for spoilers from his unpublished books that I'm planning on beating out of him. How's it go? "A naked man has few secrets, a flayed man none. A fat man dragged around a parking lot by his beard will spill the beans in short order as well."
   94. Lassus Posted: July 07, 2014 at 11:22 AM (#4745145)
We'll be on our way to Santa Fe for opera season

Foregoing Glimmerglass? I'm sending Pete Rose after you.
   95. Tom Nawrocki Posted: July 07, 2014 at 12:19 PM (#4745208)
I'm driving back to Colorado next week for the first time in a year. I fully expect to see an enormous cloud of smoke visible several miles from the border with Wyoming.


Aside from the dispensaries you see every couple of blocks, you wouldn't know anything had changed. It's not like I'm going to Coheed and Cambria shows or anything, but the last time I smelled weed in public was before it had been legalized.

   96. BDC Posted: July 07, 2014 at 12:39 PM (#4745236)
I was in Washington State last week and disappointed not to see a Weed-o-Mart on every corner, but I see they've just started issuing retail licenses.

And in any case, on the list of "Pruriently Appealing Things I Wish We Could Get in Texas," legal weed ranks somewhere below coquilles-St.-Jacques with roe and Kinder Eggs.
   97. formerly dp Posted: July 07, 2014 at 12:58 PM (#4745262)
I was in Washington State last week and disappointed not to see a Weed-o-Mart on every corner, but I see they've just started issuing retail licenses.
They started issuing them this month, IIRC. It was supposed to be June but got pushed back.
   98. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 07, 2014 at 01:05 PM (#4745267)
Foregoing Glimmerglass? I'm sending Pete Rose after you.


I'll be going there when I get back to NY :)

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Harry Balsagne, anti-Centaur hate crime division
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogMike Scioscia, Matt Williams voted top managers
(23 - 3:46am, Oct 22)
Last: Cat8

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 2014 Discussion
(20 - 3:04am, Oct 22)
Last: bjhanke

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(115 - 2:49am, Oct 22)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogFan Returns Home Run Ball to Ishikawa; Receives World Series tickets
(57 - 2:07am, Oct 22)
Last: PreservedFish

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 1 OMNICHATTER
(602 - 2:01am, Oct 22)
Last: Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes

NewsblogAs Focus Faded and Losses Piled Up, Royals Change Their Game
(7 - 1:16am, Oct 22)
Last: boteman

NewsblogRoyals’ James Shields passed kidney stone during ALCS but is ready for World Series | The Kansas City Star
(40 - 1:00am, Oct 22)
Last: Roger Freed Is Ready

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(19 - 12:52am, Oct 22)
Last: Mike Emeigh

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(316 - 12:38am, Oct 22)
Last: madvillain

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(2898 - 11:11pm, Oct 21)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogDombrowski told that Iglesias 'will be fine' for 2015
(21 - 10:22pm, Oct 21)
Last: fra paolo

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(852 - 8:40pm, Oct 21)
Last: Biff, highly-regarded young guy

NewsblogBaseball's hardest throwing bullpen - Beyond the Box Score
(10 - 8:02pm, Oct 21)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

NewsblogMorosi: Could Cain’s story make baseball king of sports world again?
(107 - 7:04pm, Oct 21)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogBaseball Prospectus | Pebble Hunting: An Illustrated Guide to the People of Kauffman Stadium
(10 - 6:00pm, Oct 21)
Last: Perry

Page rendered in 1.1478 seconds
52 querie(s) executed