Actually it aids in recovery, but not performance enhancingI disagree. Treat it like alcohol. Only players over 21 should be able to partake. After all, pot is hardly a performance enhancing drug,
Last edited:
Actually it aids in recovery, but not performance enhancingI disagree. Treat it like alcohol. Only players over 21 should be able to partake. After all, pot is hardly a performance enhancing drug,
Marijuana in my state is allowed at 18 with a card. If you can afford the habit you can afford the card.
Alcohol is a destructive chemical, too. Using it without harm is not the problem. Abuse of any chemical is a problem when that use impacts the daily life of the user, or the ones the user interacts with, or both. I do not advocate making alcohol illegal. But I certainly will not condone abuses of it.
Not sure where that came from. I said treat it like any other addiction.You went from the criminal acts surrounding this, to a entirely different debate
Universities with any sense of morale compass should still test for marijuana and treat it like any other addiction.
ThisI've been around it long enough to know its b.s. to claim its no big deal. It is very destructive in my community as kids are murdering each other over pretending its a trade.
Morality by legislation is called a theocracyUniversities with any sense of morale compass should still test for marijuana and treat it like any other addiction.
We have different definitions of morality.Morality by legislation is called a theocracy
mo·ral·i·tyWe have different definitions of morality.
That’s a criminal code, morality involves behavior, and social expectationsLooks about right, but Ed equates morality legislation to a theocracy. Not relative imho. Criminal law typically is regulation in regards to an acceptable code of morality. It has nothing to do with theocracy.
And your original post states “moral compass “Universities with any sense of morale compass should still test for marijuana and treat it like any other addiction.
One I never mentioned anything about personal use . 2 morality police , like yourself see anything they disagree with as wrong. 3. Use of any thing does not mean addiction . By your definition if you have a glass of champagne on new years , and that was your first of the year your an addict. That’s just silly and the beginning of legislation of morality, your version of morality. Like when it was considered immoral to have sex before marriage, or marrying outside of the same race, . These are 2 of the look down the nose morality police things from the past. In the Bible it was considered immoral for a person to sleep with a divorced person . So my point is very simple ones morality is generally based on one’s personal views, and that is usually based on that persons religious beliefs. So when you legislate morality, you are pushing religious beliefs on to others . I love in our American history when we tried to legislate morality with the 18th amendment. That stupidity gave rise to organized crime. As the temperance movement’s version of morality didn’t match reality.You've circled back to it several times now. I am unable to understand what point you are making. I gather you enjoy pot. That is okay if it works for you. But do we really want any athletes that would exhibit substance abuse become normalized? I would hope the answer for most is no.
This was what you had to say . That very much sounds like you want the university to go into a persons personal life , to force your version of morals on to them . And as many of these universities are state institutions, it would have to be by legislation. So you are advocating for morality ( your’s ) by legislation. Period.Universities with any sense of morale compass should still test for marijuana and treat it like any other addiction.
Just so you know, calling people names in a discussion is NOT an argument for your position, it is a act of not listening. If you want a real discussion; listen to points and argue the points, don't use name-calling. When I learned debate, we always understood that the person who falls to calling names has lost the argument.One I never mentioned anything about personal use . 2 morality police , like yourself see anything they disagree with as wrong. 3. Use of any thing does not mean addiction . By your definition if you have a glass of champagne on new years , and that was your first of the year your an addict. That’s just silly and the beginning of legislation of morality, your version of morality. Like when it was considered immoral to have sex before marriage, or marrying outside of the same race, . These are 2 of the look down the nose morality police things from the past. In the Bible it was considered immoral for a person to sleep with a divorced person . So my point is very simple ones morality is generally based on one’s personal views, and that is usually based on that persons religious beliefs. So when you legislate morality, you are pushing religious beliefs on to others . I love in our American history when we tried to legislate morality with the 18th amendment. That stupidity gave rise to organized crime. As the temperance movement’s version of morality didn’t match reality.
And my circle back is because I am reminding you of you words Brotherman , and if you want to tell me it would not be by legislation remember a lot of these school you are referring to are state institutions
ps. I am voting yes on amendment 3 and 4 in Florida
In this case it’s not a name but a title, and seems to be earnedJust so you know, calling people names in a discussion is NOT an argument for your position, it is a act of not listening. If you want a real discussion; listen to points and argue the points, don't use name-calling. When I learned debate, we always understood that the person who falls to calling names has lost the argument.
Your usage of things like "morality police" is called deflection.
So you know , that is not what is being discussed,. But what is being discussed is “the moral compass “ statement of morality by legislation. .So you know there has been ZERO studies that are approved by NIH that indicate that marijuana has any medicinal value. None. The only ones that do, are paid for by the marijuana advocacy groups and companies like tobacco firms that are invested in marijuana. NIH points out that there is neurological declines in people who smoke pot regularly, there is also the problem that pot stays in your system on average longer than alcohol, and cause declines in judgement and skills.
On a side note , just so you know . The federal government controls any and all tests in the USA . And the federal government asks what is the test for before hand. Therefore restricting testing to find outcomes the federal government supportsSo you know there has been ZERO studies that are approved by NIH that indicate that marijuana has any medicinal value. None. The only ones that do, are paid for by the marijuana advocacy groups and companies like tobacco firms that are invested in marijuana. NIH points out that there is neurological declines in people who smoke pot regularly, there is also the problem that pot stays in your system on average longer than alcohol (30 days for marijuana), and cause declines in judgement and skills.