NFL Still Bans Denver Broncos From Marijuana Use Even When It’s Legal; Right Or Wrong?

[Jay3]

Originally Posted by bowtown

What are you even talking about? You do realize something can be legal with limits and regulations, right? You can't drink beer everywhere, you can't smoke everywhere. Neither are decriminalized though, they are legal.

That's precisely the distinction I was drawing -- something can be legal to do, that doesn't mean you have a protected, enforceable right to do it.

It's not an obscure point -- it will come up, in the employment setting. Certain kinds of employers will maintain the policy of no dope.

[teknic]

Originally Posted by Drunken.Broncoholic

Not only does it cause lung cancer it is now widely known to increase the cause of testicular cancer in young males. I've seen permanent damage that its causes to my family. People can tell me it's harmless and beneficial, but not to me. I have 2 family members gone as a direct result.

both of your claims are completely false.

[Drunken.Broncoholic]

Originally Posted by teknic

both of your claims are completely false.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48969102...icular-cancer/


Tell that to my uncle.

Scientists claims > you

[Bronco Yoda]

Talking about again, what were we, hmm?

[teknic]

Originally Posted by Drunken.Broncoholic

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48969102...icular-cancer/


Tell that to my uncle.

Scientists claims > you

It's funny that you consider that study to be the claims of scientists. Any academic would disagree with you. The sample size is too small, with too many statistical outliers, no control is present, and no variable was isolated. To draw a clear conclusion from that data is laughable and subject to confirmation bias. I had previously seen that study mentioned, but I have also seen numerous sources discredit the methodology of that study.

If you actually care about studies that follow the scientific method, thereby providing reliable, replicable results, check out the literally THOUSANDS of academic studies that disagree with you.
http://www.letfreedomgrow.com/cmu/Gr...istJan2012.pdf

In regards to your uncle, I don't mean to be insensitive, but you're missing the point. There is no known carcinogen present in cannabis. The use of cannabis did not cause his cancer, the act of inhaling the byproducts of crude combustion did. If you were to smoke ANY plant, it would increase the risk of lung cancer. This isn't because the plants are carcinogenic, but rather the byproducts of combustion are. If he had used a vaporizer or ingested the cannabis instead, then he would not have developed the lung cancer. Many of the compounds present in cannabis have been shown to inhibit tumor growth and destroy cancer cells.

In short, you're wrong.

[Drunken.Broncoholic]

Originally Posted by teknic

It's funny that you consider that study to be the claims of scientists. Any academic would disagree with you. The sample size is too small, with too many statistical outliers, no control is present, and no variable was isolated. To draw a clear conclusion from that data is laughable and subject to confirmation bias. I had previously seen that study mentioned, but I have also seen numerous sources discredit the methodology of that study.

If you actually care about studies that follow the scientific method, thereby providing reliable, replicable results, check out the literally THOUSANDS of academic studies that disagree with you.
http://www.letfreedomgrow.com/cmu/Gr...istJan2012.pdf

In regards to your uncle, I don't mean to be insensitive, but you're missing the point. There is no known carcinogen present in cannabis. The use of cannabis did not cause his cancer, the act of inhaling the byproducts of crude combustion did. If you were to smoke ANY plant, it would increase the risk of lung cancer. This isn't because the plants are carcinogenic, but rather the byproducts of combustion are. If he had used a vaporizer or ingested the cannabis instead, then he would not have developed the lung cancer. Many of the compounds present in cannabis have been shown to inhibit tumor growth and destroy cancer cells.

In short, you're wrong.

I'm not going to get in an arguement with you. If you want my uncles doctors phone numbers you can argue with them. Many of the carcinogen and co-carcinogens found in tobacco smoke are also found in marijuana smoke.

[teknic]

Originally Posted by Drunken.Broncoholic

I'm not going to get in an arguement with you. If you want my uncles doctors phone numbers you can argue with them. Many of the carcinogen and co-carcinogens found in tobacco smoke are also found in marijuana smoke.

In the smoke.

You're still missing the point.

[Drunken.Broncoholic]

Originally Posted by teknic

In the smoke.

You're still missing the point.

So you're saying to eat it in brownies and you'll be fine. Got it.

This doesn't change anything. My entire Point is saying if you SMOKE it.

[bowtown]

Originally Posted by Jay3

That's precisely the distinction I was drawing -- something can be legal to do, that doesn't mean you have a protected, enforceable right to do it.

It's not an obscure point -- it will come up, in the employment setting. Certain kinds of employers will maintain the policy of no dope.

Yes, of course it will, but pretty much every single thing that is legal to do in our society has rules and regulations around them, but they are legal. That's not the same thing as decriminalization.

[teknic]

Originally Posted by Drunken.Broncoholic

So you're saying to eat it in brownies and you'll be fine. Got it.

I'm saying that if you smoke anything, it will increase your chance of developing lung cancer. If the combustion were ideal, there wouldn't be any issue. Because our world is not ideal, the combustion doesn't occur in an environment with excess oxygen, or at a temperature high enough to destroy the by-products. Those by-products are responsible for the carcinogens in smoke.

To claim that cannabis causes cancer is factually incorrect. It actually does the opposite.

[Play2win]

Originally Posted by Bronco Yoda

Talking about again, what were we, hmm?

Actually if Yoda was stoned, he would probably just say:

"What were we talking about?"

[Drunken.Broncoholic]

Originally Posted by teknic

I'm saying that if you smoke anything, it will increase your chance of developing lung cancer. If the combustion were ideal, there wouldn't be any issue. Because our world is not ideal, the combustion doesn't occur in an environment with excess oxygen, or at a temperature high enough to destroy the by-products. Those by-products are responsible for the carcinogens in smoke.

To claim that cannabis causes cancer is factually incorrect. It actually does the opposite.

My entire point in here is about smoking it. When I said it cause problems I'm saying it when smoking it. So when I said it increases testicular cancer I'm saying it does when you smoke it. I thought this was plainly clear by being in a thread about smoking it.

[teknic]

Originally Posted by Drunken.Broncoholic

My entire point in here is about smoking it. When I said it cause problems I'm saying it when smoking it. So when I said it increases testicular cancer I'm saying it does when you smoke it. I thought this was plainly clear by being in a thread about smoking it.

Your claim was that cannabis causes cancer. I asserted that it is not the plant which is responsible for the cancer, but the actual act of smoking it. You don't have to smoke it, so claiming that cannabis is carcinogenic is simply incorrect.

By the way, how is this thread about smoking cannabis?
Thread title: NFL Still Bans Denver Broncos From Marijuana Use Even When It’s Legal; Right Or Wrong?

Nothing was implied about the method of use. If you chose to interpret it in that way, that is due to your ignorance. Last time I checked, smoking is not the only method of use.

[Drunken.Broncoholic]

Originally Posted by teknic

Your claim was that cannabis causes cancer. I asserted that it is not the plant which is responsible for the cancer, but the actual act of smoking it. You don't have to smoke it, so claiming that cannabis is carcinogenic is simply incorrect.

By the way, how is this thread about smoking cannabis?
Thread title: NFL Still Bans Denver Broncos From Marijuana Use Even When It’s Legal; Right Or Wrong?

Nothing was implied about the method of use. If you chose to interpret it in that way, that is due to your ignorance. Last time I checked, smoking is not the only method of use.

Did I ever say the word "cannabis" before your first post? If I did I'd like to see it.


"It" meant marijuana to me cannabis to you. Guess I should post in crayon next time

[teknic]

Originally Posted by Drunken.Broncoholic

Did I ever say the word "cannabis" before your first post? If I did I'd like to see it.

Sorry, I prefer to use the proper term for the plant, rather than the pejorative term "marijuana" (or "marihuana"), which has racist connotations.

[Tim]

Marijuana sounds like a cure all, I might start doing it so I'll live longer.

[teknic]

Originally Posted by Drunken.Broncoholic

Did I ever say the word "cannabis" before your first post? If I did I'd like to see it.


"It" meant marijuana to me cannabis to you. Guess I should post in crayon next time

Ignorance.

[Drunken.Broncoholic]

Originally Posted by teknic

Ignorance.

Canadian

[teknic]

Originally Posted by Drunken.Broncoholic

Canadian

Yes, I am.

That doesn't change the point that you are completely wrong though.

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

alcohol causes brain damages if done in excess too. so why should marijuana be banned. should anything that might harm a person be banned ?
im 100% for legalizing marijuana also lowing the age to 18 for drinking toking just to be clear on my views .
as far as the nfl goes they have every right to make their own rules on what you can cannot do , i dont agree with it if it dont interfere with performance .

[bronco militia]

i've got nothing against weed, but this is going to be one big cluster ****. nice going, dumb asses

[Jay3]

Originally Posted by bowtown

Yes, of course it will, but pretty much every single thing that is legal to do in our society has rules and regulations around them, but they are legal. That's not the same thing as decriminalization.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make -- you asked me "what are you even talking about?" and I tried to clarify. Don't think I can anymore.

This whole thread is supposed to be about whether we think the NFL is "right or wrong" to maintain its policy, and I'm saying I think they're right. I don't know what how the semantics come into it.

If I had to guess, I'd say you feel strongly that it should be clarified the difference between something being "legalized" and "decriminalized." But I thought that got really well clarified right early in the thread.

Can you finish the thought? Are you saying that based on a semantic distinction, the NFL is not within its legal rights to maintain its policy? Because I figure the courts will sort that out if in fact this one state changing means that nationwide employers are required to allow pot smoking. I thought we were just weighing on what we thought was right or wrong.

I do not believe that legalizing the smoking weed creates a protected, enforceable right to smoke it -- all sorts of other rights, such as property rights, contract rights, etc, will come into play to limit the ability of people to smoke it and still be wherever or do whatever they want. There will still be places, jobs, and organizations that say "we don't allow that," and "but it is legal" will not be enough to override that pronouncement.

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

why dont we settle the marijuana causes cancer by providing a link that is credible and deals with medical studies.
couldone weed dealer be adding other substances to the marijuana

[Dedhed]

Originally Posted by socalorado

So Police, Fire, Nurses, Dr.s can be stoned on the job if its part of their union or employment contracts?
Just asking. I really dont know.

Are Poilice, Fire, Drs, Nurses allowed to drink on the job under union contracts?

[Dedhed]

Originally Posted by Drunken.Broncoholic

Did I ever say the word "cannabis" before your first post? If I did I'd like to see it.


"It" meant marijuana to me cannabis to you. Guess I should post in crayon next time

You should clearly be looked at as a credible source in this argument.



/sarcasm