If you mean we're comparing races then yes.

 

Do you disagree?

 

And let me be clear so Joker doesn't get upset.

 

Weed is much more prevalent than many people realize or want to admit. It's not a "black thing." It's not a "hippie" thing. It crosses many categories.

 

My point is that (and pay attention here) if you could truly know what % of white PROFESSIONAL athletes smoke weed vs black PROFESSIONAL athletes then IMO it's higher in the black category.

 

So if you want to take me to task take me to task for what I'm saying.

 

 

I didn't say that I thought there was an equal percentage across races. I was responding to your comment that it would only be 75-80% only if you included the black players.

The % Bettis quoted was higher than I thought, but thinking about it, he is probably correct. In college, 43 of 45 active brothers smoked pot to some degree and it just was no big deal. All of them consumed alcohol, also. When you think the vast majority of NFL athletes are between 22-28 in a fraternal atmosphere for 8 months a year, it makes sense, regardless of race or socioeconomics.

I didn't say that I thought there was an equal percentage across races. I was responding to your comment that it would only be 75-80% only if you included the black players.

 

So we're clear. I'm saying more blacks in professional sports AS A PERCENTAGE use weed than whites.The white number is higher than many might guess but IMO (and it's a guess) it's lower than the black population.

"My opinion on anything is if you haven't experienced it yourself or been close enough to it where you actually know' date=' don't act like you are an expert." No secret I am against the "recreational use" of pot. That notwithstanding, I found this quote in your post dolamite quite interesting. It's quite all encompassing as you state "on anything". I think you might want to think about that all encompassing statement. For instance, I talk to my players all the time about staying away from drugs and the dangers of underage drinking, smoking, etc. Well, I have never smoked or taken drugs...so by your statement I really can't talk about how bad those things are and they should do everything they can to avoid them? I mean, you really don't think I have to smoke meth to know how bad it is and to teach kids not to do it, right?[/quote']

 

 

Well obviously anything is a stretch, but it applies on most cases. Basically what I meant is people try to act like they know everything about marijuana (other topics as well) but have yet to experience themselves. By you telling your players certain drugs are bad you are not acting like you know it all or that your an expert. All you're saying is it is bad for you and can lead you down a different life path, I'm pretty sure that's the common perception when it comes to that. I was just relating it to the marijuana issue, so called experts out there are trying to "educate" people on the subject and to marijuana users and people who actually know what they are talking about it all sounds silly. Again people do this with everything, there's a lot of know it alls out there. People think they know everything and their opinions are the only way. Everybody knows those types of people, the ones that act like they know everything about something but you know they really don't. That's what I was addressing.

I think you are both right. I think it is a part of any coaches responsibility to warn his/her players about the dangers of alcohol/drugs/illegal activity/etc. but at the same time if you are a "policy maker" you need to be a lot more worldly.

 

I don't equate "worldly" with having to have first experienced something to make policy. I would say I'm fairly "worldly". Have had a lot of different life experiences with all sorts of people in all sorts of places, probably more than the average person. But I haven't had to murder someone to tell another it's wrong, nor have I had to rape a woman to tell a young man he should treat all women with respect. Those may be somewhat drastic, left field examples and not what you had in mind, but none the less are perfect examples to back up the lessor point of discouraging drug use in the same argument. I just think you have to be careful when in essence saying "well you never done so and so, so you don't know and can't have any say so". I've never had a DUI, but...well, I think you get my drift by now.:thumb:

I don't equate "worldly" with having to have first experienced something to make policy. I would say I'm fairly "worldly". Have had a lot of different life experiences with all sorts of people in all sorts of places' date=' probably more than the average person. But I haven't had to murder someone to tell another it's wrong, nor have I had to rape a woman to tell a young man he should treat all women with respect. Those may be somewhat drastic, left field examples and not what you had in mind, but none the less are perfect examples to back up the lessor point of discouraging drug use in the same argument. I just think you have to be careful when in essence saying "well you never done so and so, so you don't know and can't have any say so". I've never had a DUI, but...well, I think you get my drift by now.:thumb:[/quote']

 

 

Right but the things you mentioned are again almost common notion or common perception on this issues. You would be hard pressed to find people who thought rape, murder, racism, heroin, meth, etc. was fine and dandy. The point we're getting at is if you are trying to study a subject and you want to have the best information at hand who would you select. If you wanted to know about the dealings of an NFL locker room are you going to say the reporter who goes in there 30 minutes a day is an expert or the NFL vet who has played 15 seasons? Point being if you are going to try to tell people the effects of marijuana and preach it as the gospel you should ask the stoner not the person who's never tried it. How's the person who's never smoked it going to tell you how it makes you feel or how it effects how you think? Somehow they do, and that's with a lot of subjects the government has helped spread brainwash too. People form their perceptions on things just because people tell them it's so. My point is you should seek the truth yourself and not rely on somebody else. And again, obviously there are issues that don't apply because most accept the fact that it's wrong or not the right thing to do. I'm talking about acting like an expert on a subject you know nothing about, doesn't take a rocket science to tell you meth is bad. I'm sure even some users will tell you it's bad. I'm talking more less issues you have people on both sides 50/50 or pretty close to that. How can one side take such a strong stance and call the other side liars when the other side is the one that has been there done that. Those are the issues I was referring to not just the ones in black and white.

I guess my point was in my original post back to you dolamite was that you can't be absolute and use "anything" the way you did when discussing someone's experiences, or lack there of. I just threw out some, admittedly simple, and maybe far out examples to disprove your point, but there are also many more realistic examples that can be used. I see what you are saying, and yes you are correct in the example you use with pot. I couldn't tell someone how it's makes you feel and what side effects I personally experienced if I had never used it. What I can tell a kid is that; pot is a illegal, at least here anyway...it's a drug...all drugs have side effects, some of which can be bad...I have seen a small # of people who were/are frequent users and quite frankly I believe it has affected those people in a negative way over the years of their use. It's not anything you need. Stay away from it.

 

Now, if I was running a drug rehab center or a halfway house, you bet I would want people working there that had had those kinds of experiences so they could relate better to the patients/residents. I think that example is more along the lines of what you are thinking, and I can agree with that.

If that is addressed at me, it couldn't be further from the truth. I am giving examples of what I've seen and continue to see from high level D1 athletes. I think you know me well enough to know that couldn't be further from the truth.

 

If you mean we're comparing races then yes.

 

Do you disagree?

 

And let me be clear so Joker doesn't get upset.

 

Weed is much more prevalent than many people realize or want to admit. It's not a "black thing." It's not a "hippie" thing. It crosses many categories.

 

My point is that (and pay attention here) if you could truly know what % of white PROFESSIONAL athletes smoke weed vs black PROFESSIONAL athletes then IMO it's higher in the black category.

 

So if you want to take me to task take me to task for what I'm saying.

 

First, let me say I don't think either of you are racist, not in the slightest. I apologize if you took my post that way...

 

My issue is this... I think if you compared the percentage of white players that smoke weed and the percentage of black players that smoke weed, the difference wouldn't be as great as I think you all are making it out to be. On a personal level, more of my white friends smoke weed than the black ones... Not sure we can apply that to professional athletes, but that's what I base my opinion on.

I guess my point was in my original post back to you dolamite was that you can't be absolute and use "anything" the way you did when discussing someone's experiences' date=' or lack there of. I just threw out some, admittedly simple, and maybe far out examples to disprove your point, but there are also many more realistic examples that can be used. I see what you are saying, and yes you are correct in the example you use with pot. I couldn't tell someone how it's makes you feel and what side effects I personally experienced if I had never used it. What I can tell a kid is that; pot is a illegal, at least here anyway...it's a drug...all drugs have side effects, some of which can be bad...I have seen a small # of people who were/are frequent users and quite frankly I believe it has affected those people in a negative way over the years of their use. It's not anything you need. Stay away from it. Now, if I was running a drug rehab center or a halfway house, you bet I would want people working there that had had those kinds of experiences so they could relate better to the patients/residents. I think that example is more along the lines of what you are thinking, and I can agree with that.[/quote']

 

Yeah probably shouldn't have used anything definitely bad word choice. I just used it to mean you could apply it to a lot of things outside the discussion of just pot. But yes anything implies any and everything so definitely bad choice of words. The way I meant that to come off is explained in the previous post.

 

 

As for what you say I agree for a lot of it other than calling pot a drug. While it is illegal and is classified as such, I think the grouping of pot with other hardcore drugs is part of the reason the society feels the way they do about it. Compared to the others it is far from a drug and closer to caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol. In that regard it's part of the issue and drug issue because people try pot and say wow I just did a big horrible drug and it really wasn't that bad. So if this pot isn't as bad as they said it is I guess crack isn't either, or heroin, or anything else you wish. That's the dilemma it causes. More people need to be educated on the truths and myths about marijuana IMO.

I'm going to make this a point again in this thread. I'm all for legalization. I just slap my forehead when people on legalzation side try and act like there are zero negatives with the drug. This just isn't true. But that is the same for alcohol and any other drug. I get just as upset when people on the anti-pot side act like this drug is super dangerous and legalzation will be the end of civilization.

 

I think this whole issue would be a non-issue if both sides were just honest. The drug gets people high which leads to bad decisions and short term memory loss is possible. Some people get addicted and it sometimes can lead you to try some other drugs. But at the end of the day its a pretty mild drug and should be left up to a responsible adult to decide if its for them.

I wonder what positions smoke the most pot

 

What % are QBs

What % are etc.

 

I say more WR, DB, LB type guys.

I wonder what positions smoke the most pot

 

What % are QBs

What % are etc.

 

I say more WR, DB, LB type guys.

 

I say more backup kickers and 3rd string qb's. What else they got to do?:idunno:

As a personnel director in a school system for 8 years, I interviewed 100"s of candidates for mostly teaching positions and most of those being recent graduates, I was pretty sure a majority of them had at least tried marajuana. Not because of how they looked or where they were from, etc. Just because I knew that's what many college kids do. We only did background checks and did not drug test. Occasionally, they came back with a misdemeanor drug possession or DUI. That did not exclude them from being hired, but did give me the opportunity to ask the question after I got the information. I always asked them, if we hire you and do a background check, will I find any surprises, most of them came clean and told me. In the end, I had to make a judgment call and marajuana use or one DUI would not stop me from hiring them. Was it a factor, of course. The most important quality was did I think they could relate with our students. If they did, the likelihood of them being successful was greater than any other factor. Content knowledge was also very important, but if you knew the content and couldn't get along with students, you were not going to succeed with a certain % of students that those that could establish relationships could reach. So marajuana use or a DUI were not high priorities. Let me state, I would rather they had neither on their record, but I did stupid things in college, I just didn't get caught.

Not for certain on the % race, etc.

But I can tell you it's not that hard for a regular Joe to pass a drug

screen if they have an idea it's coming; much less a high paid athelete

 

I think leagues want their stars on the field or court, selling tickets to games, getting viewers to tune in and drive ad revenues, sell merchandise, and getting clicks.

I will also add in my opinion (and the opinion of many others) the alcohol and tobacco lobbies work hard to make sure everyone knows marijuana is "bad."

 

Hadn't really thought of that angle, but it makes a lot of sense.

 

Coming from someone who migrated to South Texas as well, I'd imagine that cartels would like nothing more than for marijuana to stay illegal as well.