News: Gregory Failed Yet another Drug Test

FuzzyLumpkins

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
36,574
Reaction score
27,856
JJHLH1 said:
You cited something from 2004, which is pretty weak and difficult to take seriously. How about something recent? If that's the best you can come up with it basically refutes your own argument.

It's deferring to the experts. The New England Journal of Medicine is the most respected peer reviewed medical journal in the world because they have a long history of accuracy and truth. It certainly wouldn't be in their interest to publish something that would put that hard earned reputation in jeopardy.

Of course! This happens all the time when editorial review boards don't think the article is scientifically rigorous or accurate. That is their job!

You obviously didn't read the article. There isn't any original research by the NIDA as you misrepresent. It is a review article summarizing the current state of scientific knowledge regarding the adverse health effects of marijuana use. It lists 77 references, none from the NIDA. Here it is again so you can see:

https://dfaf.org/assets/docs/Adverse health effects.pdf

Perhaps you should read the article and then tell us specifically where the bias is, why it was missed by the editors of the world's most respected medical journal, and why it hasn't been refuted in the medical literature since it's publication 2 years ago. The onus is on you my friend since you are the one claiming bias. I'll eagerly await your reply.
Click to expand...

I read the article. It says From NIDA at the request of NIDA.

I posted something in 2004 to point out the climate that your 2006 published paper arose from. If my paper is dated then so is yours. You undermine your initial assertion.

And I showed you where the exact same studied was denied until it was presented as looking for negative effects. At least you tried to address it this time but NIDA biases out anything that doesn't have a negative hypothesis.

You also don't seem to understand what the bias argument is talking about. Anything looking for benefits or questioning the veracity or methodology of negative work is summarily rejected and its been that way for 50 years. I don't know whether you read my article from earlier but you clearly do not understand my argument.

You keep crowing NEJM but beyond them publishing the article they have made no comment on the article or their opinion in the overall science.

As for this article itself, given the criminality, 'success in life' is a self fulfilling prophecy. Jail and job termination over pot use is a definite detraction as @Hoofbite pointed out.

I would also reiterate what @gmoney112 said earlier about such studies of wholistic concepts and their ability to control variables. Using such categorization amounts to so much circular reasoning.

PS no one reads the line by line. I read maybe half of it. I would suggest a different approach if you want people to read your stuff.
 
Last edited:
FuzzyLumpkins

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
36,574
Reaction score
27,856
JJHLH1 said:
You make a well-reasoned point which I think is valid. But there appears to be more to it than can be explained by incarceration alone, although the study does indicate that the relationship between cannabis use and psychosocial harm is likely to be multifaceted.

6.5% of 12th graders report daily or near daily marijuana use (and this may be underreported since many such students are likely to drop out) and evidence suggests that such use results in measurable and long-lasting cognitive impairments, particularly among those who started to use marijuana in early adolescence.

The study concludes that failure to learn at school, even for short or sporadic periods, will interfere with the subsequent capacity to achieve increasingly challenging educational goals, a finding that may also explain the association between regular marijuana use and poor grades.
Click to expand...

There is all kinds of conflicting literature about pot and memory with the preponderance of the negative from the NIDA regime.

Lack of variable controls as to your assertions about grades applies. Correlation does not imply causation.
 
iceberg

iceberg

rock music matters
Messages
34,404
Reaction score
7,932
iceberg

iceberg

rock music matters
Messages
34,404
Reaction score
7,932
Cowboy4ever said:
I was under the impression that weed was not addictive. I mean, that's what everyone says, right?
Click to expand...
it's not. he's just stupid.

if it were addictive you'd see a lot more people going to the betty ford clinic for weed but you don't see that very often do you? maybe he's just stupid.
 
Beast_from_East

Beast_from_East

Well-Known Member
Messages
30,140
Reaction score
27,231
Trouty said:
This is horrible if true. Somebody pinch me. I was full-bore in his corner. Hoping we would get him back for our postseason push.

Unbelievable. DE is a number one priority in draft and perhaps in free agency as well (not a tier one, but a tier 2 signing). It can't just be Tank on the outside.

Damnit, Gregory. Damnit, dude. If this is over weed, this is sickening that weed can destroy a player's career in the 21st century. Weed, folks.

You "get off muh lawn" folks need to realize, marijuana will be federally legal soon. We're losing a player to some weed. In two or three, maybe four years (our next general election) this guy wouldn't be drawing these suspensions.
Click to expand...
Most companies have weed on the ban substance policy. The company I work for does random drug tests of all employees twice a month. If you test positive, you get a warning and go on probation for one year. If at any time during that year you test positive again, then you are automatically terminated.

Yea, weed may be getting legal for recreational use, but most companies in the Untied States ban their employees from smoking it.
 
Trouty

Trouty

Kellen Moore baby
Messages
31,526
Reaction score
80,467
Beast_from_East said:
Most companies have weed on the ban substance policy. The company I work for does random drug tests of all employees twice a month. If you test positive, you get a warning and go on probation for one year. If at any time during that year you test positive again, then you are automatically terminated.

Yea, weed may be getting legal for recreational use, but most companies in the Untied States ban their employees from smoking it.
Click to expand...

Ok? Thanks for an anecdote that addresses my point in zero fashion. But thanks, nonetheless, I guess...
 
Nightman

Nightman

Capologist
Messages
27,121
Reaction score
24,038
The NFL will never allow the impression that players are playing high on weed to spread

The most they may ever do is to agree to allow the salves and rubs that eliminate the THC

But the policy has so many holes as is that even McFadden could run through(j/k)......pass one test in camp and you are good for the rest of the year.......they will continue to serve up a handful of idiots to keep up appearances
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top