Re: Fred Davis Bye Bye
 

This thread makes me want to eat Fruit Loops right out of the box.

Re: Fred Davis Bye Bye
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1057632]Fred was already in the NFL drug program, which means he was subject to random testing throughout the year.

If you aren't in the program, there is a window in April May I think where you know you are subject to being tested.[/quote]


Didn't FD and TW both get busted during the lockout? I don't even think the first positive test should have applied since they were "unemployed" at the time. Still he is an idiot! My friends used to sell large amounts to the Skins secondary (some of whom are in the superbowl this weekend) and I could never understand it. Why smoke when you are in a speed/skill position, especially since the career window is so small?

Re: Fred Davis Bye Bye
 

[quote=Stacks42;1057691]Didn't FD and TW both get busted during the lockout? I don't even think the first positive test should have applied since they were "unemployed" at the time. Still he is an idiot! My friends used to sell large amounts to the Skins secondary (some of whom are in the superbowl this weekend) and I could never understand it. Why smoke when you are in a speed/skill position, especially since the career window is so small?[/quote]

The salary cap "violations" were also during an uncapped year. This doesn't matter to the league, especially when the Redskins are involved.


[quote=Lotus;1057630]Some NFL folks use weed for its pain- and stress-reducing properties, so they wouldn't want to wait until they retire.

At least at first it is not random testing, there's a defined window of time during which testing happens. So what I don't understand is why he couldn't chill for a few weeks until the testers had finished their job. That's what many NFLers do.[/quote]

They can afford doctors and legitimate pain remedies that won't give them lung cancer on top of the legal issues.

That's no excuse.

Re: Fred Davis Bye Bye
 

i thought sleepy and silverback got punished bc they both tested positive after the NFL gave players a grace period to stop smoking and clear out their piss.

they were 2 of only 3 in the league that couldnt stop smoking weed after the CBA was signed.

Re: Fred Davis Bye Bye
 

Weed causes Lung Cancer? Since when? I don't remember that being on the box.

Re: Fred Davis Bye Bye
 

[quote=Monkeydad;1057693]The salary cap "violations" were also during an uncapped year. This doesn't matter to the league, especially when the Redskins are involved.




They can afford doctors and legitimate pain remedies that won't give them lung cancer on top of the legal issues.

That's no excuse.[/quote]

Marijuana is a "legitimate" pain killer, as cultures across the globe have known for centuries.

If you smoke it through a water pipe or vaporizer, the harmful compounds which can lead to lung cancer are filtered out.

And the prescription meds which you tout often have bad side-effects or are physically addictive, unlike marijuana.

Re: Fred Davis Bye Bye
 

Better to smoke some weed vs getting hooked on Rx pain killers.

Re: Fred Davis Bye Bye
 

[quote=Lotus;1057709]Marijuana is a "legitimate" pain killer, as cultures across the globe have known for centuries.

If you smoke it through a water pipe or vaporizer, the harmful compounds which can lead to lung cancer are filtered out.

And the prescription meds which you tout often have bad side-effects or are physically addictive, unlike marijuana.[/quote]

And Pain Killers, do just that, kill, unlike tweeds.

Re: Fred Davis Bye Bye
 

So now weed isn't addictive? Then why can't some players stop smoking it the 3-5 years they're likely to be in the league? Especially after they've been caught once?

Re: Fred Davis Bye Bye
 

[quote=HailGreen28;1057717]So now weed isn't addictive? Then why can't some players stop smoking it the 3-5 years they're likely to be in the league? Especially after they've been caught once?[/quote]

No, it's really not. Not physically at least. And nowhere nearly as addictive as other substances out there.

Re: Fred Davis Bye Bye
 

[quote=HailGreen28;1057717]So now weed isn't addictive? Then why can't some players stop smoking it the 3-5 years they're likely to be in the league? Especially after they've been caught once?[/quote]

Some studies have indicated that weed may be psychologically addictive. But it has no properties which make it physically addictive.

Compare this to alcohol, which is both psychologically and physically addictive, as are a number of synthetic pain relievers.

Re: Fred Davis Bye Bye
 

Ive known someone to have to seek help for marijuana addiction. Ive known someone to seek help for video game addiction. Ive know several people to seek help for alcohol addiction. It should be dealt with as a health issue, not criminal.

Re: Fred Davis Bye Bye
 

[quote=Lotus;1057721]Some studies have indicated that weed may be psychologically addictive. But it has no properties which make it physically addictive.

Compare this to alcohol, which is both psychologically and physically addictive, as are a number of synthetic pain relievers.[/quote]

That is 100% correct. Tobacco and Alcohol have gotten away with murder. Their political lobby is very powerful.
All while some loud mouthed misinformed primates treat weed like it is incredibly dangerous.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that more than [B]37,000 annual U.S. deaths[/B] are directly attributed to alcohol use alone (i.e. [B]this figure does not include accidental deaths[/B]). On the other hand, the CDC does not even have a category for deaths caused by the use of marijuana.
Alcohol use is associated with a wide variety of cancers, including cancers of the esophagus, stomach, colon, lungs, pancreas, liver and prostate. Marijuana use has not been conclusively associated with any form of cancer. In fact, one study [url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/08/25/us-smoking-pot-idUSTRE57O5DC20090825]Could smoking pot cut risk of head, neck cancer? | Reuters[/url]
recently contradicted the long-time government claim that marijuana use is associated with head and neck cancers. It found that marijuana use actually reduced the likelihood of head and neck cancers. If you are concerned about marijuana being associated with lung cancer, you may be interested in the results of the largest case-controlled study ever conducted to investigate the respiratory effects of marijuana smoking and cigarette smoking.

Re: Fred Davis Bye Bye
 

I certainly think by the next CBA, weed will not be a substance abuse that leads to lack of playing time. It's a shame that FDavis will lose a lot because he couldn't live within the current CBA rules.

Re: Fred Davis Bye Bye
 

[quote=EARTHQUAKE2689;1057708]Weed causes Lung Cancer? Since when? I don't remember that being on the box.[/quote]

If anyone's a casual user, they're probably safe.

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/marijuana-lung-cancer_n_3474960.html]Marijuana Not Linked To Lung Cancer When Use Is Light Or Moderate, Unknown With Heavy Use[/url]