Ricky Williams Retires
- 08-07-2004, 04:56 AM
"Ricky Williams should be the poster boy for the marijuana debate. The man obviously is seeking emotional comfort, and the price of that comfort is somewhere around $15 million dollars. You can't get much higher than that."
I have issues w/ a lot of Bill O'Reilly stuff, but damn, that's as true as it gets.
- 08-07-2004, 04:35 PM
Originally Posted by BrodusMy Little Site about Hair Loss & Anabolics-
hair loss from steroids dot com
- 08-07-2004, 05:08 PM
Originally Posted by Brodus
It's weird to see this type of opinion on a board like this. You'd think with the all the nonsense put out there about steroids by the government and the media, and how it contrasts with the reality of their use, you guys would at least second guess this 'he threw his life away to be a pot head' and 'recreational drugs can RUIN a person' nonsense.
08-07-2004, 05:26 PM
I don't know, Ricky said it. I believe the NBA is more tolerant of recreational drugs than the NFL. NFL guys get suspended much more often for weed.
My Little Site about Hair Loss & Anabolics-
hair loss from steroids dot com
08-08-2004, 03:56 AM
It does make you about as sharp as a bag of wet hair though.Weed isn't a performance enhancer, but it's no where near as bad as most believe. After studying it's health effects for a few years as an activist for drug law reform I often wondered why, when presented with the facts, people would actually choose alcohol over marijuana, alcohol being quite a bit worse for your overall health over time.
08-08-2004, 05:45 AM
Compare Pat Tillman to Ricky Williams, its hard to get excited for Ricky. Or feel sympathy.
And Actually, hes talking about a comeback with the Oakland Raiders in 2005. Talk about a slap in the face for Miami - the team who traded for him to get him out of a ****ty situation in New Orleans.
My Little Site about Hair Loss & Anabolics-
hair loss from steroids dot com
08-08-2004, 05:03 PM
08-09-2004, 12:55 PM
"After studying it's health effects for a few years as an activist for drug law reform "
Where did you go to school to study these effects?
What group did you work with/for?
To comment on your assumption that an opinon about steroid deregulation should implicitly equal tacit approval of recreational drug utilization--I must say that I don't think comparing recreational drugs and steroids to be at all useful.
Since you've done a lot of testing and research, what happens when you have a subject smoke a joint and then attempt a cognitive evaluation or physical endurance test? What happens after you administer Dromastanolone? In case your activist group didn't provide you with the research, I have quite a few studies for you.
In terms of Ricky Williams, he signed a contract and gets paid millions to abide by it.
What about contracts you sign--do you think it's rational to tell your bank you can't pay the mortgage becuase banks are an oppressive regime spawned by a capitalist pig state? The issue here has nothing to do with a philosophical ideal about drugs, it has to do with the meaning of a contract-->when you accept MILLIONS of dollars, yo uplay by the rules...if you drop out to go get high, you are a dumb Pu33y, period. Ask any kid how hasn't spent years smoking weed, and they'll give you the same answer.
Last edited by Brodus; 08-09-2004 at 01:22 PM.
08-09-2004, 03:48 PM
State University of New York at Stony Brook.Originally Posted by Brodus
USB Students for s Sensible Drug policy.What group did you work with/for?
Mind telling me why? In both cases a group of users who are doing no harm to others or the property of others are having their choices and freedom curtailed because of public paranoia, hysteria, and overall ignorance.To comment on your assumption that an opinon about steroid deregulation should implicitly equal tacit approval of recreational drug utilization--I must say that I don't think comparing recreational drugs and steroids to be at all useful.
Never said I did testing, read a bit more carefully. Perhaps you have a study that also covers the dangers of smoking weed and then ingesting a few gallons of diesel fuel, and could explain its relevance to real world use of the drug? One of the major problems with marijuana research is its relevance and politicized nature. Methodology is also a problem, megadosing lab grade THC being one the common errors. Studies done by Doctor's Heath and Nahas (sp) are examples of this.Since you've done a lot of testing and research, what happens when you have a subject smoke a joint and then attempt a cognitive evaluation or physical endurance test? What happens after you administer Dromastanolone? In case your activist group didn't provide you with the research, I have quite a few studies for you.
A little touchy are we? I am a capitalist, probably more extremely so than you. My problem is the culture that the contract was spawned from. They have every right to hold him to it, I think it's a no brainer that the choice he made is stupid. However, I don't think it's totally beyond question that this particular part of the contract was born is a less than well informed environment.In terms of Ricky Williams, he signed a contract and gets paid millions to abide by it.
What about contracts you sign--do you think it's rational to tell your bank you can't pay the mortgage becuase banks are an oppressive regime spawned by a capitalist pig state?
See above. I am way to the right of Libertarian, which makes be about as capitalist as you can get. As far as I'm concerned that contract is the end all be all of the situation. My concern was the general tone of the posts here on the subject. Did Williams make an idiotic decision? Yes. Was it his to make? Yes. Will smoking pot turn you into a layabout idiot who makes such decisions? No, and I know and/or know of a few hundred productive, many well to do members of society, lawyers, CPAs, teachers (good ones), who aren't turned off by a puff of weed every now and then to say the least. Do their lives and decisions get factored into the lessons people give on recreational drug use?The issue here has nothing to do with a philosophical ideal about drugs, it has to do with the meaning of a contract-->when you accept MILLIONS of dollars, yo uplay by the rules...if you drop out to go get high, you are a dumb Pu33y, period. Ask any kid how hasn't spent years smoking weed, and they'll give you the same answer.
Not seeing the parallel in drug policies here is, to my mind, excedingly off base. In both cases questionable studies are used to justify the policies. In both cases users suffer for no reason other than people disagree with their choices. In both cases people who are othewise lawabiding citizens are hit with ridiculous sentences, often disenfranchized and saddled with criminal records that affect their ability to lead productive lives.
If your job contract says you shouldn't use pot, you shouldn't use pot or find another job. One can still question the overall necessity and appropriateness of such a requirement without questioning the rights of those who would have it as such in their contracts.
08-09-2004, 09:58 PM
I know of Students for a Sensible Drug Policy, and if you are to the right of Libertarian, than your philosophy is well-grounded and actually supports your views, vs. other possible positions, and that is good.
"If your job contract says you shouldn't use pot, you shouldn't use pot or find another job. One can still question the overall necessity and appropriateness of such a requirement without questioning the rights of those who would have it as such in their contracts."
This is true--but the thread is about Ricky Williams retiring and why; although you may feel it is essentially a problem rooted in a flawed sociological/governmental hypothesis, it really doesn't matter and arguing it is a totally different debate. He did quit to smoke pot, among other things, and that's really lame, no matter what you think LSD making people geniuses, and regular pot smokers having no trouble deciphering the gulf between Einsteinian general relativity and quantum phenomena.
You can believe what you want, but the mental and physical effects of Marijuana and Dromasterlone are vastly different, so comparing policy decisions is pointless. Not seeing the disparity between "performance enhancing" drugs and drugs of recreation/use/abuse/brain is naive at best and deceptive at worst...No one here wants anyone in power to link the two drug groups; they should be judged on their own merit. I don't know what studies you read, but I have never seen a case where marijuana or cocaine, or heroin or LSD use improved cognitive or physical response on anything...in fact, it's always the oppposite. "The studies are flawed," you say; fine, but why then does mass public anecdotal evidence confirm this? This is in direct opposition to publically confirmed anecdotal evidence concerning steroids--in fact, go read the "cycle info" threads...lots of positive user experience there. I have yet to read, on Erowid or any other recreational drug forum, a drug user's report in which four bong rips boosted ACT scores by 3 points, or how someones heroin binge put them in the front running for CEO.
My personal opinion is that recreational drug users become increasingly selfish and self-centered, and unable to navigate the cultural fabric of success, instead choosing to fashion elaborate versions of the truth that reinforce thier flawed worldview and allow them to continue to pretend they are smart, talented, etc. (this is an opinon, not an argument).
Am I saying an occassional hit off a joint, etc., is going to ruin someone? Of course not...I have more experience in drugs of all sorts than you might expect, which I feel gives me ground to argue from...But I also know that potheads are notorious under achievers, and that being high all of the time precipitates a paranoid world view that actually serves to disconnect people from centers of influence where they might actually have had a chance to affect change prior to their lifestyle choices. I think everyone who has tried drugs and decided they don't exactly help you become much more than a laughable couch monkey with good ideas but an empty bank account and a low-wage job ...now surely you can point to your handful of associates who still do drugs and are successful, and so can I (mostly talking pot and coke here)...but understand that college-educated people represent 1% of the total population, and hence, the sample size is ridiculously ineffectual for sweeping jugements of any kind. The same goes for elite athletes...it's entirely ridiculous to make any social policy jugements based on what works/doesn't for pro athletes, b/c they represent a very, very small fraction of the gene pool, and quite likely possess innate mechanisms that prevent major damage from being done (or enhance recovery) that might occur in the general populous.
When you get into issues of public policy, these things matter, even though philosophically they shouldn't, because the official stance of a government influences what people think--maybe not you or I, but the majority of Americans...whether you or I like it or not, that is who they represent...if the majority of America says "I don't want my kid to get a message condoning pot use, b/c I've seen what happened to my brother, or RICKY WILLIAMS," the fact is, that is who they represent. You can look for all kinds of conspiracies behind such policy, but its really just as simple as that. Students for a Sensible Drug Policy probably doesn't frequent PTA meetings, and there's a reason for that.
Lastly, if you are a capitalist, and uber-libertarian, than you surely believe in social-Darwinsim, so either you think recreational drugs make you more competitive, and as such are a good thing, or you think they make you less competitive, but you don't care b/c you don't use them, and if others do, you have a leg up on them...this has nothing to do with governmetnal intrusion, but you're personal philosophy. Its not a false dilemma, it really has to go one way or the other: you can't embrace social-Darwinism and equate steroids (which produce increases in competitiveness) with recreational drugs (which reduce effective competitiveness) unless you only do the former.
08-26-2004, 03:09 PM
08-26-2004, 03:48 PM
From what I've heard, he plans to come back with the Oakland Raiders because "they can understand him" since he says the Raiders have a history of giving outlaws/outcasts/veterans a second chanceOriginally Posted by Ivan Drago
BTW, I can't believe Williams did what he did. He pussed out on his teammates, I played football until Junior College and one thing you don't do is disrespect your teammates like that, let alone right before training camp.
He signed a contract to play football but he decided he's better off smoking weed. This I can't understand because I'd be working my ass off to get a ring if I had his ability
08-27-2004, 11:24 AM
Granted the guy is an idiot. But one must take something into consideration.
According to Bill O-Reilly, weed "ruins athletes"....so then how did Mr. Williams rise to the elite class of the NFL, and be one of it's stars?
Similar Forum Threads
- By Mulletsoldier in forum Sports TalkReplies: 17Last Post: 06-03-2006, 02:18 AM
- By BMW in forum General ChatReplies: 0Last Post: 03-03-2006, 01:47 AM
- By DieTrying in forum Sports TalkReplies: 6Last Post: 12-17-2005, 11:04 PM
- By DieTrying in forum Sports TalkReplies: 21Last Post: 06-08-2005, 11:23 AM