Gordon Coming Back?
-
OK...I'll go slow.@douche-nozzle said:
You got it....it's fact....just because you don't accept it doesn't mean shit to me. You may have gotten goofy by eating a bunch of good weed but had you "heated it" and merged it with fat rather than digestive fluids, you would have gotten waaaaaaaaaaaaay higher.....that's a fact Jack! And I still doubt that second hand smoke would make you high or be detected in a test. You probably got fucked up when you ate the worm too didn't you? Any chemists care to correct college boys personal perception?
You stated heat is necessary to metabolize THC. I simply proved it wrong with an anecdote.... But can prove the same other. You, got snarky and failed to prove the claim.
Then you mention fat cell retention and never elaborated on what that means relative to second hand smoke.
So, as a chemist for 2 years in college, employed in the chem lab doing EDTA decay testing on stomach enzymes, I can say that what you presented up to this point is no basis, scientifically or logically, to make the claim you stand by.
I'll help you a bit though. The heat requirement is merely a mode of chemical transformation to a vapor. It is not a requirement for THC to act on the brain. This is an important scientific distinction, genius.
The fat cell absorption actually work against your argument in that it builds up fast, particularly for regular smokers. Low body fat and fast metabolism help clear the body faster. This is the exact reason the Olympic committee, military, faa, etc have a much higher fail threshold than that of the nfl 15 ng/ml....15 is too low to be a reliable number, both due to variances in people as well as variances in testing. This # was agreed upon in 06, and was left as a side issue to getting the CBA in place for the season.
So......you want more?
-
-
Hence the name Douche Nozzle.
Well played!
-
So I did a littler homework and to me it seems as though the heat has much more of a function than simply vaporizing per Choco's comment. I could be wrong but I see the following as the purpose:
I would assume first we are generally talking about strains that have been bred to maximize the end goal of high THC content. In those strains the raw weed contains high levels of THCA. THCA is THC with a carboxyl group attached. THCA has limited to no psychoactive properties. When you heat the weed (flame,vaporizer, oven etc) the carboxyl is removed leaving pure THC. This process is called decarboxylation. As I understand it there are a quite a few other cannabinoids with carboxyl groups attached that also convert to THC and / or an active version of their selves during the heating process.
Some people argue that proper curing is sufficient for the decarboxylation process but I cannot find any actual data to support that. At the very least it is very safe to assume that heating increases the potency dramatically.
Someone earlier was talking about fats and I think their point was poorly presented and subsequently misunderstood. The point had nothing to do with body fat. THC and the other cannabinoids are hydrophobic oils. Hydrophobic oils are not water soluble but are soluble in alcohol and fats. By dissolving in alcohol , fats or other oils the bioavailability via oral delivery is greatly enhanced. This is why butters and tinctures are so popular.
Like I said, this was just some quick homework. If it is incorrect post data / studies to support your argument. Perhaps you can find a study that indicates a high presences of THC rather than THCA in the raw weed.
-
I have never once got high from second hand smoke and Ive been smoking pot since I was 15 years old.. Second hand smoke is a joke LOL.. puhleeze.. I'm not buying it.
Nickers...."There are no old running QB's in the NFL "~Sam Rutigliano~ -
I have never once got high from second hand smoke and Ive been smoking pot since I was 15 years old.. Second hand smoke is a joke LOL.. puhleeze.. I'm not buying it.
I have never once got high from second hand smoke and Ive been smoking pot since I was 15 years old.. Second hand smoke is a joke LOL.. puhleeze.. I'm not buying it.
LOL I can't say for sure but I have to think it would be pretty hard. I no longer smoke but I did heavily for about 10 years, the reason I cannot say for sure is every time I was around it being smoked I smoked lol so cant comment on second hand for sure.
-
Here's a couple organizations that have MUCH higher thresholds for marijuana. : the U.S. military. MLB. The Olympic committee. The NFL knows their policy is draconian and ridiculous. That's why.
Douche Nozzle and Vagitron: get Gordons name out of your mouth and fuck away off back to steelers fever. Why you continue to hang around here not only during steelers week but all fucking year long including the off season is puzzling.
-
Another Jets fan here.
I've been on this forum before, and was always welcomed well. Thank you for that.
A few things regarding Gordon's case:
1. The test threshold is extremely low, and although an argument can be made that "why is he exposed to marijuana in the first place", it is unfair that a teacher, soldier and police officer can have higher levels and still not test "positive". How does that make any sense?
2. How can the NFL justify punishing one player for being 1 ng/ml over the previous threshold (15 ng/ml), but then someone who has 48 ng/ml gets no punishment under the newly proposed rule?
3. I'm not saying players shouldn't break the law, but Gordon isn't punching women in the face. The DUI is concerning, and he needs to get his life in order - let alone his NFL career. It seems he's on his way with an honest job. Getting his life in order is more important than anything else, but he can't do it alone. Hopefully this entire situation is a wake up call for good.
I always liked the Browns. There have been times where I went out of my way as a Jets fan to watch. Gordon made the Browns extremely fun to watch, as he's easily one of the most entertaining players in the NFL via his play.
-
Looks like the wait continues :
Albert Breer @AlbertBreer · 3m Per source, the NFL player reps will not vote on a new drug policy tonight.Ugh :
Albert Breer @AlbertBreer · 27s Source says there were issues with the proposal that the NFL put in front of the players tonight, to the point where it wasn't worth voting.
-
@douche-nozzle said:
thenew23....I have a riddle for you......If I counsel people on the damages of alcohol abuse, does that make me a brewmeister?
http://www.hightimes.com/read/cannabis-kitchen
And as far as second hand smoke, once most of the THC has been absorbed by the first hand smoker, and there is no heat left in the smoke by the time the second smoker gets it, I doubt there would be much if any THC absorbed into the second hand smoker.
Wow. First, you try to insult my intelligence with some ignorant analogy. Second, you incorrectly cite an article from "high times." Great reference by the way...
What a joke...
-
@douche-nozzle said:
We don't know this to be true, we just assume that "second hand" levels would be small. Based on how the THC molecules work in the human body, I doubt that second hand smoke would have any effect, or even be able to be tested. There is no base level and there is no testing to show the effect or even the ability to detect it.
We? You and the mouse in your pocket?
Regardless, if you doubt it, then I must be wrong... brilliant argument. Let me make sure I follow you...
Smoked marijuana contains THC, but the trail of smoke from the lit end of a doobie doesn't...
Ditto for the inhaled smoke that did not contact the lung walls or other bronchial surfaces...
THC is different different from nicotine which is exhaled by smokers.... even smokers of e-cigs...
The same compound9s) tested for in direct smoke, cannot be tested for in indirect smoke...
... because it would not "have any effect"...
... because they test for "effect"...
... and there's no "base level"...
... or testing to "show the effect"...
... "or even the ability to detect it."
Two questions...
Did the above sum up your position?
Were you high when you wrote it?
===================================================
"Will Second Hand Smoke Show up in Drug Test?
It is very unlikely that second hand smoke will make you fail a drug test. However, it can leave traces of the active chemical in the marijuana, tetrahydracannabinol, or THC for short. This amount of THC is not likely to alert most drug tests. In addition, most drug tests are highly sophisticated, and can avoid those false positives that might come from second hand smoke inhalation.
However, you can avoid the chance of it showing up at all by avoiding that second hand smoke as much as you can. Stay out of smoke-filled cars or unventilated rooms. If you are breathing in the smoke in an enclosed space, your levels might go high enough that a drug test would detect them. If you are in a room that is hazy from the smoke and you stay there for several hours, you could easily breathe in enough smoke to not only make you high, but enough that it will show up on a drug test – even if you never took a puff yourself.
It’s a different story with the drug test on hair. In a hair drug test, second hand smoke can and usually will be detected. A positive hair tests typically requires a follow-up tests, during which the hair sample is washed before testing. This will remove any residue on the hair from the second hand smoke and test only for metabolites, not for the THC itself. If there are no metabolites in the hair, and the water used to wash the hair tests positive, then it is assumed you were in a room with second hand smoke, and you didn’t smoke the marijuana yourself."
http://www.newhealthguide.org/Will-Second-Hand-Smoke-Show-Up-In-Drug-Test.html
"Second-hand marijuana smoke — buzz producing, or not — can leave traces of the chemical tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in your urine for a day or so after breathing the smoke. However, the amount is usually not enough to make you test positive. Most drug tests have intentionally high standards to avoid false positive results due to incidental ingestion of second-hand smoke."
http://goaskalice.columbia.edu/second-hand-marijuana-smoke-and-drug-tests
===================================================================
But as we know NFL standards are not intentionally "high"...
-
I think the NFL's rules regarding cannabis, and our laws against cannabis are ridiculous, and quite frankly it looks as if the tide is turning as more and more Americans are OK with ending prohibition. I look at it like this. It would be one thing if he took performance enhancing drugs such as steroids, because that is cheating. Suspend his ass, because there is no place for cheating! The DUI is a problem of course, because is actions could have killed someone! Not to mention, when you make that much money for Christ sakes call a cab, or a limo! On the other hand if these players want to smoke a little weed in the privacy of their own home, and aren't harming anyone in the process, who the fuck cares? It's a good bet a large segment of NFL players partake anyway.
I have zero issues with cannabis. I'm a proponent of its legalization for rec and medicinal. In josh Gordon's case and its where everyone seems to want to skim over is whether he was taking a PED or smoking weed he was still regularly breaking the rules.
@douche-nozzle said:
Okay..... I'd be happy to.
The reason the THC molecules effect you is because they are 1. heated and 2. they bond with fat molecules in your body. This is why you can eat a bunch of weed and get nothing, but if you smoke it (heating the THC and fat molecules together) or make butter with it, you get high.
So, once it has been smoked and exhaled and then drifts to the next guy, I doubt that there is any effect and I doubt if it could be detected in a test.
Good enough?
No... there are multi-million dollar bakery companies in Colorado now that beg to differ.
The vast majority of indulgence issues that have occurred in Colorado have been attributable to ingested cannabis/ THC because it is slower acting than smoked. It still gets in the system, but the impatient do not give it sufficient time.
But again if you doubt it...
I have zero issues with cannabis. I'm a proponent of its legalization for rec and medicinal. In josh Gordon's case and its where everyone seems to want to skim over is whether he was taking a PED or smoking weed he was still regularly breaking the rules.
Over 70 negative tests since the preceding positve say you are full of shit... and so do I.
-
Another Jets fan here.
I've been on this forum before, and was always welcomed well. Thank you for that.
A few things regarding Gordon's case:
1. The test threshold is extremely low, and although an argument can be made that "why is he exposed to marijuana in the first place", it is unfair that a teacher, soldier and police officer can have higher levels and still not test "positive". How does that make any sense?
2. How can the NFL justify punishing one player for being 1 ng/ml over the previous threshold (15 ng/ml), but then someone who has 48 ng/ml gets no punishment under the newly proposed rule?
3. I'm not saying players shouldn't break the law, but Gordon isn't punching women in the face. The DUI is concerning, and he needs to get his life in order - let alone his NFL career. It seems he's on his way with an honest job. Getting his life in order is more important than anything else, but he can't do it alone. Hopefully this entire situation is a wake up call for good.
I always liked the Browns. There have been times where I went out of my way as a Jets fan to watch. Gordon made the Browns extremely fun to watch, as he's easily one of the most entertaining players in the NFL via his play.
Another Jets fan here.
Man, you'd think we were playing these guys this week...
Welcome...Wow. First, you try to insult my intelligence with some ignorant analogy. Second, you incorrectly cite an article from "high times." Great reference by the way...
What a joke...
ikr...
We supply scientific knowledge, personal experience, internet references, and Professional expertise, when all we really needed to do is say, "I doubt it."
-
@douche-nozzle said:
Okay..... I'd be happy to.
The reason the THC molecules effect you is because they are 1. heated and 2. they bond with fat molecules in your body. This is why you can eat a bunch of weed and get nothing, but if you smoke it (heating the THC and fat molecules together) or make butter with it, you get high.
So, once it has been smoked and exhaled and then drifts to the next guy, I doubt that there is any effect and I doubt if it could be detected in a test.
Good enough?
You are fucking stupid
-
@douche-nozzle said:
Sorry fellas, I'm sure you could both write volumes about how the Browns are better than the Steelers too!
thenew23....I have a riddle for you......If I counsel people on the damages of alcohol abuse, does that make me a brewmeister?
http://www.hightimes.com/read/cannabis-kitchen
And as far as second hand smoke, once most of the THC has been absorbed by the first hand smoker, and there is no heat left in the smoke by the time the second smoker gets it, I doubt there would be much if any THC absorbed into the second hand smoker.
You are fucking stupid
-
@douche-nozzle said:
Okay..... I'd be happy to.
The reason the THC molecules effect you is because they are 1. heated and 2. they bond with fat molecules in your body. This is why you can eat a bunch of weed and get nothing, but if you smoke it (heating the THC and fat molecules together) or make butter with it, you get high.
So, once it has been smoked and exhaled and then drifts to the next guy, I doubt that there is any effect and I doubt if it could be detected in a test.
Good enough?
Not good enough. You know what? 40% of the aveoli (that the stuff that gets oxygen- or marijuana into your body) are made of? That would be phospholipids fat in non technical terms. And your brain is loaded with lipids too. It doesn't matter if you smoke it, or eat it- eventually that THC is going to get into your bloodstream- it just takes longer if it's ingested, and maybe not as an efficient way of getting high. I'm not going to look up some scientific article (and I'm sure someone has done the research) on the % of THC that gets absorbed if you munch a loaded up brownie. .
Sort of the same reason people snort cocaine, or shoot up heroin- fastest and most direct way to get maximum effect.
-
@douche-nozzle said:
When you mention eating a cookie or brownie, it has usually been made by someone who knew what they were doing and "cooked" it. If you just grind up weed and put it in cookies or brownies it will do little more than make the cookie or brownie taste bad. This isn't rocket science guys, it's pretty common knowledge.
i guess for those that are stoners.
sure i could find a recipe for how to bake a correct mary jane brownie but i doubt that it is common knowledge to 80% of the world.
-
@douche-nozzle said:
Sorry, you are wrong.....do some research, talk to a chemist.
I'm a licensed chemical dependency counselor and have been working in the field for nearly 10 years. I have written test questions for the international certification exam you would have to pass to become a professional in my field of work. I have supervised 30+ clinicians, and have been through 500+ hours of specialized training in chemical dependence, on top of my Master's degree. I have dedicated my life to understanding the ways substances work in the brain and body, as well as how addictions develop, and how to prevent addictions and treat people who have them...
But I only know one thing for sure... YOU, my friend, are wrong...
Maybe you should find a better chemist to talk to. Not just your crystal meth dealer. I wouldn't really trust his credentials...
I'm a licensed chemical dependency counselor and have been working in the field for nearly 10 years. I have written test questions for the international certification exam you would have to pass to become a professional in my field of work. I have supervised 30+ clinicians, and have been through 500+ hours of specialized training in chemical dependence, on top of my Master's degree. I have dedicated my life to understanding the ways substances work in the brain and body, as well as how addictions develop, and how to prevent addictions and treat people who have them...
But I only know one thing for sure... YOU, my friend, are wrong...
Maybe you should find a better chemist to talk to. Not just your crystal meth dealer. I wouldn't really trust his credentials...
I'll bet you see more problems with stuff like opiates, heroin, coke, meth, and even alcohol than cannabis.
-
I think the NFL's rules regarding cannabis, and our laws against cannabis are ridiculous, and quite frankly it looks as if the tide is turning as more and more Americans are OK with ending prohibition. I look at it like this. It would be one thing if he took performance enhancing drugs such as steroids, because that is cheating. Suspend his ass, because there is no place for cheating! The DUI is a problem of course, because is actions could have killed someone! Not to mention, when you make that much money for Christ sakes call a cab, or a limo! On the other hand if these players want to smoke a little weed in the privacy of their own home, and aren't harming anyone in the process, who the fuck cares? It's a good bet a large segment of NFL players partake anyway.
I have zero issues with cannabis. I'm a proponent of its legalization for rec and medicinal. In josh Gordon's case and its where everyone seems to want to skim over is whether he was taking a PED or smoking weed he was still regularly breaking the rules.
I have zero issues with cannabis. I'm a proponent of its legalization for rec and medicinal. In josh Gordon's case and its where everyone seems to want to skim over is whether he was taking a PED or smoking weed he was still regularly breaking the rules.
Good to know you're a supporter! I think within the next 5-10 years prohibition on the federal level goes bye bye. As for Gordon breaking the rules, yes he did. I won't argue that. I simply find the NFL's stance on it to be quite ridiculous as well as draconian in nature.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login