Gordon Coming Back?

[The Cysko Kid]

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.

[jcam222]

Really mine was the Octorber 1972 game against the Chiefs. It was my first pro football game. My uncle from KC was in town and took us to the game. I got to see my hero at the time Leroy Kelly play. We got our ass kicked I think but it was awesome.

[John_0515]

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.

[JAFBF]

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.

[thenew23]

@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...

[Tour2ma]

@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"...

[Tour2ma]

@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...

@vagitron said:

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.

[Tour2ma]

@john_0515 said:

Another Jets fan here.

Man, you'd think we were playing these guys this week... Welcome...

@thenew23 said:

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."

[TypicalBrowns]

@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

[TypicalBrowns]

@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

[hoorta]

@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.

[miktoxic]

@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.

[djdawg2010]

@thenew23 said:

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.

[djdawg2010]

@vagitron said:

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.

[LogicIsForSquares]

Other than bickering about THC levels, does anyone have any info on when they plan on doing the actual vote on this?

[thenew23]

@djdawg2010 said:

I'll bet you see more problems with stuff like opiates, heroin, coke, meth, and even alcohol than cannabis.

Most problems seem to be with heroin and opioid pain killers, especially in the past 5-6 years. Alcohol is still a close second. The rest are tied for third most common. Coke is not as common as it used to be, and meth doesn't seem to have reached NE Ohio too bad, yet. I see a lot of marijuana users, most of whom have had DWI's, even caused accidents driving high, or their families just got sick of how lazy they are...

[Kosar_For_President]

Uggg, I am not going to even get in the weed debate here. But people sometimes when you smoke pot it is NOT inhaled to the lungs making it FIRST hand smoke. WTF. Like there is some imagery weed filter in the air.

My argument/question is that Goodell made the decision even though that from the same 2 samples one tested below the 15 whatever level. He would of be not guilty in the court of law. So if the new 50 whatever gets set, does this act like a court of law NOW and hold him to that 15 whatever standard. Someone with more knowledge about the players union should know. Because obviously it does not follow American justice standards.

[Kosar_For_President]

@john_0515 said:

Another Jets fan here.

My God father was their special teams/DC in the early 80's.

[djdawg2010]

@thenew23 said:

Most problems seem to be with heroin and opioid pain killers, especially in the past 5-6 years. Alcohol is still a close second. The rest are tied for third most common. Coke is not as common as it used to be, and meth doesn't seem to have reached NE Ohio too bad, yet. I see a lot of marijuana users, most of whom have had DWI's, even caused accidents driving high, or their families just got sick of how lazy they are...

Trust me. While I support legalization, I do not advocate driving under the influence. You're just asking for problems. But yeah I can see why folks could be admitted for marijuana due to it's status of being illegal. They're being forced to because of the legal issue of getting a DUI. We can and will probably disagree on this, but there isn't conclusive evidence of cannabis being a physically addictive substance like opiates, heroin, or meth. Psychologically? Sure. But then again, one could also get psychologically addicted to eating Doritos. At any rate, withdrawl symptoms are nowhere near as severe as withdrawl from opiate, heroin, meth, or even alcohol. I'm also of the school of thought that use does not necessarily mean abuse.

[JAFBF]

@logicisforsquares said:

Other than bickering about THC levels, does anyone have any info on when they plan on doing the actual vote on this?

Along the lines of this :

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.

Last update was it's back to the Lawyers to iron out some things and they hope to vote tonight.

I think I saw one sticking point was the DUI provisions/punishments.