Is marijuana addictive?

If marijuana is NOT addictive, should we kick all players off the team who test positive?

  • Yes. Rules are rules and we're not Colorado.

    Votes: 6 31.6%

  • No, because even though it's illegal in Nebraska it is becoming socially acceptable.

    Votes: 11 57.9%

  • Other reason (explain).

    Votes: 2 10.5%
  • Total voters
    19
I chose other because I don't like the reasoning ascribed to the no option. I don't think because its becoming socially acceptable is the reason not to boot kids. My question is why should we kick kids off the team for cannabis? Because its illegal? So is underage drinking but I've never heard of a player being kicked off of a college football team for that.

 
First, no matter what we think about legalization and team rules, weed is a banned substance under NCAA guidelines.

#1 needs an "I don't know" option.

#2 - I think whether weed is legal or not, teams have a right to prohibit use by players, and if they violate that rule, they get punished. Question then becomes, if it's legalized and normalized in society in general, and it's no longer "aberrant" behavior, do the players using weed against team rules behave differently overall? *I* believe that since weed is currently illegal in Nebraska, the person who's going to violate both the team rule and the law is knowingly doing a bad thing. I think that changes a person's behavior, that knowledge.

#3 - Kinda answered that above. Even if it's not addictive, teams still have the right to make their own rules, and enforce punishment if those rules are violated.

Regarding kicking someone off the team - that should only be in extreme cases. Probably not only for violating the no-weed rule. Depends on the situation.

 
I think it is addictive in some people, but not in others.  Much like alcohol.  I think there should be some program in place for the player to get counseling and continue practicing (if permitted by ncaa rules), but perhaps not play.  It seems like that would be best for the player, rather than just giving him the boot.  /jmho

 
knapplc said:
#1 needs an "I don't know" option.
Click to expand...


Good point.  But I purposely did not include a third option, hoping that people would choose one or the other and explain any reservations about their choice.  I answered "yes".  But I think it is addictive to a small percentage of people, while it's not to the majority of others.  Like booze, for example.  

 
giphy.gif


 
Nebfanatic said:
I chose other because I don't like the reasoning ascribed to the no option. I don't think because its becoming socially acceptable is the reason not to boot kids. My question is why should we kick kids off the team for cannabis? Because its illegal? So is underage drinking but I've never heard of a player being kicked off of a college football team for that.
Click to expand...
I think in the end...99% of players that are kicked off for weed are not really kicked off for weed...they are kicked off for being annoying AND also getting caught smoking weed.

 
NUance said:
I answered "yes".  But I think it is addictive to a small percentage of people, while it's not to the majority of others.  Like booze, for example.  
Click to expand...
First of all, booze is physically addictive while cannabis is not. Secondly, wouldn't that be on the people having an issue rather than cannabis being an addictive substance if its only addictive for a small percentage of people?

 
Nebfanatic said:
First of all, booze is physically addictive while cannabis is not. Secondly, wouldn't that be on the people having an issue rather than cannabis being an addictive substance if its only addictive for a small percentage of people?
Click to expand...


But booze is not addictive to all people.  If it was, wouldn't everyone who drinks be an alcoholic?  

As for cannabis being addictive, don't we all know middle aged stoners who have gotten high several times per week for more than a decade?  (Maybe you folks don't know people like that?  :shrug: )    The middle aged loadies I know all work for little more than minimum wage, live in live in crappy rental units and drive broken down wrecks held together with duct tape and Bondo.  If they're not addicted why do they choose such a crappy existence?  

 
NUance said:
But booze is not addictive to all people.  If it was, wouldn't everyone who drinks be an alcoholic?  
Click to expand...


Just because something is lower on the scale of addiction than something else (booze vs. meth) doesn't mean it's not addictive to all people.

I'm not any kind of addiction expert, though, so I'd be happy to learn more about it if you have any suggestions.

 
NUance said:
But booze is not addictive to all people.  If it was, wouldn't everyone who drinks be an alcoholic?  

As for cannabis being addictive, don't we all know middle aged stoners who have gotten high several times per week for more than a decade?  (Maybe you folks don't know people like that?  :shrug: )    The middle aged loadies I know all work for little more than minimum wage, live in live in crappy rental units and drive broken down wrecks held together with duct tape and Bondo.  If they're not addicted why do they choose such a crappy existence?  
Click to expand...
Its been scientifically proven to cause a physical dependance if used enough by all people. So yes, booze is addictive to all people. 

Your anecdotal evidence of middle aged stoner leaves alot to be desired on proving weed is addictive. Who is to say they wouldn't live their life that way without weed? I know people who live the way you describe and don't rely on any substance. And are do those people have a weed habit because weed is addictive, or because they need a habit and weed is best for them? That is what I'm saying its really a question of is weed addictive or do people with addictive personalities smoke weed? I'd say its the latter.

 
Back
Top