# Yeah, so Nick Diaz just got suspended for 5 years



## AJClark (Sep 19, 2010)

I'll update with articles. I am sad panda



> In a shocking decision, the Nevada Athletic Commission voted Monday to place Nick Diaz on a five-year suspension for a failed UFC 183 drug test for marijuana metabolites.
> 
> The verdict was passed unanimously at a hearing in Las Vegas.
> 
> ...


http://www.mmafighting.com/2015/9/1...ended-five-years-for-failed-ufc-183-drug-test


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

AJClark said:


> I'll update with articles. I am sad panda


Unfortunately given Diaz's blatant flagrancy in the face of the rules, I can understand why they are making this example of him, it makes sense from a regulatory standpoint. I imagine they are not even considering the mairjuana debate, only the fact he laughed in the face of the rules and that just can't be condoned.


----------



## amoosenamedhank (Sep 2, 2009)

DonRifle said:


> Unfortunately given Diaz's blatant flagrancy in the face of the rules, I can understand why they are making this example of him, it makes sense from a regulatory standpoint. I imagine they are not even considering the mairjuana debate, only the fact he laughed in the face of the rules and that just can't be condoned.


This is exactly what I thought too. They're just drawing a line in the sand regardless of what the infraction is.


----------



## JWP (Jun 4, 2007)

Yeh without rules there is chaos! Bollocks. Absolute bollocks. Might aswell ban people for drinking water. Im sure that enhances performance


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

DonRifle said:


> Unfortunately given Diaz's blatant flagrancy in the face of the rules, I can understand why they are making this example of him, it makes sense from a regulatory standpoint. I imagine they are not even considering the mairjuana debate, only the fact he laughed in the face of the rules and that just can't be condoned.


And yet repeated psychotic career-ending refusals to release submissions like Palhares get "temporary suspensions". 

This isn't about rules or integrity of the sport or anything, it's a bunch of useless bureaucrats getting their egos hurt over a guy who doesn't respect their paper-pusher authority on arbitrary rules.


----------



## rabakill (Apr 22, 2007)

Lol, yet Vitor, Bigfoot, Barnett and the slew of other cheaters are good to go. Smoking a plant versus ingesting synthetic hormones and steroids. It's backwards land, the more you **** up the easier you get off.

Jon Jones breaks the law big time and he'll be back years before Diaz. Severely injuring someone, drunk driving, cocaine use and fleeing the scene of a crime <<< smoking a plant.


----------



## box (Oct 15, 2006)

I love Nick, but if a job says you can't eat tomatoes at lunch and you keep doing it, they can fire you if you signed the contract. 

Hopefully in the near future they revamp marijuana in general and get better testing for time of use. Once that's done, look at it like a natural pain med, which is fine except on fight night.


----------



## rabakill (Apr 22, 2007)

box said:


> I love Nick, but if a job says you can't eat tomatoes at lunch and you keep doing it, they can fire you if you signed the contract.
> 
> Hopefully in the near future they revamp marijuana in general and get better testing for time of use. Once that's done, look at it like a natural pain med, which is fine except on fight night.


See I'd agree if other cheaters were treated equally but they aren't. Nick committed a non crime while other guys that do things worthy of jail time get off scotfree


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

box said:


> I love Nick, but if a job says you can't eat tomatoes at lunch and you keep doing it, they can fire you if you signed the contract.
> 
> Hopefully in the near future they revamp marijuana in general and get better testing for time of use. Once that's done, look at it like a natural pain med, which is fine except on fight night.


Except they're not firing him and they're not even his employers. They're BANNING him from earning his living. Completely different things. If you get fired from a job for senseless rules in spite of your talent, you can always get another one with a more sensible company. Banning is something exclusive to govt., where their rules are forced on you across all companies in a field.


----------



## EVERLOST (May 28, 2007)

I HATE NICK DIAZ!!! But ******* Weed? Stfu. 5 years? Stfu. Im also not a weed smoker. This is just stupid.


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

Yeah.... this wont stick.


----------



## Trix (Dec 15, 2009)

Banned 5 years for a substance that is legal in Nick's home state?

I don't agree with this. Athletic commissions don't allow for TUE's, temporary use exemptions for marijuana. They should provide some process for it. I'm not sure they have the jurisdiction or authority to ban marijuana usage across the entire country, even in a limited capacity like MMA.

Won't mind if this turned out like the Wanderlei case where courts found athletic commissions lacked the authority to give Wanderlei a lifetime ban and overturned their ruling.

It should also be noted that most MMA fans aren't impressed by athletic commission appointed referees or their judges. If athletic commission rulings turn out to be the equivalent of Cathel Pendred winning 30-27 on the cards, in fights where 99% of people will say Cathal lost 29-28, athletic comissions could eventually come to represent a bigger stain on the sport than PED's and unsportsmanlike conduct combined.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

I see a few people kind of accepting that he was made an example of. I completely agree with a fighter being suspended for testing positive for something like weed in the cage. That does right into the bracket with being drunk in the fight. If they pop for weed during a fight camp, meh, throw them a few grand fine. It'll sting but still. I get all of this. In several places across the county it's a strictly illegal substance, so it's understandable that the company doesnt want to look bad like that. It's the same reason every other Tom, Dick and Harry in jobs that do testing aren't allowed to smoke weed either.

I get all that.................FIVE FUKING YEARS THOUGH. They are pretty much saying "You smoked weed, now you must retire". Fuking disgraceful of them to do this. Whatever the situation with Anderson, the bottom line is that he got caught using steroids. Diaz didn't get caught using steroids. He gets what like almost three times the sentence? Insanity.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

Well it looks like China and Russia just got a new star cause with a five year suspension I don't see why you would bother to honor this suspension


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Nick Diaz is still signed to the UFC. I don't think he has a choice.

The UFC guys should try and do right by him with this. Release him from his UFC obligations and allow him to compete as he wants. Diaz, a fairly influential guy, would likely speak positively about the UFC and that would be some really good publicity and show a human side to them that we aren't seeing all too often in the news headlines at least. Diaz could go an earn his money (if he ever even wants to fight again) in a Russian organisation or ONE FC because really Diaz smashes most of them and they'd likely pay big bucks for a guy like him.

Maybe the UFC aren't going to want to give anything to the competitors, and being honest the UFC has already went above and beyond the call of duty to help Diaz out and he's only spat back in their faces, but they have to know this is bullshit. Diaz deserves the options after his time in MMA. He doesn't deserve this anyways.

Too bad Diaz is the worst talker (and best at the same time) in history because they could have made him an ambassador for a bit or something.


----------



## PheelGoodInc (Jul 23, 2009)

It's harsh, but deserved. Nick is an absolute moron. He's been warned, punished, and suspended for his weed use before. The commission was tired of him laughing at their rules. They made an example of him and rightfully so.

This has nothing to do with weed. This has everything to do with a repeated offender who thinks he's special and the rules don't apply to him. Guess what? They do.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

PheelGoodInc said:


> It's harsh, but deserved. Nick is an absolute moron. He's been warned, punished, and suspended for his weed use before. The commission was tired of him laughing at their rules. They made an example of him and rightfully so.
> 
> This has nothing to do with weed. This has everything to do with a repeated offender who thinks he's special and the rules don't apply to him. Guess what? They do.


A 30% cut of his 500k is an example.
A 2 year suspension is a HARSH example.

5 years and the 30% is absolutely nuts.


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)

PheelGoodInc said:


> It's harsh, but deserved. Nick is an absolute moron. He's been warned, punished, and suspended for his weed use before. The commission was tired of him laughing at their rules. They made an example of him and rightfully so.
> 
> This has nothing to do with weed. This has everything to do with a repeated offender who thinks he's special and the rules don't apply to him. Guess what? They do.


This is why people like you putting on a uniform and playing cop in real life are such a threat to society.

Deserved? WTF are you even talking about? This post just proves ALL of my suspicions about you following any law the politicians write for you to enforce. They write it, you enforce it.

OBEY

OBEY

OBEY

...Meanwhile, Anderson Silva will be back in the Octagon in February.


----------



## Iuanes (Feb 17, 2009)

ReptilianSlayer said:


> This is why people like you putting on a uniform and playing cop in real life are such a threat to society.
> 
> Deserved? WTF are you even talking about? This post just proves ALL of my suspicions about you following any law the politicians write for you to enforce. They write it, you enforce it.
> 
> ...


You just don't understand that morality = how much you adhere to societies rule, no matter how non-sensical they are.

Cue "if everyone obeyed the rules they wanted..." retort.

Well, if everyone were like Nick Diaz we'd all be in amazing shape, pretty chilled out outside the ring, and entertaining as hell in it.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

^Or no one would fight because Diaz is on like a 3 fight losing streak and Nick Diaz wouldnt fight someone on like a 3 fight losing streak


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)

Iuanes said:


> You just don't understand that morality = how much you adhere to societies rule, no matter how non-sensical they are.
> 
> Cue "if everyone obeyed the rules they wanted..." retort.
> 
> Well, if everyone were like Nick Diaz we'd all be in amazing shape, pretty chilled out outside the ring, and entertaining as hell in it.


I was recently reading a book about the not so "Wild West", which goes into detail on how society back then without centralized government was actually much more civilized than American society today.

We've been lied to about almost everything.

The belief in government is a disease.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

ReptilianSlayer said:


> I was recently reading a book about the not so "Wild West", which goes into detail on how society back then without centralized government was actually much more civilized than American society today.
> 
> We've been lied to about almost everything.
> 
> The belief in government is a disease.


Good thing there's a 0% chance your book was lying. Otherwise you'd never have known.


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Good thing there's a 0% chance your book was lying. Otherwise you'd never have known.


It's based on historical evidence and fact. Perhaps instead of instantly dismissing things which go against your preconceived perceptions you'll actually think about reading a book that challenges them some time.

You might.......Learn something.


----------



## Trix (Dec 15, 2009)

Pros react to Nick Diaz 5 year suspension on twitter.

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2015/9/1...on-drug-marijuana-suspension-twitter-mma-news


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

ReptilianSlayer said:


> It's based on historical evidence and fact. Perhaps instead of instantly dismissing things which go against your preconceived perceptions you'll actually think about reading a book that challenges them some time.
> 
> You might.......Learn something.


You know this because.....it told you it was?

I mean if I tell you my history book in school was based on fact you'd probably have your lensless hipster monocle fall out.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Iuanes said:


> Well, if everyone were like Nick Diaz we'd all be in amazing shape, *pretty chilled out outside the ring*, and entertaining as hell in it.


How Nick Diaz is "chilled out" outside the ring? Look how many brawls the guy has been involved, including inside of a hospital and the most recent case the WSOF one, where he got banned from those events, not mentioning his repetitive DUIs. :confused02:

I am sure marijuana alone is not the reason for this.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

Only way they could stop the GOAT.

He went out on top.

209 forever.


----------



## HorsepoweR (Jun 1, 2007)

So dumb. He gets this and Jones don't, that is horrific. I love Nick's fights so this blows.


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

Something I don't quite understand, this was the Nevada Athletic Commission,yes? Can he still fight in other states?


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

Term said:


> Something I don't quite understand, this was the Nevada Athletic Commission,yes? Can he still fight in other states?


Other states honor those suspensions, other countries on the other hand may not. So if the UFC feels this is an outrage they can release him or let him fight in a country that wouldn't honor the suspension.

I think they'll just release him and he'll go to fight Askren in OneFC but we'll see.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

This is absolute bullshit. **** this commission. I hope he appeals.

Funny thing is, for all the shit Kizer got, he was a much more reasonable guy than the current NSAC leadership seems to be.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

One of the heads was a majority owner of a weed dispensary....

Hahahaha cant make this shit up. Too funny.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

So basically this is a political statement in MMA..

If fighters get punished more for marijuana than they do for roids then something is really wrong with MMA.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

It's more that he's getting punished for repeat offences and not caring about the rules, but it's still bollocks at 5 years.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

That's crazy... I hope he appeals it.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

Yes you can't flaunt the rules, unless you are beating a woman.

http://heavy.com/sports/2015/05/floyd-mayweathers-domestic-violence-arrests-criminal-prison/

Floyd Mayweather

2002 -


> After getting into an argument with his daughter’s mother, Melissia Brim, in 2001 and punching her repeatedly in the face, Mayweather entered a plea bargain and received a six-month suspended sentence, two days of house arrest, and he was ordered to perform 48 hours of community service.


2004 -


> Mayweather got off with a suspended sentence of one-year in jail, ordered to undergo counseling, and a $1000 fine after being found guilty of battery for punching two friends of Josie Harris, mother of Mayweather’s three other children.


2005 -


> Mayweather pleaded no contest and earned himself a misdemeanor battery charge after beating a bouncer in Grand Rapids, Michigan bar. Pretty Boy Floyd received a 90-day suspended jail sentence for that one.


2011 -


> In 2011 Mayweather was sentenced to time in a correctional facility after attacking his ex-girlfriend Josie Harris in front of their children.
> 
> Although the charges of felony robbery, coercion, and grand larceny were eventually dropped, Mayweather plead guilty to a reduced battery domestic violence charge and no contest to two charges of harassment.
> 
> He was sentenced to a 90 day stay, had to complete 100 hours of community service, a 12-month domestic-violence program, and to was order to pay a $2,500 fine. He only served 60 days before being released.


But hey atleast her never legally smoked weed


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)




----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)




----------



## Andrus (Oct 18, 2011)

Nooooooooooooooooooo


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

jonnyg4508 said:


>


:laugh:

Nick is ready to kill something.

I cant believe they banned him from cornering Nate. Thats some petty shit right there.


----------



## boatoar (May 14, 2010)

Biggest farce decision since Diego/Gil. 

Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

jonnyg4508 said:


>


I could watch the first minute, as usual the guy is barely able to talk, just a touch more then his brother, half simpleton. Still hes delusional and has been kept down from being the best fighter in the world. This is the guy who fought GSP and thought one sweep was going to win the fight for him. 

If Diaz wants to smoke weed the night before a fight, and laugh in the face of the rules then he deserves to get ****ed, the guy is delusional. I smoke plenty of weed, but I dont walk up to the cops and smoke it in their face because Im not dumb. Even if it should be legal and is a wonder drug that can kill tumours, it doesn't excuse Diaz being funking stupid


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

DonRifle said:


> I could watch the first minute, as usual the guy is barely able to talk, just a touch more then his brother, half simpleton. Still hes delusional and has been kept down from being the best fighter in the world. This is the guy who fought GSP and thought one sweep was going to win the fight for him.
> 
> If Diaz wants to smoke weed the night before a fight, and laugh in the face of the rules then he deserves to get ****ed, the guy is delusional. I smoke plenty of weed, but I dont walk up to the cops and smoke it in their face because Im not dumb. Even if it should be legal and is a wonder drug that can kill tumours, it doesn't excuse Diaz being funking stupid


He's not smoking just before a fight and blowing it in their faces though... habitual users like Diaz can test positive for metabolites even if they smoked like a couple of months before the fight. 

http://www.leafscience.com/2014/04/22/how-long-thc-stay-system/

Not sure if this test he got was random or pre-fight, but if random then a 2-month window probably means he can pretty much never smoke as long as he's in the fight business. A legal herb (in his state) that probably has some benefits for a troubled dude like him in a profession where he is in serious pain every other day. 

But no you're right, he should probably take those "legal" elixir-like painkillers at $100 a pop and turn into a state-sponsored junkie like Karo Parisyan, what is this moron doing questioning things?! Throw the book at him, he deserves it, the CRIMINAL! Bring out my pedestal, I'm feeling high and mighty today.

Of course we need mercy and understanding for compassionate role model athletes like Jones, Palhares, Mayweather etc. They don't deserve to get ****ed, they're just humans who make mistakes too. The same mistake. Over and over. And nearly kill people in the process. But it's ok, we're a compassionate society, our govt. told us these are not dangerous. The herb is the enemy.


----------



## Leed (Jan 3, 2010)

Liddellianenko said:


> DonRifle said:
> 
> 
> > I could watch the first minute, as usual the guy is barely able to talk, just a touch more then his brother, half simpleton. Still hes delusional and has been kept down from being the best fighter in the world. This is the guy who fought GSP and thought one sweep was going to win the fight for him.
> ...


This anti-ped guy the UFC hired, don't remember his name, said on Rogan's podcast his levels were so high he was essentially fighting high. Not that I care though, I'm with Kennedy on this one, I don't care if my opponent smoked weed. 

Can't wait to hear Rogan's rant on his next podcast lol


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Liddellianenko said:


> He's not smoking just before a fight and blowing it in their faces ... habitual users like Diaz can test positive for metabolites even if they smoked like a couple of months before the fight.
> 
> http://www.leafscience.com/2014/04/22/how-long-thc-stay-system/
> 
> ...


Lol put words in my mouth why dont you. Your just being naive and childish about this. He smoked the day before the fight, He had been caught multiple times before and told if he did it again he would get suspended. So he does it again like a 2 year old who can't behave, and now he's ****ed. People need to use their brains once in a while you know, and not just pretend to be this cool renegade, that fights the system. If the dude wants to make a living inside the sport he has to follow the rules. I don't care what Palhares does, he grew up eating pig shit. 

And besides weed is a PED. There are dozens of strains designed to help performance in different ways.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

DonRifle said:


> Lol put words in my mouth why dont you. Your just being naive and childish about this. He smoked the day before the fight, He had been caught multiple times before and told if he did it again he would get suspended. So he does it again like a 2 year old who can't behave, and now he's ****ed. People need to use their brains once in a while you know, and not just pretend to be this cool renegade, that fights the system. If the dude wants to make a living inside the sport he has to follow the rules. I don't care what Palhares does, he grew up eating pig shit.
> 
> And besides weed is a PED. There are dozens of strains designed to help performance in different ways.


Day before the fight is different, he deserves something, but 5 years is still completely arbitrary when worse repeat offenders run around with 1 year suspensions. You may not care about Palhares or other repeat offenders but a court that's passing judgements really should consider the parallels set by the same authority. Guys doing steroids multiple times get nothing, by this standard Barnett shouldn't be allowed within 10 miles of a cage yet he's fighting in the UFC and Diaz is effectively banned in the US. 

Again this has nothing to do with the actual act or rules and more to do with egos, toeing the federal and pharma agenda.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Liddellianenko said:


> Day before the fight is different, he deserves something, but 5 years is still completely arbitrary when worse repeat offenders run around with 1 year suspensions. You may not care about Palhares or other repeat offenders but a court that's passing judgements really should consider the parallels set by the same authority. Guys doing steroids multiple times get nothing, by this standard Barnett shouldn't be allowed within 10 miles of a cage yet he's fighting in the UFC and Diaz is effectively banned in the US.
> 
> Again this has nothing to do with the actual act or rules and more to do with egos, toeing the federal and pharma agenda.


Sure the commission is a bunch of clowns playing around like a circus, the AS case demonstrated that.
. Im not so sure its federal pharma agenda, for me its the same as a judge throwing the book at someone, or the kid who keeps appearing in front of the principal for the same thing. 
I mean Diaz really does not have an excuse here he knew what he was doing, and is paying the price now for taking the piss out of the system and giving it the finger. Its inevitable really, its the same as the Wandy situation where he took the piss out of the rules and got banned for life. 

One day these commissions will be run properly and they'll be consistent, until that point better to be smart about things like weed. Most of the fighters in the UFC smoke it as far as I can see, but they aren't smoking it the week of the fight


----------



## hadoq (Jan 6, 2011)

we're in fecking 2015, this shouldn't be happening.
we all know all well that weed is not a PED, it's something MANY people do and get on with their lives, some even find great success.
I know I wouldn't be where I am today if it wasn't for smoking weed every now and again, get the chance to relax, think productively, work on ideas on how to get forward with my life.

and I'm sure Nick Diaz is also a better man thanks to a joint every now and then.

this is utter BS and a proper outrage.
And I dare to claim that our society owes a lot to weed being smoked and people not accepting and going head on into the "politically correct" that ruins our damn humanity. 
This is where the issues lies gentlemen, that damn politically correct and law abiding fecking citizen mentality.

Today I am Nick Fecking Diaz, and I claim high and loud that whoever support this suspension is a forking hersehall.

much love to you all, and smoke weed everyday <3


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

HexRei said:


> This is absolute bullshit. **** this commission. *I hope he appeals.*


And do what in the appealing hearing, if he had the chance to speak for himself in this one and just chose to remain silent and not answering any question from the commission? It's reported that infuriated the commissioner Pat Lundvall and certainly did not help Nick's case any bit.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

hadoq said:


> w.
> we all know all well that weed is not a PED, it's something MANY people


Correction dude, weed is a PED. Just ask any proper grower there opinion on that and they will tell you. The average shit you buy in the street may not be but proper growers grow strains specifically for workouts and a variety of other things


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)

DonRifle said:


> Correction dude, weed is a PED. Just ask any proper grower there opinion on that and they will tell you. The average shit you buy in the street may not be but proper growers grow strains specifically for workouts and a variety of other things


I don't know what you're smoking, but I don't think it's weed.

I know people that grow their own, have been doing for years, one is a body builder. He doesn't ever smoke weed before working out.

No idea what you're chatting mate.

Also, two of Diaz's tests came back negative - one positive, conducted by a different company.

There's no proof that Diaz was smoking the day before his fight.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

ReptilianSlayer said:


> I don't know what you're smoking, but I don't think it's weed.
> 
> I know people that grow their own, have been doing for years, one is a body builder. He doesn't ever smoke weed before working out.
> 
> ...


Well look a bit further into it when you have the time. I have had this argument out with probably the best grower in ireland who makes oils for the sick, and has a variety of different strains of weed depending on what he wants to do that day. One is specific for running and gives him more cardio. He says he can run more focused on for much longer. And he swears buy it and managed to convinced me with knowledge and science. The plant is a miracle plant, billions of dollars is now going into research and patents on different cannabinoid combinations that have proven to reduce tumours. Its not a stretch that if it can cure cancer it can be a PED as well. 

Novitsky said Diaz had to be smoking that day or the day before for his levels to be so high, and I believe him


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

If Diaz gets to fight elsewhere, what I think it is hilarious is he'd defo fight more just to try and give a fuk you to the system.

Watching that video and again Diaz is talking down on the UFC again. While this ruling is bullshit, Diaz has been given everything in the world from the UFC that he didn't deserve so to expect them to go out of there way to do Diaz a favour might not come about.

And yes, it's be sour grapes if Diaz sued the UFC now  Whole thing just shouldnt happen in the first place. Diaz should get at like most one or two, or a big fine. 5 is NUTS.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Watching that video and again Diaz is talking down on the UFC again. While this ruling is bullshit, *Diaz has been given everything in the world from the UFC that he didn't deserve* so to expect them to go out of there way to do Diaz a favour might not come about.


You sound like a Diaz hater.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> You sound like a Diaz hater.


Cool. 

In the cage, Diaz might still be my all time favourite. He's the main reason I got into MMA and his first UFC. It's just been harder to be a fan of him over the last few years.

How can you disagree that Diaz has been handed everything by the UFC though? A title shot off of a loss against arguably the greatest of all time, followed by a fight a weight class up against arguably the other greatest of all time.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Cool.
> 
> In the cage, Diaz might still be my all time favourite. He's the main reason I got into MMA and his first UFC. It's just been harder to be a fan of him over the last few years.
> 
> How can you disagree that Diaz has been handed everything by the UFC though? A title shot off of a loss against arguably the greatest of all time, followed by a fight a weight class up against arguably the other greatest of all time.


The UFC didn't give him those opportunities out of the goodness of their heart. He got them because hes popular. His popularity isnt the UFCs doing. People like him because hes fearless and sincere, even if it does mean he says/does some silly stuff sometimes.


----------



## PheelGoodInc (Jul 23, 2009)

ReptilianSlayer said:


> This is why people like you putting on a uniform and playing cop in real life are such a threat to society.
> 
> Deserved? WTF are you even talking about? This post just proves ALL of my suspicions about you following any law the politicians write for you to enforce. They write it, you enforce it.
> 
> ...


Jesus. Here we go with you Nazi conspiracy nonsense.

This post had NOTHING to do with government, laws, politicians, or aliens. 

Part of Nick's stipulation from his EMPLOYER was to follow the rules of the commission. If his employer can say he has to worship Hitler and kill babies, guess what? They can suspend / punish him for not doing so. Don't like it? Find a new employer.

You are so delusional about anyone who follows rules set by people other than themselves it's almost comical. It's funny, because you preach of freedom, truth, and open mindedness, but you are the most scared person I have ever seen.

You have created multiple fake accounts, lied about your identity, denied the truth of who you were, and you have the audacity to say I am the problem? If you are a fraction as shady in real life as you are online, you are what's wrong with society.

Keep typing. The world will keep spinning. You will still be bat shit crazy no matter how much you convince yourself you somehow know the "truth".


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

PheelGoodInc said:


> Jesus. Here we go with you Nazi conspiracy nonsense.
> 
> This post had NOTHING to do with government, laws, politicians, or aliens.
> 
> ...


The drug policies and their punishment were not drafted by his EMPLOYER but by the GOVERNMENT (in this case the NSAC). Most employers wouldn't give a fig if some guy user a herbal pain killer in his spare time outside the job if the govt didn't force them to. And it's not his employer that's doling out these arbitrary punishments, so don't try to lay it on them or use them as some sort of cover.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Trix said:


> Pros react to Nick Diaz 5 year suspension on twitter.
> 
> http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2015/9/1...on-drug-marijuana-suspension-twitter-mma-news


Tim Kennedy makes a great point. Basically, if you asked any fighter if he cares that his opponent smoked weed, im 100% sure that they would all say they couldnt give a shit. By the same token, im 100% sure they would not be happy if their opponent was on steroids.

So, it begs the question, who are they protecting? The fighters don't care. Why the fook should NSAC care?


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Soojooko said:


> Tim Kennedy makes a great point. Basically, if you asked any fighter if he cares that his opponent smoked weed, im 100% sure that they would all say they couldnt give a shit. By the same token, im 100% sure they would not be happy if their opponent was on steroids.
> 
> So, it begs the question, who are they protecting? The fighters don't care. Why the fook should NSAC care?


Oh you know who they're protecting, we've just been talking about them in the other thread .


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Liddellianenko said:


> Oh you know who they're protecting, we've just been talking about them in the other thread .


Indeed.

There no reason to smoke weed, when we have all these other fabby drugs you wont get banned for. ( Until the patent runs out )


----------



## PheelGoodInc (Jul 23, 2009)

Liddellianenko said:


> The drug policies and their punishment were not drafted by his EMPLOYER but by the GOVERNMENT (in this case the NSAC). Most employers wouldn't give a fig if some guy user a herbal pain killer in his spare time outside the job if the govt didn't force them to. And it's not his employer that's doling out these arbitrary punishments, so don't try to lay it on them or use them as some sort of cover.


His employer had him agree to follow the rules of the commission. It was part of his job. He repeatedly failed to do it, and showed no remorse for it.

Most employers would have fired Nick by now. He's lucky he's only getting 5 years.

The fact the commission is putting the punishment on him is irrelevant. It was a part of his job. He knew it. He purposely and repeatedly failed to do what was necessary in his job. Call me old fashioned, but where I come from, if you don't do the requirements of your job you get in trouble. Crazy beliefs I have right?


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

DonRifle said:


> Correction dude, weed is a PED. Just ask any proper grower there opinion on that and they will tell you. The average shit you buy in the street may not be but proper growers grow strains specifically for workouts and a variety of other things


I smoke THAT. In my opinion it wouldn't help you work out or anything. I guess anyone can perceive how something affects your mind or body. But if medical MJ helps anyone who smokes it "work out" then so does an over the counter pain reliever. Or water. On of the American Football's best players Marshawn Lynch eats Skittles on the sideline. I guess that could be a performing enhancer for him. 

Not sure if you have any experience with weed. But it isn't something you use and get the same reaction as everyone else. I could smoke the same bowl of the best weed you can find and want to read a book for an hour. You could want to go run 3 miles. The next guy could get so paranoid he ends up doing nothing but being paranoid. The next guy could want to eat a bag of chips. The next guy could want to get chores done. There is no set rhyme or reason with weed. Medical weed is better than your average weed your local high schooler is smoking for sure. But better doesn't mean it makes you have super human breathing powers all of a sudden.....:thumb02: 

To me it isn't a performance enhancer. To someone else it may be. But to someone else it may also hinder any training.


----------



## SM33 (Sep 22, 2009)

Next guy who get's caught roiding better get _life_.

I love Diaz and honestly, he wasn't fighting often toward the end and rankings didn't apply to him for viewer's sake, but that's beside the point, this punishment is extreme and sets a new standard that should be held up in honor of Nick.

5 years is a huge amount of time in a fighter's career, from now on anything more than a weed metabolite should = ban for life, because 5 years will probably end it anyway. If they do not continue with this standard, either they are corrupt _or_ something has happened regarding Nick that we/the media have not been told about.

I didn't expect Nick to go scott free but this is insane.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

jonnyg4508 said:


> I smoke THAT. In my opinion it wouldn't help you work out or anything. I guess anyone can perceive how something affects your mind or body. But if medical MJ helps anyone who smokes it "work out" then so does an over the counter pain reliever. Or water. On of the American Football's best players Marshawn Lynch eats Skittles on the sideline. I guess that could be a performing enhancer for him.
> 
> Not sure if you have any experience with weed. But it isn't something you use and get the same reaction as everyone else. I could smoke the same bowl of the best weed you can find and want to read a book for an hour. You could want to go run 3 miles. The next guy could get so paranoid he ends up doing nothing but being paranoid. The next guy could want to eat a bag of chips. The next guy could want to get chores done. There is no set rhyme or reason with weed. Medical weed is better than your average weed your local high schooler is smoking for sure. But better doesn't mean it makes you have super human breathing powers all of a sudden.....:thumb02:
> 
> To me it isn't a performance enhancer. To someone else it may be. But to someone else it may also hinder any training.


Yeah I agree people react differently to it. 

One thing I would say is when Im pissed off or stressed with business, the first thing I will do is smoke a joint, privately of course lol, but it takes the edge off nervousn energy big time, takes away anger and makes me much more chilled. 
You could say this could be quite helpful for a fighter before a fight, using say an example of Tito who says he pukes before every fight because of nerves. Maybe Nick getting whacked was what gave him the confidence to lie on his back and taunt. 
The issue is only now are people really uncovering the amazing possibilities with the plant, and after smoking for years I completely dismissed the idea it was a PED until this guy told me the science behind the growing and how he does it, and became a believer.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

PheelGoodInc said:


> His employer had him agree to follow the rules of the commission. It was part of his job. He repeatedly failed to do it, and showed no remorse for it.
> 
> Most employers would have fired Nick by now. He's lucky he's only getting 5 years.
> 
> The fact the commission is putting the punishment on him is irrelevant. It was a part of his job. He knew it. He purposely and repeatedly failed to do what was necessary in his job. Call me old fashioned, but where I come from, if you don't do the requirements of your job you get in trouble. Crazy beliefs I have right?


You get in trouble with your employer for not following your employer's rules. Not across the entire country for an arbitrary rule that doesn't make sense. 

Yes it's a crazy set of beliefs, it's called blind unquestioning obedience to govt. Not that old fashioned, fairly new actually. You might want to look up the old fashioned beliefs of the guys that founded your country.


----------



## PheelGoodInc (Jul 23, 2009)

Liddellianenko said:


> You get in trouble with your employer for not following *your employer's rules.* Not across the entire country for an arbitrary rule that doesn't make sense.


The UFC doesn't require fighters to abide by NSAC? Please enlighten me.



> Yes it's a crazy set of beliefs, it's called blind unquestioning obedience to govt. Not that old fashioned, fairly new actually. You might want to look up the old fashioned beliefs of the guys that founded your country.


This has nothing to do with the government. I expect Rept to turn everything political (he feels the need to reinforce his craziness). Not you.

This is about an employer employee agreement. Period.


----------



## King Daisuke (Mar 25, 2013)

I didn't do the play-by-play because I thought this hearing was going to be nothing special. Boy, was I wrong. Nick's lawyer and the expert had it. They totally had it. In my opinion they proved that Nick Diaz was not guilty. I say "not guilty" because there's no way he's innocent - Nick smokes pot. A lot. I liked the most how first the prosecutor and then Pat "The Blonde Punisher" Lundvall tried and tried to stump the defence, but they had all corners covered. Even the expert witness laughed at their faces! And then there was Nick himself answering "_5th amendment_" to over 20 questions in a row. :laugh: This was just as entertaining as the previous hearing with only one thing being different: This time the NSAC looked like a fool.

And then the commission suspended him anyway out of spite. It's total bullshit and I hope they sue the **** out of the commission.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

Dang! 
I leave the web alone for one day and y'all beak my favorite sport and end the career of the GOAT. (if you're as big a pothead as me then he's the goat). Craziness.

Pheelgood, ....oldbuddy.... take your badge off and be a fan once in a while. You don't always have to be the token police officer.

Chael, being the great one, already has Free Nick t-shirts for sale. as soon as I confirm that some money goes to nick I'll be buying some. There is also an official free nick white house petition I hope all of you will sign. HERE. it only needs about 90k more...

Don't despair. We may see Nick vs Fedor in Russia soon.


----------



## PheelGoodInc (Jul 23, 2009)

oldfan said:


> Dang!
> I leave the web alone for one day and y'all beak my favorite sport and end the career of the GOAT. (if you're as big a pothead as me then he's the goat). Craziness.
> 
> Pheelgood, ....oldbuddy.... take your badge off and be a fan once in a while. You don't always have to be the token police officer.
> ...


Believe it or not, I actually do enjoy watching Nick fight. I'm not a fan of him as a person. 

I think the punishment is harsh. It is completely understandable though.

Rules are there for a reason yada yada yada. If you disagree with them there are ways to handle it yada yada yada. We all can't live in Rept's fantasy world where we don't have to follow rules without consequence. Repeatedly pointing your middle finger at the people who have a direct part in making your living is not a smart move. Nick has never been known for his smarts.

Personally, I'm surprised it's taken him this long to screw up... and I thought it would be for something more serious.


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)

PheelGoodInc said:


> Believe it or not, I actually do enjoy watching Nick fight. I'm not a fan of him as a person.
> 
> I think the punishment is harsh. It is completely understandable though.
> 
> ...


Erroneous rules are not there to be followed; they're there to be broken. If people like Nick Diaz didn't continuously break erroneous rules/laws, they wouldn't ever change: like the legalization of alcohol your country enforced a few years ago. If people didn't continuously drink alcohol with no regard to the erroneous law, it would still be banned in your country to day and you'd be arresting people for distributing it on the streets.

The founding fathers of your country didn't follow the rules the British laid out for them, because they were immoral. They broke those rules and shot them.

You've also not addressed the actual NSAC hearing, where it was explained how Nick Diaz passed two WADA governed drug tests but failed one on the same night from the same company that screwed up Cung Le's test. There's a good chance Nick was actually innocent in all this.


----------



## VolcomX311 (Aug 18, 2009)

Slavery used to be a rule, just say'n...


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Stupid rules are meant to be broken. Breaking rules is what got us our freedom and liberties. Breaking rules is why we can freely drink alcohol and why things like weed are starting to become legal. Breaking laws that are meant to be broken is how the world evolves and changes for the better.

Now in the case for Diaz, Diaz has a job that states he cannot smoke weed, he smoked weed, and should be punished for it if they found him guilty. However, 5 years is absolutely ridiculous. He should, at most, be fined. It's absolutely ridiculous, 5 years for smoking some weed, it's just dumb and whoever decided it was okay to strip someone of making a living for 5 years for smoking a natural plant that doesn't impede/effect their job in a positive or negative light, should get their head checked because they are clearly not all there.

If your job states that you need to follow X requirements and then you don't follow those requirements, the company has a right to fire you. That's just common sense. However, the government should have no say whatsoever if you can get that same job somewhere else, or any such matter. It's not a government issue, it's a company issue. Diaz getting a main source of his income disabled for 5 years because he smoked some weed and some morons in suits decided it should be so, is atrocious.


----------



## PheelGoodInc (Jul 23, 2009)

ReptilianSlayer said:


> Erroneous rules are not there to be followed; they're there to be broken. If people like Nick Diaz didn't continuously break erroneous rules/laws, they wouldn't ever change: like the legalization of alcohol your country enforced a few years ago. If people didn't continuously drink alcohol with no regard to the erroneous law, it would still be banned in your country to day and you'd be arresting people for distributing it on the streets.
> 
> The founding fathers of your country didn't follow the rules the British laid out for them, because they were immoral. They broke those rules and shot them.
> 
> You've also not addressed the actual NSAC hearing, where it was explained how Nick Diaz passed two WADA governed drug tests but failed one on the same night from the same company that screwed up Cung Le's test. There's a good chance Nick was actually innocent in all this.


Jesus f'n Christ. This has nothing to do with government.

Being pro private industry for EVERYTHING, you would think you of all people would understand that.

Nick Diaz testing positive for marijuana a false positive :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Sorry, please continue.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

PheelGoodInc said:


> Jesus f'n Christ. This has nothing to do with government.



:confused02: one of us is confused. Was nick punished by his employer? or by the NSAC a government sanctioned commission?


----------



## PheelGoodInc (Jul 23, 2009)

oldfan said:


> :confused02: one of us is confused. Was nick punished by his employer? or by the NSAC a government sanctioned commission?


An athletic commission has nothing to do with the founding fathers or breaking unjust laws. Nick chose a profession which is overlooked by a governing commission. Nick chose his profession which includes following the rules of that commission when he signs his contract for each fight. Nick has repeatedly not followed those rules, and shown no effort to follow those rules.

This isn't the government forcing tyranny on the people. This is Nick, not abiding by the contracts he has signed and the rules set forth by his employer.


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

PheelGoodInc said:


> It's harsh, but deserved. Nick is an absolute moron. He's been warned, punished, and suspended for his weed use before. The commission was tired of him laughing at their rules. They made an example of him and rightfully so.
> 
> This has nothing to do with weed. This has everything to do with a repeated offender who thinks he's special and the rules don't apply to him. Guess what? They do.


Exactly this. There's better ways to get the rules changed than going about it how Diaz did. Couldn't have happened to a better guy.

(enjoying the goalpost shifting and crying in this thread)


----------



## No_Mercy (Oct 17, 2006)

They should give him an option of forefeiting 75% of his purse money or five year ban. But damn 30% + 5 years. They'll appeal and perhaps get it down to two years...maybe.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

PheelGoodInc said:


> An athletic commission has nothing to do with the founding fathers or breaking unjust laws. Nick chose a profession which is overlooked by a governing commission. Nick chose his profession which includes following the rules of that commission when he signs his contract for each fight. Nick has repeatedly not followed those rules, and shown no effort to follow those rules.
> 
> This isn't the government forcing tyranny on the people. This is Nick, not abiding by the contracts he has signed and the rules set forth by his employer.


yeah i still don't get it. having your money and your ability to make money forcibly taken away by a government entity that exists to regulate the way you are allowed to live doesn't exactly equal


> Jesus f'n Christ. This has nothing to do with government.


....I don't think...


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

oldfan said:


> yeah i still don't get it. having your money and your ability to make money forcibly taken away by a government entity that exists to regulate the way you are allowed to live doesn't exactly equal
> 
> ....I don't think...


If Nick doesnt like the contract why sign it? For me someone who signs a contract and does not abide by its terms is a man of low integrity unless he is signing it under duress. 
He could have fought in Asia, he could have fought in WSOF where they obviously test way way less then the UFC. But no he chose the UFC, signed the contract to get money to abide by certain terms. He basically lied when he signed the contract because he had no intention of meeting the terms. 

People are defending a guy that been basically a moron in this whole process. Now he's got fu**ed for being a moron. Is he fighting the system and trying to change the landscape? No. Is he a pioneer of smoking weed and doing MMA? No hes not. Most of the roster is smoking weed, they arent dumb enough to smoke it the night before an event or perhaps even the day of the event. 
He is a cool guy who sticks his finger up at authority, I get that and why people like him for it. I like the fact that hes a different personality and a great character in the MMA world. 
None of this coolness changes the fact that the guy should used his brain. 

We can blame the government, blame the individuals in the commissions, blame the fact marijuana should be legal. None of it matters, Nick Diaz has no one to blame but himself because if he executed just a tiny bit of self discipline and didnt smoke weed for 2 weeks before the fight he would of done fine. Instead he was actually high when he fought, and then he expected what as a result? A pink elephant and a magic frog? No he got fu**ed and he deserved to get fu**ed.


----------



## PheelGoodInc (Jul 23, 2009)

oldfan said:


> yeah i still don't get it. having your money and your ability to make money forcibly taken away by a government entity that exists to regulate the way you are allowed to live doesn't exactly equal
> 
> ....I don't think...


Your earnings are given to you by your employer. (Unless you own the company)

Your employer stipulates you follow rules of your job. One of those rules is abiding by the NSAC - who has the ability to take away your earnings.

No one forced Nick to work for the UFC.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

can I get one of those majik frogs?


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

King Daisuke said:


> And then there was Nick himself answering "_*5th* amendment_" to over 20 questions in a row. :laugh: This was just as entertaining as the previous hearing with only one thing being different: This time the NSAC looked like a fool.


Nailed. Now we know where the commission got the number *5* from. And lol, you have the people who can feck your career in front of you and you want to make them look like a fool? Only a full time fool would try a move like that and look like legit one after receiving the sentence. I doubt Nick would get such a big time if he was cooperative, but he doesn't know what that means, even to save his own skin.



oldfan said:


>


You forgot to mention:

*Chael Sonnen being caught cheating with ridiculous hight T ratio and STILL being granted a TUE

Wanderlei Silva being banned for life in spite NEVER been tested positive for anything - ever in his life - but out of a reasonable assumption he was on something in one single occasion he skipped a test.*

Yes, it is arbitrary. But you are being naive if you think all this regards only to pot smoking.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

PheelGoodInc said:


> An athletic commission has nothing to do with the founding fathers or breaking unjust laws. Nick chose a profession which is overlooked by a governing commission. Nick chose his profession which includes following the rules of that commission when he signs his contract for each fight. Nick has repeatedly not followed those rules, and shown no effort to follow those rules.
> 
> This isn't the government forcing tyranny on the people. This is Nick, not abiding by the contracts he has signed and the rules set forth by his employer.


You can't "not choose" a profession overlooked by the govt., they regulate EVERYTHING down to the size of your front door if you let them, regardless of whether you choose to have it regulated. Every single profession and company in the western world is regulated by govt, you can't "choose" otherwise.

Just because the govt. forces every private company at gunpoint to follow it's shitty arbitrary rules doesn't make this a "company issue". Your futile attempts at passing the buck aren't fooling anyone. This is a GOVERNMENT law, pushed by a GOVERNMENT commission, with egotistical GOVERNMENT bureaucrats pushing an arbitrary punishment on an employee of a private company that they mandated THEMSELVES into. The company didn't go begging for them to regulate the sport, they legislated themselves into that holy piece of paper called contract by FORCE, that Diaz signed. They force any sport closed that doesn't adhere to their arbitrary rules, "choice" has nothing to do with it.

Of course in your logic that means every stupid caprice of these assholes must be blindly respected and followed, otherwise you're a "criminal" (a word you used in the other thread). A perp. A low-life. Better charge that taser up, we got a live one! Get a gun ready to plant on him, if he gets mouthy. 

Maybe someone should've thrown you in the hole when you drank under 21 like these low-life criminals?

This has everything to do with the founding fathers. It's about blindly defending every capricious judgement or "law" of government regardless of sense or justice, and they didn't stand for it. And you, my friend, represent the red coats.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

oldfan said:


> can I get one of those majik frogs?













Yes you can! Make America Great Again!!!!


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Soojooko said:


> The UFC didn't give him those opportunities out of the goodness of their heart. He got them because hes popular. His popularity isnt the UFCs doing. People like him because hes fearless and sincere, even if it does mean he says/does some silly stuff sometimes.


True, but even when you earn something (or earn something relative to popularity) you were still given the opportunity. The hardest working dude at Google is still thankful Google gave him the opportunity to show that you know?

Diaz hates the UFC but has been given things he didnt earn in terms of his fighting abilities. He was given them cause the fans like him. He should be a bit more appreciative of it.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> True, but even when you earn something (or earn something relative to popularity) you were still given the opportunity. The hardest working dude at Google is still thankful Google gave him the opportunity to show that you know?
> 
> Diaz hates the UFC but has been given things he didnt earn in terms of his fighting abilities. He was given them cause the fans like him. He should be a bit more appreciative of it.


Google gives guys an existing elite level codebase of millions of lines, thousands of servers, and an extremely handsome amount of money compared to the UFC. 

The UFC gives fighters a rusty cage, a cheesy hard rock intro and a pothead commentator while they fight and, in the case of Diaz, bring existing fans to them. 

I think the company-value vs employee-value ratio might be a bit different in your examples.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Liddellianenko said:


> Google gives guys an existing elite level codebase of millions of lines, thousands of servers, and an extremely handsome amount of money compared to the UFC.
> 
> The UFC gives fighters a rusty cage, a cheesy hard rock intro and a pothead commentator while they fight and, in the case of Diaz, bring existing fans to them.
> 
> I think the company-value vs employee-value ratio might be a bit different in your examples.


Google was a random example. Football players are appreciative to be picked for their under 16s team even if they're the best on the squad.

Rusty cage? Is the cage rusty?


Musics alright. Can't please everyone. Better than rap.

Joe Rogan's one of the best commentators around in most people's opinions? Also isn't Diaz a pothead?


Employees without jobs are nothing. UFC is a platform which has allowed Diaz to fight for the title undeservedly and fight two of the greatest of all time, when really he didnt make sense for either but it got him some big pay cheques. The UFC have been REALLY good to Nick Diaz. They didnt have to be. You can say "oh but they profited too" but that's what business is. Diaz should appreciate that inside the cage, he's been given opportunities that inside the cage he didnt earn.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Google was a random example. Football players are appreciative to be picked for their under 16s team even if they're the best on the squad.
> 
> Rusty cage? Is the cage rusty?
> 
> ...


I was using hyperbole, the cage probably doesn't have any rust, a nice shiny cage then but you get the point.

The football players on the under 16 team are glad because they're not being used to make billions and paid nothing. The football players on the NFL on the other hand are, and guess what they're paid? 

Diaz is a pothead who can fight, Rogan's just a biased knowitall anymore.

Diaz made the UFC FAR FAR more than they made him. There's business, and there's ripping off. This discussion has been done to death, most people understand the UFC gives peanuts in earnings-payouts compared to every other major sport. Certainly nothing to be "grateful" about.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

DonRifle said:


> Lol put words in my mouth why dont you. Your just being naive and childish about this. He smoked the day before the fight, He had been caught multiple times before and told if he did it again he would get suspended. So he does it again like a 2 year old who can't behave, and now he's ****ed. People need to use their brains once in a while you know, and not just pretend to be this cool renegade, that fights the system. If the dude wants to make a living inside the sport he has to follow the rules. I don't care what Palhares does, he grew up eating pig shit.
> 
> And besides weed is a PED. There are dozens of strains designed to help performance in different ways.


Bahahahaha. Have you ever smoked weed? Serious question. Between your apparent belief that a person who smoked the day before a fight will still be affected the next day and the hilarious belief that it is a PED (lol at strains designed to help performance, seriously? SERIOUSLY?) I really have to wonder if you have any idea what the hell you're talking about.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

HexRei said:


> Bahahahaha. Have you ever smoked weed? Serious question. Between your apparent belief that a person who smoked the day before a fight will still be affected the next day and the hilarious belief that it is a PED (lol at strains designed to help performance, seriously? SERIOUSLY?) I really have to wonder if you have any idea what the hell you're talking about.


Novitsky stated Diaz's level were off the charts and that he was actually high when he was fighting. Was he using cannibas oil? Was he using edibles or dabbing, or was he smoking? Do you know the length of time each one of those things lasts smartass?
Do you know how a persons testing levels are affected by years of heavy marijuana use compared to smoking a joint now and again? No? F off then! lol


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

DonRifle said:


> Novitsky stated Diaz's level were off the charts and that he was actually high when he was fighting. Was he using cannibas oil? Was he using edibles or dabbing, or was he smoking? Do you know the length of time each one of those things lasts smartass?


Yes, I do, and it's a matter of hours. Buds, dabs, oil, edibles, none of them will keep you high the next day. Cannabis does not work like that.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

HexRei said:


> Yes, I do, and it's a matter of hours. Buds, dabs, oil, edibles, none of them will keep you high the next day. Cannabis does not work like that.


Heres an extract from Leaf Science

_Occasional Users

Someone who smokes occasionally – or for the first time – will likely test positive for 1-3 days afterward, according to a review by the National Drug Court Institute (NDCI).

But by the end of 4 days, infrequent cannabis users should be safely below the 50 ng/mL threshold.

“For occasional marijuana use (or single event usage), at the 50 ng/mL cutoff level, it would be unusual for the detection of cannabinoids in urine to extend beyond 3-4 days following the smoking episode.”

Frequent Users

Studies suggest someone who smokes often can expect to test positive for around a week following last use. According to the NDCI, after 10 days, most frequent users should pass a urine test at the 50 ng/mL threshold.

“Based upon recent scientific evidence, at the 50 ng/mL cutoff concentration for the detection of cannabinoids in urine, it would be unlikely for a chronic user to produce a positive urine drug test result for longer than 10 days after the last smoking episode.”

However, there’s no guarantee that a heavy cannabis smoker will be free of THC metabolites after 10 days. Studies show it’s possible for some users to test positive for up to a month after last use.

In one extreme case, a person who reported using cannabis heavily for over 10 years managed to test positive (above 20 ng/mL limit) for up to 67 days after last use._

There is also plenty of science out there showing the different reactions of individuals based on different metabolism rates. 

Depending on the THC levels or cannabinoids present in the oil it can last much longer then smoking a joint. It depends on the concentration and the amount ingested. Whether you can argue over a few hours or whatever I don't know.

And who gives a fu** whether it was the day before, the night before, the early hours of the morning or the actual day of the fight anyway? His levels were off the charts


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

DonRifle said:


> Heres an extract from Leaf Science
> 
> _Occasional Users
> 
> ...


Testing positive and being high are two different things. Having it still circulating in your system and feeling any effects of it are completely separate issues. The "high" goes away relatively quickly, that doesn't mean it still can't be found in your system if tested the next day.

The doctor said that he was "high while fighting" because his levels were so high, his levels don't mean jack shit regarding him feeling any effects/being high, the actual high ends quickly, between 30 mins - 2 hours roughly. On more extreme cases (smoking extremely potent weed) it can last a few hours longer.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Testing positive for metabolites is not the same as being high. Yeah, you can test positive for a month after stopping if you smoke heavily- *you are not high for more than a few hours after smoking though.* 

That last at Donrifle


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)

DonRifle said:


> Heres an extract from Leaf Science
> 
> _Occasional Users
> 
> ...


Jesus Christ. You don't actually believe that because the body can retain metabolites for days/weeks after ingesting cannabis, that the people are still actually high do you?

In NONE of the examples you gave did it state that people were still high the next day after smoking cannabis. lol.

I'm under the impression you believe Nick Diaz was high in the Octagon against Silva. This is brilliant.


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

DonRifle said:


> There is also plenty of science out there showing the different reactions of individuals based on different metabolism rates.


Yeah, as a long-time hardcore pot smoker I can safely say that it can be a PED. For me, it helped a lot with my training. Mostly for cardio and pushing through pain. I also posted my best times while mildly high. (smoke a pinner a while before; XC skiing and running)

It's certainly a very interesting drug and we still have a lot to learn about (and from) it.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

M.C said:


> Testing positive and being high are two different things. Having it still circulating in your system and feeling any effects of it are completely separate issues. The "high" goes away relatively quickly, that doesn't mean it still can't be found in your system if tested the next day.
> 
> The doctor said that he was "high while fighting" because his levels were so high, his levels don't mean jack shit regarding him feeling any effects/being high, the actual high ends quickly, between 30 mins - 2 hours roughly. On more extreme cases (smoking extremely potent weed) it can last a few hours longer.


i never said they were the same things. I simply showed with the information that different people react differently to THC and cannabinoids. Some people it goes out much fast then others.

Secondly If I was to ingest a strain of hash that was very high in certain cannabinoids I will get way more stoned then smoking a pure hash joint, and I will be stoned for a hell of a lot longer. 

Have you ever smoked a joint in the morning of say hash, something was will decrease your performance and then tried to train that night in football or similar? I have and im at about 60-70% of my fitness when I do. And sure I dont arrive to training high. But I was high that morning and its still having a residual effect on my performance 



HexRei said:


> Testing positive for metabolites is not the same as being high. Yeah, you can test positive for a month after stopping if you smoke heavily- *you are not high for more than a few hours after smoking though.*
> 
> That last at Donrifle


No shit sherlock



ReptilianSlayer said:


> Jesus Christ. You don't actually believe that because the body can retain metabolites for days/weeks after ingesting cannabis, that the people are still actually high do you?
> 
> In NONE of the examples you gave did it state that people were still high the next day after smoking cannabis. lol.


People love putting words in my mouth on this thread for some reason!


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Woodenhead said:


> Yeah, as a long-time hardcore pot smoker I can safely say that it can be a PED. For me, it helped a lot with my training. Mostly for cardio and pushing through pain. I also posted my best times while mildly high. (smoke a pinner a while before; XC skiing and running)
> 
> It's certainly a very interesting drug and we still have a lot to learn about (and from) it.


I'm not sure if mood enhancement alone qualifying it as a PED in the judicial sense is a good idea. Warm coacoa enhances my mood, should that be banned? What if I'm a Bronie? Can't watch my ponies while I train?



DonRifle said:


> i never said they were the same things. I simply showed with the information that different people react differently to THC and cannabinoids. Some people it goes out much fast then others.
> 
> Secondly If I was to ingest a strain of hash that was very high in certain cannabinoids I will get way more stoned then smoking a pure hash joint, and I will be stoned for a hell of a lot longer.
> 
> ...


Your post just showed metabolite presence as they are flushed from the body. There is nothing about length of highs or performance. Also LOL. "a strain of hash". Cmon , guy.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

DonRifle said:


> i never said they were the same things. I simply showed with the information that different people react differently to THC and cannabinoids. Some people it goes out much fast then others.
> 
> Secondly If I was to ingest a strain of hash that was very high in certain cannabinoids I will get way more stoned then smoking a pure hash joint, and I will be stoned for a hell of a lot longer.
> 
> Have you ever smoked a joint in the morning of say hash, something was will decrease your performance and then tried to train that night in football or similar? I have and im at about 60-70% of my fitness when I do. And sure I dont arrive to training high. But I was high that morning and its still having a residual effect on my performance


But again, the levels have nothing to do with how high he was. Test result levels can show very clear and high signs of weed use, yet the person's high could have ended 20 hours before. His high levels after testing have no barring whatsoever on whether he was high fighting or not, that's the point.

The doctor saying he was fighting high because his levels were high is nonsensical, it doesn't work that way. If you get high one morning and realize you need to take a drug test for work later that day, you are in trouble. Yet, your high is gone, you don't feel it anymore, the effects have gone out of your system. You testing positive for weed when you take the test doesn't mean you were high when you took the test. So, the doctor is talking out of his ass.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

HexRei said:


> I'm not sure if mood enhancement alone qualifying it as a PED in the judicial sense is a good idea. Warm coacoa enhances my mood, should that be banned? What if I'm a Bronie? Can't watch my ponies while I train?
> 
> 
> 
> Your post just showed metabolite presence as they are flushed from the body. There is nothing about length of highs or performance. Also LOL. "a strain of hash". Cmon , guy.


So you don't accept that two people with very different metabolism rates will have a different reaction to taking marijuana in whatever form? One person will get more stoned then another, one person will be stoned longer then another etc? 

So if I want to make a certain type of hash that might be very high in a certain cannabinoid, do I grow a certain strain of plant in order to produce that end product? 
Shoot me the fu*k down for that technicality.... :bored01:


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

DonRifle said:


> So you don't accept that two people with very different metabolism rates will have a different reaction to taking marijuana in whatever form? One person will get more stoned then another, one person will be stoned longer then another etc?


Sure, there are fluctuations. But not insofar as someone being high still the next day after smoking, no.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

M.C said:


> But again, the levels have nothing to do with how high he was. Test result levels can show very clear and high signs of weed use, yet the person's high could have ended 20 hours before. His high levels after testing have no barring whatsoever on whether he was high fighting or not, that's the point.
> 
> The doctor saying he was fighting high because his levels were high is nonsensical, it doesn't work that way. If you get high one morning and realize you need to take a drug test for work later that day, you are in trouble. Yet, your high is gone, you don't feel it anymore, the effects have gone out of your system. You testing positive for weed when you take the test doesn't mean you were high when you took the test. So, the doctor is talking out of his ass.


Well like I said Ive smoked in the morning and had it had an effect on performance roughly ten hours later, when I feel completely normal, not stoned or not high. 
Ive smoked in the morning and had business meetings that evening and not been able to do numbers in my head properly like I could normally do, even though I feel fine, and completely free of said morning smoke. 
So I know how it has affected me and my performance. 

When i have smoked on a Saturday night and have a match on Sunday morning, my performance is affected negatively. Probably smoking the wrong shit but there you go. So Ive had it affect my performance after an 8 hour sleep.


Given this plant is only now being studied properly and is providing cures and treatments for a variety of diseases I find it a bit bizarre some people are so sure of themselves as to exactly how this drug works and how different people react to it. The first TCH based legal drug in the UK Sativex was only approved a couple years ago. Only now are the scientists understanding what it can do.



HexRei said:


> Sure, there are fluctuations. But not insofar as someone being high still the next day after smoking, no.


I'll assume your thinking that being high and any residual effects are one and the same. So can you prove your argument in anyway?


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

DonRifle said:


> I'll assume your thinking that being high and any residual effects are one and the same. So can you prove your argument in anyway?


Uh, you want me to prove the straw man you just constructed?


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

HexRei said:


> Uh, you want me to prove the straw man you just constructed?


Yeah would be better instead of just patronising like you know everything. You know a debate involves information from both sides not just one person saying 'no your wrong'. Usually intelligent people use reason and logic to convince the person about their opinion and not just come on laughing at someone like a prick. Just saying dude....


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

http://mmajunkie.com/2015/05/nick-d...s-and-failed-one-in-hours-surrounding-ufc-183

Diaz first gave his urine at 7:12 p.m. – before his UFC 183 headliner – to a collector working on behalf of the SMRTL. The test came back negative when run through a “WADA full menu,” which includes drugs of abuse.

At 10:38 p.m., after his fight, he gave his urine to another collector working on behalf of Quest. The sample ultimately came back showing marijuana metabolites in excess of 300 ng/mL, or double the NSAC’s allowed amount of 150 ng/mL.




This information seems to say he took marijuana in some form right before the fight. 
Whether my interpretation of how long a person can feel the effects of marijuana intake in whatever form is right or wrong or a bit of both doesn't really matter.

Based on this information do people still think the commission are being harsh? Lets just say the guy blew a bong and went out to fight right after. Does Diaz get a pass on that because he's cool?


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

DonRifle said:


> Yeah would be better instead of just patronising like you know everything. You know a debate involves information from both sides not just one person saying 'no your wrong'. Usually intelligent people use reason and logic to convince the person about their opinion and not just come on laughing at someone like a prick. Just saying dude....


Apologies. I'm dealing with this topic on a lot of boards at once and the level of knowledge is all over the place.



DonRifle said:


> http://mmajunkie.com/2015/05/nick-d...s-and-failed-one-in-hours-surrounding-ufc-183
> 
> Diaz first gave his urine at 7:12 p.m. – before his UFC 183 headliner – to a collector working on behalf of the SMRTL. The test came back negative when run through a “WADA full menu,” which includes drugs of abuse.
> 
> ...



Let's have the whole story. 

"The first and third tests were by the World Anti-Doping Agency-accredited Sports Medicine Research and Testing Laboratory (SMRTL) in Salt Lake City. *The middle test was administered by the non-WADA accredited Quest Diagnostics.*
7:12 p.m. - 48.73 ng/ml (PASS)
10:39 p.m. - 733.23 ng/ml (FAIL)
11:50 p.m. - 61.04 ng/ml (PASS) "

So the bizarre outlier test in the middle of the schedule happens to also be the only one not WADA-accredited?


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

HexRei said:


> Apologies. I'm dealing with this topic on a lot of boards at once and the level of knowledge is all over the place.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well sure it does look bizarre, but I mean we don't know why it is bizarre. Are 1 and 3 wrong? is 2 the wrong one? Did money change hands somewhere? Did diaz give someone elses urine to the first and third test? Did someone spike his second test to screw him? Was the second lab just a shitty lab? 
The possibilities are endless really. Being a cynical fuc**er I would say the chances of someone elses urine being given instead of his own are just as high as whatever permutations can be come up with on the second test. 

It does look like he did something right before the fight. 

Seems to me like he got bad legal advice as well. If you are going up against a bunch of arrogant pricks like the commission (i say that because of the AS fiasco) surely pissing them off by pleading the 5th over and over again is about the worst thing you could do.


----------



## rabakill (Apr 22, 2007)

HexRei said:


> DonRifle said:
> 
> 
> > So you don't accept that two people with very different metabolism rates will have a different reaction to taking marijuana in whatever form? One person will get more stoned then another, one person will be stoned longer then another etc?
> ...


You've never smoked with me then. I've been high for 2 days from smoking, and 4 days from edibles. 

And it was amazing


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Why people are disputing the possibility Nick being high on fight night? I can't remember a single occasion I have listened to him and he didn't sound he was high as fuk and that is not an exaggeration.

By the way, just for the records, smoking weed is not what bothers be about Nick Diaz. He is just too stupid for doing it in a place that would kick him away sooner or later and use this as the primary excuse.


----------



## Bonnar426 (Jul 18, 2006)

Wow, that's harsh. If this was someone who was using a performance enhancing drugs I would be all for it. People like Josh Barnett and Stephan Bonnar gets busted multiple times for steroid use and get a slap on the wrist. However, Pot Smoking is where NSAC draws the line. NSAC has some seriously messed up priorities.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Liddellianenko said:


> I was using hyperbole, the cage probably doesn't have any rust, a nice shiny cage then but you get the point.
> 
> The football players on the under 16 team are glad because they're not being used to make billions and paid nothing. The football players on the NFL on the other hand are, and guess what they're paid?
> 
> ...


How is any of this relevant to what we're talking about??

Diaz signed a contract with the UFC which he was happy with. The UFC didnt have to hand him undeserving title shots. They didnt have have to hand him the biggest fighters in the world. Their profit is irrelevant because Diaz wouldnt have earned what he did or got the opportunity to fight who he did had it not been for the UFC. They offered him the opportunity to be showcased on this platform and they gave him things better fighters deserved more. Nick Diaz should be grateful that they didn't give him what he deserved. 

I LOVE Nick Diaz. Most hyped up I was all time for a fight was the original Diaz Vs GSP. But you literally CANT argue that Diaz Vs GSP made sense logically. Sure the UFC might have saw dollar signs but they might see dollar signs in many fighters who they dont give these unfair opportunities to. Anderson Vs Weidman 3 would make a fortune but it doesnt make sense so Anderson wont get a title shot on his return. Diaz should be grateful that he received things he didn't specifically deserve as a fighter.


----------



## Leed (Jan 3, 2010)

Don did I understand you correctly, you are arguing that Nick was fighting high because his test was through the roof, and then provide a fact that regular smokers actually can show higher results for a longer period of time? Logic much?


----------



## Jumanji (Mar 30, 2011)

*Allyoumotherfckersareonsteroids!*










#freenickdiaz


----------



## Jumanji (Mar 30, 2011)

Leed said:


> Don did I understand you correctly, you are arguing that Nick was fighting high because his test was through the roof, and then provide a fact that regular smokers actually can show higher results for a longer period of time? Logic much?


He has no clue what he's talking about, his whole argument is based on Jeff Nowitsky of USADA saying that Nick's levels were so high that he must of been high during the fight. Just because Jeff says so doesn't make it true, he's no expert on marijuana he made his name off busting Roger Clemons for steroids. The fact is there's no way of knowing when Nick smoked just by doing urine analysis. He could of been high during the fight or lit one up a two days before. There's a reason that if your suspected of driving high, the cops don't check your urine and say "Hey your pee has this many nanograms so you were high while driving here's a DUI"

If anyone watched the court hearing, it was obvious that the penalty was so harsh because Nick's lawyer actually tried defending him and that pissed them off.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

I find it funny that people are not arguing that Nick wasn't high during the fight because he got banned, when most of us Nick Diaz fans were like "Lmao you know Nick was high as fuk in that Gomi fight right?".


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Leed said:


> Don did I understand you correctly, you are arguing that Nick was fighting high because his test was through the roof, and then provide a fact that regular smokers actually can show higher results for a longer period of time? Logic much?


Im not arguing anything. I was attacked over saying a person could be high or feeling the effects of dope a day after ingesting or smoking pot, and on that basis I knew nothing about anything - I simply responded saying there are different ways of taking it that affect a person differently and peoples metabolism reacts differently. Not exactly a crime, especially since its true lol. 

My original point was that Nick was high during the fight, and that he is a fu**wit for doing that no matter how cool he is. The test results show that he was high during the fight and it looks like to me he blew a bong or whatever before he walked out to the ring. 

True people can argue the testing looks fishy which it does, but the reason they have so many different tests and 3 different ones in the space of one night is so people can't dodge them with the various tricks of the trade. 

People attacking Noviksty is just stupid, he is one of the foremost drug testing people in the world if not the top guy on the planet, and i guarantee he knows a lot more about drug testing and drug levels then Jumanji there.


----------



## Glothin (Jun 8, 2010)

Why not give every fighter hair tests, which effectively go back 90 days? I hope the little baby Jon Jones hit with his vehicle (after drink driving and cocaine issues) is not hurt. Ignorance.

Dana better stick up for Diaz even if only behind the scenes. What that means, I'm not sure. And we know Nate is pissed off and may react

Rules are rules, but the penalty was subjective and they know the worldwide impact they have.

Marijuana is prescribed in Nevada. Nick had a prescription, albeit from a neighboring state.

It doesn't add up

And it stays in your system a long time. I think up to 45 days for regular users. Booze is 12 hours or 3-4 days, depending on the tests.

I'm at a loss for words, hence my rumbling.


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

HexRei said:


> I'm not sure if mood enhancement alone...


Nothing to do with "mood enhancement", wherever you got that from.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

DonRifle said:


> Yes you can! Make America Great Again!!!!


Thank you. I will use it responsibly.



HexRei said:


> Bahahahaha. Have you ever smoked weed? Serious question. Between your apparent belief that a person who smoked the day before a fight will still be affected the next day and the hilarious belief that it is a PED (lol at strains designed to help performance, seriously? SERIOUSLY?) I really have to wonder if you have any idea what the hell you're talking about.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

oldfan said:


> Thank you. I will use it responsibly.



Be careful now I can call back that shipment of Fat Frogs at any time!!!


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Glothin said:


> Dana better stick up for Diaz even if only behind the scenes. What that means, I'm not sure. And we know Nate is pissed off and may react


To be fair, Nick Diaz has no showed a press conference, no showed an open workout, blasted the UFC on multiple occasions, claimed the rules are terrible, retired like 6 times...

This whole situation would be avoided if Nick Diaz stopped smoking weed close to fights. It's 100% his fault that there was an issue in the first place (which doesn't excuse the ruling obviously).

I don't think Dana or the UFC owe it to Diaz to defend him. It'll be interesting to see how they feel about it because it's a lot of fuked up shit that Diaz caused which they have to handle.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

Disgusting abuse of power. Sentence handed out without due process.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Woodenhead said:


> Nothing to do with "mood enhancement", wherever you got that from.


So you're saying you get a benefit above and beyond the psychological from smoking pot?


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

HexRei said:


> So you're saying you get a benefit above and beyond the psychological from smoking pot?


You must not know enough people that smoke weed.

Here's a heavily shared post on Facebook and shit.














Getting high cures cancer homie.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> You must not know enough people that smoke weed.
> 
> Here's a heavily shared post on Facebook and shit.
> 
> ...


I think there is some research to support it being beneficial for treating some cancers, but obvs that wasn't what we were discussing


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

HexRei said:


> I think there is some research to support it being beneficial for treating some cancers, but obvs that wasn't what we were discussing


Yeah I heard inhaling smoke is the best way to get rid of cancer.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Yeah I heard inhaling smoke is the best way to get rid of cancer.


Certainly smoke of any kind is going to be carcinogenic, but so are some compounds in common foods. There are a lot of compounds at work with cannabis as well. I'm pretty sure no one is claiming the particulate matter in the smoke alone is beneficial.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

If someone is going to post an infographic that claims an anti-depressant substance is non-addictive, then they're probably going to claim that smoking a chemically sprayed bud rolled up in extra thick Rizlas "cures cancer".


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> If someone is going to post an infographic that claims an anti-depressant substance is non-addictive, then they're probably going to claim that smoking a chemically sprayed bud rolled up in extra thick Rizlas "cures cancer".



You posted that infographic. Why are you buying into infographics of any kind anyway? They are bite-sized, dumbed-down methods of info delivery for people who don't care about context and don't have attention span.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

HexRei said:


> You posted that infographic. Why are you buying into infographics of any kind anyway? They are bite-sized, dumbed-down methods of info delivery for people who don't care about context and don't have attention span.


I was posting an example of how people who smoke weed are often under the assumption that having a joint cures cancer, is an anti-depressant and is non-addictive. It's not too far a cry for some of them to believe it has regeneration powers with muscles and stuff too.

You have a bizarre vendetta against infographics.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> I was posting an example of how people who smoke weed are often under the assumption that having a joint cures cancer, is an anti-depressant and is non-addictive. It's not too far a cry for some of them to believe it has regeneration powers with muscles and stuff too.
> 
> You have a bizarre vendetta against infographics.


Yes, they oppressed my people for generations and I just can't let it go.


Anyway, you and I know that weed doesn't regenerate your muscles and bones though, right? Just between us.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

I also know that smoking a joint doesn't cure cancer, weed can be a massive form of depressant and weed is insanely addictive...

HexRei bout to go out and hold speeches where he discusses Infographic Privilege.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> I also know that smoking a joint doesn't cure cancer, weed can be a massive form of depressant and weed is insanely addictive...
> 
> HexRei bout to go out and hold speeches where he discusses Infographic Privilege.


Insanely addictive? That's a little farfetched. You can actually die from heroin or alcohol withdrawals. Weed is extremely mild in comparison and has almost no physical component. It's about as addictive as TV.


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> *I also know that smoking a joint doesn't cure cancer*, weed can be a massive form of depressant and weed is insanely addictive...
> 
> HexRei bout to go out and hold speeches where he discusses Infographic Privilege.


Cannabis oil does though.






lol @ you thinking cannabis = smoking and getting high. Do you know how many things hemp is used for? I use cannabis every day - in the form of hemp, and get absolutely no high what so ever.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> and weed is insanely addictive...


Possibly the dumbest thing you've ever posted.


....and that, my young friend, is no small accomplishment.:thumb02:


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

oldfan said:


> Possibly the dumbest thing you've ever posted.
> 
> 
> ....and that, my young friend, is no small accomplishment.:thumb02:


In Ireland the kids roll joints with red rizla which might as well be a newspaper, they put a full cigarette into the joint, and then a sprinking of herb or shitty quality hash which is more common. So essentially people are getting addicted to the tabacco in the joint and confusing that with getting addicted to weed/hash!

I'm only pointing this out because this time at least there is a reason for Clydes misunderstanding :laugh:


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

That's not the reason for my comment.

Weed is a massive stress reliever. People smoke weed when things are getting to them big time and it completely gets rid of the edge. Also, while it can be a cause of depression (mainly through abuse causing other side effects), it's also a fairly solid anti-depressant.

So you're telling me that a stress alleviating anti-depressant is NON addictive? Anything that can alter your mind state is addictive. We're not talking getting addicted to chemicals. People don't get withdrawal symptoms to the best of my knowledge when they stop taking prozac or whatever that stuff is. It's all because they feel that the only way to avoid feelings that way is to take the thing that gets rid of it.

How many people do you guys know that can't go to sleep at night without having a joint first? They put dependency on it.

Don, also true though. Different point then I was making but yeah I'd imagine that could also be a factor with some people. I don't really know many people mixing weed with tobacco and ironically I don't know too many people who ever got addicted to smoking hash. I guess that's mainly cause over here, the only people smoking hash are 15 year olds so they likely don't rely on smoking anyways.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> That's not the reason for my comment.
> 
> Weed is a massive stress reliever. People smoke weed when things are getting to them big time and it completely gets rid of the edge. Also, while it can be a cause of depression (mainly through abuse causing other side effects), it's also a fairly solid anti-depressant.
> 
> ...


Yeah it's addictive in the sense that playing a videogame is addictive, or taking a walk outdoors, or posting on mmaforum, or taking a bath. It's enjoyable for some. All of them alter your state of mind. Pretty much everything you do can alter your state of mind one way or another.

That's not a criteria for making it "dangerous" or illegal. It just means a normal functioning adult needs to decide what the appropriate level of moderation is for him or her, until it starts to damage their quality of life. This can include abstaining, if it doesn't have any benefits for them.

Pharmaceutical drugs on the other hand, are PHYSICALLY addictive. Heroine, Meth, Opiates, Amphetamines ... they have massive withdrawal symptoms and debilitating mental effects from stopping. Those are drugs. Yet they're handed out willy nilly to kids throwing a tantrum and dudes falling from a skateboard.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

ReptilianSlayer said:


> lol @ you thinking cannabis = smoking and getting high. Do you know how many things hemp is used for? I use cannabis every day - in the form of hemp, and get absolutely no high what so ever.


Sorry didn't see this before. ABSOLUTELY true, but also ABSOLUTELY a different thing. If we're going to talk the entire use of cannibis plants Vs the entire use of alcohol, alcohol still wins, considering it's used in such an insane variety of products from medicine to cleaning etc.

So that infographic I posted has two options. Either it is extremely biased and opens up the entire use of cannibis while restricting the use of alcohol...or they genuinely believe smoking weed = curing cancer (and knowing the kind of picture, I'd say they went with the latter).





Liddellianenko said:


> Yeah it's addictive in the sense that playing a videogame is addictive, or taking a walk outdoors, or posting on mmaforum, or taking a bath. It's enjoyable for some. All of them alter your state of mind. Pretty much everything you do can alter your state of mind one way or another.
> 
> That's not a criteria for making it "dangerous" or illegal. It just means a normal functioning adult needs to decide what the appropriate level of moderation is for him or her, until it starts to damage their quality of life. This can include abstaining, if it doesn't have any benefits for them.
> 
> Pharmaceutical drugs on the other hand, are PHYSICALLY addictive. Heroine, Meth, Opiates, Amphetamines ... they have massive withdrawal symptoms and debilitating mental effects from stopping. Those are drugs. Yet they're handed out willy nilly to kids throwing a tantrum and dudes falling from a skateboard.


Putting a substance into your body which acts as an anti-depressant and stress reliever is highly addictive. People don't specifically associate things like TV and gaming to be "medicine" quite like weed is. If someone needs to drink to get to sleep at night you'd consider them an alcoholic.

Whether that's criteria are not for illegality's different though. Some people are addicted to eating ridiculously unhealthily. That's on them. Weed isn't something that is going to become a huge thing if it's made legal (like I'd imagine other drugs would, as proven by head shops), and really the only thing different about weed as a smoking product being legalized is people get it a little bit easier, maybe have to pay more depending on how it is taxed (meaning more people get paid from the endeavour) and no one has to deal with shady as fuk Deco behind the garages at night time.

Addictive comes in so many different formats though. Smoking often is 99.9% mental and habitual but it's probably the largest addiction (and most pointless) in the world. You're right in that those drugs are a much more serious form of addiction but that doesn't make that word any different. Hoarders have an addiction as well that threatens to ruin their life, even if it isn't a physical thing over a mental thing.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Sorry didn't see this before. ABSOLUTELY true, but also ABSOLUTELY a different thing. If we're going to talk the entire use of cannibis plants Vs the entire use of alcohol, alcohol still wins, considering it's used in such an insane variety of products from medicine to cleaning etc.
> 
> So that infographic I posted has two options. Either it is extremely biased and opens up the entire use of cannibis while restricting the use of alcohol...or they genuinely believe smoking weed = curing cancer (and knowing the kind of picture, I'd say they went with the latter).
> 
> ...


didn't take long to shatter that old dumb record.

You have absolutely no clue what you are posting. It's a miracle that you can even post without an adult to help.

There is still hope for you clyde. I want to help but it's up to you to take that first step. Step 1: stop writing. Don't post. read. 
step 2: learn what words mean before you use them.
step 3: have an adult proof read your posts for stupidity.

Now study these vocabulary words.



> addicted: physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and *unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects.*





> insane: a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction; *seriously mentally ill*.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

oldfan said:


> didn't take long to shatter that old dumb record.
> 
> You have absolutely no clue what you are posting. It's a miracle that you can even post without an adult to help.
> 
> ...


Two ways to get on Oldfans nerves: Call Matt Mitrione a rube in a Hannibal Lector monologue, and speak bad of the herb! :laugh:


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Is there a single thing that gives us any kind of relief or pleasure that isn't addictive?


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Soojooko said:


> Is there a single thing that gives us any kind of relief or pleasure that isn't addictive?


Weed, apparently.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Soojooko said:


> Is there a single thing that gives us any kind of relief or pleasure that isn't addictive?


There are lots of things that give "relief or pleasure" that isn't addicting, assuming you are including things that aren't drugs/substances you inject (or smoke or drink or whatever) into your body.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

True, everything's addictive. The difference with weed is it isn't like the pleasure you get from having a cold Capri Sun on a hot day. It's actually in your head and gives you a high. Add dependency and habbit to that feeling and that's why it's in a different category from watching TV.

Weed smokers like to pretend smoking weed is actually good for you and has no negative side effects for some reason.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Weed, apparently.


I don't think anybody said it wast addictive at all. But in the scheme of things, its pretty mild. As far as withdrawals go, weed is a piece of piss. I have far more trouble with coffee. I get brutal headaches. The worse that happens when I stop with the weed is a mild irritation for a day or two. I can function. Work. Converse. Im just a little down. But nowhere near enough to stop me doing anything.

But it *is* addictive. I vape my shit. Have done for 10 years. So I cant even blame the physical action of smoking which is addictive in itself. If I have some in the house, its very hard for me to leave it alone. There is a clear craving. But when it does run out, its really no big deal. And this is after 30 years of the stuff.




M.C said:


> There are lots of things that give "relief or pleasure" that isn't addicting, assuming you are including things that aren't drugs/substances you inject (or smoke or drink or whatever) into your body.


Can you name some?


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Soojooko said:


> I don't think anybody said it wast addictive at all. But in the scheme of things, its pretty mild. As far as withdrawals go, weed is a piece of piss. I have far more trouble with coffee. I get brutal headaches. The worse that happens when I stop with the weed is a mild irritation for a day or two. I can function. Work. Converse. Im just a little down. But nowhere near enough to stop me doing anything.
> 
> But it *is* addictive. I vape my shit. Have done for 10 years. So I cant even blame the physical action of smoking which is addictive in itself. If I have some in the house, its very hard for me to leave it alone. There is a clear craving. But when it does run out, its really no big deal. And this is after 30 years of the stuff.


I just know a couple of people now who pretty much ran their life into the ground because they smoked weed and got societal anxiety. I've talked about my brother and how badly it effected him a few times, but he's got mates who wouldn't go outside and talk to new people due to the paranoia and anxiety they've got after years of heavy abuse. One guy's something like 29 now and still a virgin cause he was smoking so heavily since he was like 9 that he was never even interested in meeting girls. The high's fairly good but people don't put themselves in positions like that, or my brother having to quit work over panic attacks and everything, just for the high.

I don't even have a problem with smoking weed. It's like everything. It's not really an issue if you do it in moderation and for some people, smoking all the time can be great for them. Nick Diaz might be a little bit socially awkward but on the other hand look at what the guy's been able to achieve. It's not had a negative effect on what's important to him so who's to tell him to stop it (minus in competition of course).

It's just not this super plant which is all good and all bad like people tell themselves. For some reason weed smokers decide to distance themselves from people who occasionally drink or people who eat a McDonalds once a fortnight and pretend that what they are doing is actually a positive effect on their body.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Soojooko said:


> Can you name some?


Ive started listening to Slayer to relieve stress lately. :laugh:


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> I just know a couple of people now who pretty much ran their life into the ground because they smoked weed and got societal anxiety. I've talked about my brother and how badly it effected him a few times, but he's got mates who wouldn't go outside and talk to new people due to the paranoia and anxiety they've got after years of heavy abuse. One guy's something like 29 now and still a virgin cause he was smoking so heavily since he was like 9 that he was never even interested in meeting girls. The high's fairly good but people don't put themselves in positions like that, or my brother having to quit work over panic attacks and everything, just for the high.
> 
> I don't even have a problem with smoking weed. It's like everything. It's not really an issue if you do it in moderation and for some people, smoking all the time can be great for them. Nick Diaz might be a little bit socially awkward but on the other hand look at what the guy's been able to achieve. It's not had a negative effect on what's important to him so who's to tell him to stop it (minus in competition of course).
> 
> It's just not this super plant which is all good and all bad like people tell themselves. For some reason weed smokers decide to distance themselves from people who occasionally drink or people who eat a McDonalds once a fortnight and pretend that what they are doing is actually a positive effect on their body.


I went through the same social anxiety when I was very abusive with my smoking. But that level of abuse of anything can be seriously detrimental. Weed can make you anti-social. Coffee can make you need a valve replacement. Food can make you fat and super unhealthy. Adrenaline makes you crave more adrenaline = take more risks. Hell, I know a girl who rides horses every day obsessively and gets seriously foul tempered and depressed when she doesn't get her horse induced serotonin hit.

Abuse is bad no matter what the substance/action.


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

I would say that weed is addictive, "Highly addictive", I don't know about that. I think it's dependent on the person. Some people just can not control themselves. Like Clyde, I knew some people in College it was the first thing they did when they woke up and the last thing before going to bed. They were as bad as any alcoholic I knew. I also run into a number of gambling addicts as I like to play poker and hit casinos from time to time, and some of the local poker games around my area. I can't say for sure how a gambling addict is effected but I know some people just can't stop even though they know they should. That is an addiction. 

I personally believe weed should be legal just like alcohol. You can't make something illegal just because there are a few people who can't control themselves.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Soojooko said:


> I don't think anybody said it wast addictive at all. But in the scheme of things, its pretty mild. As far as withdrawals go, weed is a piece of piss. I have far more trouble with coffee. I get brutal headaches. The worse that happens when I stop with the weed is a mild irritation for a day or two. I can function. Work. Converse. Im just a little down. But nowhere near enough to stop me doing anything.
> 
> But it *is* addictive. I vape my shit. Have done for 10 years. So I cant even blame the physical action of smoking which is addictive in itself. If I have some in the house, its very hard for me to leave it alone. There is a clear craving. But when it does run out, its really no big deal. And this is after 30 years of the stuff.
> 
> ...


TV/music/sports/art/video games/reading books/fishing/etc. These things "can" be addicting, but the vast majority of people who do these things are not addicted to them. In fact, I do every single one of them and I'm not "addicted" to any of them. I could go forever without doing any of it and not feel physically/mentally ill. I would assume that most of everybody in this thread could stop watching movies for a few weeks/months and be perfectly fine without any side effects/issues. 

I suppose the question isn't "can it be addicting", because you can get addicted to picking your nose (or it can be habitual at least), the question is - what is the % of people who get addicted and what are the negative effects of that addiction? How many people in this thread are addicted to watching movies vs. how many watch movies? How many people can't go a day without watching a movie or they want to pull their hair out (exaggeration, but you get what I mean)? How many people start physically shaking and mentally freak the hell out if they don't get their fishing fix in once every couple of days? I'm probably the biggest fisher on this forum yet I sometimes go months without ever touching a pole, yet it's a big stress reliever/gives me a lot of mental peace. 

The point is, there are many things you can do that relieve stress/make you happy that aren't addicting, or have a very low chance of being addicting. People do a lot of these things on a regular basis because it's there to do and they are enjoyable, but what is the percentage of fishermen who are going to freak out mentally/physically if they don't get to fish at least once every couple days? My guess is below 1% of the fishing population. How many people are going to start shaking and going crazy if they don't watch a movie today? I'm sure there are some people out there who are crazily addicted to TV, but you can bet the vast majority of people aren't going to go crazy if they don't watch TV that week. 

I know people who smoke weed who say they aren't addicted to it, yet get irritated and frustrated when they don't have it. I've never seen anybody I know who watch TV (everyone I know), and not watch it for a few days and start getting irritated/frustrated. Or fishing, or video games, or anything like that for that matter. People who take drugs/take things that go into their body can and often times do get addicted to the point where if they go without for a couple of days it starts becoming an issue. That just isn't the case in "most" cases on other things that you can do for fun/peace that don't involve putting stuff in your body, most of it is completely harmless and very easily "given up" for any length of time.

I'm going in circles in my own post, so I'm going to stop now. This one got away from me.


----------



## rabakill (Apr 22, 2007)

Weed is totally addictive. I think about it a lot, I get sad when I have none. However I have a full time job and I'm completely in control in that regard. Weed is amazing, of course it's addictive. It's a problem if it starts to interfere with your work and social life, which for me it doesn't but I've seen it happen


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

M.C said:


> TV/music/sports/art/video games/reading books/fishing/etc. These things "can" be addicting, but the vast majority of people who do these things are not addicted to them. In fact, I do every single one of them and I'm not "addicted" to any of them. I could go forever without doing any of it and not feel physically/mentally ill. I would assume that most of everybody in this thread could stop watching movies for a few weeks/months and be perfectly fine without any side effects/issues.
> 
> I suppose the question isn't "can it be addicting", because you can get addicted to picking your nose (or it can be habitual at least), the question is - what is the % of people who get addicted and what are the negative effects of that addiction? How many people in this thread are addicted to watching movies vs. how many watch movies? How many people can't go a day without watching a movie or they want to pull their hair out (exaggeration, but you get what I mean)? How many people start physically shaking and mentally freak the hell out if they don't get their fishing fix in once every couple of days? I'm probably the biggest fisher on this forum yet I sometimes go months without ever touching a pole, yet it's a big stress reliever/gives me a lot of mental peace.
> 
> ...


I appreciate that it might be this way where you live. But believe me, the masses in general can certainly not just turn off the TV with no problems. I know many people that would go full retard without TV/video games.

Our body releases chemicals when we do things we like. And if we do these things obsessively, the body starts to expect/need these chemicals which leads to addiction.

A balanced lifestyle helps as it stops any individual doing any particular thing too obsessively. Ive seen enough of your posts to tell me you live well. Fresh food. Lots of outdoors. Im not surprised you have no issues with anything. But this really isnt the case for large chunks of the masses. They live absurdly unbalanced lives. Kids with 10x more TV time then sun on their faces. Try telling them to stop and watch them go apeshit.


----------



## rabakill (Apr 22, 2007)

Soojooko said:


> M.C said:
> 
> 
> > TV/music/sports/art/video games/reading books/fishing/etc. These things "can" be addicting, but the vast majority of people who do these things are not addicted to them. In fact, I do every single one of them and I'm not "addicted" to any of them. I could go forever without doing any of it and not feel physically/mentally ill. I would assume that most of everybody in this thread could stop watching movies for a few weeks/months and be perfectly fine without any side effects/issues.
> ...


Let me correct you, weed is not chemically/physically addictive. This kind of addiction indicates symptoms of dependence, withdrawal and tolerance; none of which are associated with cannabis.

A true physical addiction is to something like cigarettes or coffee because they exhibit all 3 defining factors of a physical addiction. I studied this stuff in university and cannabis is definitely not physically addictive like you are suggesting.

It's psychologically addictive and habit forming but that is not the same as physical addiction.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

rabakill said:


> Let me correct you, weed is not chemically/physically addictive. This kind of addiction indicates symptoms of dependence, withdrawal and tolerance; none of which are associated with cannabis.
> 
> A true physical addiction is to something like cigarettes or coffee because they exhibit all 3 defining factors of a physical addiction. I studied this stuff in university and cannabis is definitely not physically addictive like you are suggesting.


If something alters brain function, then its chemical. At least, thats my understanding. We become addicted to whatever is going on in our brains when we smoke. Ecstasy does not contain serotonin directly, but thats the chemical our brain produces when we take it. Its what makes us feel good. So its still a chemical addiction, even if said chemicals are naturally produced as a result of taking drugs.

Im open to some knowledge here. Ive been taking shit all my life. IVe done a degree of research and tapped my missus brain ( shes got a firm understanding of biochemistry ), but I certainly am not sure of anything Im saying!


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Soojooko said:


> If something alters brain function, then its chemical. At least, thats my understanding. We become addicted to whatever is going on in our brains when we smoke. Ecstasy does not contain serotonin directly, but thats the chemical our brain produces when we take it. Its what makes us feel good. So its still a chemical addiction, even if said chemicals are naturally produced as a result of taking drugs.
> 
> Im open to some knowledge here. Ive been taking shit all my life. IVe done a degree of research and tapped my missus brain ( shes got a firm understanding of biochemistry ), but I certainly am not sure of anything Im saying!


Thats an interesting interpretation of addiction.

Mine in terms of weed was always that it was only mental, simply because if you stop smoking weed you dont get physical withdrawal symptoms. People's mood can change but this is psychological. Your not getting the sweats or anything. 

The definition of physical addiction is:* To say that an individual is physically addicted on a substance means that they have an increased tolerance for it, and they will experience physical symptoms should they try to stop or reduce their intake substantially.*

But if a guy experiences less happy chemicals in his brain because he doesn't have any weed, this is very much arguably a physical addiction as you say. 
I may have to flip flop my opinion on weed addiction!


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Term said:


> I would say that weed is addictive, "Highly addictive", I don't know about that. I think it's dependent on the person. Some people just can not control themselves. Like Clyde, I knew some people in College it was the first thing they did when they woke up and the last thing before going to bed. They were as bad as any alcoholic I knew. I also run into a number of gambling addicts as I like to play poker and hit casinos from time to time, and some of the local poker games around my area. I can't say for sure how a gambling addict is effected but I know some people just can't stop even though they know they should. That is an addiction.
> 
> I personally believe weed should be legal just like alcohol. You can't make something illegal just because there are a few people who can't control themselves.


I guess highly addictive can seem like I said "lethally addictive". I'm not even close to putting it in the same life wrecking category as anything else. A weed addiction is a massive 'inconvenience'.

Very good point with gambling btw. I didnt think of that and probably used some shite analogy instead haha.

I'm the same with the legality. Most of this site apparently smoke weed and most of this site seem to be fairly successful in life (we don't have too many guys you'd accuse of bullshitting on here).



Sooj and raba, I reckon you guys are just splitting words. Raba is talking "chemically addictive" as being addicted to actual chemicals (nicotine for example), where as Sooj is saying (correctly, brain games covered it a bit I believe) that chemicals in the brain.

Just different forms of the word chemical but you're both bang on. I'd say the chemicals in the brain are biological addiction via the chemicals.


----------



## rabakill (Apr 22, 2007)

Soojooko said:


> rabakill said:
> 
> 
> > Let me correct you, weed is not chemically/physically addictive. This kind of addiction indicates symptoms of dependence, withdrawal and tolerance; none of which are associated with cannabis.
> ...


Chemical addiction by definition involves tolerance, withdrawal and dependence. Cannabis has none of those, this being commonly accepted in the biopsychological and medical research worlds. There is a fundamental difference between chemical and psychological addiction.


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

rabakill said:


> Chemical addiction by definition involves tolerance, withdrawal and dependence. Cannabis has none of those, this being commonly accepted in the biopsychological and medical research worlds. There is a fundamental difference between chemical and psychological addiction.


Okay but it's still an addiction.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

Soojooko said:


> I appreciate that it might be this way where you live. But believe me, the masses in general can certainly not just turn off the TV with no problems. I know many people that would go full retard without TV/video games.
> 
> Our body releases chemicals when we do things we like. And if we do these things obsessively, the body starts to expect/need these chemicals which leads to addiction.
> 
> A balanced lifestyle helps as it stops any individual doing any particular thing too obsessively. Ive seen enough of your posts to tell me you live well. Fresh food. Lots of outdoors. Im not surprised you have no issues with anything. But this really isnt the case for large chunks of the masses. They live absurdly unbalanced lives. Kids with 10x more TV time then sun on their faces. Try telling them to stop and watch them go apeshit.


It is true that our bodies release dopamine and serotonin when we do things we like. The difference with weed is that you are physically putting something in your body. The activities you listed could very well lead to addictive behavior, but they are external stimuli. Ingesting THC is forcing a chemical alteration in the mind and the body. I think that is a distinction in the type of addiction it produces. Someone with a bad habit of watching too much TV might be down, depressed, or anxious without the TV. Someone without weed may experience the same symptoms, but have additional, albeit minor, symptoms such as nausea, trouble sleeping, and sensitivity to pain. As a chronic smoker myself (first thing in the morning, last thing at night for 15 years) who has recently cut down a lot I certainly experienced some minor discomfort. 



rabakill said:


> Let me correct you, weed is not chemically/physically addictive. This kind of addiction indicates symptoms of dependence, withdrawal and tolerance; none of which are associated with cannabis.
> 
> A true physical addiction is to something like cigarettes or coffee because they exhibit all 3 defining factors of a physical addiction. I studied this stuff in university and cannabis is definitely not physically addictive like you are suggesting.
> 
> It's psychologically addictive and habit forming but that is not the same as physical addiction.


You are correct that psychological addiction and physical addiction are very different, but I would argue THC has a very small physical dependency. Symptoms last only a few days, but they are there. When I went to University for psychology all of the textbooks said marijuana had no physically addicting properties, but a lot of new research is proving otherwise. Marijuana is now in the DSM under a section for "cannabis withdrawal", which is basically the bible for mental disorders. 

I think the reason people had a problem with calling THC physically addictive stems from the enormous difference between withdrawing from something like opiates vs withdrawing from THC. As someone who is literally in opiate withdrawal as I type this let me tell you it almost annoys me when people complain about marijuana addiction. I wanna smack them upside the head when I listen to them in group because they have no idea the crushing, relentless depression, horrible pain, nausea, vomiting, chills and other horrible things I am going through. Opiate addiction makes me feel like TV addiction, gambling, and marijuana are a joke in comparison. But then I remind myself that we all live in our own heads, and that I don't know the mental pain they are going through that led them to their addictive behavior.

I think addiction is a scale with different points of severity. I think the notion of separating mental and physical symptoms completely from any addiction to anything is silly. We all know that when we get nervous for an interview our stomach feels very upset. Our mind controls our bodies. 



Soojooko said:


> If something alters brain function, then its chemical. At least, thats my understanding. We become addicted to whatever is going on in our brains when we smoke. Ecstasy does not contain serotonin directly, but thats the chemical our brain produces when we take it. Its what makes us feel good. So its still a chemical addiction, even if said chemicals are naturally produced as a result of taking drugs.
> 
> Im open to some knowledge here. Ive been taking shit all my life. IVe done a degree of research and tapped my missus brain ( shes got a firm understanding of biochemistry ), but I certainly am not sure of anything Im saying!


That is the correct way of looking at it. Every drug we ingest simply causes the release or re-uptake of a neurotransmitter that already exists in the brain. The drugs themselves are precursors to the neurotransmitter already present in our brain. When we use a drug over and over our brain stops producing that neurotransmitter. That's why the notion of a drug being better for you because it's "natural" vs synthetic makes no sense. Marijuana users often site it being "just a plant". So what? Cocaine comes from the Coca plant. Heroin comes from the poppy seed. Does that mean they are okay because they are natural? Snake bites are natural.



Term said:


> Okay but it's still an addiction.


An easier way to look at it is the difference between addiction and dependence. Addiction is compulsive behavior, in this case drug seeking. Dependence signifies a tolerance and withdrawal.



rabakill said:


> Chemical addiction by definition involves tolerance, withdrawal and dependence. Cannabis has none of those, this being commonly accepted in the biopsychological and medical research worlds. There is a fundamental difference between chemical and psychological addiction.




I disagree that marijuana has no dependence or tolerance. I can smoke an absolutely huge cannon of a joint and then have a normal conversation. My buddy who doesn't smoke takes 3 hits and he is laughing and acting goofy. Also it is no longer universally accepted that marijuana had zero withdrawal symptoms, just that they are very mild.


2010 DSM info:



> Also new to the DSM-V are diagnostic criteria for “cannabis withdrawal,” which the APA says is caused by “cessation of cannabis use that has been heavy and prolonged,” results in “clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning,” and is characterized by at least three of these symptoms: irritability, anger or aggression; nervousness or anxiety; sleep difficulties (insomnia); decreased appetite or weight loss; restlessness; depressed mood; and or physical symptoms such as stomach pain, shakiness or tremors, sweating, fever, chills, and headache.


----------



## rabakill (Apr 22, 2007)

The withdrawal symptoms are withdrawal symptoms of a psychological addiction, irritability, strong yearnings, sleepiness, mood swings.

However these are not physical withdrawal symptoms. Sweating, tremors, blurred vision, vomitting, physical aches and pains, muscle stiffness, headaches are all physical symptoms none of which are associated with cannabis.

Yes cannabis is habit forming, yes it is addictive but is definitively not physically addictive because it does not match the qualifying symptoms at all. Similar to a child addicted to video games or TV, take away their addictions and there will be withdrawal but it will be psychological and not physical in that the bodies metabolism is not insufficient in a certain chemical.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Who's stoned right now?


----------



## rabakill (Apr 22, 2007)

Not me unfortunately


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

I'm working on it but my bong stem is clogged. argh.

As we can all imagine, I am on the ground typing this from a huddled fetal position, shivering and sweating and having hallucinations from these terrible withdrawals.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

I was "the biggest stoner" of my year in school. I was smoking from 9 years old until I was about 19. I just ended up falling out of it. I'm more of a "let's go mental and ahve the greatest night of our lives" kind of guy now.


----------



## Warning (Nov 18, 2009)

Had my smoking fingers plated in titanium so I could smoke as much of my joints as possible. Started smoking when I was 4. Now I need to lace my weed with meth to get a buzz.


----------



## ReptilianSlayer (Sep 2, 2013)

I was smoking weed in the womb, now I drop acid, even at funerals, makes them more intense.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

ReptilianSlayer said:


> I was smoking weed in the womb, now I drop acid, even at funerals, makes them more intense.


One of most intense moments was taking a couple of drops of acid and going to the job center for an interview. That was some fooked up shit. God damn, those were good days.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

rabakill said:


> The withdrawal symptoms are withdrawal symptoms of a psychological addiction, irritability, strong yearnings, sleepiness, mood swings.
> 
> However these are not physical withdrawal symptoms. Sweating, tremors, blurred vision, vomitting, physical aches and pains, muscle stiffness, headaches are all physical symptoms none of which are associated with cannabis.
> 
> Yes cannabis is habit forming, yes it is addictive but is definitively not physically addictive because it does not match the qualifying symptoms at all. Similar to a child addicted to video games or TV, take away their addictions and there will be withdrawal but it will be psychological and not physical in that the bodies metabolism is not insufficient in a certain chemical.


I experience nausea if I don't smoke for an extended period. It could be from anxiety, though. I think it is easier to think about it like a scale. if coming off opiates is 100/100 in terms of how bad physical withdrawal can be, I feel like weed is a 0.5%.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Ape City said:


> I experience nausea if I don't smoke for an extended period. It could be from anxiety, though. I think it is easier to think about it like a scale. if coming off opiates is 100/100 in terms of how bad physical withdrawal can be, I feel like weed is a 0.5%.


My only serious symptom is lack of appetite. it is such a potent appetite stimulant for me that if I stop smoking it takes a few days for me to get normal hunger urges again, kinda have to force myself to eat.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Were Reptilian and Warning trying to take the piss cause I said I started smoking at 9?

Seems fairly scummy looking back but I have a big brother who's 4 years older than me. 13's still early to smoke anything but you do whatever your brother does at that age. Probably helped me in the long run cause I was smoking cigs too so by the time I was about 16 I treated cigs like they were "played out".


----------



## Leed (Jan 3, 2010)

I would hardly call weed addictive. It may seem hypocritical or one of those "I can stop any time I want" addict sayings because I smoke on average probably at least 4 times a week (not 4 joints but 4 days out of 7), buy why should I stop? I like it, it's awesome, and it's probably one of the healthiest things I do, and it doesn't interfere in my day to day activities (unless you count facts like I fell a sleep when I needed to clean up the house etc ). When I don't smoke I don't feel bad. To be honest sometimes I even feel kinda refreshed I'm not stoned anymore and sometimes I don't even want to smoke. 
There have been a couple of times when I had some weed cravings, but that was only because I had fuk all to do and was bored shitless. That is probably the only time I've felt some kind of anxiety, but you will get anxious about anything habitual if you are bored and got nothing to do. I think MC is spot on saying that if you have a fulfilled life and got shit to do you won't get addicted to anything, because you are happy doing anything and that is the most important thing in life imo, to be happy and enjoy your day.
Personally, I wouldn't even call stronger drugs like ectasy, amphetamine, cocaine addicting. I've done all three, and I honestly don't understand people who use it on a daily basis. I don't like alcohol, so from time to time I don't mind doing something for a party, but I've never felt the addiction after use. Those drugs are so strong I don't want to be under that kind of influence, the feelings you have are just too unnatural and unreal for me to take it everyday. Not to mention it usually takes at least 2 days out of your life cause you feel like shit. At the moment of use it seems like a good idea but after it barely even worth it.
I love acid though, but only do it once every couple of months.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

y'all seem to know much more than I do about weed. 


.....time for more research.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Leed said:


> I would hardly call weed addictive. It may seem hypocritical or one of those "I can stop any time I want" addict sayings because I smoke on average probably at least 4 times a week (not 4 joints but 4 days out of 7), buy why should I stop? I like it, it's awesome, and it's probably one of the healthiest things I do, and it doesn't interfere in my day to day activities (unless you count facts like I fell a sleep when I needed to clean up the house etc ). When I don't smoke I don't feel bad. To be honest sometimes I even feel kinda refreshed I'm not stoned anymore and sometimes I don't even want to smoke.
> There have been a couple of times when I had some weed cravings, but that was only because I had fuk all to do and was bored shitless. That is probably the only time I've felt some kind of anxiety, but you will get anxious about anything habitual if you are bored and got nothing to do. I think MC is spot on saying that if you have a fulfilled life and got shit to do you won't get addicted to anything, because you are happy doing anything and that is the most important thing in life imo, to be happy and enjoy your day.
> Personally, I wouldn't even call stronger drugs like ectasy, amphetamine, cocaine addicting. I've done all three, and I honestly don't understand people who use it on a daily basis. I don't like alcohol, so from time to time I don't mind doing something for a party, but I've never felt the addiction after use. Those drugs are so strong I don't want to be under that kind of influence, the feelings you have are just too unnatural and unreal for me to take it everyday. Not to mention it usually takes at least 2 days out of your life cause you feel like shit. At the moment of use it seems like a good idea but after it barely even worth it.
> I love acid though, but only do it once every couple of months.


But you understand that it's your personal feeling towards them yeah? You might not find cocaine addictive but have to know that it is ruined many lives due to being a fairly addictive substance.

Also you have to have a fairly unhealthy life if one of the healthiest things you do involves putting smoke directly into your lungs.


----------



## Leed (Jan 3, 2010)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> But you understand that it's your personal feeling towards them yeah? You might not find cocaine addictive but have to know that it is ruined many lives due to being a fairly addictive substance.
> 
> Also you have to have a fairly unhealthy life if one of the healthiest things you do involves putting smoke directly into your lungs.


I was overreacting, obviously I live considerably healthy life, eat relatively healthy, compared to a lot of people, I have a fairly active lifestyle physically, but considering I smoke, drink coffee, sometimes eat junk food, drink coke etc weed is far from the unhealthiest shit I so. :thumb02:


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Ahhh right I get you. So many people convince themselves smoking weed is actually HEALTHY which is what I thought you were meaning.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Ahhh right I get you. So many people convince themselves smoking weed is actually HEALTHY which is what I thought you were meaning.


In moderate amounts, I believe it can be. Depends on the person. If we are talking vaping, then if used in moderation it has some great benefits.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Soojooko said:


> In moderate amounts, I believe it can be. Depends on the person. If we are talking vaping, then if used in moderation it has some great benefits.


Are there any definitive benefits or are they all "based on a study..." benefits?

Maaaaybe there is somthing though, sure, do you actually give a fuk? You smoke to get high. Vaping, whatever, the key purpose is to get high. I'm not sitting here tanning a bottle of Buckfast quoting that in moderate amounts wine is very good for you you know?

Most of these weed smoking websites just share exclusively pro-weed articles and studies and don't care about the other side, just like every website which has an agenda which people lap up to confirm their preconceived biases.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

Leed said:


> I would hardly call weed addictive. It may seem hypocritical or one of those "I can stop any time I want" addict sayings because I smoke on average probably at least 4 times a week (not 4 joints but 4 days out of 7), buy why should I stop? I like it, it's awesome, and it's probably one of the healthiest things I do, and it doesn't interfere in my day to day activities (unless you count facts like I fell a sleep when I needed to clean up the house etc ). When I don't smoke I don't feel bad. To be honest sometimes I even feel kinda refreshed I'm not stoned anymore and sometimes I don't even want to smoke.
> There have been a couple of times when I had some weed cravings, but that was only because I had fuk all to do and was bored shitless. That is probably the only time I've felt some kind of anxiety, but you will get anxious about anything habitual if you are bored and got nothing to do. I think MC is spot on saying that if you have a fulfilled life and got shit to do you won't get addicted to anything, because you are happy doing anything and that is the most important thing in life imo, to be happy and enjoy your day.
> Personally, I wouldn't even call stronger drugs like ectasy, amphetamine, cocaine addicting. I've done all three, and I honestly don't understand people who use it on a daily basis. I don't like alcohol, so from time to time I don't mind doing something for a party, but I've never felt the addiction after use. Those drugs are so strong I don't want to be under that kind of influence, the feelings you have are just too unnatural and unreal for me to take it everyday. Not to mention it usually takes at least 2 days out of your life cause you feel like shit. At the moment of use it seems like a good idea but after it barely even worth it.
> I love acid though, but only do it once every couple of months.


There is a study in which rats are given cocaine 5 seconds after a light goes off by pushing down on a lever. 90% of the rats understand this time delay after seeing the light and happily wait 5 seconds and then push the lever and get their cocaine. 10% of the rats slam on the lever over and over again as soon as, and sometimes even before, the light goes off. 

There is a theory that the old saying that someone has an "addictive personalty" may actually be true. 1/10 heavy drinkers in the U.S. are alcoholics. That inability to stop, and not the act itself of drinking in excess, is what defines addiction and true alcoholism. 

The question is, is it a coincidence that around 10% of rats and around 10% of humans behave the same way when faced with addictive substances? Could it be that some people are simply hard wired, as the rats appear to be, to seek pleasure at all cost?

This theory explains why many people, the majority of people, can experiment with drugs without abusing them enough to become dependent.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Are there any definitive benefits or are they all "based on a study..." benefits?
> 
> Maaaaybe there is somthing though, sure, do you actually give a fuk? You smoke to get high. Vaping, whatever, the key purpose is to get high. I'm not sitting here tanning a bottle of Buckfast quoting that in moderate amounts wine is very good for you you know?
> 
> Most of these weed smoking websites just share exclusively pro-weed articles and studies and don't care about the other side, just like every website which has an agenda which people lap up to confirm their preconceived biases.


If it can't be demonstrated in a study, how could it be a "definitive" benefit?


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

I'm still working on my own study. I can tell you that I enjoy working out and running much much more high. When I get just the right dose of cannabutter I feel like I can run forever.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

HexRei said:


> If it can't be demonstrated in a study, how could it be a "definitive" benefit?


Read oldfan's comment. He's conducting his "own study". That's all studies are. oldfan's finding what's right for him, but what's right for him doesn't specifically relate to anyone else. Out of the guys I know who smoke most, who to be fair are absolute abusers to the highest order, they wouldn't be able to run to the front door. They get lazy from smoking weed and any form of physical activity would see them crumble to the floor.

Scientific studies are looking at how the chemistry and biology work. These "studies" you find on "wesmokeweed.com" are basically some college students taking a bunch of people and testing to see if X happens when they all smoke weed. For every test that proves a theory like this, there's probably 3 tests that disprove it because of the variables of people, so these sites don't share information like that,

There's a couple of theories out there which to a degree have been able to show the possibility of things in cannabis plants regenerating cells or being a possible agent to fight cancer, but you're not going to find a single of of these scientists suggesting that you go and smoke weed because it cures cancer. It's not a proven thing, and if it was then it would be deployed because the money in cancer research and treating cancer far suppresses anyone bias decision to keep weed illegal.

Off topic, but I wonder why weed is still illegal. Do any of you have some legitimate ideas as to why it's never been legalized? I mean outside of I guess "people smoke it and bad things can happen if they abuse it" I can't really think of a side effect worthy of making it illegal, and financially it'd probably be a solid decision by the governments to pick up that VAT or whatever America has on it.


----------



## rabakill (Apr 22, 2007)

I smoke a shit ton and then run 20k every few days. Just because you know some people that are one way means nothing, I abuse it plenty.

Hit it in the morning or night whatever, no amount of cannabis has ever effected a physical workout negatively for me. I could smoke 40 joints in a row and run a marathon no problem. Plus I'm a member in MENSA, gainfully employed with two university degrees. Cannabis just makes people more of what they already are, if you're lazy off weed you'll likely be lazy on it. 

I can deadlift 300 and run a marathon so the idea that it's going to ruin my life if I abuse it seems crazy because I abuse it all the time and it's overwhelmingly helpful, smoking weed to me can be like stimulants without a hangover.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Off topic, but I wonder why weed is still illegal. Do any of you have some legitimate ideas as to why it's never been legalized? I mean outside of I guess "people smoke it and bad things can happen if they abuse it" I can't really think of a side effect worthy of making it illegal, and financially it'd probably be a solid decision by the governments to pick up that VAT or whatever America has on it.


That's a really complicated question with a lot of facets involved. The federal government's position is that it has no medical benefit and a high potential for abuse. That's why they say it's illegal.

But there are a lot of old political and economic issues surrounding it as well. Paper and cotton manufacturers were against hemp (not just psychoactive cannabis, but all hemp) because it was competing for the same industries. Racism was part of it. Prior to being made illegal, it was seen as primarily a drug used by mexicans and blacks, and that it drove them into murderous rapist rages. It also got caught up in fifties mccarthyism-era scares, e.g. Reefer Madness.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

> The effects of the active ingredient of Cannabis, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC), and of the highly addictive drug heroin on in vivo dopamine transmission in the nucleus accumbens were compared in Sprague-Dawley rats by brain microdialysis. Δ9-THC and heroin increased extracellular dopamine concentrations selectively in the shell of the nucleus accumbens; these effects were mimicked by the synthetic cannabinoid agonist WIN55212-2. SR141716A, an antagonist of central cannabinoid receptors, prevented the effects of Δ9-THC but not those of heroin. Naloxone, a generic opioid antagonist, administered systemically, or naloxonazine, an antagonist of μ1 opioid receptors, infused into the ventral tegmentum, prevented the action of cannabinoids and heroin on dopamine transmission. Thus, Δ9-THC and heroin exert similar effects on mesolimbic dopamine transmission through a common μ1 opioid receptor mechanism located in the ventral mesencephalic tegmentum.


http://www.sciencemag.org/content/276/5321/2048.short

interesting...


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

HexRei said:


> That's a really complicated question with a lot of facets involved. The federal government's position is that it has no medical benefit and a high potential for abuse. That's why they say it's illegal.
> 
> But there are a lot of old political and economic issues surrounding it as well. Paper and cotton manufacturers were against hemp (not just psychoactive cannabis, but all hemp) because it was competing for the same industries. Racism was part of it. Prior to being made illegal, it was seen as primarily a drug used by mexicans and blacks, and that it drove them into murderous rapist rages. It also got caught up in fifties mccarthyism-era scares, e.g. Reefer Madness.


Yeah but it all seems "old". Why would someone have a strong political stance against weed? I can understand maybe some older people but basically anyone who was born in the 80s onwards really won't have an inherent hatred of weed, maybe just a developed issue with it.

The hemp thing could still be a factor, but can't they just regulate the fk out of hemp and then squeeze it for every penny? And even if weed was legalized, that doesn't mean you can just grow whatever you want. It would still be coupled with alcohol, and to my knowledge making your own alcohol is illegal isn't it?

Ape, I have absolutely NO scooby what any of that meant haha. My vague thought is that it's saying the dopamine between weed use and heroin use is somewhat the same? No clue what so ever.

Even still, the releases of dopamine wouldn't really have the same addictive properties as a chemical addiction. When I said weed was highly addictive, I mean that more like how gambling is addictive. It might all be mental and biological, but in the immortal words of Dave Chapelle, aint nobody sucking no dicks for some weed.


----------



## Warning (Nov 18, 2009)

Middle eastern folk use to smoke before going into battle against the invading Christian army's of the crusades. Catholic church banned weed and said it was a against their God.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Yeah but it all seems "old". Why would someone have a strong political stance against weed? I can understand maybe some older people but basically anyone who was born in the 80s onwards really won't have an inherent hatred of weed, maybe just a developed issue with it.
> 
> The hemp thing could still be a factor, but can't they just regulate the fk out of hemp and then squeeze it for every penny? And even if weed was legalized, that doesn't mean you can just grow whatever you want. It would still be coupled with alcohol, and to my knowledge making your own alcohol is illegal isn't it?


Well they are old, but they're ingrained in our culture. As you mentioned, younger people tend to have a more reasonable outlook on pot but there are still a lot more old people than young people in the US. It is changing (medical in many states and legal in a few, that's a huge shift from even ten years ago) but it takes time to change a society and a bearuocracy. 

There is another factor to resisting change and that's that whole sectors of employment depend heavily on marijuana crime to exist. The top lobbyist groups against marijuana legalization are police and prison guard unions, and private prison corporations. Since such a huge percentage of our criminal population are labeled as such for marijuana alone, decriminalization/legalization means a sudden drop in crime statistics and prison population, which means those groups are out a whole lot of money and jobs.

Pharmaceutical companies and liquor/beer/whatever alcohol companies are also heavy lobbyists against pot because it competes with their products today.

edit re: brewing your own alcohol: The laws about alcohol vary from state to state, but it is legal to brew my own alcohol in Oregon. I do need to have a license to sell it though. It also is in fact totally legal to grow my own pot here, but I can only have four plants at a time, and technically do need a license to sell it just like alcohol, although it's easy to work around that- I get my pot in exchange for "donations" for example, which means it's not technically a purchase and thus does not need to be licensed.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Lmao I just saw someone throw an "I'm in MENSA" think to prove a point on the internet. Fuk it, I'm in the UFC. Prove me wrong...

Hex, is overcrowding in prisons not a huge problem already? A lot of these politicians, or at least I believe with a very limited knowledge on the subject, get abuse for having revolving door prisons where major offenders get out early due to overcrowding. Surely having more space for these people in prisons would be met with positivity? That's just me breaking it down a certain way without any inside knowledge though so of course that could be bollocks.

Haven't heard about that from beer and pharmaceutical companies before. Makes sense I guess.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Hex, is overcrowding in prisons not a huge problem already? A lot of these politicians, or at least I believe with a very limited knowledge on the subject, get abuse for having revolving door prisons where major offenders get out early due to overcrowding. Surely having more space for these people in prisons would be met with positivity? That's just me breaking it down a certain way without any inside knowledge though so of course that could be bollocks.
> 
> Haven't heard about that from beer and pharmaceutical companies before. Makes sense I guess.


You'd think so, but Americans really do love imprisoning each other. We have a greater percentage of our populace in prison than any first world nation. Since we all love our graphics here... it's time for a chart!










As you can see, big leaps following the beginning of the War on Drugs and sentencing reforms with mandatory minimums and such. And the real problem is that even if public sentiment in the US wasn't so incarceration (rather than rehabilitation) oriented there is so much money tied up in it that even people who know full well it's a corrupt system don't want to give it up.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Yeah but it all seems "old". Why would someone have a strong political stance against weed? I can understand maybe some older people but basically anyone who was born in the 80s onwards really won't have an inherent hatred of weed, maybe just a developed issue with it.
> 
> The hemp thing could still be a factor, but can't they just regulate the fk out of hemp and then squeeze it for every penny? And even if weed was legalized, that doesn't mean you can just grow whatever you want. It would still be coupled with alcohol, and to my knowledge making your own alcohol is illegal isn't it?
> 
> ...


Dopamine is THE neurotransmitter associated with pleasure from drugs. Basically the abstract is saying that the two drugs work on the same pathways and transmitters. As I said before, no one is comparing cannabis withdrawal to opiate withdrawal or cocaine withdrawal or benzo withdrawal. But most drugs work in strikingly similar ways. 

I'm not sure what you mean by chemical addiction. Everything is made up of chemicals. The only time I have heard that used is when someone is referring to drug addiction vs. a non-drug addiction. In other words marijuana or heroin would be chemical addictions and gambling would be a non-chemical addiction.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Lmao I just saw someone throw an "I'm in MENSA" think to prove a point on the internet. Fuk it, I'm in the UFC. Prove me wrong...
> 
> Hex, *is overcrowding in prisons not a huge problem already? *A lot of these politicians, or at least I believe with a very limited knowledge on the subject, get abuse for having revolving door prisons where major offenders get out early due to overcrowding. Surely having more space for these people in prisons would be met with positivity? That's just me breaking it down a certain way without any inside knowledge though so of course that could be bollocks.
> 
> Haven't heard about that from beer and pharmaceutical companies before. Makes sense I guess.


Of course it is for the society, but as Hex said, it's a big business.In the US a big part of the prisons are not run by the state but by private companies. They get money for each prisoner, so of course they are interested in people getting prison sentences. And as these private prison companies are all about profit maximization they don't really care about in-prison projects for re-integration to society of the prisoners once their time is up. This becomes a big problem for society as in prison minor offenders get into contact with real criminals and in order to survive (or at least to not have a even more miserable life than being locked up already is) those minor offenders basically have to adapt to in-prison society rules which are usually those of the real criminals. So minor offenders learn all the tools and mindsets how to become a real criminal. Once their time is up, congratulation - society has one more potential real criminal.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Ape City said:


> Dopamine is THE neurotransmitter associated with pleasure from drugs. Basically the abstract is saying that the two drugs work on the same pathways and transmitters. As I said before, no one is comparing cannabis withdrawal to opiate withdrawal or cocaine withdrawal or benzo withdrawal. But most drugs work in strikingly similar ways.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by chemical addiction. Everything is made up of chemicals. The only time I have heard that used is when someone is referring to drug addiction vs. a non-drug addiction. In other words marijuana or heroin would be chemical addictions and gambling would be a non-chemical addiction.


Yeah I'm sort of familiar with how dopamine works (and this was all kind of the original point I was trying to make earlier). Also, how the hell did we fall into the Raba / Sooj definition of chemicals game? haha. The difference between being addicted to an actual chemical substance, like nicotine for example, is a bit different from the addiction to the dopamine sensation. I actually wonder why something like gambling is life ruining and something like weed isnt (or at least it's not as catastrophically life ruining) considering it's basically all the same process.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Voiceless said:


> Of course it is for the society, but as Hex said, it's a big business.In the US a big part of the prisons are not run by the state but by private companies. They get money for each prisoner, so of course they are interested in people getting prison sentences. And as these private prison companies are all about profit maximization they don't really care about in-prison projects for re-integration to society of the prisoners once their time is up. This becomes a big problem for society as in prison minor offenders get into contact with real criminals and in order to survive (or at least to not have a even more miserable life than being locked up already is) those minor offenders basically have to adapt to in-prison society rules which are usually those of the real criminals. So minor offenders learn all the tools and mindsets how to become a real criminal. Once their time is up, congratulation - society has one more potential real criminal.


I thought I had read that it costs X amount of money a year to have a guy in prison, like a really massive amount, which people would always quote when being against someone they know going to jail.

If they just gave extended times to the people who REALLY deserved it, the proper bastards of the world, wouldn't they still have the same number of people in prison at any given time?

When a government comes into power, there are certain things you expect to hear from them. Things like the reoffenders rate going down, less crime being committed in an area, all of that kind of stuff. So it seems weird that they'd want minor offenders to be more likely to reoffend.

Again, I have absolutely NO actual knowledge of this and haven't ready up on it at all so I'm just responding to you based on things I think I've heard or things that _seem_ logical. Not trying to disagree with anything at all.


----------



## rabakill (Apr 22, 2007)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Lmao I just saw someone throw an "I'm in MENSA" think to prove a point on the internet. Fuk it, I'm in the UFC. Prove me wrong...
> 
> Hex, is overcrowding in prisons not a huge problem already? A lot of these politicians, or at least I believe with a very limited knowledge on the subject, get abuse for having revolving door prisons where major offenders get out early due to overcrowding. Surely having more space for these people in prisons would be met with positivity? That's just me breaking it down a certain way without any inside knowledge though so of course that could be bollocks.
> 
> Haven't heard about that from beer and pharmaceutical companies before. Makes sense I guess.


Well I am, people want to call stoners stupid then I provide a counter example. Response; lmao. OK real good point you got there.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Yeah I'm sort of familiar with how dopamine works (and this was all kind of the original point I was trying to make earlier). Also, how the hell did we fall into the Raba / Sooj definition of chemicals game? haha. The difference between being addicted to an actual chemical substance, like nicotine for example, is a bit different from the addiction to the dopamine sensation. I actually wonder why something like gambling is life ruining and something like weed isnt (or at least it's not as catastrophically life ruining) considering it's basically all the same process.


Dopamine plays a major part in all aspects of life. It's what makes you feel good when you make your bed in the morning, finish a day at work, eat pizza...everything. There is no disconnect between dopamine and whatever chemical you are using to "feel good". Every drug of addiction and dependence works on the dopamine system, specifically in the nucleus accumbens (the brains reward center), nicotine is no different:



> Stimulation of the mesolimbic dopamine (DA) system is considered of major importance for the rewarding and dependence producing properties of nicotine (NIC). To identify the site of this stimulatory action, simultaneous microdialysis was performed in the ventral tegmental area (VTA) and the ipsilateral nucleus accumbens (NAC) of awake rats. Extracellular concentrations of DA and its metabolites were measured in the NAC. NIC (0.5 mg/kg, s.c.) increased DA and its metabolites by ∼50%.Concomitant infusion of the nicotinic receptor antagonist mecamylamine (MEC, 100 μ) through the VTA probe, starting 40 min before NIC injection, antagonized the NIC induced increases of DA and its metabolites. In contrast, similar MEC pretreatment (40 or 140 min) in the NAC did not affect DA or metabolite responses to systemic NIC. Infusion of NIC (1,000 μ) in the NAC or the VTA increased DA release by 49% and 48%, respectively, whereas only the VTA infusion increased metabolite concentrations by -25%. MEC infusion (1–1,000 μ) in the VTA did not affect DA or its metabolites, whereas the 1,000 μ concentration infused in the NAC increased DA by 77%. These results suggest that nicotinic receptors in the somatodendritic region may be of greater importance than those located in the terminal area for the stimulatory action of systemic NIC on the mesolimbic DA system. Furthermore, our findings support the notion that the mesolimbic dopaminergic system is phasically rather than tonically regulated by nicotinic receptor activation within the VTA. © 1994 Wiley-Liss, Inc.


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/syn.890160105/abstract


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

rabakill said:


> Well I am, people want to call stoners stupid then I provide a counter example. Response; lmao. OK real good point you got there.


You might well be. Then again I'm the kind of guy who gets those facebook sequence puzzles in 3 seconds and thinks I'm a genius 


Ape, what I'm saying is the withdrawal from the chemicals in things like heroin is different from just stopping your release of dopamine from the addiction. The actual sicknesses come from the withdrawal of certain chemicals your body has become dependant on.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> You might well be. Then again I'm the kind of guy who gets those facebook sequence puzzles in 3 seconds and thinks I'm a genius
> 
> 
> Ape, what I'm saying is the withdrawal from the chemicals in things like heroin is different from just stopping your release of dopamine from the addiction. The actual sicknesses come from the withdrawal of certain chemicals your body has become dependant on.


Exactly, and one of those chemicals is dopamine. Your body has become dependant on the heroin to cause the release of dopamine in your brain. Without the heroin your body does not release dopamine as it has stopped doing this on its own as a protective measure. The result is unbelievable depression, pain, vomiting etc.

Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Ape City said:


> Exactly, and one of those chemicals is dopamine. Your body has become dependant on the heroin to cause the release of dopamine in your brain. Without the heroin your body does not release dopamine as it has stopped doing this on its own as a protective measure. The result is unbelievable depression, pain, vomiting etc.
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


Is this why a heroin addict can ease withdrawal using other drugs? If the body gets the dopamine hit, via whatever means, they get relief.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Ape, you completely get what dopamine does I just thing we're crossing wires.

The reason you get withdrawals from heroin and not from gambling is because dopamine only does so far. Heroin has an ACTUAL chemically addictive quality beyond dopamine.


----------



## Leed (Jan 3, 2010)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Ape, you completely get what dopamine does I just thing we're crossing wires.
> 
> The reason you get withdrawals from heroin and not from gambling is because dopamine only does so far. Heroin has an ACTUAL chemically addictive quality beyond dopamine.


I'm sure a gambling addict has withdrawals as well, if it was so easy to stop I'm sure they would. 
Not sure about the different chemical shit going on with heroin but the main withdrawal effect I'm sure is related to dopamine, similarly how it's with steroids and testosterone. I'm not sure if your body produces less dopamine after use but the noreal dopamine levels you usually have compared to under the influence of heroin levels are so low you feel terrible.
I've experienced a pretty bad hangover, not from heroin lol might be from E, I was borderline crying at how bad my life was, that was the only time I kinda understood suicide, but I scraped myself up, thought "these are just the dopamine levels talking" and went on. :thumb02:


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

If the main effect was the dopamine how come people aren't out there living in cardboard boxes due to a severe pizza addiction? There's more to it that just releases of pleasure whenever you do something you enjoy.


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> If the main effect was the dopamine how come people aren't out there living in cardboard boxes due to a severe pizza addiction? There's more to it that just releases of pleasure whenever you do something you enjoy.


I kind of think there is. Why do you think there are so many severely overweight people.


----------



## Leed (Jan 3, 2010)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> If the main effect was the dopamine how come people aren't out there living in cardboard boxes due to a severe pizza addiction? There's more to it that just releases of pleasure whenever you do something you enjoy.


You do understand that the dopamine levels under heroin are like 100x if not more intense than eating pizza or doing anything else?


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Didn't someone post a stat before that the levels of dopamine released are very similar between weed and heroin? Granted I didn't understand a word of it but I think they broke it down for me haha. It was someone like Hex or Ape I think. Probably a few pages back.

There is addiction beyond just dopamine is what I'm saying. Your body can get reliant on the substance above just the effects of the substance.

Does anyone know if there are big withdrawal effects of an alcoholic? Usually it seems like alcoholics can give up drinking pretty easily but always go back to it in the end. Ed Byrne made a good joke about it where he said something like "You know you're an alcoholic when you frequently give up drinking...just to prove you can".


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Didn't someone post a stat before that the levels of dopamine released are very similar between weed and heroin? Granted I didn't understand a word of it but I think they broke it down for me haha. It was someone like Hex or Ape I think. Probably a few pages back.
> 
> There is addiction beyond just dopamine is what I'm saying. Your body can get reliant on the substance above just the effects of the substance.
> 
> Does anyone know if there are big withdrawal effects of an alcoholic? Usually it seems like alcoholics can give up drinking pretty easily but always go back to it in the end. Ed Byrne made a good joke about it where he said something like "You know you're an alcoholic when you frequently give up drinking...just to prove you can".


That was me that posted the abstract from the study. The study was basically saying that both weed and opiates cause a dopamine activation in the brains pleasure center. As was said above heroin would release infinitely more dopamine that marijuana, pizza, reading your favorite book etc. If dopamine was a test tube dropping pleasure on your brain then eating pizza or smoking weed would would be like a drop falling out of the tube. Heroin would be like someone dumped the entire tube out all at once. 




> Dopamine is neurotransmitter in the brain that plays vital roles in a variety of different behaviors. The major behaviors dopamine affects are movement, cognition, pleasure, and motivation (1). Dopamine is an essential component of the basal ganglia motor loop, as well as the neurotransmitter responsible for controlling the exchange of information from one brain area to another (1). However, it is the role that dopamine plays in pleasure and motivation that attracts the most neurobiologists attention.


Dopamine is certainly not the only neurotransmitter or chemical that is altered in the brain from tolerance to opiates, but it is arguably the most important one. And the brain is key to how we feel. The brain controls the body, not just mood. So the chemical imbalance in the brain, caused by repeated drug use, causes the body to react. Things like opiates and alcohol calm the brain down, which causes the body to lower things like heart rate. Take the drug away, and magically you have high blood pressure. Here's a pretty good little explanation:



> Withdrawal occurs because your brain works like a spring when it comes to addiction. Drugs and alcohol are brain depressants that push down the spring. They suppress your brain's production of neurotransmitters like noradrenaline. When you stop using drugs or alcohol it's like taking the weight off the spring, and your brain rebounds by producing a surge of adrenaline that causes withdrawal symptoms.
> 
> Every drug is different. Some drugs produce significant physical withdrawal (alcohol, opiates, and tranquilizers). Some drugs produce little physical withdrawal, but more emotional withdrawal (cocaine, marijuana, and ecstasy). Every person's physical withdrawal pattern is also different. You may experience little physical withdrawal. But that doesn't mean that you're not addicted, instead you may experience more emotional withdrawal.


Just think about phantom limb pain. The pain these people feel is just as real as any other pain. But how can pain exist from a limb that is not there? Certainly the nerves are not sending messages to the brain; there are no nerve endings to do so. It is the brain itself that is perceiving pain, a physical sensation, that cannot be from a physical entity. It demonstrates that the body reacts to the brain and not the other way around.


As for the question about alcohol, a severe alcoholic will die without his booze. Someone who chronically drinks will literally die if they go cold turkey. Watch this, if you can:

(skip to 10 min in for a little video on what happens if a true alcoholic stops drinking)


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

I can't say I know any heroin addicts, but I know a couple who dig their opium. When they run out they get a fair bit of relief from smoking strong hash oil. To the point where they can go without the opium for as long as it takes, so long as they have some oil. So I can certainly believe that the dopamine release from strong THC hits is comparable to that of opium. It also highlights that it's not the opium they are addicted to, but rather, the brain's reaction to it.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Thanks for the post Ape, lot of good info in there. 

Yeah if I'm right there's a lot of people who can substitute hard drugs with weed when they're off it.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

I also used weed to stop smoking cigs. I used to mix my weed with tobacco and smoke ciggies as well. When I decided I wanted to stop smoking cigs, I started making pure weed joints. I got off the nicotine really easily this way.

So the question is, there is no nicotine in weed so why did I feel no withdrawal when I stopped tobacco? If it is indeed the chemical nicotine that we are addicted to, I would have felt some withdrawal, but I didn't. It really is all about brain response as opposed to the actual chemical you consume.

If two drugs exist with totally different chemical make-up, but both have a similar brain response, than either can be used to battle withdrawal from the other. Even if the user has never used the alternative.


----------



## Trix (Dec 15, 2009)

> *MLB’s Policy on Cannabis*
> 
> First Infraction – Subject to Follow-up Testing (Yes that’s it!)
> Second Infraction – 25 Game Suspension
> ...


The NSAC's penalties for marijuana testing are a bit disproportionate in comparison to that of other pro level sports.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Sooj, I couldnt give you an actual reason for it but I've heard A LOT of situations where people gave up ***s by using weed.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

They are something like 7500 signatures short so if you are American and support Diaz get on this!

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/lift-nsac-ban-mma-fighter-nick-diaz


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

GSP backed Diaz today in saying the NAC's decision was crazy. 

War Diaz

GOAT

Most popular fighter since GSP left.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Ape City said:


> They are something like 7500 signatures short so if you are American and support Diaz get on this!
> 
> https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/lift-nsac-ban-mma-fighter-nick-diaz


Do you have to be American? I signed up anyway. I might connect using my US vpn and get more sigs in! I have 8 server locations available.:thumbsup:

Regardless... War Diaz.


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

Soojooko said:


> Do you have to be American? I signed up anyway. I might connect using my US vpn and get more sigs in! I have 8 server locations available.:thumbsup:
> 
> Regardless... War Diaz.


Good idea. I use PIA, got a few US servers on it.


----------



## hadoq (Jan 6, 2011)

Ape City said:


> They are something like 7500 signatures short so if you are American and support Diaz get on this!
> 
> https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/lift-nsac-ban-mma-fighter-nick-diaz


100k were attained a few hours ago


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

hadoq said:


> 100k were attained a few hours ago


Awesome.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

hadoq said:


> 100k were attained a few hours ago


Kick ass.

Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

So what does it mean? Obama looks at Diaz's case now?


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

DonRifle said:


> So what does it mean? Obama looks at Diaz's case now?


Likely some sad idiot in the basement will ponder the case for 5 minutes before ignoring it. I hope not though. I would be gutted if I never see nick fight again.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Well it couldn't be at a better time i guess since punishing people for marijuana is a very hot political topic at the moment. Mentioned a few times in the democratic debate last night.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

DonRifle said:


> Well it couldn't be at a better time i guess since punishing people for marijuana is a very hot political topic at the moment. Mentioned a few times in the democratic debate last night.


Good point.

What's the deal with Obama? Did he ever smoke? I honestly know feck all about the man.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Everybody smoked! Even if they haven't they give the standard political reposnse of I smoked once but it didn't agree with me!


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

Once they subtract the non-stoner votes, they'll just have a blank screen. :lol:

I bet he's back in like 1 - 2 years or something. They'll let him fester for a while, then switch things up to look good, some crap like that.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

Soojooko said:


> Good point.
> 
> What's the deal with Obama? Did he ever smoke? I honestly know feck all about the man.


Obama smoked a lot and has even admitted to a few lines of coke. 



Woodenhead said:


> Once they subtract the non-stoner votes, they'll just have a blank screen. :lol:



....what? 
no they cant do that. .....can they?


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

So, Diaz' petition made 113,000 signatures by the deadline, which means it will get at least acknowledged by the White House. Probably nothing will be done but it should be interesting to see how they approach discussion of a drug that is still pointlessly federally illegal.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Time for these hard core Nick Diaz fans to prove they are not "just words" and do real action to help him. Come on, guys, you can be better than Aldo, that coward, who did nothing more than speaking on behalf of steady salaries for his colleagues: *Go ahead and pay Nick Diaz's fine.* 



> *Fan starts GoFundMe campaign to raise money for Nick Diaz's $165,000 NSAC fine*
> 
> With Nick Diaz’s White House petition hitting its required mark, another fan is tackling his fines from a five-year Nevada State Athletic Commission suspension.
> 
> ...



Make your contribution here: :thumb02: 

https://www.gofundme.com/mr6hze68


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> Time for these hard core Nick Diaz fans to prove they are not "just words" and do real action to help him. Come on, guys, you can be better than Aldo, that coward, who did nothing more than speaking on behalf of steady salaries for his colleagues: *Go ahead and pay Nick Diaz's fine.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lol.

Personally I'd rather force a yard of barbed wire down my japs eye than pay the fine of somebody who earns considerable more money than me.

Some people are nuts though... and will contribute to it.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

a yard of barbed wire down your jap's eye? what the hell does that mean?


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

HexRei said:


> a yard of barbed wire down your jap's eye? what the hell does that mean?


Jap's eye? 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=japs+eye


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Spite said:


> Jap's eye?
> 
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=japs+eye


MMAF and urban dictionairy have substantially contributed to enrich my overall international culture. 
That was a fine example. :laugh:


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> MMAF and urban dictionairy have substantially contributed to enrich my overall international culture.
> That was a fine example. :laugh:


Yeah, same here. Fo shizzle my nizzle!


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> MMAF and urban dictionairy have substantially contributed to enrich my overall international culture.
> That was a fine example. :laugh:


Yeah I was drunk when I posted that one.

If we have anyone of Japanese origin on the forums I would just like to say its not meant as a racist term!


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

Spite said:


> Yeah I was drunk when I posted that one.
> 
> If we have anyone of Japanese origin on the forums I would just like to say its not meant as a racist term!


You're just lucky my friend bobby isn't here to see that.



Now, I miss bobby


----------

