Pot is NOT a "performance-enhancing drug".....when are are athletic governing bodies going to realize this?

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: IGBT
It's part of the Zero Tolerance paradigm that is the fundamental operating principal off all drug testing programs in sports and industry and yes...ethics is a big part of it especially in safety sensitive public employment transportation jobs and fire/law enforcement jobs. And don't forget. Drug testing is a "growth" industry with leigions of political support on both sides of the isle..wana bet that there's a drug test in your future?? Get used to it it's well on the way....trust but verify.

I would'nt apply for work that required drug testing and I'm not a user at all. It's a privacy issue many will not stand for. I think you'll find the higher up the food chain you go the less selective they can be. For example almost every construction worker gets tested but I've never heard of a doctor or lawyer being given drug tests and they don't test executives/scientists/engineers anywahere I know including the feds.

 

[Kilrsat]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: Nohr

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Nohr
Regardless if it enhances atheletic performance or not it would be (in a way) encouraging drug use to let drug abusing competition winners keep their medals. He knew the rules and did it anyway and now has to face the consequences.

Okay, but stop for a moment and ask yourself if it actually makes any sense. That's the whole point; if they're going to address non-performance-enhancing offenses, they might as well nail them for Kazaa, speeding, and public nudity while they're at it. They're overstepping their authority.

On that same note, most employers give job applicants drug tests before hiring them yet don't tend to care if they speed or download music. That's society for ya.

Apples to oranges. Have you ever heard of someone missing work because they went on a Kazaa bender over the weekend? Or perhaps stealing money from the company to support their Kazaa habit? Drugs (certain ones anyway) actually can and do effect work performance.

Okay....so which drug likely has the most detrimental effect on work performance?



Oh yeah....alcohol. Think about how many days are essentially thrown out the window because someone had a few at lunch or was too hungover to get anything done or even show up (monday flu). If you're actually stoned at work, obviously you're not going to get anything done, but smoking a bowl over the weekend isn't going to affect your work performance any more than it prevented this guy from winning a race.

Then fire the alcoholic too. Then it isn't unfair treatment, tada, problem solved.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: Eli
One thing that really perturbs me about the whole drug testing thing.. especially related to employment, is that it almost seems cannabis is unfairly singled out. At least, that is the outcome.

THC is one of the only drugs that will stay in your system for many days after use. Most any other drug and you're clean in 12 - 48 hours.

It's stupid.

It isn't the employers fault that that perticular drug stays in your system for upto 30 days.

Also if you are stupid enough to fail a PRE EMPLOYMENT drtug test it shows the employer that not only do you partake in the use of an illegal substance BUT you are incredibly STUPID.

Are you seriously that stupid?

Was my post really that hard to understand?

Who is the stupid one again? 😛

I am sorry, but it is none of my employers business what I do on my own time. Period. No question about it. If I can do my job and do it well, it simply has no relevance. That is the only thing that matters.

Yet, somehow this incredibly blatant invasion of privacy is OK. Bravo for sheep like you.

Good lord.

 

[aircooled]

Originally posted by: Eli
One thing that really perturbs me about the whole drug testing thing.. especially related to employment, is that it almost seems cannabis is unfairly singled out. At least, that is the outcome.

THC is one of the only drugs that will stay in your system for many days after use. Most any other drug and you're clean in 12 - 48 hours.

It's stupid.

Eli is an intelligent & logical person.

I personally know many people that have been arrested, paroled, on probation, etc... blah blah blah.....
They are tested every month (some evey week or 2 weeks).
This type of incarceration encourages every other drug besides pot to be used. You can do heroin or coke and test clean in 3 days. If you smoke pot, it's a month of avoiding piss tests.

 

[stormbv]

I just enhanced my video-game playing performance with some 'dro..😛

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Kilrsat

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: Nohr

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Nohr
Regardless if it enhances atheletic performance or not it would be (in a way) encouraging drug use to let drug abusing competition winners keep their medals. He knew the rules and did it anyway and now has to face the consequences.

Okay, but stop for a moment and ask yourself if it actually makes any sense. That's the whole point; if they're going to address non-performance-enhancing offenses, they might as well nail them for Kazaa, speeding, and public nudity while they're at it. They're overstepping their authority.

On that same note, most employers give job applicants drug tests before hiring them yet don't tend to care if they speed or download music. That's society for ya.

Apples to oranges. Have you ever heard of someone missing work because they went on a Kazaa bender over the weekend? Or perhaps stealing money from the company to support their Kazaa habit? Drugs (certain ones anyway) actually can and do effect work performance.

Okay....so which drug likely has the most detrimental effect on work performance?



Oh yeah....alcohol. Think about how many days are essentially thrown out the window because someone had a few at lunch or was too hungover to get anything done or even show up (monday flu). If you're actually stoned at work, obviously you're not going to get anything done, but smoking a bowl over the weekend isn't going to affect your work performance any more than it prevented this guy from winning a race.

Then fire the alcoholic too. Then it isn't unfair treatment, tada, problem solved.

I didn't say anything about alcoholics. I'm referring to the average adult person who drinks socially. I'd wager most persons falling into this category have shown up hungover or called in "sick" on at least one occasion in their professional life. Now take those instances and extrapolate to represent the entire working population of the US on a yearly basis. That's a lot of lost time and productivity.

Are you, in effect, saying we should ban alcohol then? I think we already tried that once. 😉

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: Nohr

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Nohr
Regardless if it enhances atheletic performance or not it would be (in a way) encouraging drug use to let drug abusing competition winners keep their medals. He knew the rules and did it anyway and now has to face the consequences.

Okay, but stop for a moment and ask yourself if it actually makes any sense. That's the whole point; if they're going to address non-performance-enhancing offenses, they might as well nail them for Kazaa, speeding, and public nudity while they're at it. They're overstepping their authority.

On that same note, most employers give job applicants drug tests before hiring them yet don't tend to care if they speed or download music. That's society for ya.

Apples to oranges. Have you ever heard of someone missing work because they went on a Kazaa bender over the weekend? Or perhaps stealing money from the company to support their Kazaa habit? Drugs (certain ones anyway) actually can and do effect work performance.

Okay....so which drug likely has the most detrimental effect on work performance?



Oh yeah....alcohol. Think about how many days are essentially thrown out the window because someone had a few at lunch or was too hungover to get anything done or even show up (monday flu). If you're actually stoned at work, obviously you're not going to get anything done, but smoking a bowl over the weekend isn't going to affect your work performance any more than it prevented this guy from winning a race.

Your logic is flawed. Just because alcohol is allowed does not mean that drugs should be too. Yes, alcohol is a problem but drugs can be also. I'm not saying that's how it should be. I'm saying that's how it is.

Btw, I can't begin to count all the days of work I was late for/missed entirely, etc when I used to smoke weed. Now part of that was just because I was so young and irresponsible in general but nevertheless, you're wrong. It does affect work performance. At least for some people.

For the record, I'll say that I think our drug laws are retarded and we pretty much need to throw them all out the window. However, until we do that the law is the law and that needs to be recognized. Justifying an illegal action on the grounds that it shouldn't be illegal is childish logic at best. If you don't like the way things are now then work to change them.

 

[Gravity]

The point is valid, thc destroys testosterone, a performance enhancing hormone. Just think how much better he might have performed with the natural levels of test? Or, maybe he was taking the thc to lower test levels becuase he was injecting it???

 

[Kilrsat]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Kilrsat

Originally posted by: Fausto
Okay....so which drug likely has the most detrimental effect on work performance?



Oh yeah....alcohol. Think about how many days are essentially thrown out the window because someone had a few at lunch or was too hungover to get anything done or even show up (monday flu). If you're actually stoned at work, obviously you're not going to get anything done, but smoking a bowl over the weekend isn't going to affect your work performance any more than it prevented this guy from winning a race.

Then fire the alcoholic too. Then it isn't unfair treatment, tada, problem solved.

I didn't say anything about alcoholics. I'm referring to the average adult person who drinks socially. I'd wager most persons falling into this category have shown up hungover or called in "sick" on at least one occasion in their professional life. Now take those instances and extrapolate to represent the entire working population of the US on a yearly basis. That's a lot of lost time and productivity.

Are you, in effect, saying we should ban alcohol then? I think we already tried that once. 😉

No "average adult person who drinks socially" goes out and has a few drinks and lunch and then can't finish the day. Not at my office, not at any of my previous jobs, not any one I know. My experience says it isn't the "average adult" who is calling in sick because of alcohol use, but rather the irresponsible, the individual that doesn't know when to say when because they have to work in the morning. I'd wager that most "average adult person(s) who drinks socially" have called in sick more times because they couldn't find a babysitter or their child was sick than they have because of a hangover.

Thus children are much more evil than alcohol. Those people should be your new targets, if we allow people to have children, we should allow them to do drugs.

 

[NeoV]

give me a break with all of this invasion of privacy crying....

He Clearly knew he would have to submit to a test, and that pot is on the list of banned substances - doesn't matter if it didn't help him in any way shape or form, those were the rules, and it wasn't sprung on him at the last minute.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Kilrsat

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Kilrsat

Originally posted by: Fausto
Okay....so which drug likely has the most detrimental effect on work performance?



Oh yeah....alcohol. Think about how many days are essentially thrown out the window because someone had a few at lunch or was too hungover to get anything done or even show up (monday flu). If you're actually stoned at work, obviously you're not going to get anything done, but smoking a bowl over the weekend isn't going to affect your work performance any more than it prevented this guy from winning a race.

Then fire the alcoholic too. Then it isn't unfair treatment, tada, problem solved.

I didn't say anything about alcoholics. I'm referring to the average adult person who drinks socially. I'd wager most persons falling into this category have shown up hungover or called in "sick" on at least one occasion in their professional life. Now take those instances and extrapolate to represent the entire working population of the US on a yearly basis. That's a lot of lost time and productivity.

Are you, in effect, saying we should ban alcohol then? I think we already tried that once. 😉

No "average adult person who drinks socially" goes out and has a few drinks and lunch and then can't finish the day. Not at my office, not at any of my previous jobs, not any one I know. My experience says it isn't the "average adult" who is calling in sick because of alcohol use, but rather the irresponsible, the individual that doesn't know when to say when because they have to work in the morning. I'd wager that most "average adult person(s) who drinks socially" have called in sick more times because they couldn't find a babysitter or their child was sick than they have because of a hangover.

Thus children are much more evil than alcohol. Those people should be your new targets, if we allow people to have children, we should allow them to do drugs.

I think you missed the point. One drug is legal. One is not. The legal one undercuts the bottom line much more than the illegal one. Why is one legal and the other not? Why punish an athlete for something with no bearing on his athletic performance? Try not to think so much about the legality, but rather the rationality of the situation.

 

[Kilrsat]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Kilrsat

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Kilrsat

Originally posted by: Fausto
Okay....so which drug likely has the most detrimental effect on work performance?



Oh yeah....alcohol. Think about how many days are essentially thrown out the window because someone had a few at lunch or was too hungover to get anything done or even show up (monday flu). If you're actually stoned at work, obviously you're not going to get anything done, but smoking a bowl over the weekend isn't going to affect your work performance any more than it prevented this guy from winning a race.

Then fire the alcoholic too. Then it isn't unfair treatment, tada, problem solved.

I didn't say anything about alcoholics. I'm referring to the average adult person who drinks socially. I'd wager most persons falling into this category have shown up hungover or called in "sick" on at least one occasion in their professional life. Now take those instances and extrapolate to represent the entire working population of the US on a yearly basis. That's a lot of lost time and productivity.

Are you, in effect, saying we should ban alcohol then? I think we already tried that once. 😉

No "average adult person who drinks socially" goes out and has a few drinks and lunch and then can't finish the day. Not at my office, not at any of my previous jobs, not any one I know. My experience says it isn't the "average adult" who is calling in sick because of alcohol use, but rather the irresponsible, the individual that doesn't know when to say when because they have to work in the morning. I'd wager that most "average adult person(s) who drinks socially" have called in sick more times because they couldn't find a babysitter or their child was sick than they have because of a hangover.

Thus children are much more evil than alcohol. Those people should be your new targets, if we allow people to have children, we should allow them to do drugs.

I think you missed the point. One drug is legal. One is not. The legal one undercuts the bottom line much more than the illegal one. Why is one legal and the other not? Why punish an athlete for something with no bearing on his athletic performance? Try not to think so much about the legality, but rather the rationality of the situation.

Only in your opinion does the legal one undercut the bottom line more than the illegal one. I've also given you another example of a legal activity that undercuts the bottom line even more, but you elect not to take issue with that. I could go on and turn your claim into the "average adult social pot smoker" who smokes a bowl at lunch doesn't finish the rest of the day, or he has the "monday flu" because the night before it was reefer madness. I sure hope neither yours nor mine would be the real definition of "average adult social <whatever>" as they're both examples invented to try and prove a point.

The rationality of the sports situation is this, the sport has rules. I'll bet there are rules about equipment that may not always seem "rational" but they are the rules. Every athlete that wants to compete in the sport plays under the same rules. If they want to ban eating any meat within 24-hours of the event, they can, provided advanced warning to all competing individuals. As long as every athlete competes under the same rules, its fair. That's what sports rules are about. They aren't about rationality, they're about a level playing field.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: NeoV
give me a break with all of this invasion of privacy crying....

He Clearly knew he would have to submit to a test, and that pot is on the list of banned substances - doesn't matter if it didn't help him in any way shape or form, those were the rules, and it wasn't sprung on him at the last minute.

The point is not what the rules are (we know what they are) but whether there's any point to this particular rule in light of fairness in athletic competition (the UCI's "jurisdiction).

In a further logic train wreck, the World Anti-Doping Agency agrees that cannabinoids should remain on the prohibited list, but removed caffeine and pseudoephedrine from that same list. So, you can't get stoned in your free time, but you can jack yourself to the gills with drugs that are performance-enhancers.....just as long as they're the right ones. The UCI is under pressure to make these same changes while THC isn't even on the table for discussion.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Kilrsat

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Kilrsat

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Kilrsat

Originally posted by: Fausto
Okay....so which drug likely has the most detrimental effect on work performance?



Oh yeah....alcohol. Think about how many days are essentially thrown out the window because someone had a few at lunch or was too hungover to get anything done or even show up (monday flu). If you're actually stoned at work, obviously you're not going to get anything done, but smoking a bowl over the weekend isn't going to affect your work performance any more than it prevented this guy from winning a race.

Then fire the alcoholic too. Then it isn't unfair treatment, tada, problem solved.

I didn't say anything about alcoholics. I'm referring to the average adult person who drinks socially. I'd wager most persons falling into this category have shown up hungover or called in "sick" on at least one occasion in their professional life. Now take those instances and extrapolate to represent the entire working population of the US on a yearly basis. That's a lot of lost time and productivity.

Are you, in effect, saying we should ban alcohol then? I think we already tried that once. 😉

No "average adult person who drinks socially" goes out and has a few drinks and lunch and then can't finish the day. Not at my office, not at any of my previous jobs, not any one I know. My experience says it isn't the "average adult" who is calling in sick because of alcohol use, but rather the irresponsible, the individual that doesn't know when to say when because they have to work in the morning. I'd wager that most "average adult person(s) who drinks socially" have called in sick more times because they couldn't find a babysitter or their child was sick than they have because of a hangover.

Thus children are much more evil than alcohol. Those people should be your new targets, if we allow people to have children, we should allow them to do drugs.

I think you missed the point. One drug is legal. One is not. The legal one undercuts the bottom line much more than the illegal one. Why is one legal and the other not? Why punish an athlete for something with no bearing on his athletic performance? Try not to think so much about the legality, but rather the rationality of the situation.

Only in your opinion does the legal one undercut the bottom line more than the illegal one. I've also given you another example of a legal activity that undercuts the bottom line even more, but you elect not to take issue with that. I could go on and turn your claim into the "average adult social pot smoker" who smokes a bowl at lunch doesn't finish the rest of the day, or he has the "monday flu" because the night before it was reefer madness. I sure hope neither yours nor mine would be the real definition of "average adult social <whatever>" as they're both examples invented to try and prove a point.

Okay, this is going nowhere. Next we'll be arguing the legality of oxygen (the stuff that allows people to breath and therefore function well enough to screw things up).

The rationality of the sports situation is this, the sport has rules. I'll bet there are rules about equipment that may not always seem "rational" but they are the rules. Every athlete that wants to compete in the sport plays under the same rules. If they want to ban eating any meat within 24-hours of the event, they can, provided advanced warning to all competing individuals. As long as every athlete competes under the same rules, its fair. That's what sports rules are about. They aren't about rationality, they're about a level playing field.

The rules about equipment are there for the sake of fairness and safety for the athletes. They do make sense. The rules for all the other drugs are there to prevent one person from gaining an unfair advantage over another. THC would actually decrease athletic performance, yet there are rules for it. "It's an illegal drug" you say.....this is true, yet they don't test you for every illicit drug. You can do all the acid you want, for example. Not a great idea, but you can if you want to and the UCI won't say boo.

 

[stormbv]

It's ironic how Humans can fail to recognize their own stupidity.

 

[Kilrsat]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Kilrsat
The rationality of the sports situation is this, the sport has rules. I'll bet there are rules about equipment that may not always seem "rational" but they are the rules. Every athlete that wants to compete in the sport plays under the same rules. If they want to ban eating any meat within 24-hours of the event, they can, provided advanced warning to all competing individuals. As long as every athlete competes under the same rules, its fair. That's what sports rules are about. They aren't about rationality, they're about a level playing field.

The rules about equipment are there for the sake of fairness and safety for the athletes. They do make sense. The rules for all the other drugs are there to prevent one person from gaining an unfair advantage over another. THC would actually decrease athletic performance, yet there are rules for it. "It's an illegal drug" you say.....this is true, yet they don't test you for every illicit drug. You can do all the acid you want, for example. Not a great idea, but you can if you want to and the UCI won't say boo.

I didn't say they test because its an illegal drug. I don't care if its illegal or legal. Which is why I gave the example of eating meat. When you compete in a sport, you compete under the rulebook handed to you by the governing body. If you don't agree with the rules, you can protest the competitions by sitting out. But it is ridiculous to try and cry foul when one is found in violation of a clearly stated rule. The rationality is quite simple, the governing body thinks it is in the best interests of the athletes, their image, whatever, that smoking weed is prohibited. If their sport shrivels up and dies, then they won't have anything to govern. That is the logical protection from the governing body handing down "bad" rules. Apparently, since cycling is still around, the majority do not seem to feel that this is a "bad rule." Perhaps, they may even think its a good rule, projecting a certain image of the competitors of said sport.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: NeoV
give me a break with all of this invasion of privacy crying....

He Clearly knew he would have to submit to a test, and that pot is on the list of banned substances - doesn't matter if it didn't help him in any way shape or form, those were the rules, and it wasn't sprung on him at the last minute.

I didn't really mean to send the thread on another tangent.

I agree with you there, drug testing for sanctioned athletic events is perfectly fine, even if the no tollerance policy is a bit alarming.

However, it is an unbelievable invasion of my privacy for a potential employer to look at something that I do on my own time when considering me for employment.

It is one thing to come to work under the influence. Any and all workplaces have laws against that. That is not what I am talking about.

That is what I mean. Because of this, cannabis is almost completely singled out. Even responsible social use would send you into the fail category.

Seriously. How can it even be constitutional? How did it become acceptable? Why do employees bend over and take it in the ass so easily?

I refuse to work at any institution that does anything other than background checks.

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: Eli
One thing that really perturbs me about the whole drug testing thing.. especially related to employment, is that it almost seems cannabis is unfairly singled out. At least, that is the outcome.

THC is one of the only drugs that will stay in your system for many days after use. Most any other drug and you're clean in 12 - 48 hours.

It's stupid.

It isn't the employers fault that that perticular drug stays in your system for upto 30 days.

Also if you are stupid enough to fail a PRE EMPLOYMENT drtug test it shows the employer that not only do you partake in the use of an illegal substance BUT you are incredibly STUPID.

Are you seriously that stupid?

Was my post really that hard to understand?

Who is the stupid one again? 😛

I am sorry, but it is none of my employers business what I do on my own time. Period. No question about it. If I can do my job and do it well, it simply has no relevance. That is the only thing that matters.

Yet, somehow this incredibly blatant invasion of privacy is OK. Bravo for sheep like you.

Good lord.

Having worked in the most dangerous workplace in the world I can tell you that is is the employers business and futhermore they let you know BEFORE YOU AGREE TO TAKE THE JOB. The problem inlies that THC can Stay in your sytem for UPTO 30 DAYS, ANd It has shown to have LASTING EFFECTS on REFLEXS. Now I don't want someone who got stoned (or drunk for that matter) with my life in there hands. Sorry that just does not play well with me.

It isn't an invasion of any type of privacy. Saying that preemployment drug testing is an invasiopn of your privacy is like saying that should the mods read your posts here they are invading your privacy. Employers CAN make a condition of your employment that you pass a preemployement drug test. YOU actually have the choice in weather or not you seek employment with that company.

The other problem is that should you cause damage, injury OR DEALTH there is no way of tell if you got stoned on your lunch break OR last thursday. When my life can be effected by a LIFESTYLE CHOICE I would much prefer to error on the side of caution. Don't like that then go get a job else where. But keep in mind that should your occupation of choice envolve machinery that your pay will be lower that that of the tested. This is due to the added cost of INSURANCE. They can't pay both more.

Not Just so you know I do thing that the government should revisit the THC debate, and look at ways to allow people to use it should they choose BUT they should also allow employer to continue testing. The fact is that most employer also TEST for alcohol which of course is a LEGAL substance. And It isn't like I am some high and mighty you are a moron for smoking weed guy either as I did smoke quite a bit when I was growing up (16-19) and I have even failed a preemployement drug test :Q I was totally stupid and I still got the job.

Bottom line is that when I put MY LIFE in someone elses hands I wopuld prefer to know that they are able to do without intoxicating substances for the time when they KNOW THEY ARE GOING TO BE TESTED.