How does weed enhance one's performance? Please explain.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Amir at the weed store
Collapse
X
-
Dr. James Naismith wrote: View PostHow does weed enhance one's performance? Please explain.
If weed helps a player like Royce White overcome his natural inabilities (i.e. anxiety), then one might conclude that weed enhanced his performance.
LBF raises an interesting point about where to draw the line.
Comment
-
Not really.
Laws/rules are based on the average.
If 100 athletes take HGH, 99 of them (probably 100) will become better
if 100 athletes smoke weed only a handful may see a performance boost, the greater majority would see a decrease in performance. Therefore it is not performance enhancing.
Skittles can make Marshawn Lynch run over your ass but if it doesn't work for a larger group than it's not performance enhancing, at best it's a weird chemical reaction for that person and most likely it's just a placebo.
Edit: The "Not really" comment was in reply to Nilanka.
Comment
-
Nilanka wrote: View PostI'm not suggesting that weed should be considered a PED, but I can certainly see the slippery slope argument.
If weed helps a player like Royce White overcome his natural inabilities (i.e. anxiety), then one might conclude that weed enhanced his performance.
LBF raises an interesting point about where to draw the line.
Comment
-
LBF wrote: View PostI see better with glasses. Does this give me an advantage?
What are you even trying to argue at this point?
From all your posts, you're basically saying whatever helps you in any way (tylenol, vitamin C and tiger's blood) is basically a PED.Entourage: Harvey - "E (BC) was right, there's genius in this (Bargnani)"
Ari - "You wanna buy it?"
Harvey - "I do, for a dollar"
Comment
-
Letter N wrote: View PostNot really.
Laws/rules are based on the average.
If 100 athletes take HGH, 99 of them (probably 100) will become better
if 100 athletes smoke weed only a handful may see a performance boost, the greater majority would see a decrease in performance. Therefore it is not performance enhancing.
Skittles can make Marshawn Lynch run over your ass but if it doesn't work for a larger group than it's not performance enhancing, at best it's a weird chemical reaction for that person and most likely it's just a placebo.
Edit: The "Not really" comment was in reply to Nilanka.
+1
Maybe LBF will understand now?
Or spill the beans on that fact that he's so against it because his younger brother was hooked on sweet Mary Jane and constantly ate all the Cheetos at home, leaving LBF without any snacks after school?Entourage: Harvey - "E (BC) was right, there's genius in this (Bargnani)"
Ari - "You wanna buy it?"
Harvey - "I do, for a dollar"
Comment
-
LBF wrote: View PostI see better with glasses. Does this give me an advantage?
Compensating for disabilities in order to fairly compete is different than enhancing abilities in order to gain an unfair advantage (Glasses for Eyes, Pot for Anxiety).
Guys in the NBA can wear contacts or Glasses as much as they want to compensate for bad eyesight.
They can also choose not to (Rudy Gay) as it may impede on their abilities to perform (or look tough).
This is not seen as 'getting the upper hand'. Its just seen as being fair.
Comment
-
I can see the point that LBF is making, but I have to argue that weed is not a PED.
Although it may effect a certain individual's performance (or simply allow them to perform at all), per se, I believe that - in sports - the term PED refers to a drug that is proven to give an athlete a legitimate physical or mental advantage and cannot be used by other athletes / is significantly harmful to the athlete's health, thus, creating an unequal playing field.
I don't know if you have ever been under the influence of marijuana, but I can tell you from personal experience that, if I was stoned, my performance would be anything but enhanced. Instead, I'd probably be trying to pull off shit like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoDKtzjLS9k), and failing miserably, mind you. In fact, I think the same could be said for 95% of the human population. (Source: getting ripped and playing ball with some buddies at uni, it wasn't pretty.)
If anything, weed is not a PED, but probably a PRD, if you will. :P
Comment
-
joey_hesketh wrote: View PostI think the anxiety argument is a bit off, however. Someone like Royce White is at an unfair disadvantage by having to deal with his anxiety. So to be able to smoke a joint to aid in that, would only be leveling the playing field.
And someone could argue that eating Pasta and drinking coffee before a game helps them play better. Doesn't make it a PED.
Comment
-
Soft Euro wrote: View PostI don't think smoking a joint is a good way to treat anxiety. For most people it just enhances what they already feel, thus creating even more anxiety. Also, especially people with psychiatric disorders (or a family history of) should be very careful, because it can create even more psychiatric problems. I know people want to think smoking is all good and cool and it's just the stubborn, conservative and hypocritic view that is against legalizing, but I'm not one of those people.
I'm saying it is a way that people have been known to use to cope with dibilitating anxiety. Just a fact.
And just like some people would rather not wear contacts for their eyesight, as they don't like how it feels etc.; some people will choose not smoke pot for their anxiety. That's not to say its not a valid option that works for some people.
And further more, I'm not at all in the group of "people who want to think smoking is all good and cool and it's just the stubborn, conservative and hypocritic view that is against legalizing".
I just know the facts, and when compared to Alcohol or Cigarettes, there is NO comparison to health side effects that are caused.
But we've now officially gone into "Off-Topic" territory. Might have to move this thread.
Comment
-
joey_hesketh wrote: View PostI'm not saying its a good way to treat anxiety.
I'm saying it is a way that people have been known to use to cope with dibilitating anxiety. Just a fact.
And just like some people would rather not wear contacts for their eyesight, as they don't like how it feels etc.; some people will choose not smoke pot for their anxiety. That's not to say its not a valid option that works for some people.
And further more, I'm not at all in the group of "people who want to think smoking is all good and cool and it's just the stubborn, conservative and hypocritic view that is against legalizing".
I just know the facts, and when compared to Alcohol or Cigarettes, there is NO comparison to health side effects that are caused.
But we've now officially gone into "Off-Topic" territory. Might have to move this thread.
And in the end, the problem isn't that people should be allowed to smoke weed, it's that some dude growing a few plants (possibly just so he doesn't have to deal with the illegal market!) could then have to do time in seriously harsh prisons where he's lucky if he doesn't get raped on a regular basis. His life choice to smoke pot is not the social drain it's made out to be, and it does not have the widespread consequences of similar substances.
Comment
-
LBF wrote: View PostNo, I'm not being a smart ass. I'm trying to prove the point and asking; where do you draw the line?
The more I think about it, the less of a problem I have with PED's as a whole. It's not a very popular opinion to hold, but I just don't see how one can, with intellectual integrity intact, claim that taking testosterone is cheating (and hence morally abominable) but taking Protein and Creatine supplements is not.
They are fundamentally the same notion. The only principled distinction you can really make is that the latter is generally safer (and even then, the statistics about the 'inherent risks' associated with anabolics are very misleading -- most of the health problems come from abuse of the product, most of the abuse comes from ignorance about how to use them, and most of the ignorance comes from the dangerous stigma surrounding the drugs. What's the correct dosage of testosterone to take isn't exactly an easy question to ask your trainer.)
So where do we draw the line? As far as I'm concerned, everything should be fair game. After all, think how significant of a 'competitive advantage' Lebron was afforded by his genetics. Lebron hits the genetic jackpot and I'm a cheater because I want to supersede my own physical limitations? Doesn't seem fair to me.
So yeah: call anything that enhances anyone's performance a PED and let them all be legal.
Comment
Comment