(full site)
Fark.com

Back To Main
   Attention athletes who play sports in Colorado and Washington: Don't break out the bong just yet

12 Nov 2012 10:04 AM   |   3878 clicks   |   Seattle Times
Showing 1-50 of 61 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
StoPPeRmobile     
Midol?

12 Nov 2012 10:07 AM
The Madd Mann    [TotalFark]  
College athletes in Washington and Colorado may want to refrain from the use of marijuana even after both states became the first in the nation to legalize recreational use of the drug.

Marijuana, which remains illegal under federal law, is still a banned substance by the NCAA, which makes it off-limits for players.


Because this somehow stopped them before?

12 Nov 2012 10:07 AM
whosits_112    [TotalFark]  
rolandog.comView Full Size

12 Nov 2012 10:07 AM
whosits_112    [TotalFark]  
Jesus Christ I didn't know it was going to be that big. WTF. SORRY!
/Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa!

12 Nov 2012 10:08 AM
Teiritzamna     
Also, lets see what happens when the fine people of CO and WA find out that employers are likely to still prohibit drug use in their employees

12 Nov 2012 10:08 AM
Big Punisher     
You'd have to be high to consider the teams in Colorado and Washington sports teams.

12 Nov 2012 10:08 AM
JackieRabbit     
Next Up: Universities of Colorado and Washington Sutter Athletic Programs Due to Lack of Participation

Brought to you by Doritos

12 Nov 2012 10:14 AM
The more you eat the more you fart     

Teiritzamna: Also, lets see what happens when the fine people of CO and WA find out that employers are likely to still prohibit drug use in their employees


I never understood something: employers dont care if you go home and drink a 5th of vodka as long as you dont show up to work drunk....why would they care if someone smokes an entire dimebag every night, as long as they dont show up to work high?

/doesnt smoke
//personal choice and freedom ftw

12 Nov 2012 10:14 AM
Erebus1954     

StoPPeRmobile: Midol?


And tobacco. Had no idea.

12 Nov 2012 10:16 AM
cftc     
Because weed is somehow a performance enhancing drug?

12 Nov 2012 10:17 AM
Doom MD     
I do actually wonder what the rammifications of this law passage will be in regards to drug testing in various job fields. Say employee X lives in Nevada and legally puffs marijuana while visiting Washington. Could they be fired/held legally accountable in in their native state? The lawyers must be licking their lips with the legal firestorm this passage will incite.

12 Nov 2012 10:17 AM
Jon iz teh kewl     

Teiritzamna: Also, lets see what happens when the fine people of CO and WA find out that employers are likely to still prohibit drug use in their employees


except employers won't do random drug checks unless you have a job like a cop officer or an airline pilot where you put the lives of others in danger cause your not gay (straight) enough

12 Nov 2012 10:17 AM
Jon iz teh kewl     

cftc: Because weed is somehow a performance enhancing drug?


if it was a performance ENHACNING drug like caffeine, i'm pretty sure they'd alllow it. cause the goal here is to WIN.

winners don't use drugs. like weed. cause it slows u down. and in basketball winning is everything

12 Nov 2012 10:19 AM
Doom MD     

Jon iz teh kewl: Teiritzamna: Also, lets see what happens when the fine people of CO and WA find out that employers are likely to still prohibit drug use in their employees

except employers won't do random drug checks unless you have a job like a cop officer or an airline pilot where you put the lives of others in danger cause your not gay (straight) enough


A janitor has never been drug tested.

12 Nov 2012 10:20 AM
GoodyearPimp     
Am I supposed to be shocked that it might not be ok for a surgeon to toke up as he walks through the door for your appendectomy too?

12 Nov 2012 10:21 AM
Teiritzamna     

The more you eat the more you fart: Teiritzamna: Also, lets see what happens when the fine people of CO and WA find out that employers are likely to still prohibit drug use in their employees

I never understood something: employers dont care if you go home and drink a 5th of vodka as long as you dont show up to work drunk....why would they care if someone smokes an entire dimebag every night, as long as they dont show up to work high?

/doesnt smoke
//personal choice and freedom ftw


Not really supporting the practice, but dont forget that the employer has personal choice (to decide if they care you use drugs) and freedom (to fire/not hire you for it).

12 Nov 2012 10:24 AM
maxpower007     
Man I haven't smoked in years. I start a new job in January and have a drug test next month. Last night I had a dream that I smoked out of a pipe made of cinnamon bread. I was freaking out in my dream about the drug test shortly after, because apparently they moved the drug test up to the next day.

/gotta love dreams
//freaking dreams

12 Nov 2012 10:35 AM
quietwalker     

Teiritzamna: The more you eat the more you fart: Teiritzamna: Also, lets see what happens when the fine people of CO and WA find out that employers are likely to still prohibit drug use in their employees

I never understood something: employers dont care if you go home and drink a 5th of vodka as long as you dont show up to work drunk....why would they care if someone smokes an entire dimebag every night, as long as they dont show up to work high?

/doesnt smoke
//personal choice and freedom ftw

Not really supporting the practice, but dont forget that the employer has personal choice (to decide if they care you use drugs) and freedom (to fire/not hire you for it).


... I came in to make this point exactly. I'm all for lax or non-existent drug laws, but at the same time, just because it could be legal doesn't mean your usage is without other repercussion. Drug and liquor users are not members of a protected minority, so it's legal for an employer to make hiring decisions based on these habits. If you can't put off drugs for a month to clean out your system in order to get a job that improves your life, that's a pretty good indicator where your priorities lie. No problem finding work though, there's plenty of top-flight jobs in the housekeeping or food service industry.

Also, employers by-and-large don't care about drug tests. They care about reliability or output. If you are a good worker or you produce high quality/on-time product, most of them could care less. The people who are are those with a liability: contracting companies, insurers, and so on. Many insurance companies provide a pretty steep discount if employees are made to take drug tests. The only reason these guys don't test for liquor is because we metabolize it in under 24 hours, usually less than 12. They would if they could though.

Of course, if you're an entirely replaceable cog; warehouse worker, shelf stocker, etc, drug tests make sense for an employer. They just need a warm body who will work long enough to make a return on the investment by the company in terms of lost wages and other expenses during the training period; usually 3-4k. Against that, a 60$ drug test is peanuts, and half the time, they make the candidate pay anyway.

12 Nov 2012 10:37 AM
Lance Uppercut     
FTFA: Several over-the-counter items such as Muscle Milk, Sudafed, Midol, Airborne and some flavors of Vitamin Water are banned by the NCAA.

OK, I had no idea any of these were banned by the NCAA. Researching, I've found so far:

- Muscle Milk: banned by the NCAA because it contains IGF-1 (insulin growth hormone 1) precursors. It's a tiny amount but it still counts as "hormone growth"
- Sudafed: Pseudoephedrine
- Midol: The caffeine (about a half a cup of coffee's worth...REALLY?!?). I read somewhere that you have to drink like 12 cups of coffee to reach the NCAA limit. That could be a total ass pull though.
- Airborne: I have no idea what this product is
- Vitamin Water: Two flavors, "Energy" and "Rescue," contain ingredients found on the NCAA's drug-testing list of banned substances. Those flavors both contain caffeine, and the "Energy" flavor also contains guarana seed extract. An additional four flavors contain ingredients that are characterized as impermissible under NCAA extra benefit rules: "Power-C," "B-Relaxed" and "Balance" each contain either taurine, L-theanine or glucosamine, and "Vital-t" contains chemicals found in rooibos tea extract. Students can purchase these flavors on their own, but their impermissible status means that athletic programs cannot provide them as nutritional supplements. The remaining eight VitaminWater flavors contain no banned or impermissible substances.

Although I also found this:
The NCAA today released a statement refuting claims made in an AdAge.com piece about Vitaminwater containing banned substances. The statement said that the item "incorrectly states that student-athletes should not drink six of Vitaminwater's varieties or they might test positive for banned substances. In fact, normal daily consumption of any of the 13 Vitaminwater varieties will not place a student-athlete at risk for testing positive for banned substances" (NCAA).

12 Nov 2012 10:38 AM
DontMakeMeComeBackThere     
If you think the legalization of marijuana means that you no longer have to abide by your employers rules then you deserve a big fat bong hit followed by unemployment.

12 Nov 2012 10:42 AM
The more you eat the more you fart     

Teiritzamna: The more you eat the more you fart: Teiritzamna: Also, lets see what happens when the fine people of CO and WA find out that employers are likely to still prohibit drug use in their employees

I never understood something: employers dont care if you go home and drink a 5th of vodka as long as you dont show up to work drunk....why would they care if someone smokes an entire dimebag every night, as long as they dont show up to work high?

/doesnt smoke
//personal choice and freedom ftw

Not really supporting the practice, but dont forget that the employer has personal choice (to decide if they care you use drugs) and freedom (to fire/not hire you for it).


I agree, but when was the last time an employer fired someone because they found out they had a glass of wine with dinner last night.

12 Nov 2012 10:46 AM
REO-Weedwagon     
Colorado toker here. There are two things I've noticed from this legalization law passing. Everyone I know outside of Colorado is much more fascinated by the law. Inside of Colorado the response is more of a shoulder-shrugging, "I though pot was already legal?"

The second thing that's happened after the vote, and this is unfiltered schadenfreude, is the social conservatives are baffled by it. They can't fathom how "DRUGS" got made legal. They inevitably connect the dots to the negro-communist president and America going down the liberal toilet.Their political movement is over, and they know it. Legal weed only salts their wounded pride.

The NCAA will make a ruckus out of marijuana for a a few more years, but then it will disappear. Most employers will give up testing for marijuana as well. Think of all the people from the East Coast who live in states with draconian drug laws. They come out to Colorado for a ski trip, toke a little herb legally, then go back to their job in sh*thole South Carolina and test positive for THC. The wrongful termination lawsuits are going to be epic.

12 Nov 2012 10:47 AM
Giltric     

REO-Weedwagon: The wrongful termination lawsuits are going to be epic.


Employers can decide not to hire you based on the levels of nicotine in your blood.


But if you don;t think people will be fired due to THC in their bloodstream because lol pot is legal lol by all means smoke to your little hearts content....in this economy...... where the supply of labor is greater then the demand.

12 Nov 2012 10:53 AM
Embden.Meyerhof     
Well, considering they don't really have a test which can accurately discern whether I am high right now or was high last night, I think this is going to cause many many different issues.

(if such a test exists and is simple and fast to perform, like in a traffic stop, I'd like to know about it).

12 Nov 2012 10:56 AM
Embden.Meyerhof     

quietwalker: I came in to make this point exactly. I'm all for lax or non-existent drug laws, but at the same time, just because it could be legal doesn't mean your usage is without other repercussion. Drug and liquor users are not members of a protected minority, so it's legal for an employer to make hiring decisions based on these habits.




So, if my employer had a thing against birth control (legal, right?) and could test me to see if I was using it, could they fire me for it if they found it in my system?

12 Nov 2012 10:59 AM
Giltric     

Embden.Meyerhof: quietwalker: I came in to make this point exactly. I'm all for lax or non-existent drug laws, but at the same time, just because it could be legal doesn't mean your usage is without other repercussion. Drug and liquor users are not members of a protected minority, so it's legal for an employer to make hiring decisions based on these habits.



So, if my employer had a thing against birth control (legal, right?) and could test me to see if I was using it, could they fire me for it if they found it in my system?


You make a good point....because birth control and drugs/alchohol are the same thing......

In reality the employer can do whatever they want.....then you can take them to court if you feel you have been butthurted......odds are the courts will side with the plantiff in regards to being fired for using birth control....and with the employer if you were fired for THC/coke/opiates.....

12 Nov 2012 11:05 AM
REO-Weedwagon     

Giltric: Employers can decide not to hire you based on the levels of nicotine in your blood.


I don't use nicotine, but I wouldn't work for an employer who engaged in such petty behavior. It's why I started my own business. There will be a tipping point where employers don't test for any drugs. We're already reaching that point. Vail Associates, who owns and runs all the big ski mountains in Colorado, stopped drug testing in the late 90's when they realized they were actually getting sh*ttier employees by filtering out anyone who tests positive for THC.

12 Nov 2012 11:05 AM
Mouser     

REO-Weedwagon: Colorado toker here. There are two things I've noticed from this legalization law passing. Everyone I know outside of Colorado is much more fascinated by the law. Inside of Colorado the response is more of a shoulder-shrugging, "I though pot was already legal?"

The second thing that's happened after the vote, and this is unfiltered schadenfreude, is the social conservatives are baffled by it. They can't fathom how "DRUGS" got made legal. They inevitably connect the dots to the negro-communist president and America going down the liberal toilet.Their political movement is over, and they know it. Legal weed only salts their wounded pride.

The NCAA will make a ruckus out of marijuana for a a few more years, but then it will disappear. Most employers will give up testing for marijuana as well. Think of all the people from the East Coast who live in states with draconian drug laws. They come out to Colorado for a ski trip, toke a little herb legally, then go back to their job in sh*thole South Carolina and test positive for THC. The wrongful termination lawsuits are going to be epic.


Hey kids, remember all those public service messages warning you that marijuana use has bad long-term consequences for your reasoning and judgment skills? Perfect example of one here.

12 Nov 2012 11:06 AM
The more you eat the more you fart     

Giltric: Embden.Meyerhof: quietwalker: I came in to make this point exactly. I'm all for lax or non-existent drug laws, but at the same time, just because it could be legal doesn't mean your usage is without other repercussion. Drug and liquor users are not members of a protected minority, so it's legal for an employer to make hiring decisions based on these habits.



So, if my employer had a thing against birth control (legal, right?) and could test me to see if I was using it, could they fire me for it if they found it in my system?

You make a good point....because birth control and drugs/alchohol are the same thing......

In reality the employer can do whatever they want.....then you can take them to court if you feel you have been butthurted......odds are the courts will side with the plantiff in regards to being fired for using birth control....and with the employer if you were fired for THC/coke/opiates.....


how about this:

"Yes, your honor, I was terminated because my boss found out that I had a beer while I was watching the football game on Sunday afternoon."

How do you think THAT would go in court?

12 Nov 2012 11:09 AM
REO-Weedwagon     

Mouser: Hey kids, remember all those public service messages warning you that marijuana use has bad long-term consequences for your reasoning and judgment skills? Perfect example of one here.


Ohhh dude, I'm like, so totally tripping out and hallucinating while wearing tie-dye and skipping through fields of daises right now. You totally nailed it, man.

12 Nov 2012 11:12 AM
Giltric     

The more you eat the more you fart: Giltric: Embden.Meyerhof: quietwalker: I came in to make this point exactly. I'm all for lax or non-existent drug laws, but at the same time, just because it could be legal doesn't mean your usage is without other repercussion. Drug and liquor users are not members of a protected minority, so it's legal for an employer to make hiring decisions based on these habits.



So, if my employer had a thing against birth control (legal, right?) and could test me to see if I was using it, could they fire me for it if they found it in my system?

You make a good point....because birth control and drugs/alchohol are the same thing......

In reality the employer can do whatever they want.....then you can take them to court if you feel you have been butthurted......odds are the courts will side with the plantiff in regards to being fired for using birth control....and with the employer if you were fired for THC/coke/opiates.....

how about this:

"Yes, your honor, I was terminated because my boss found out that I had a beer while I was watching the football game on Sunday afternoon."

How do you think THAT would go in court?


In this hypothetical did the employer send you to the doctor for a drug/alchohol screening when you showed up for work? You may still be legally drunk when you show up to work on Monday....if the blood test shows that's the case then you would more than likely lose.

12 Nov 2012 11:14 AM
The My Little Pony Killer     

Doom MD: Jon iz teh kewl: Teiritzamna: Also, lets see what happens when the fine people of CO and WA find out that employers are likely to still prohibit drug use in their employees

except employers won't do random drug checks unless you have a job like a cop officer or an airline pilot where you put the lives of others in danger cause your not gay (straight) enough

A janitor has never been drug tested.


And there are still plenty of other businesses that ask for a UA upon hire. That part isn't going to change.

12 Nov 2012 11:15 AM
jigger     
Yeah, you might end up only winning 18 Olympic gold medals, 2 silver medals, and 2 bronzes instead of all 22 being gold. Losers.

blogs-images.forbes.comView Full Size
 

12 Nov 2012 11:17 AM
The My Little Pony Killer     

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: If you think the legalization of marijuana means that you no longer have to abide by your employers rules then you deserve a big fat bong hit followed by unemployment.


It's a good thing my employers and most of my coworkers are already potheads then. Just don't show up stoned and nobody will give a rat's ass.

12 Nov 2012 11:18 AM
His Sonshine     
Well guess what Mile High City, now your productivity is going to go to "pot". It's a darn mystery to me how anyone can think endorsing the use of marijuana will be good for society. At my job I'm happy to say we still test for drugs. It's helped "weed" out quite a few undesireables.

12 Nov 2012 11:19 AM
The more you eat the more you fart     

Giltric: The more you eat the more you fart: Giltric: Embden.Meyerhof: quietwalker: I came in to make this point exactly. I'm all for lax or non-existent drug laws, but at the same time, just because it could be legal doesn't mean your usage is without other repercussion. Drug and liquor users are not members of a protected minority, so it's legal for an employer to make hiring decisions based on these habits.



So, if my employer had a thing against birth control (legal, right?) and could test me to see if I was using it, could they fire me for it if they found it in my system?

You make a good point....because birth control and drugs/alchohol are the same thing......

In reality the employer can do whatever they want.....then you can take them to court if you feel you have been butthurted......odds are the courts will side with the plantiff in regards to being fired for using birth control....and with the employer if you were fired for THC/coke/opiates.....

how about this:

"Yes, your honor, I was terminated because my boss found out that I had a beer while I was watching the football game on Sunday afternoon."

How do you think THAT would go in court?

In this hypothetical did the employer send you to the doctor for a drug/alchohol screening when you showed up for work? You may still be legally drunk when you show up to work on Monday....if the blood test shows that's the case then you would more than likely lose.


No, but even with just 1 beer, you would still have the metabolic byproducs of ETOH metabolism in your system, which would show up.

You wouldnt be deemed to be intoxicated (your BAL would be 0.0) but they would know you had a drink the day before.

I realize I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I think it's a valid point. An employer would be laughed out of court for firing someone because the boss found out you had a couple with your buddies while watching the game on Sunday (hell, the Judge him/herself was probably having a few along with you)...and as long as the employee wasn't drunk at work, the employer would most likely lose the wrongful termination case.

Yes, this actually happened at a place where I used to work (a hospital). They attempted to fire a nurse because they found ETOH metabolites in his UDS that showed he had a small amount of alcohol within the previous 24 hours. Yes, i was a Sunday, and he had a few beers watchig NASCAR on TV I think it was.

He was fired, sued, and easily won the wrongful termination suit.

Would the same not also apply to THC since it would be legal as long as the person is not high at work?

12 Nov 2012 11:19 AM
The My Little Pony Killer     
And seriously, the first thing that comes to mind when a job I'm applying for asks for a drug test is that these people ALREADY don't trust me. Why would I want to work for that in the first place?

12 Nov 2012 11:21 AM
jigger     
Or even worse, you could break world speed records by only a tenth of a second instead of a full second.

i.usatoday.netView Full Size

12 Nov 2012 11:22 AM
Teiritzamna     

The more you eat the more you fart: I realize I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I think it's a valid point. An employer would be laughed out of court for firing someone because the boss found out you had a couple with your buddies while watching the game on Sunday (hell, the Judge him/herself was probably having a few along with you)...and as long as the employee wasn't drunk at work, the employer would most likely lose the wrongful termination case.

Yes, this actually happened at a place where I used to work (a hospital). They attempted to fire a nurse because they found ETOH metabolites in his UDS that showed he had a small amount of alcohol within the previous 24 hours. Yes, i was a Sunday, and he had a few beers watchig NASCAR on TV I think it was.

He was fired, sued, and easily won the wrongful termination suit.


To be fair, this will depend greatly upon the state law in question (i.e. how much of an at-will employment framework exists) and what contract exists between the employer/employee. I promise you if the contract specifies that the employee cannot drink, even if not at work (who the hell would write this? I don't know) then the judge wont be laughing. Additionally, since most states allow your boss to fire you for any reason but one made illegal (discrimination mostly), in the majority of the country if your boss wanted you gone for a weekend beer they could make it so without repercussion.

12 Nov 2012 11:43 AM
lewismarktwo     

Embden.Meyerhof: Well, considering they don't really have a test which can accurately discern whether I am high right now or was high last night, I think this is going to cause many many different issues.

(if such a test exists and is simple and fast to perform, like in a traffic stop, I'd like to know about it).


Apparently Australia uses saliva tests that call show if you've used in the last 4 hours or so. Not perfect, but miles better than the tests that can show positive months after use.

http://www.druginfo.adf.org.au/fact- sheets/the-facts-about-roadside- dr ug-testing-web-fact-sheet 

It's a shame tho, because being high doesn't really impair you. But the puritan in us needs to believe that something that makes you feel good MUST have consequences.

12 Nov 2012 11:44 AM
Jon iz teh kewl     

jigger: Yeah, you might end up only winning 18 Olympic gold medals, 2 silver medals, and 2 bronzes instead of all 22 being gold. Losers.

[blogs-images.forbes.com image 340x462]


instead of 22 being gold + gunshot through the head

12 Nov 2012 11:46 AM
StoPPeRmobile     
Wait a sec.

So is there a test for THC or is it still for canabinoids?

12 Nov 2012 11:48 AM
GibbyTheMole     
Jon iz teh kewl

"except employers won't do random drug checks unless you have a job like a cop officer or an airline pilot where you put the lives of others in danger cause your not gay (straight) enough"

We have random drug testing where I work. I'm a small market radio DJ.

12 Nov 2012 11:52 AM
arentol     

The more you eat the more you fart:

I realize I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I think it's a valid point. An employer would be laughed out of court for firing someone because the boss found out you had a couple with your buddies while watching the game on Sunday (hell, the Judge him/herself was probably having a few along with you) ...


In most states this case this wouldn't even make it to a formal trial. The court would decide in the employers favor as a summary judgement. Since the plaintiff in such a case would be the fired employee, and the employee would have so little case that a summary judgement would be issued against him, it would actually be the former employee that is laughed out of court.

As a matter of fact, chances are even this would not happen. The reality is that the former employee would be laughed out of a dozen law offices before giving up entirely. The only way a lawyer would take this case would be to try and get some free advertising (their name in the paper and on the news), and any lawyer taking a bad case for that reason is not one worth your time.

12 Nov 2012 12:01 PM
mcmiller     

JackieRabbit: Next Up: Universities of Colorado and Washington Sutter Athletic Programs Due to Lack of Participation

Brought to you by Doritos


The CU football program was already suffering from a lack of participation.

12 Nov 2012 12:38 PM
Jon iz teh kewl     

GibbyTheMole: Jon iz teh kewl

"except employers won't do random drug checks unless you have a job like a cop officer or an airline pilot where you put the lives of others in danger cause your not gay (straight) enough"

We have random drug testing where I work. I'm a small market radio DJ.


well of course. if the listeners of your radio show thought you were on weed, they'd probably want to do some themselves. and that IS BAD for the ECONOMY CAUSE ITS IELLGAL

12 Nov 2012 12:39 PM
madgordy     
Living in Washington State I do not believe this is going to be as big an issue as many people, particularly the right wingers, think. Our three land borders are British Columbia, legal for private use. Oregon, laws against MJ not enforced in the population centers. Idaho, drowned their government in a bathtub, they don't have a lot of police.

What I am saying is that most of those inclined to use Pot in neighboring states/countries already do, and only face problems when crossing the border between Washington and BC. My understanding from smokers that I know is their supply mostly comes from Arizona, and New Mexico, so no international border to worry about.

12 Nov 2012 12:44 PM
tekmo     

The more you eat the more you fart: "Yes, your honor, I was terminated because my boss found out that I had a beer while I was watching the football game on Sunday afternoon." How do you think THAT would go in court? An employer would be laughed out of court for firing someone because the boss found out you had a couple with your buddies while watching the game on Sunday (hell, the Judge him/herself was probably having a few along with you) ...


Do you know how I know you're probably not a lawyer?

arentol: In most states this case this wouldn't even make it to a formal trial. The court would decide in the employers favor as a summary judgement...As a matter of fact, chances are even this would not happen. The reality is that the former employee would be laughed out of a dozen law offices before giving up entirely...


Do you know how I know you probably are?

12 Nov 2012 12:48 PM
Lattices aren't Distributive     

Lance Uppercut:
- Airborne: I have no idea what this product is

A placebo.

Actually, it has vitamins, minerals, and some herbs. They don't say exactly what the herbs are, so the possibility that something else that's actually been banned is probably why it's on the list.

12 Nov 2012 02:11 PM
OrygunFarker     

cftc: Because weed is somehow a performance enhancing drug?


Actually it is. When athletes at this level perform, they often go to the breaking point of their bodies. Cannabis is a pain-reducer and will allow for athletes bodies to go above and beyond what their bodies would normally break from.

12 Nov 2012 02:19 PM
Showing 1-50 of 61 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined