• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Confirmed: D. Washington, Clifford, O'Neal

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;1140897; said:
Damn near everyone I know was once a pot smoker and not one of them is a waste of life. Most of them are reasonably successful in life, even though they smoked pot in college.
Click to expand...
I notice that you say "was once a pot smoker", meaning that they no longer do it. How many of your acquaintances would risk throwing away their careers in "the real world" just so that they could keep hitting the bong? Probably not too many of them.... And the ones who would take that risk, how would you describe them?

A friend of mine once called college a "four year vacation", and I suppose that that is the case for most kids. But college athletes are in a different class - unlike the rest of us, their careers start the moment that they step foot on campus, not the day that they leave it. For them, college is "the real world", and they have to live and act accordingly.
 
Upvote 0
What does this do for the case against pot?

20 Percent of Scientists Admit Using Brain-Enhancing Drugs -- Do You? | Wired Science from Wired.com

For the sake of argument can we all agree that pot is moral and good? It improves thinking, makes you drive slower on the freeway, give more generously to charity, and produces those erections that last four hours or longer?

IF the team rule was don't drink milk and these guys showed up with a milk mustache they broke the rule. It makes no difference if we agree with the rule.

Now circle IF, underline it and highlight it and let's all go back to ganging up on HTM in the RR thread.
 
Upvote 0
LordJeffBuck;1140908; said:
I notice that you say "was once a pot smoker", meaning that they no longer do it. How many of your acquaintances would risk throwing away their careers in "the real world" just so that they could keep hitting the bong? Probably not too many of them.... And the ones who would take that risk, how would you describe them?
Click to expand...
There are a few, but certainly not many. The important point here, however, is that they also aren't 20 year old college kids any longer. I don't mean that as an excuse for behavior, but it would be unreasonable to fail to recognize that a 20 year old man contemplates risks v. benefits completely different than does a 35 year old man.

In some ways I see this like the Pryor circus. Why do we expect these guys to behave with all the grace of a seasoned professional athelete? It's a little ridiculous, I think you'll agree, for us to expect Pryor to handle the media like he's been handeling the media for 10 years. If he has an outburst because someone calls him a name, it's not "OK" in the sense that we accept it without consequence, but it's "understandable"

So, with the weed issue (and of course, assuming that's the issue (since there's been no public confirmation that I know of that that is even what's going on here)) it's not "OK" and should come with a consequence, but it's "understandable" The line between the two.. well... I don't know that we could reach a bright line rule on it... but.. the consequence of banishment seems to me pretty severe. For me it's a "feel" thing. One of the names on the list (actually, maybe two) is a lot closer to "See ya" than the others, if you know what I mean.

A friend of mine once called college a "four year vacation", and I suppose that that is the case for most kids. But college athletes are in a different class - unlike the rest of us, their careers start the moment that they step foot on campus, not the day that they leave it. For them, college is "the real world", and they have to live and act accordingly.
Click to expand...
I agree, and I do think it is fair to put them through more scrutiny than we would some kid who simply goes to school so that he can become a Doctor. These kids are indeed on the cusp of multi-million dollar careers and are getting a "free" education and so on, and with that, it's fair to take a close look at their behavior. I certainly wouldn't say they should be immune from scrutinty just because their 20 year old kids. I just wonder about the "appropriate" level some times. I dont know, it seems to me we are always quick to judge the world as we judge the world ourselves... that is to say, we expect people who are not us to act the same way we would. I personally wouldn't smoke weed if I had a free ride scholly to play football at Ohio State... but... I am also a 37 year old man now... If I were me at 20... truth is, I'd probably smoke it until I got caught. How do I know this? Because it's precisely what I DID do.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;1140972; said:
The line between the two.. well... I don't know that we could reach a bright line rule on it... but.. the consequence of banishment seems to me pretty severe.
Click to expand...
Severe to the individual, perhaps, but possibly beneficial to the team. When an individual's conduct disrupts the team's chemistry and undermines the coaches' authority, then it's time to remove the disruptive individual(s). Of course, that's the staff's decision, based on all of the circumstances, most of which will never be known to those of us who are outside of the program.
 
Upvote 0
LordJeffBuck;1141035; said:
Severe to the individual, perhaps, but possibly beneficial to the team. When an individual's conduct disrupts the team's chemistry and undermines the coaches' authority, then it's time to remove the disruptive individual(s). Of course, that's the staff's decision, based on all of the circumstances, most of which will never be known to those of us who are outside of the program.
Click to expand...
I think we're in agreement here. It's not even "severe" individual conequences I would take issue with necessarily. It's more of the "we're dealing with bad people" angle that I thought LV was getting at when he made his post that I think is uncalled for from us.
 
Upvote 0
Oh8ch;1140917; said:
What does this do for the case against pot?

20 Percent of Scientists Admit Using Brain-Enhancing Drugs -- Do You? | Wired Science from Wired.com

For the sake of argument can we all agree that pot is moral and good? It improves thinking, makes you drive slower on the freeway, give more generously to charity, and produces those erections that last four hours or longer?

IF the team rule was don't drink milk and these guys showed up with a milk mustache they broke the rule. It makes no difference if we agree with the rule.

Now circle IF, underline it and highlight it and let's all go back to ganging up on HTM in the RR thread.
Click to expand...
Better smoke up first :wink2:
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top