Fantastic article about Dedrick Mills

[awbuzz]

You realize counseling was offered and probably attended.
Regarding "completely misreading the younger generations feelings" it's a fact that the reasoning ability doesn't gel until the mid-20s.
"Most" of the "younger generation" also believes that lots of things should be "free" but have no real idea on how all of that "stuff" would be paid for. Mainly because they haven't been in the "real world" long enough, if at all. I don't think putting our societal rules and regulations into the hands of 18-22 year old's will bode well for the country.

I agree letting folks "live their own lives", but they should accept the consequences if rules are broken or they spend like a fool. Shouldn't expect others to bail them out. Just because it is legal to drink alcohol, doesn't mean that an employer can't fire someone that does so on the job or comes in under the influence. If you don't agree, please feel free to offer the next surgeon a couple of drinks and a hit off the bong before your, or a loved one's, next surgery no matter how minor.

With all of that, let me state that I wish Dedrick the best and hope he stays on a path that leads him to a good job, a happy family life and an attitude that HE has control of himself, not a victim.

 

[FredJacket]

We should change the policy. Counseling rather than removal from the team is a much better approach. You're risking someone's chance at a million dollar career over a substance that more than half the country thinks should be legal. The policy is stupid, and does not benefit anyone - not the team - not the athlete - not the program. I think most of the "he knew the rules" crowd in this thread are from the the over 40 crowd. Nothing against that cohort, but i think you're completely misreading the younger generations feelings about marijuana. Kicking someone off a team for recreational marijuana use is absurd. If it's affecting their schoolwork or other areas of life, that's one thing, but otherwise people need to let others live their own life.

IMO, binge drinking is a much bigger problem with far more devastating consequences to your health, life, and society. And I'm saying this as a person who drinks but doesn't care for weed.

I'm squarely in your (as described) over 40 crowd. Can a medical expert or even a guy who slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night help me out on something? It seems "recreational" is often an adjective assigned to smoking pot. When I read/hear that word associated with an illegal (most places) substance used to impair the user... my little skeptical "word games" alarm is triggered a tad. Can pot be "abused"? There are many comparisons to alcohol with pot.... rightly so, probably. If a guy pops positive on multiple drug tests in a relative short period of time after being counseled & directed to stop AND having full knowledge future tests will be forthcoming... at what point can we change the descriptor for his use from recreational to abusive or addictive? ...or just say, he simply wanted to smoke pot more than be a Tech football player?

 

[buzzed]

Why did I think he was going to be playing for Miami this year? Was that a story that turned out false or a bad dream?

 

[YJMD]

I'm squarely in your (as described) over 40 crowd. Can a medical expert or even a guy who slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night help me out on something? It seems "recreational" is often an adjective assigned to smoking pot. When I read/hear that word associated with an illegal (most places) substance used to impair the user... my little skeptical "word games" alarm is triggered a tad. Can pot be "abused"? There are many comparisons to alcohol with pot.... rightly so, probably. If a guy pops positive on multiple drug tests in a relative short period of time after being counseled & directed to stop AND having full knowledge future tests will be forthcoming... at what point can we change the descriptor for his use from recreational to abusive or addictive? ...or just say, he simply wanted to smoke pot more than be a Tech football player?

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/marijuana-addictive

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Why did I think he was going to be playing for Miami this year? Was that a story that turned out false or a bad dream?

That was rumored, and then the Nebraska story came out. Obviously, neither was true, at least for now.

 

[GTdragons]

This is not a knock on KB in the slightest but DM had the ability to take on ANYONE and still get another yard or two. KB May eventually be able to do that but DM is a different breed.

Did you see the KB highlight video posted in the other thread (with KB’s dad)? Lot of hard running and yards after contact. I’m stoked to see what KB can do this year.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I wish Tech would waive the part of the policy about not coming back. Give the kid a second chance if he has truly learned his lesson.

He failed 3 drug tests so technically it’d be a 4th chance.

 

[takethepoints]

IMO, binge drinking is a much bigger problem with far more devastating consequences to your health, life, and society. And I'm saying this as a person who drinks but doesn't care for weed.

Amen, brother. Drinking to excess is a major cause of recurrent and chronic health problems and should be treated as seriously as dope use. Legalities shouldn't have much to do with this, imho.

Says the guy who had three gin and tonics last night. Ok, I never said I was a role model.

 

[takethepoints]

I don't think putting our societal rules and regulations into the hands of 18-22 year old's will bode well for the country.

Well, maybe not. I bet we'd all have a lot more fun, however.

Btw, I'm 72.

 

[4shotB]

We should change the policy. Counseling rather than removal from the team is a much better approach. You're risking someone's chance at a million dollar career over a substance that more than half the country thinks should be legal.

Nothing against that cohort, but i think you're completely misreading the younger generations feelings about marijuana. Kicking someone off a team for recreational marijuana use is absurd. If it's affecting their schoolwork or other areas of life, that's one thing, but otherwise people need to let others live their own life.

IMO, binge drinking is a much bigger problem with far more devastating consequences to your health, life, and society. And I'm saying this as a person who drinks but doesn't care for weed.

First point, no one put his potential "million dollar" career at risk but him. Secondly,I graduated from GT in '81 so you can do the math. Our generation grew up with marijuana (which is not saying everyone used it). I am of the opinion that if you were starting with a blank sheet of paper today, marijuana would be legalized and alcohol would not be. I have never seen a smoker turn mean or violent like alcohol can.

I was an occasional user of the drug during HS and early in my college days...but I gave it up as I realized that I was jeopardizing everything I had worked so hard for at GT. Back then, a drug conviction (for marijuana) was a much bigger deal for a young person than it would be today. It was purely a business decision,not a moral or ethical one. Mr. Mills had two opportunities to arrive at the same decision but chose the alternate path. I am not judging his decision and wish him nothing but the best.

As you get older and enter the professional world, you will have many similar choices to make...do I follow the rules or do I do what I want to do? If you have ever dealt with OSHA, the EPA or some of the regulations that came out of Sarbanes Oxley (sp?) Act or your company's HR guidelines you will know that following stupid rules doesn't end at the age of 20 or 22. It's a life long process and the sooner you can get comfortable with that the better off you will be once you start your career. Of course, you can also choose to not follow the "stupid" rules - and pay the consequences, just as Mr. Mills did. There are grown men making the same type of decisions everyday.

 

[Frenchise]

First point, no one put his potential "million dollar" career at risk but him. Secondly,I graduated from GT in '81 so you can do the math. Our generation grew up with marijuana (which is not saying everyone used it). I am of the opinion that if you were starting with a blank sheet of paper today, marijuana would be legalized and alcohol would not be. I have never seen a smoker turn mean or violent like alcohol can.

I was an occasional user of the drug during HS and early in my college days...but I gave it up as I realized that I was jeopardizing everything I had worked so hard for at GT. Back then, a drug conviction (for marijuana) was a much bigger deal for a young person than it would be today. It was purely a business decision,not a moral or ethical one. Mr. Mills had two opportunities to arrive at the same decision but chose the alternate path. I am not judging his decision and wish him nothing but the best.

As you get older and enter the professional world, you will have many similar choices to make...do I follow the rules or do I do what I want to do? If you have ever dealt with OSHA, the EPA or some of the regulations that came out of Sarbanes Oxley (sp?) Act or your company's HR guidelines you will know that following stupid rules doesn't end at the age of 20 or 22. It's a life long process and the sooner you can get comfortable with that the better off you will be once you start your career. Of course, you can also choose to not follow the "stupid" rules - and pay the consequences, just as Mr. Mills did. There are grown men making the same type of decisions everyday.

Its rather showing that you assume that I haven't entered the professional world. I'm a few months from 30 and I'm quite successful in my field. My point is that we shouldn't be making policies based on "that's how it's been" rather than making a rational evaluation of the pros and cons and adjusting accordingly.

Just like the poster above, who mentioned that all of us youngins want free things without having to pay, I think you'll find there is a significant portion of people entering middle age with completely different values and priorities. We will try to change the stupid rules. Get over it.

 

[4shotB]

Just like the poster above, who mentioned that all of us youngins want free things without having to pay, I think you'll find there is a significant portion of people entering middle age with completely different values and priorities. We will try to change the stupid rules. Get over it.

I love your post. And its youthful enthusiasm. Wish you and your generation all the best in making positive changes. And I mean that sincerely as I have grandchildren.

 

[tmhunter52]

I wish that were more true. Even in mental health care, drug abuse is often poorly understood and causes discrimination, and access to real evidence-based treatment can be scarce. Treatment centers may be heavily commercialized, in some cases outright fraudulent, in other cases pinned to a religious organization offering a service (grateful for that) but may push faith and not follow any evidence base for successful addiction treatment. Insurance usually provides disparate benefits for mental health and even worse for substance abuse. Addiction is an extremely difficult disease to treat to start with, whose very definition is essentially that someone is unable to control their behavior despite having clear negative consequences. Trying to force somebody to be accountable for something they don't have control over is plain dumb. Addictive substances are addictive because they hijack the circuitry in the brain that regulates self-control. No matter how much someone's cerebral cortex learns that the behavior is bad, they're always going to be battling the primitive brain that is permanently wired to compel otherwise. Cannabis is an addictive substance. It influences that circuitry in the brain. It is true both that cannabis addiction is less likely compared to other substances and has much less risk of adverse consequence, but some people who use it are going to become addicted, and when that happens it needs to be recognized as an illness. There are a bunch of people out there that can drink a 2 liter of coke a day and have a donut for breakfast and never get diabetes, but those who do get diabetes don't need shame for their bad eating habits -- they need treatment.

I don't know Dedrick and couldn't say whether he has an addiction, but it is clear that he knew the consequences of using and when he'd be tested for them and still didn't control his use. We know other players smoke pot, yet they have been able to keep themselves clear when it counted.

The policy is bad, though. It makes no sense to punish someone for having an illness. If the athletic department, the Institute, the ACC, the NCAA, etc. care about players using marijuana, then the policies should be centered around helping them if they detect a problem. Contingency management could be part of that and does enhance success, but that's only useful if treatment comes first. Otherwise, if they aren't there to help anyone, they should stay out of it unless the behavior is somehow damaging to the team, the school, the conference, or college athletics overall.

I would much rather see the student-athlete suspended for a season, but allowed to remain in school and engaged in drug treatment and rehabilitation, than dismissed from school. That gives the student-athlete the opportunity to get clean, rejoin the team and learn from the experience.

 

[MidtownJacket]

I don't get the back and forth on this one. There was a policy (regardless of how any of us feel about it) that clearly outlined the consequences of a decision. Dedrick continued to choose to put his career here in jeopardy by smoking. Even after he was sent to counseling, tested repeatedly and suspended from games.

Actions have consequences, whether we agree with this specific policy or not, there will always be rules which seem unfair that still are enforced. If you want to make a change for a new set of rules, then that is great but until the rule is changed it is what it is.

I used to be a consultant in a big4 firm. I wasn't allowed to invest in a specific set of stocks and funds because some far flung part of our business advised them. The firm was concerned about the "image of impropriety" it was a dumb rule, but if you crossed the line you could be fired. That's what this is about for me. He had chances, and let's be honest it is unlikely he only smoked the three times, so it becomes an accountability issue.

That his teammates continued to smoke around him, and not help him self-police is the bigger issue in my mind.

 

[tmhunter52]

I don't get the back and forth on this one. There was a policy (regardless of how any of us feel about it) that clearly outlined the consequences of a decision. Dedrick continued to choose to put his career here in jeopardy by smoking. Even after he was sent to counseling, tested repeatedly and suspended from games.

Actions have consequences, whether we agree with this specific policy or not, there will always be rules which seem unfair that still are enforced. If you want to make a change for a new set of rules, then that is great but until the rule is changed it is what it is.

I used to be a consultant in a big4 firm. I wasn't allowed to invest in a specific set of stocks and funds because some far flung part of our business advised them. The firm was concerned about the "image of impropriety" it was a dumb rule, but if you crossed the line you could be fired. That's what this is about for me. He had chances, and let's be honest it is unlikely he only smoked the three times, so it becomes an accountability issue.

That his teammates continued to smoke around him, and not help him self-police is the bigger issue in my mind.

If a student-athlete gets kicked out of Georgia Tech for marijuana use and is prohibited from coming back, yet he or she can enroll someplace else and continue his or her athletic career, it seems like Georgia Tech is the one who gets punished. The lack of uniformity among colleges and universities on athletes’ use of marijuana just points out the similar dichotomy in the general public.

 

[MidtownJacket]

If a student-athlete gets kicked out of Georgia Tech for marijuana use and is prohibited from coming back, yet he or she can enroll someplace else and continue his or her athletic career, it seems like Georgia Tech is the one who gets punished. The lack of uniformity among colleges and universities on athletes’ use of marijuana just points out the similar dichotomy in the general public.

To me this is a further extension of my original premise. I agree that the laws surrounding marijuana are antiquated and believe there is a groundswell of support which will ultimately yield a change in law. However, at this point, it is still an illegal substance in the state of Georgia. There are rules / laws / policies and procedures that the Institute follows based on their interpretation of the law. For me, the problem is that he broke team rules, repeated times, and regardless of where any of us stand on the morality or correctness of the rule, it is what it is.

If you are suggesting we should change our policies to allow for different outcomes I think that is an interesting branch off of the original topic. I don't know how high our success rate would be with kids choosing to stay and sit out a year (as someone suggested earlier in the thread) but it could be a possible option. Discussing different "punishments" or "consequences" is a separate topic in my opinion than the enforcement of rules.

Does that make sense, or am I just shouting at the sky?

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Regardless of everyone’s personal opinion on pot and legalizing same.....GT can’t legalize it. Only the legislature can. Until then possession of small amounts is an arrestable misdemeanor offense, > ounce is a felony, possession with intent is a felony.

Doing anything to encourage the possession of pot puts individual players and their teammates at risk. If found in a common area of a dorm every player living in that dorm unit could be charged with possession. There is no good reason to embrace that risk. (And if this happened in Athens how many here would reference the Fulmer Cup?)

Also. Please stop with the “brain isn’t fully developed until mid twenties” garbage. That whole narrative was based off a single ridiculously stupid study.

 

[deeeznutz]

(And if this happened in Athens how many here would reference the Fulmer Cup?)

As much as it pained me to do it, I have stepped up to defend uga players who got busted for weed. It would be VERY hypocritical of me to condemn anyone for it.

 

[Frenchise]

I don't get the back and forth on this one. There was a policy (regardless of how any of us feel about it) that clearly outlined the consequences of a decision. Dedrick continued to choose to put his career here in jeopardy by smoking. Even after he was sent to counseling, tested repeatedly and suspended from games.

Actions have consequences, whether we agree with this specific policy or not, there will always be rules which seem unfair that still are enforced. If you want to make a change for a new set of rules, then that is great but until the rule is changed it is what it is.

I used to be a consultant in a big4 firm. I wasn't allowed to invest in a specific set of stocks and funds because some far flung part of our business advised them. The firm was concerned about the "image of impropriety" it was a dumb rule, but if you crossed the line you could be fired. That's what this is about for me. He had chances, and let's be honest it is unlikely he only smoked the three times, so it becomes an accountability issue.

That his teammates continued to smoke around him, and not help him self-police is the bigger issue in my mind.

The reason you have that rule in a big4 firm is because you provide attest services to their audits. Personal holdings in attest clients are expressly forbidden and its not a stupid rule, as you would materially benefit from inflated earning and the like. 3 strikes and your out weed policies are stupid rules. You seem to have trouble seeing the difference...

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

The reason you have that rule in a big4 firm is because you provide attest services to their audits. Personal holdings in attest clients are expressly forbidden and its not a stupid rule, as you would materially benefit from inflated earning and the like. 3 strikes and your out weed policies are stupid rules. You seem to have trouble seeing the difference...

You know what they say about opinions...