Ravens tight end Darren Waller suspended for a year

[GTFLETCH]

What a shame, it looked like Waller was going to get some playing time this year.... I wish him luck!!

Link
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/06/30/ravens-tight-end-darren-waller-suspended-for-a-year/

 

[Techster]

Waller is a GT guy, so I'm always going to wish him well. For this though, I have absolutely ZERO remorse for him. He got in trouble multiple times at GT for the the equivalent reasons (allegedly), and I can sorta understand that being young guy away from the parents and just having fun in college like most of us did. Then he goes pro, gets drafted by one of the best franchises in the NFL whose coaches are obviously high on him (no pun intended) that they've got the patience to move him to another position and develop him. Then he goes and gets suspended for 4 games for failing a drug test. That should have been a reality check. Dude, you're making ridiculous amounts of money for playing football for a living. You have the chance to set yourself up for life. You've got physical gifts that could make you one of the best TEs in the NFL. What do you do? Go and get yourself suspend for and entire YEAR!!! If you don't fathom what you almost threw away multiple times in college, almost threw away your first time you got suspended in the NFL, and you just might have thrown away now...well, you just don't deserve to reap the rewards of the gifts God gave you. That sh!t pisses me off...

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I'd say it's an addiction and would encourage him to seek professional help beating it. NFL is about to slip through his fingers because getting high has been a bigger priority.

 

[deeeznutz]

No reason to suspend players for weed. It's progressing towards full legalization in more and more states, and as a medicine is infinitely less harmful than the painkillers they shoot players full of (Brett Favre got straight up addicted to opiates because of the NFL). Which kills more people a year: opiates or marijuana?
Edit: All that being said, he's just really dumb here. The NFL testing for weed is super easy to work around before your first offense. If you get busted, you're probably just being stupid and deserve to get caught on principle.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Regardless of state laws, a small number have legalized but the number is growing (federal law still outlaws however) the NFL bans it. If weed is more important to players than their employer, they are just dumb. Finish NFL career then smoke all you want.

On a side note. Watch for auto accidents and auto fatalities to rise in legalized states due to DWIs. It will happen.

 

[wrmathis]

Nvm

 

[Coloradojacket]

He needs some help. If you remember he was suspended at Tech for the same issue.

 

[AE 87]

Regardless of state laws, a small number have legalized but the number is growing (federal law still outlaws however) the NFL bans it. If weed is more important to players than their employer, they are just dumb. Finish NFL career then smoke all you want.

On a side note. Watch for auto accidents and auto fatalities to rise in legalized states due to DWIs. It will happen.

I heard a report on radio that increase in traffic issues is already not insignificant (but can't verify)

 

[Philhutch80]

Regardless of state laws, a small number have legalized but the number is growing (federal law still outlaws however) the NFL bans it. If weed is more important to players than their employer, they are just dumb. Finish NFL career then smoke all you want.

On a side note. Watch for auto accidents and auto fatalities to rise in legalized states due to DWIs. It will happen.

Sorry Whiskey_Clear but in Colorado, Oregon and Washington those issues have not increased as you stated. In fact it's proven in those states that there has been a large decline in underage usage and no noticeable incline of auto accidents as a result of legalization. I'm a not partaker but it is far less harmful than your forum handle and the difference in fatalities is incomparable. The Feds won't legalize it because it's too lucrative the way it is and the same with the No Fun League, though in this case Waller it appears has an addiction issue and it's gonna cost him dearly.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I agree drunk driving is more hazardous than stoned driving. Both are hazardous however. Detection of DUI alcohol is typically easier than detection of DUI marijuana or other drugs. Don't count on the stats thus far painting a clear picture just yet, it's still pretty early in this process.

If I get some time later I'll search for some links that will demonstrate the dangers of DUI drugs.

Here is a quick one for starters.

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/drugged-driving

 

[JacketFromUGA]

I feel like I've read both this thread and it's rabbit trails before.

 

[Philhutch80]

I agree drunk driving is more hazardous than stoned driving. Both are hazardous however. Detection of DUI alcohol is typically easier than detection of DUI marijuana or other drugs. Don't count on the stats thus far painting a clear picture just yet, it's still pretty early in this process.

If I get some time later I'll search for some links that will demonstrate the dangers of DUI drugs.

Here is a quick one for starters.

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/drugged-driving

Nice try. That study is funded by the federal government whose DEA even with a mountain of evidence showing marijuana has medical uses still thinks it's on the same level of danger as heroin or cocaine. Find a third party study or one from a country that has legalized it and let's see some stats. There was a very interesting article that just came out that showed if the trillion dollars that has been wasted on the war on drugs was spent differently and mainly on education & recovery it would not be a losing war that has cost countless lives and a trillion dollars. If it was so dangerous why did BOTH Canada and Mexico legalize it this year? One thing we can agree on is driving while intoxicated whether by alcohol or weed is dangerous but there have been zero fatalities related directly to someone being too high. Technology is getting better at detecting when someone is high on weed and driving but it's not quite perfected.

 

[AE 87]

Nice try. That study is funded by the federal government whose DEA even with a mountain of evidence showing marijuana has medical uses still thinks it's on the same level of danger as heroin or cocaine. Find a third party study or one from a country that has legalized it and let's see some stats. There was a very interesting article that just came out that showed if the trillion dollars that has been wasted on the war on drugs was spent differently and mainly on education & recovery it would not be a losing war that has cost countless lives and a trillion dollars. If it was so dangerous why did BOTH Canada and Mexico legalize it this year? One thing we can agree on is driving while intoxicated whether by alcohol or weed is dangerous but there have been zero fatalities related directly to someone being too high. Technology is getting better at detecting when someone is high on weed and driving but it's not quite perfected.

You can't say zero fatalities when you admit there's no way of testing for stoned.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

@Philhutch80

That link is pretty honest in many of the unknowns and countering arguments. But you have made up your mind, at this incredibly early stage, and are obviously not open minded on the subject. So I won't bore anyone else here further. You can go back to your Joe Rogan podcast now.

 

[deeeznutz]

You can't say zero fatalities when you admit there's no way of testing for stoned.

Any accidents with fatalities would have blood tests for alcohol/drug check, and although it's the least harmful drug marijuana actually stays in the system way longer than any effects last. With that fact, you're more likely to see false DUI positives with weed so any stats would be skewed.
My main point on all this is the closest comparison to marijuana being illegal would be alcohol prohibition...how does history view that one and it's positive/negative impacts?

 

[AE 87]

Any accidents with fatalities would have blood tests for alcohol/drug check, and although it's the least harmful drug marijuana actually stays in the system way longer than any effects last. With that fact, you're more likely to see false DUI positives with weed so any stats would be skewed.
My main point on all this is the closest comparison to marijuana being illegal would be alcohol prohibition...how does history view that one and it's positive/negative impacts?

It's not the right forum to rehash this debate, especially with a goal-post mover

 

[ilovetheoption]

Seems to be there would logically be an increase in drugged driving accidents, and correspondingly in drugged driving fatalities upon legalization. The question is whether that is an increase in TOTAL accidents and fatalities. This would indicate that people were adding weed to their alcohol intake. If there is no rise in total numbers then it's reasonable to infer that people are substituting weed for alcohol, in which case who cares.

I don't know the answer, to be honest, I just think an increase in drugged driving numbers isn't necessarily a problem if it doesn't impact total numbers

 

[ilovetheoption]

Regardless, Waller is a dope (pun intended).

 

[Philhutch80]

@Philhutch80

That link is pretty honest in many of the unknowns and countering arguments. But you have made up your mind, at this incredibly early stage, and are obviously not open minded on the subject. So I won't bore anyone else here further. You can go back to your Joe Rogan podcast now.

Very open minded in fact unlike you who buys into what the government is selling vs doing research. It's going on blind trust there Whiskey. I'll leave it at this,"no need to go dub on a heel like you."

 

[Philhutch80]

You can't say zero fatalities when you admit there's no way of testing for stoned.

Never said that, that's assumption on your part. You can pee in a cup or take blood or do a hair follicle sample. The problem was stated above on false positive tests.