Harley Bennell

IanG

Tiger Legend
Sep 27, 2004
15,856
14
Melbourne
hutstar said:
Recreational drugs simply isn't a useful category. Here's the breakdown from my POV.

Marijuana - no drama
Alcohol - all sorts of issues but it is legal so there's no stopping it.
Mushrooms etc - not smart, can cause issues, but not terribly addictive
Ecstasy - again, a bit tricky but in and of itself, not a huge deal
Cocaine - apart from the price, which is too much IMO, it can, over time, get a little out of control, plus coke users tend to turn into tools when they're on the gear
I think you're downplaying the effect of cocaine especially the long term effects.
 

taraba

Eat em alive!!!
Jul 27, 2004
3,350
5
Planet Earth
Tiller said:
I disagree with anyone suggesting Marijuana use is completely safe. It leads to a lot of mental health issues, as well as impaired driving
100% agree with this. Have loads of people I know who have really struggled with Marijuana addiction. It's really not the harmless thing it's made out to be.
 

bullus_hit

Whatchu talkin about Jack?
Apr 3, 2006
12,384
0
IanG said:
I think you're downplaying the effect of cocaine especially the long term effects.
Hugely addictive, expensive and perhaps the biggest concern is regular users can maintain some semblance of a normal life due to softer comedowns. I'm in the throes of dealing with two addicts who are very close to me, both right on the cusp of personal meltdowns, one whose been on the gear for nearly 20 years (with a break of only 2 years). The problem has become so bad his nose is on the verge of collapse due to cartilage deterioration.
 

The_General

The wait is over
May 4, 2004
8,008
23
I knew a surgeon with the Royal ****** Doctor Service (his nickname was Disco after Roachy) and he’d shown me some scans of brains for long term marijuana users and some “healthy” brains.

Anyone who says that **** has no possibility of causing long term health problems is delusional. I can see a use for people with terminal illnesses, but not everyday recreational use, Pandora’s box.
 

craig

Tiger Legend
Aug 19, 2004
24,017
216
melbourne
K3 said:
My uncle backed that right up too. Used to laugh at how little got out considering...
Dale Lewis came out an announced ages ago and was widely pillioried for it.

Guess ol Lewy was on the money with that.
 

hutstar

Tiger Superstar
Dec 17, 2002
1,831
3
Florida
The_General said:
I knew a surgeon with the Royal ****** Doctor Service (his nickname was Disco after Roachy) and he’d shown me some scans of brains for long term marijuana users and some “healthy” brains.

Anyone who says that sh!t has no possibility of causing long term health problems is delusional. I can see a use for people with terminal illnesses, but not everyday recreational use, Pandora’s box.
Look, there are long terms health effects in doing or using anything too much, over time. I know people who drink 10 cups of coffee a day and have all sorts of issues. Try eating 5 hamburgers a day and see how long you live. Alcoholics, they're everywhere, it's tragic. The reality is that there are tons (as in tens of millions) of people who use regularly but lightly and have no problems at all and undoubtedly some cautionary tales too.

But that wasn't my point. My point was that there seems to be arguments over whether the three strike rule has any guts, and whether testing is adequate. My point is that until we separate out 'recreational drugs' into at least a couple of categories, and manage and test for them differently, the AFL has to be somewhat cautious, or half the players in the AFL will be out on their ear. The AFL doesn't want to know that and doesn't need to know. What they should be worrying about and making sure is kept away from players is the harder stuff, but right now it's all in the same bag.
 

Elmer

Tiger Champion
Dec 3, 2005
3,613
0
I think its reasonable to separate recreational from performance enhancing drugs from a 'stigma' perspective however AFL players sign a employment contract like many other people that includes D&A testing. If they fail the tests then should wear the consequences.
 

hutstar

Tiger Superstar
Dec 17, 2002
1,831
3
Florida
Elmer said:
I think its reasonable to separate recreational from performance enhancing drugs from a 'stigma' perspective however AFL players sign a employment contract like many other people that includes D&A testing. If they fail the tests then should wear the consequences.
Or make the rules socially appropriate. The war on drugs is a massive fail, why not try and be reasonable and differential between recreational and destructive recreational drugs.
 

Mac

Tiger Superstar
Sep 16, 2003
2,379
8
hutstar said:
Look, there are long terms health effects in doing or using anything too much, over time. I know people who drink 10 cups of coffee a day and have all sorts of issues. Try eating 5 hamburgers a day and see how long you live. Alcoholics, they're everywhere, it's tragic. The reality is that there are tons (as in tens of millions) of people who use regularly but lightly and have no problems at all and undoubtedly some cautionary tales too.

But that wasn't my point. My point was that there seems to be arguments over whether the three strike rule has any guts, and whether testing is adequate. My point is that until we separate out 'recreational drugs' into at least a couple of categories, and manage and test for them differently, the AFL has to be somewhat cautious, or half the players in the AFL will be out on their ear. The AFL doesn't want to know that and doesn't need to know. What they should be worrying about and making sure is kept away from players is the harder stuff, but right now it's all in the same bag.
yeah, but in making your point you also included:
"Marijuana - no problem"
which has been argued is incorrect because it does have problems.

It's a bit of nit picking on only one point you list and in context I'm guessing you mean 'compared to the others its much less of a problem' and I agree. But it definitely does have problems. "Safest" doesn't necessarily mean "safe". And one of the problems is the strength of some of the stuff you can get now compared to say 20 years ago. It's STRONG sh!t man. Really strong. Come off it for while then have a chuff and see what it does to your anxiety levels. I don't care what stoners say. It can play havoc with mental health and can create a blanket over your willingness to get up and be involved in life. It's alleged it also increases the chances of suffering psychosis. Then there's the issue of synthetic weed which has killed dudes.

And to continue going off a complete tanget, I think I'm coming around to the idea of making all these drugs legal (or at least decriminalising them). Countries that have done allow people with addictions to come out in the open and get help if they want to try to rather than having to also contend with law issues at the same time. Too overwhelming and doesn't work. People are going to do all this stuff legal or not. Taking away the issue of law also reduces the need for them to get dodgily sourced stuff. Those people that OD'd at the rave party the other day should have been able to go to a testing station.

Shrooms have been described as one of the 'safest' things to do, but even then if you don't know what you're doing with shrooms, you can make yourself pretty sick! Deaths are very rare but have happened.

I think one of the problems with your proposal is the subtle nuances of them all and the fact that individuals can react differently. Weed might be 'no problem' for Joe Blogs but can be terrible for John Doe. In the context of the AFL they're not really equipped for that. They're not the government.
 

Ian4

BIN MAN!
May 6, 2004
19,079
46
Melbourne
hutstar said:
Recreational drugs simply isn't a useful category. Here's the breakdown from my POV.

Marijuana - no drama
Alcohol - all sorts of issues but it is legal so there's no stopping it.
Mushrooms etc - not smart, can cause issues, but not terribly addictive
Ecstasy - again, a bit tricky but in and of itself, not a huge deal
Cocaine - apart from the price, which is too much IMO, it can, over time, get a little out of control, plus coke users tend to turn into tools when they're on the gear
Ice- see above, with bouts of psychosis. Bad news.
Meth - Time to panic, this will end badly
Oxycontin etc - same. Highly addictive, will end badly
Heroin - Socially not as bad (ie: you'd rather run into a heroin addict on the street than a meth user) but the result is probably worse, nearly impossible to shake.

So 'recreational drugs' needs more clarity. There's no point shaming a guy who smoked a J at a party last week, but a guy like Cuz, fighting for his life on meth - that needs outing and strong attention ASAP.
some valid points here and some very good posting from you all-round hutstar. they all fall under recreational or illicit drugs but some are much worse than others. and all of them cause less deaths than alcohol and tobacco as we know.

The_General said:
I knew a surgeon with the Royal ****** Doctor Service (his nickname was Disco after Roachy) and he’d shown me some scans of brains for long term marijuana users and some “healthy” brains.

Anyone who says that sh!t has no possibility of causing long term health problems is delusional. I can see a use for people with terminal illnesses, but not everyday recreational use, Pandora’s box.
fair enough but how many people use it every day? only the hardcore stoners, which would be a very low percentage.
 

sausage_meat69

Tiger Matchwinner
Oct 28, 2005
535
4
There's also a perception that smoking can bring on schizo if you're predisposed to it. I've read that studies have not been able to prove this. However from my experience 2 of my mates that smoked regularly when we were 16 were both in psyche wards by 18, one is still there. Having said that, some of the biggest smokers I know are still going strong after 25 years and capable of living normal lives.
 

hutstar

Tiger Superstar
Dec 17, 2002
1,831
3
Florida
sausage_meat69 said:
There's also a perception that smoking can bring on schizo if you're predisposed to it. I've read that studies have not been able to prove this. However from my experience 2 of my mates that smoked regularly when we were 16 were both in psyche wards by 18, one is still there. Having said that, some of the biggest smokers I know are still going strong after 25 years and capable of living normal lives.
Everything in moderation. I too have known some people to be seriously buggered up, but all the pointers were there, and the use was heavy as a consequence.
 

Tigers of Old

Twitter: @Tigers_of_Old
Jul 26, 2004
63,732
202
Reading the latest article on the site that can't be named it appears to be almost over for Harley. Lyon & the Dockers appear to be ready to cut the cord.
 

JimJessTorp

Tiger Superstar
May 20, 2009
1,955
52
An armchair in Sydney
Easy read on the links between smoking marijuana and schizophrenia

http://www.schizophrenia.org.au/causal-connection-smoking-marijuana-schizophrenia/

TLDR

Stopping smoking reduces the incidence in later life of schizophrenia by 8%

An episode of cannabis caused psychosis results in a 50% chance of schizophrenia in later life

10% of all schizophrenia is caused by cannabis use
 

caesar

Tiger Champion
Feb 9, 2015
2,717
257
Tigers of Old said:
Reading the latest article on the site that can't be named it appears to be almost over for Harley. Lyon & the Dockers appear to be ready to cut the cord.
To think we came close to having both Bennell & Yarran, there would have been no Premiership if that have had happened.
 

Tigers of Old

Twitter: @Tigers_of_Old
Jul 26, 2004
63,732
202
caesar said:
To think we came close to having both Bennell & Yarran, there would have been no Premiership if that have had happened.
Yup. Classic cases of if looks too good to be true then it probably is. Will watch with interest how Stringer unfolds at EFC.
 

sausage_meat69

Tiger Matchwinner
Oct 28, 2005
535
4
JimJessTorp said:
Easy read on the links between smoking marijuana and schizophrenia

http://www.schizophrenia.org.au/causal-connection-smoking-marijuana-schizophrenia/

TLDR

Stopping smoking reduces the incidence in later life of schizophrenia by 8%

An episode of cannabis caused psychosis results in a 50% chance of schizophrenia in later life

10% of all schizophrenia is caused by cannabis use
I hear ya, and this would be my deduction considering my experience with 2 close friends suffering psychosis. However, there are plenty of published studies that indicate otherwise. Beware the statistics especially when they don't refer to peer reviewed published studies. Interestingly in the article above they don't identify what % of smokers suffer psychosis - this would be the link to quantify the "50% chance of schizophrenia in later life". I'd agree drugs are bad and best don't go near them. In this case it's best not to be a statistic.
 

123kid

Tiger Superstar
May 1, 2016
1,428
12
JimJessTorp said:
Easy read on the links between smoking marijuana and schizophrenia

http://www.schizophrenia.org.au/causal-connection-smoking-marijuana-schizophrenia/

TLDR

Stopping smoking reduces the incidence in later life of schizophrenia by 8%

An episode of cannabis caused psychosis results in a 50% chance of schizophrenia in later life

10% of all schizophrenia is caused by cannabis use
MJ does not cause schizophrenia according to 30-year meta-analyses published 5 years ago.

It may hasten onset in those already genetically predisposed, but a healthy person has nothing to fear.

Basically, think of it as a trigger for persons at risk.

Just like some people can’t have dairy.