A drug free ut

[LWSVOL]

Will we have the drug test claim another player this year? The drug test I'm speaking of happens around the same time every year. The event I think of is a barbeque or something. You guys will have to help me out with what the actual name is? It is around and during fall camp right before the season starts. This is when Janzen and David Ricky got plucked. This has happened the past two years.

I hope team 117 will man up and do what is best for the team instead of failing the drug test.

It just blows my mind that the players know random testing is coming around that time yet we have it happen two years in a row. Im praying it is not for a 3rd.

I hope these young men make a choice this summer to man up and put down drugs forever not just to benefit the team but there personal lives.

I would say we start a countdown letting the players know they random drug test during this time every year , but no one is going to be there to hold their hands for the rest of there life.

CBJ, Roger "Chap" Woods, and Antone Davis! Keep them in check.

they always know when it is. The coach generally sets the time it will happen.. CBJ may have a different idea than past coaches.

they are not going to stop smoking it. its been going on for 50 years over there and is not about to stop.. high percentage always do it..

 

[thebjd]

I don't think the NCAA, an individual university, or even a pro sport should be testing for anything other than performance enhancers -- period.

I also think it's insane that we test people for jobs, even those operating heavy machinery. All a job seeker has to do is test clean on hiring and they're fine. Americans should never, ever, have given employers the right to violate their privacy like this and those very same urine tests can be used to screen other things too (like medical issues). The only time drug testing in the workplace makes sense is directly after an accident where the accident is suspect and those can be performed instantly nowadays. After a few weeks on a job where drug usage matters to performance most employees can tell you whether or not someone is using at work.

I don't use illegal drugs but I don't give a crap what someone does on their days off or evenings off. It's not my business and if it's problematic abuse it shows up fast at work even when they're not using during work hours (doesn't matter if the abuse is pot or alcohol - if it's reached problem status and they only use/drink when the clock strike 5 you'll usually know it).

If they have a real substance abuse problem and can hide it at work, and some can, they can carry on their merry way. That's for them and their family to sort out.

And for the record drug use/alcohol use does not = abuse.

We're making a whole lot of people rich while wasting a whole lot of money buying into what the piss test industry is selling - an industry that has grown exponentially since the late 80's and early 90s.

It is called liability. If someone is injured on the job as a result of another being impaired do you think the injured will sue the person or the company? A drug-free workplace is obviously a safer one. WTH?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[82_VOL_83]

I don't think the NCAA, an individual university, or even a pro sport should be testing for anything other than performance enhancers -- period.

I also think it's insane that we test people for jobs, even those operating heavy machinery. All a job seeker has to do is test clean on hiring and they're fine. Americans should never, ever, have given employers the right to violate their privacy like this and those very same urine tests can be used to screen other things too (like medical issues). The only time drug testing in the workplace makes sense is directly after an accident where the accident is suspect and those can be performed instantly nowadays. After a few weeks on a job where drug usage matters to performance most employees can tell you whether or not someone is using at work.

I don't use illegal drugs but I don't give a crap what someone does on their days off or evenings off. It's not my business and if it's problematic abuse it shows up fast at work even when they're not using during work hours (doesn't matter if the abuse is pot or alcohol - if it's reached problem status and they only use/drink when the clock strike 5 you'll usually know it).

If they have a real substance abuse problem and can hide it at work, and some can, they can carry on their merry way. That's for them and their family to sort out.

And for the record drug use/alcohol use does not = abuse.

We're making a whole lot of people rich while wasting a whole lot of money buying into what the piss test industry is selling - an industry that has grown exponentially since the late 80's and early 90s.

First statement is wrong. Most jobs that have a safety component to them (heavy machine operators, A&P mechanics, and yes janitors in a nuclear facility) have a random test pool. To make this statement and be a doctoral candidate at my University makes me think that entrance requirements have REALLY been dumbed down.

Second statement is absolutely asinine! I don't really want someone at a nuclear facility, a hydro-electric plant, at jet engine overhaul facility, or running heavy machinery smoking pot, drinking, or abusing opiates (or any other mind altering drug for that matter) and "hiding" it while working. This statement makes you look like the typical liberal academic that you profess to be. Get out into the real world and out of the classroom and you will understand how misguided you truly are.

 

[82_VOL_83]

My family business dealt with a young man who was high as a kite at work. Everyone knew it. He got pulled from the machines and still couldn't manage. One day after using he collapsed. His father was called to come get him. The young man was sent to rehab.

Piss testing wouldn't have stopped that since he didn't start work with a drug problem but for some reason developed one that was obviously problematic and he had to be fired. What piss testing would've been for is if that young man wrecked one of the machines - then he wouldn't get worker's comp, medical costs, etc. due to his own responsibility in any accident.

But he was so easy to spot when his problem got bad that he was moved away from operating any machines. When he still couldn't manage after all people were doing to help, he was let go. That's as it should be.

In today's REAL WORLD work force, if he was high and operating machinery and it was know, he would have been tested immediately. It is fortunate for your "family business" that he didn't screw up and injure someone other than himself. Letting him work and being aware that he was high is a freaking liability suit waiting to happen. Your family was lucky.

 

[Madkins8]

Most drug testing programs are enacted for the insurance discounts and future legal liability. I am sure that very few executive teams care about weed smoking on personal time, but a drug free workplace program saves the company money and is a good thing to have for liability reasons, especially in a "safety-sensitive" industry.

Also, UT will never be "drug free," and to try would only do more harm than good, just like the "War on Drugs." One of the most disastrous and costly Federal policies of the 20th century.

 

[Rifleman]

Well yes, I was a substance abuse counselor at one time in my life so I know exactly what I'm talking about. Weed does not have the dramatic, acute effects on one's life like meth or crack does. But over a period time, it slowly kills your drive, incentive, and ambition.

So, it's kind of like marriage?

 

[tim]

Most drug testing programs are enacted for the insurance discounts and future legal liability. I am sure that very few executive teams care about weed smoking on personal time, but a drug free workplace program saves the company money and is a good thing to have for liability reasons, especially in a "safety-sensitive" industry.

Also, UT will never be "drug free," and to try would only do more harm than good, just like the "War on Drugs." One of the most disastrous and costly Federal policies of the 20th century.

The war on drugs cannot be judged by its failures alone. The program has accomplished a lot, but no one cares to take notice. The wording (war) was poor, but America is better because of our enforcement efforts.

 

[865dude]

It goes both ways. Some people can smoke and still be successful. Some start to skip class to smoke, and drop out.

 

[thebjd]

So, it's kind of like marriage?

I shouldn't have laughed but I did.

 

[Daloth]

What if you never hug?

He means mouth hugs.

If that can't satisfy you as an 18-22 year old elite DI athlete, then I feel bad for the rest of your life.

 

[UTProf]

In today's REAL WORLD work force, if he was high and operating machinery and it was know, he would have been tested immediately. It is fortunate for your "family business" that he didn't screw up and injure someone other than himself. Letting him work and being aware that he was high is a freaking liability suit waiting to happen. Your family was lucky.

That happened less than a decade ago and the business is still going. He was placed in a safe work environment when drug use was suspected. (Hard to hurt yourself at a desk.) Though people thought that watching him would help he still found ways (his problems were simply that bad). It was a tragic story because he was very a young and likable young man with a future ahead of him.

And no one feared a lawsuit, there's limited liability in a situation like that -- you can only suspect and removing him from a machine environment to a office environment is a reasonable precaution. The most common drug tests of that day (which test for cannabis/opiates/opiods/cocaine) would not have picked up what he was taking anyway. Most workplaces still use limited testing because broader tests are expensive.

That said, had he been fired on suspicion he'd have never been forced to rehab by everyone after he passed out.

 

[volfanecs]

Hippies

 

[VolNExile]

I would be more concerned that 1 out 6 Americans are on an antidepressants and 1 out of 4 kids on ADD medications...

Why would that many kids need meds?

Because a lot of kids (many of them boys, but certainly not all) just aren't ready to sit down, shut up, raise their hands politely only when it's the appropriate time, and walk in a straight line at age 5, when society has deemed it time to start organized education. Hell, I'm 58, and I still don't do that stuff very well.

After their natural high energy levels and need to run around and yell really loud and jump over stuff and wrestle interfere enough with a teacher trying to teach 30-35 kids of wildly varying ability and readiness, these kids are labeled "hyperactive" and prescribed Schedule II drugs in order to maintain order over the classroom.

Keep these kids out of school until age 8 or so, and give them meaningful and hard work around the house (= chores) that takes up much of the day and uses a lot of large muscle and provides a lot of interaction with people of all ages and from all backgrounds (plumbers, neighbors both old and young, street people, library ladies), and they tend to catch up quickly with their age mates and be a lot more composed.

But the combo of structured expectations for kids + both parents having to work outside the home + insurance companies going for cheap treatment (meds vs supportive therapy) means that we feed them pills instead.

No, I'm not a Scientologist; I've worked in resource classrooms and am the mom of two brilliant ADHD kids plus one whom we kindly call "the boring one" (although also brilliant.) I've spent a long time telling kids like this to hang in there, because eventually they will be able to move into a setting where their supposed disabilities will give them an advantage over others, unless they are just too beat-down by then.

 

[VolNExile]

One thing that a lot of people don't realize is that the chemical markers for THC hang around in your system for a long, long time. You can test positive for pot many weeks after you got your happy buzz and are now and have been stone cold sober.

On the other hand, you can go to work hungover from a late night and definitely impaired (slow reaction time, fogged up, slow thinking, and generally miserable) but your pee won't test positive for ETOH (alcohol).

So somehow the hungover employee is preferable?? I mean, after all, he tests clean!

Back when my kids took driver's ed, their teacher (a very wise and pragmatic individual) told them that potheads generally piddled along at 17 mph, annoying other drivers but not particularly threatening them, but it was the drunks that would kill them, given a chance (speed up, slow down, change lanes without warning.)

I don't smoke pot, mainly because I'm not interested, but also because I can't smoke anything at all without ripping my lungs out. I tried a couple of times in college back in the 70's and saw that it wasn't to be, which was fine. (I sure didn't need a munchies trigger.) But I know plenty of high-functioning, high-income, stably-employed, professionally and personally successful, and all-around spiffy folks in their 50's and 60's who smoke every day (often with a medical marijuana card for a diagnosis of anxiety, chronic arthritis pain, etc.) Tell me exactly why that's bad, but if they had a prescription for Xanax or Valium or whatever, it would be OK? And why is it alright to come home from work and knock down a couple martinis or beers or glasses of wine or bourbon, but you shouldn't take a little green capsule with THC? Pot is not physiologically addictive or damaging to body parts, with the occasional exception of lung damage; it certainly doesn't do the damage that alcohol does or addict people the way that benzodiazepines do.

By now, I'm pretty convinced that one big reason that pot is illegal is that the pharmaceutical companies, who are huge contributors to both political parties, don't want to have a competitor (= pot) join their little game. If that is too conspiracy-minded for you, just consider the number of entities who benefit financially and in terms of employment by keeping pot illegal.

And please don't tell me that pot is a gateway drug. Perhaps the illegality makes it a gateway drug, in that in most states you have to go to illegal dealers to acquire it, but otherwise, it doesn't make you any more likely to use other far more dangerous stuff than alcohol does.

 

[VolBraniac]

Because a lot of kids (many of them boys, but certainly not all) just aren't ready to sit down, shut up, raise their hands politely only when it's the appropriate time, and walk in a straight line at age 5, when society has deemed it time to start organized education. Hell, I'm 58, and I still don't do that stuff very well.

:lolabove:
Preaching to the choir.

 

[wtorange]

I started to UT in 70 and people were smoking left and right then. It got worse to where by the time I got my second degree I didn't know very many people who abstained. Most of them quit by their mid-20's or at least by 30. The ones who didn't pretty much ended up a mess. My observation was that it was equal to alcohol abuse. Some folks can turn it off or at least have a good handle on it but the ones with addictive personalities are going to find something to be addicted too. If there had been drug testing in my day we would have struggled having a team in FB or BB. The FB team really like speed. It gave them the edge.

 

[VolBraniac]

If there had been drug testing in my day we would have struggled having a team in FB or BB. The FB team really like speed. It gave them the edge.

There were people in my frat that paid their tuition selling drugs of all kinds to Gibbs Hall.

We had 20 or 30 FB players as non-paying "associate" members. They would hit the houses after the home games higher than kites, get blasted, and limp back to wherever they would land. That includes one former player who became HC hmy:, a few All-SEC/All Americans. Never saw the BB players that I remember.

The jock sniffers would provide free booze, drugs and women to lure the FB players.

 

[VFL1800FPD]

Does jungle combat count? :shades:

burn

 

[VolNExile]

...My observation was that it was equal to alcohol abuse. Some folks can turn it off or at least have a good handle on it but the ones with addictive personalities are going to find something to be addicted to...

I definitely agree with this part. Some people are more prone to addiction than others. It's not just "addictive personalities," either; it's also genetics, how young you start, etc.

 

[UTProf]

I definitely agree with this part. Some people are more prone to addiction than others. It's not just "addictive personalities," either; it's also genetics, how young you start, etc.

And why they're using as well. If someone's depressed (clinically) or has other mental health issues and starts using drugs, they start to feel normal for once -- that in itself is addicting without the drug ever having to have addictive properties. A lot of people who slide downward with drugs and alcohol are basically self-medicating real health problems and/or life issues.

Cocaine and meth both were/are used by wall street types and in other well-heeled communities for years on a casual and frequent basis. The majority could quit, they had options, good jobs, good support, and things to live for but some couldn't. When those drugs enter into communities that are financially depressed and already have problems they can be much more destructive -- good jobs, good support, and things to live for that the wealthy and middle class users had/have aren't in those communities so quitting becomes even more problematic and the reasons for using much different.

People using drugs to party on occasion, even hard drugs, but who are otherwise ok usually have an easier time quitting. Genetics will kick in on some of those folks though. People who have issues either health or life issues and use for those reasons are much more likely to have problems quitting.

Genetics, circumstances, family/friend support, outlook, health etc. all matter in terms of who goes down in flames and who doesn't.

 

[CheyennePress]

It's ridiculous. All over some weed. Regardless of how harmless it is, regardless of how much I personally (and obviously some of these players) feel its BS that it's illegal, it is illegal and will ruin your football career. Why is that so hard to grasp? Just stick to alcohol and frat parties

Weed is not harmless, particularly with these young players. Neurodevelopment--particularly of the prefrontal cortex--is not complete until around the age of 24 or 25. Early-life cannabis usage is associated with an 8-point permanent decline in IQ when measured across multiple decades. There's a permanent shrinkage of the hippocampus and areas of the cerebral cortex that affects both memory and processing speed.

Add that to the frequent microtraumas of repeated head collisions, and you don't have a good combination for a football player who needs to be exhibiting quick responses on the field and able to make quick an accurate reads.

 

[VolsMcGee]

Weed is not harmless, particularly with these young players. Neurodevelopment--particularly of the prefrontal cortex--is not complete until around the age of 24 or 25. 1. Early-life cannabis usage is associated with an 8-point permanent decline in IQ when measured across multiple decades. 2. There's a permanent shrinkage of the hippocampus and areas of the cerebral cortex that affects both memory and processing speed.

Add that to the frequent microtraumas of repeated head collisions, and you don't have a good combination for a football player who needs to be exhibiting quick responses on the field and able to make quick an accurate reads.

1. As I said before, correlation does not mean causation. That statistic excludes the fact that most people who start smoking weed at a young age are likely to be in a lower SES community, and have less access to a variety of educational resources and support when compared to middle or upper class family. This also does not include the fact that kids who smoke weed at an earlier age are more likely to get kicked out of school or suspended.

2. It is true that there is a high potency of cannabanoid receptors in the hippocampus. While the receptors can cause effects on motor coordination and short-term memory, to my knowledge I do not believe the effects to be permanent. I suppose it is possible that, if a person HIGHLY abuses marijuana at an early age, it would cause long-term brain development problems. I would be interested to see any information you have on that.