Let's say weed is performance enhancing...
- Thread starter Nastycrow
- Start date
So what you're saying, is that we should allow performance enhancing drugs??
I think that if someone is high when they step in the Octagon, it's performance enhancing. If someone got high days/weeks before their fight, then it doesn't enhance their performance on the day.
Joe Rogan has a great point on weed, if it wasn't performance enhancing, there wouldn't be so many top level jiu jitsu guys getting high before rolling.
Spud said:
So what you're saying, is that we should allow performance enhancing drugs??
Click to expand...
You say "performance enhancing drugs", but I'm only talking about weed in this instance.
Steroids may or may not have legitimate reasons to be outlawed, but does weed have these reasons?
This has to be, by any standard, the dumbest substance control argument in modern sports.
MARIJUANA IS NOT BANNED BECAUSE IT IS A PERFORMANCE ENHANCER.
I will repeat this for the cognitively impaired;
MARIJUANA IS NOT BANNED BECAUSE IT IS A PERFORMANCE ENHANCER.
{Some might take offence to this}
/thread.
majinrevan666 said:
mabrown45 said:
people have a misconception that only performance enhancing drugs are banned.....
Click to expand...
That doesn't have anything to do with my question.
Click to expand...
it has everything to do with your question...............the point is substances DON'T have to be PEDs to be banned
Flound said:
This has to be, by any standard, the dumbest substance control argument in modern sports.
MARIJUANA IS NOT BANNED BECAUSE IT IS A PERFORMANCE ENHANCER.
I will repeat this for the cognitively impaired;
MARIJUANA IS NOT BANNED BECAUSE IT IS A PERFORMANCE ENHANCER.
/thread.
Click to expand...
{Deleted - Insults}
I'm conceding, for the sake of argument that it IS a performance enhancing substance.
To argue that it's not after I've conceded FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT that it is is extremely stupid.
majinrevan666 said:
Spud said:
So what you're saying, is that we should allow performance enhancing drugs??
Click to expand...
You say "performance enhancing drugs", but I'm only talking about weed in this instance.
Steroids may or may not have legitimate reasons to be outlawed, but does weed have these reasons?
Click to expand...
If it's a performance enhancing drug, yes.
Spud said:
majinrevan666 said:
Spud said:
So what you're saying, is that we should allow performance enhancing drugs??
Click to expand...
You say "performance enhancing drugs", but I'm only talking about weed in this instance.
Steroids may or may not have legitimate reasons to be outlawed, but does weed have these reasons?
Click to expand...
If it's a performance enhancing drug, yes.
Click to expand...
Ok.
So, what are those reasons?
You can't just say, it's performance enhancing and therefore needs to be banned without offering a logical pathway between A to B.
majinrevan666 said:
Ok.
So, what are those reasons?
You can't just say, it's performance enhancing and therefore needs to be banned without offering a logical pathway between A to B.
Click to expand...
Well where do you draw the line? If you believe weed is performance enhancing (which I believe it is, if you're high at the time of fighting), then why not allow all other performance enhancing drugs?
There's no reasonable explanation to allow weed if you believe it's performance enhancing.
The thing is though, weed isn't illegal in MMA because it's performance enhancing. There are many illegal substances that are not performance enhancing (diuretics to make weight, alcohol etc.).
Spud said:
majinrevan666 said:
Well where do you draw the line? If you believe weed is performance enhancing (which I believe it is, if you're high at the time of fighting), then why not allow all other performance enhancing drugs?
There's no reasonable explanation to allow weed if you believe it's performance enhancing.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
You draw the line where a line is actually necessary.
Why not allow all other performance enhancing drugs? That implies that certain other performance enhancing drugs shouldn't be allowed.
But if your only objection to allowing weed is that of a slippery slope, then that must mean that other drugs are different from weed in some way as to make their banning justified. If it is true that certain other drugs have elements within them that makes their banning warranted, then that's exactly where the line should be drawn.
As for "There's no reasonable explanation to allow weed if you believe it's performance enhancing.", that's not how this works.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.There needs to be a reasonable explanation AGAINST performance enhancing drugs before an explanation to allow them is given.
If no such explanation exists, then there is no reason to ban them.
majinrevan666 said:
You draw the line where a line is actually necessary.
Why not allow all other performance enhancing drugs? That implies that certain other performance enhancing drugs shouldn't be allowed.
But if your only objection to allowing weed is that of a slippery slope, then that must mean that other drugs are different from weed in some way as to make their banning justified.
As for "There's no reasonable explanation to allow weed if you believe it's performance enhancing.", that's not how this works.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.There needs to be a reasonable explanation AGAINST performance enhancing drugs before an explanation to allow them is given.
If no such explanation exists, then there is no reason to ban them.
Click to expand...
The reason PEDs are banned is to make the competition fair.
I'm not sure what the point of this thread is but I'll indulge you.
You concede it is performance enhancing.
So your argument is that who cares if its performance enhancing, it should still be legal?
If you are conceding it is performance enhancing, then that is the reason it should be illegal. Performance enhancing mean it gives an unfair advantage to the athlete who uses it. So unless you are arguing that those who wish not to partake of the drug should just deal with being at a disadvantage, then I don't understand what you are saying, and if you are saying this, then that is the whole reason it should be illegal(giving people who use it an advantage).
The only half-reasonable argument for marijuana being legal is a thin one, and it's this:
Nick Diaz admits that marijuana keeps him, in his own words, "consistent". That means it allows him to do things that in a non-mind altering state he would be unable to do. It is enhancing his performance. The argument is that if Nick Diaz suffered from regular headaches, and took aspirin to stave them off and stay "normal", that he would be able to do things he would otherwise not be able to do without the aspirin(or physiological altering medicine).
If you think marijuana is as legit a medical treatment as aspirin or migraine medicine, or cold medicine etc.(although some cold medicine is illegal...) that would be your only argument.
The reason it is thin is that you are then crossing into TRT territory. TRT is legal and that is hugely controversial. There is also the standard debate of whether or not marijuana actually HAS any medicinal value. Once you cross this path then you are going down a road that says ok well, Cocaine "treats" my condition so I should be able to use that. It may sound silly as of this writing, but 40 years ago a vast vast majority of people would have thought you were incredibly stupid for suggesting marijuana was a medical treatment.
After all this, if you concede it is performance enhancing, that is the argument. Its performance enhancing and performance enhancers should be illegal. Not sure what you are trying to argue.
Spud said:
The reason PEDs are banned is to make the competition fair.
Click to expand...
What exactly does "fair" mean though?
If one person is born with better natural ability than his opponent, is that fair?
If one person eats more nutritious food, lifts more weights, has a better natural attitude towards exercising, started training at a younger age because his parents sent him to a martial arts school when he was young, are these things fair?
What is the essential difference between, say, meditating before the match begins so as to put you in a better mental state, thus enhancing your performance in the actual fight and smoking weed before the fight?
majinrevan666 said:
Spud said:
The reason PEDs are banned is to make the competition fair.
Click to expand...
What exactly does "fair" mean though?
If one person is born with better natural ability than his opponent, is that fair?
If one person eats more nutritious food, lifts more weights, has a better natural attitude towards exercising, started training at a younger age because his parents sent him to a martial arts school when he was young, are these things fair?
What is the essential difference between, say, meditating before the match begins so as to put you in a better mental state, thus enhancing your performance in the actual fight and smoking weed before the fight?
Click to expand...
Everything you mentioned is a fighter doing something themselves. If a fighter has the ability to meditate and put him in a better mental state, that's his ability & not something he's using a drug to do.
As I said before, using your arguments you could argue that steroids should be allowed.
Flound said:
This has to be, by any standard, the dumbest substance control argument in modern sports.
MARIJUANA IS NOT BANNED BECAUSE IT IS A PERFORMANCE ENHANCER.
I will repeat this for the cognitively impaired;
MARIJUANA IS NOT BANNED BECAUSE IT IS A PERFORMANCE ENHANCER.
/thread.
Click to expand...
maybe you should tell that to Keith Kizer