Piniella Admits he Smoked Pot

His argument is spot on. Why the WBC tests for a performance inhibitor is beyond me.

4 months ago chrisisasavage 27 comments 0 recs |

Comments

This is far worse than steroids

Hasn’t he seen Reefer Madness?!?! The last thing we need is Marihuana Adict Baseball Players raping and murdering women.

by chrisisasavage on Jun 26, 2009 11:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

According to the literature of the time, it only does this to Mexicans and negroes.

I will always love Lou.

"Why should I stretch? Does a cheetah stretch before it chases its prey?"
-Griffey

by Big Jared on Jun 27, 2009 12:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well at least Soto hasn't been so stoned he forgot to go to work.

by Sec 108 on Jun 27, 2009 9:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Well, that would certainly explain his size

It’s hard to be trim and slim when your diet consists of Mt Dew and Funyuns.

~I "write" about the Mariners. section331.com~

by section331 on Jun 27, 2009 11:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Most of the stoners I know are skinny as hell.

by waldo rojas on Jun 27, 2009 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Until they develop boobs in their lates 20s.

by acblue on Jun 27, 2009 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, what acblue said

Metabolism can only fight weed for so long…

~I "write" about the Mariners. section331.com~

by section331 on Jun 27, 2009 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's not metabolism.

Long-term male pot users begin to develop breast tissue after a certain period of time.

by acblue on Jun 27, 2009 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is a myth they use to scare kids in D.A.R.E

It’s right up there with “pot is 20 to 30 times stronger than it was 20 years ago”.
The basis of this claim is a study in the 70’s found that giving male rats impossibly massive doses thc did cause some breast tissue growth. Other studies have been unable to replicate even those results. Of course plenty of stoners have man boobs……..because they’re fat!

"Why should I stretch? Does a cheetah stretch before it chases its prey?"
-Griffey

by Big Jared on Jun 27, 2009 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yep.

~I "write" about the Mariners. section331.com~

by section331 on Jun 27, 2009 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pot is absolutely significantly stronger than it was 20 years ago

and although you are correct that the results haven’t been replicated, it is still suspected that habitual marijuana use fucks with your hormone levels and can lead to gynecomastia.

by acblue on Jun 27, 2009 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sounds impressive

by Kermit. on Jun 27, 2009 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I meant this little stretch so far, after reading the entire thread I regret inserting myself into the conversation

by Kermit. on Jun 27, 2009 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cliche

by evanr on Jun 27, 2009 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Addendum

To be fair, I did look at other sites, and some of those sites did make the same claims that acblue is making.
They did not, however, cite studies as the first website did.
I don’t know about y’all, but I’m far more likely to believe someone if they can show their research.

I can tell you that in my own personal experience, my work experience, and those of friends, the first link is far more accurate (one of the websites says that since weed is a schedule 1 narcotic, it (and other schedule 1s) has no medical usage, which is absolutely untrue).

~I "write" about the Mariners. section331.com~

by section331 on Jun 27, 2009 3:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I think you're assuming I believe things that I don't believe at all.

by acblue on Jun 27, 2009 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nope

Merely talking about what I read on various websites, as I believe in seeing all sides of the story. I believe you may be getting defensive about something you don’t need to be…

~I "write" about the Mariners. section331.com~

by section331 on Jun 27, 2009 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also, how is it politics? We were discussing weed...

~I "write" about the Mariners. section331.com~

by section331 on Jun 27, 2009 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You linked to the website of a politcal lobbying organization.

by acblue on Jun 27, 2009 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

About weed

Which we were discussing….?

~I "write" about the Mariners. section331.com~

by section331 on Jun 27, 2009 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's a political lobbying organization.

by acblue on Jun 27, 2009 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And I will continue to cite the fact that it has studies listed about the discussion at hand.

If this is going to turn into an argument about semantics, however, it’s an argument that you will have to employ on your own.

~I "write" about the Mariners. section331.com~

by section331 on Jun 27, 2009 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The no politics rule is very clear.

The link was indeed relevant to the discussion, but it’s generally better to err on the side of caution.

by acblue on Jun 27, 2009 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If Jeff decides to ban me for it

I’ll gladly take my medicine. Until then, it serves me merely as a link to case studies regarding the discussion at hand. And I do understand your assessment.

~I "write" about the Mariners. section331.com~

by section331 on Jun 27, 2009 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess my point is that the moderators shouldn't have to worry about these things

because we should be policing ourselves about this type of thing

by acblue on Jun 27, 2009 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Surprise! We agree!

Now shall we talk about what does and doesn’t constitute “politics”? Or would you rather prefer discussing Lou Piniella’s possible gynocomasty? ’Cuz you know, angry old man bitch tits are hot.

~I "write" about the Mariners. section331.com~

by section331 on Jun 27, 2009 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs