MLB plans to remove marijuana from banned substances list for minor leaguers

Aug 11, 2019
373
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2019/12/10/marijuana/mlb-plans-remove-marijuana-banned-substances-list-minor-leaguers/

"would be for minor leaguers who aren’t on the 40-man roster of players who are eligible to be added to the active roster"

"Players on the Major League 40-man roster have not been regularly tested for cannabis since 2002, when the league’s focus shifted to performance-enhancing drugs. Major leaguers are only tested if there is “probable cause.” A positive THC test is 50 nanograms of THC per milliliter of urine, and it results in a $35,000 fine and a treatment plan — but no suspension."

"Drugs of abuse on the current banned substances list include natural cannabinoids, THC, synthetic THC and cannabimimetics (e.g., K2 and Spice), cocaine, LSD, opiates (e.g., oxycodone, heroin, codeine, and morphine), MDMA, GHB, and PCP."

There are some Tweets by Sam Dykstra but I don't know how to post them to this board as I don't use Twitter.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
6,796
I'm sure the Rockies, Mariners, Sox, Cubs, and all the California teams will announce their "Official Marijuana Dispensary Partners" within the week.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
6,796
There are only two states were pot isn't legalized or decriminalized in some manner. So MLB isn't exactly on the front line of this issue, but it is nice to see them not be trailing way, way behind on it.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,347
I’ve never understood anyone’s desire to put smoldering weeds in their mouth. To each his own I guess.

it’s not performance enhancing, and all the cool people say it’s perfectly safe with no side effects. So I’m cool letting good old Darwinism make the decision as to whether a baseball player who uses it succeeds.

Governments need to balance their budgets somehow. Being legal drug pushers fits their bill I guess
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
11,095
Is it "pushing" a drug to merely allow people to make up their own minds, and not interfere as long as they're not affecting anyone else?

We all know the origins of the war on drugs, why it was started, why Nixon escalated it and what goals it was intended to serve. What I don't understand is why thoughtful conservatives would continue buying that plotline as orthodoxy.

Also, your exact post could have been written about tobacco.
 

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
9,255
guam
Is it "pushing" a drug to merely allow people to make up their own minds, and not interfere as long as they're not affecting anyone else?

We all know the origins of the war on drugs, why it was started, why Nixon escalated it and what goals it was intended to serve. What I don't understand is why thoughtful conservatives would continue buying that plotline as orthodoxy.

Also, your exact post could have been written about tobacco.
In Chicago, where it was just legalized, there is a 40% sales tax.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
8,582
The other option, apparently, was to throw poor people in jail for just possessing a substance that posed no harm to anyone other than the person using it. And that "harm" being relatively mild compared to other legal substances and activities that are cause far more harm on a regular basis.
 
Aug 11, 2019
373
In Chicago, where it was just legalized, there is a 40% sales tax.
The federal tax rate on a pack of cigarettes is $1.01 and the average state tax rate (July 1, 2019) is $1.81 (ranging from $0.17 in Missouri to $4.50 in D.C.) per pack. And there may be local taxes. According to a report about a week ago, the average price of a pack is $5.51, and 2.82/5.51 = 51.12% (average state and federal tax rate percentage). Glad I quit (although way back when I smoked weed, people generally grew their own or had a friend who did).
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,347
Is it "pushing" a drug to merely allow people to make up their own minds, and not interfere as long as they're not affecting anyone else?

We all know the origins of the war on drugs, why it was started, why Nixon escalated it and what goals it was intended to serve. What I don't understand is why thoughtful conservatives would continue buying that plotline as orthodoxy.

Also, your exact post could have been written about tobacco.
Yeah, that one too. Like I said, I’m good with Darwinism sorting it out. Pretty sure non smokers and light drinkers aren’t losing on that score.

Given your views, you consider the tobacco lawsuits and now the OxyContin lawsuits to be frivolous and counterproductive though right? Their body, their choice, their consequences.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
11,095
Unless I'm very mistaken, weed doesn't have billions-of-dollars worth of marketing campaign behind it.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Missing an “R”
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member

nope, not quite
 

Wallball Tingle

union soap
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
1,791
Pretty sure non smokers and light drinkers aren’t losing on that score.
Why is light drinking definitively better (or healthier or less morally corrupt or whatever) than light smoking? Are you equipped/informed enough to make that judgment?
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,347
Why is light drinking definitively better (or healthier or less morally corrupt or whatever) than light smoking? Are you equipped/informed enough to make that judgment?
Getting way afield, but there are plenty of studies that say light drinking is neutral to good for you. There does not exist a single study claiming that having a few cigarettes a day improves your health. Marijuana, particularly in non-smoked form, hasn’t been studied as extensively, so I’ll leave open the possibility that such studies may be forthcoming but I’m not holding my breath or taking up the habit in the interim.