Percy Harvin high during every NFL game he played

[teef]

14 minutes ago, Chill said:

Xanax is a terrible drug and should only be prescribed in extreme circumstances. The kick back these drs. get for rxing mind erasing drugs is alarming. Abusing Xanax is almost as bad as opioids, which is another prescription drug overly rxed and abused. 

 

Just because a doctor says to use it doesn’t make it healthy or morally right...always obtain a second and third opinion. 

you haven't lived until you snorted a bunch of xanax with a few vodkas in ya.

[MJS]

2 hours ago, Bakin said:

Yes correct except if you try to give a placebo to a diabetic instead of insulin you will see that it’s not a very effective treatment.

when treatments are proven effective, they are used. 

 

Percy used MJ for medicinal purposes. For his pain and anxiety. And it worked for him. Are you going to say it didn’t?

 

It's pretty obvious it didn't since he never overcame his problems and is out of the league. He attempted to self medicate by using drugs instead of getting treatment that would help. In fact, he could have been making everything worse.

 

Harvin is not a doctor and is not qualified to say what helps and what doesn't. He obviously like smoking weed, so obviously he is going to say it is good.

1 hour ago, Buffalo30 said:

There are other ways to reap the benefits of marijuana without smoking it. No need to inhale smoke into your lungs at all. More people need to think outside of the box. Also, CBD is very beneficial to our bodies and minds without the effects of THC. You can find it in stores and even at farmer’s markets. Learn more about the issue before spreading negativity ??, have a great day! 

I've stated that I have nothing against medical marijuana and doubt that there are any lasting negative effects from using it in other ways.

[Bakin]

6 minutes ago, MJS said:

 

It's pretty obvious it didn't since he never overcame his problems and is out of the league. He attempted to self medicate by using drugs instead of getting treatment that would help. In fact, he could have been making everything worse.

 

Harvin is not a doctor and is not qualified to say what helps and what doesn't. He obviously like smoking weed, so obviously he is going to say it is good.

I've stated that I have nothing against medical marijuana and doubt that there are any lasting negative effects from using it in other ways.

He’s not qualified to say what helps him and what doesn’t?  That’s BS. If only he had continued to fill his body with pharmaceuticals he would have still been in the league?  

 

Harvin had a pretty decent career - won 2 college championships, a super bowl, was Rookie of the Year, pro bowler. All done while high on weed.

Suffered some injuries and well, that’s football. 

 

 

[Kelly the Dog]

Apparently that was not Percy Harvin...although granted I didn’t look into it all that much 

 

[3rdand12]

20 hours ago, whatdrought said:

 

Youre in the purple stage of concussion protocol. Only 4 colors and 3 shapes left and you’ll be right as rain. 

thanks much for the positive encouragement !

[EasternOHBillsFan]

19 hours ago, Teddy KGB said:

 

Riiiiiight.     It really hurt Michael Phelps, Randy Moss, Ricky Williams, Chris Webber, Tim Lincecum, and Kareem ????. 

 

Before EVERY GAME OR MEET? Yeah, I don't think so. Nice try.

[whatdrought]

5 hours ago, SlimShady'sGhost said:

 

These are the fastest (and slowest) fast food drive-thrus

 

Dunkin' Donuts clocked in with the fastest average time, at 230.38 seconds from first order window approach to full order completion. That's well under three minutes. Chick-fil-A was the slowest in the study, with an average drive-thru time of 322.98 seconds -- almost five and a half minutes.

 

Is this a wide sample size, or at specific locations? Our CFA is typically the fastest drive through in town, even though they do 2x more business than anyone else.

1 hour ago, Kelly the Dog said:

Apparently that was not Percy Harvin...although granted I didn’t look into it all that much 

 

 

Wasnt there a video of him saying it though?... 

[Royale with Cheese]

https://www.bjpenn.com/mma-news/ufc/frank-lester-jon-jones-only-practices-stoned/

 

 

[Augie]

7 hours ago, teef said:

you haven't lived until you snorted a bunch of xanax with a few vodkas in ya.

 

I have a buddy who flew into Atlanta with his wife to visit. I knew he had some anxiety about flying, did not realize he had taken Xanax to calm himself. We went to a nice restaurant in Buckhead and he had some Pinot Noir. More than one, but less than 100. Lordy!  It was not long before we were yelling “CHECK PLEASE!” They were more than happy to get us out of there!

 

I had seen the effects before (unfortunately), but NEVER mix alcohol and Xanax! It’s like one of those strange science experiments where you mix two clear liquids together, it turns blue, sparks start flying and a unicorn joins the party in the science lab! 

[Chill]

11 hours ago, MR8 said:

 

Well as a conservative I find this highly offensive ... Funny how you are criticizing "conservatives" for having a "refusal to empathize with those who are different" and yet you yourself go on to take shots at "conservatives" with blanket statements like they're over privileged or that they're superior... While sounding arrogant and "superior" yourself.

 

This isn't a "Liberal vs Conservative" debate man, but FTR, liberals have no problem judging, demeaning, and belittling conservatives either... 

 

 

 

But back to the topic at hand....

 

Depression, anxiety, stress, mental illness, all sorts of issues are helped by medical usage of numerous drugs.  Those drugs are NOT a "Crutch" they are aids to help people be able to function. 

 

The hard part about pot being argued as medicinal when these guys are doing it on their own is that there is no discussion with a Doctor to figure out dosage and regiment.  There is such a thing as too much, and there is dependency that can come from over medicating, so it's a slippery slope.  But the statement that people who need drugs to be even keel is flat out wrong and ignorant.

 

I sincerely hope people who think that don't need to face situations where they themselves or their loved ones need medication, because watching people deal with anxiety, depression, and mental illness is very difficult.  And if your stance on it is "they're just weak"... well then It's safe to say your loved one won't have the support system they need to get better. 

How would you define a “crutch”?

 

An aid to help people function as they normally would, is pretty close to the exact definition. 

[Mellow1]

On 10/2/2019 at 2:39 PM, Royale with Cheese said:

I can say with 100% confidence....he’s not the only one.

EXACTLY!!!!!

[Golden Goat]

[whatdrought]

19 minutes ago, Golden Goat said:

 

This is simple, topical, and amusing. Well done. 

[row_33]

3 hours ago, Chill said:

How would you define a “crutch”?

 

An aid to help people function as they normally would, is pretty close to the exact definition. 

No

 

a crutch would be taking steroids to pack on an extra 30 pounds of muscle you otherwise cannot produce, and you would not be able to compete without taking these steroids

 

 

 

 

[MR8]

12 hours ago, Chill said:

How would you define a “crutch”?

 

An aid to help people function as they normally would, is pretty close to the exact definition. 

 

Ugh the old semantics argument... the refuge of people grasping at straws...

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ambigamy/201404/psychological-crutches-ten-myths-and-three-tips

 

Psychological Crutches: Ten Myths and Three Tips

The healthy quest for "optimal illusion"

Posted Apr 17, 2014

• SHARE
• TWEET
• EMAIL
• MORE

This post is in response to Five Steps to Optimal Illusion by Jeremy E Sherman

Myth 1. Psychological crutches are bad: We accuse people of using psychological crutches, as though they’re always bad. That’s odd when you think about it, since we think of crutches as good in medicine to, for example, support for a weak knee, a sore hip, or a healing leg, as scaffolding when the structure is weak so patients can get on with their lives. Of course, one can become over-dependent upon a physical crutch. Spending too long on a crutch can distort your posture too. Still, crutches have they’re place in medicine and in psychology too. 

What is a psychological crutch? Here I’ll define it in parallel to a physical crutch as anything you rely on through vulnerability. What you rely on could be chemical, emotional, intellectual, even physical, for example shopping or aerobic exercise when you’re going through a psychologically painful breakup. And the vulnerability could be of any kind too, a breakup, a lost job, disappointed goals, aging, disease, even a sore hip. A psychological crutch is whatever gets you through the night or nights (since vulnerabilities can last a while), the dark night of the soul, which can even be a terminal vulnerability, for example when you’ve been diagnosed with a terminal illness.

We have other names for crutches. When people distract themselves from painful vulnerabilities, we say they’re “in denial.” More technically, we speak of “dissociation,” disconnecting from thoughts and feelings, typically by means of distraction. Mild dissociation is seen as a way to cope with mild discomfort, daydreaming when bored, or watching a movie when bummed. But mostly psychologists think of dissociation as maladaptive, as in the many dissociative disorders psychiatrists diagnose. 

Recently social scientists have noted the benefits of daydreaming, getting away from work, and mindfulness practice, all of which are forms of dissociation, distracting ourselves from our travails when we’re in too deep for our own good. It’s time to distinguish between good and bad crutches or dissociations, or we could say between dissociative orders and disorders.

Myth 2. Psychological crutches are rare: When my mother, a non-smoker in her mid-fifties, was diagnosed with lung cancer metastasized to the brain, in the shock of the first few days she moved very quickly toward the consolations of philosophy and spirituality, an almost manic leap toward elation. A somewhat famous friend, famous too for his tendency to bend the truth himself, took me aside and diagnosed her with an authoritative and somewhat disdainful air as being “in denial.” 

We do that when disdaining a trait in others, which may be some of the fun of identifying other people’s faults. In catty moments, distracted by what’s wrong with others we can forget our own faults. Indeed such disdain can serve as its own kind of crutch, in his case, temporary dissociation from awareness of our own crutches. Truth is, psychological crutches, as I’ve defined them aren’t a rare pathology found in weaker souls. We all use them and the question is not whether, but when and how to use them. Elsewhere I’ve called this the quest for “optimal illusion” kidding yourself where it helps, rather than hurts.

Myth 3. Psychological crutches aren’t natural. We talk of people using drugs as a crutch. In the past 50 years scientists have discovered that we all have receptors for many of the mind-altering drugs, and internal equivalents for them too, for example endorphin, the body’s natural equivalent to morphine. A runner’s high, or the little tingle we feel after eating spicy food is really the equivalent of a minor morphine buzz. Apparently, we’re all equipped with evolved natural pain-killers—psychological crutches like endorphin to get us through. These endogenous drugs aren’t the only example, but as exceptions they disprove the rule. Apparently all crutches aren’t unnatural.

article continues after advertisement

Myth 4. Psychological crutches are all like drugs, and shopping, things you get from outside yourself: Many crutches are our mind’s inventions, fantasies, for example about how we’re destined to be popular, right, and successful, distractions for dealing with the disappointments we experience, the bad news of daily life.

Myth 5. Psychological crutches are only healthy when used temporarily: In looking for ways to tell good crutches from bad ones, we might think good ones are used sparingly and temporarily like physical crutches. But then physical crutches aren’t all temporary. For example, a quadriplegic’s wheelchair is forever. Everything’s temporary including our lives but some crutches last that long. Religions can be a crutch, and not necessarily a bad one. Many have coped ‘til death with the stresses of life by distracting themselves with visions of the afterlife. Is it a good thing? You can’t tell simply by how long they last. Indeed one could argue is that a good crutch is one you can rely on for a long time.

Myth 6. Using psychological crutches is cheating: If crutches are sometimes natural, and if all of us use them, they aren’t inherently cheating unless you claim we all cheat. We’re ambivalent about psychological crutches, but simplify by talking about the ones we like in positive terms.  For example we admire optimistic people, people who during bad times can distract themselves with hopeful if somewhat unrealistic visions of a better tomorrow. We don’t bellow at people on crutches, “Hey cheater, quit pretending! You don’t walk that good. Get real!”  And we don’t bellow that at optimists ether. We tolerate each other’s crutches and often even admire them.

article continues after advertisement

Myth 7. Any time you ignore things you’re in denial or using a crutch: Using a crutch, being in denial, or dissociating all make ignorance seem like an active process. To understand why ignoring isn’t always an active process, just think of all the things you’re not actively ignoring and yet aren’t aware of. We can’t pay attention to everything. We can’t even pay attention to every choice about what to attend to and ignore. The mind is a pinhole in a flood. Only a little gets through. We pay attention to what we intuit to be significant, sometimes significant reality checks and sometimes significant distractions to deal with the pain of reality checks.

Myth 8. Psychological crutches always reduce your integrity: A crutch is often necessary to maintaining integrity, a constant commitment to a plan or goal. Psychological crutches are how we keep moving over psychologically bumpy terrain. Like a crutch for a bad leg, a psychological crutch, whether it’s a rationalization or a shopping spree is a way to lighten the load of bad news, as you walk through life’s vicissitudes, left, right, left, right, good news; bad news, good news, bad news. And as with coin tosses sometimes the good news “heads,” and bad news “tails” don’t come with reliable alternating regularity. Sometimes you’ll get a string of bad news for no reason but the random draw. Crutches are a buffer. They enable you to keep breathing when the news is bad enough that otherwise you’d have the wind knocked out of you. Psychological crutches are like clutches, a way to spin your wheels while you think about how to respond, perhaps downshifting your expectations, but often plowing ahead with integrity and consistency. 

Crutches can reduce integrity too, of course. Rationalize anything long enough so you can maintain integrity about it (“nope, I meant to do that. I stand by my action.”), and you’ll increase your general self-gullibility. Like any habit, rationalization gets easier with practice. The trick isn’t to stop rationalizing but to rationalize where it helps rather than hurts. This is the art of optimal illusion, kidding yourself right, not wrong.

article continues after advertisement

Myth 9. There’s an easy way to tell good from bad crutches: We mostly rely on intuition when accusing someone of being in denial, or using a psychological crutch. If you think someone should pay attention to what you are, your gut criticism is that they’re ignoring what’s important, distracted by what isn’t important. They say “It’s just not as interesting to me as it is to you,” and our intuitions say “They’re just in denial.”  

Likewise our guts declare people ignorant, which at core means ignoring what we think they should attend to. Our assessments of what to attend to and ignore are inherently subjective, the products of our diverse temperaments, experiences, statuses, histories, environment, and cultures.

When we accuse people of being in denial or using a crutch and they push back, we can easily find rationales that justify our gut sense that the accusation applies. We often reach for reasonable-sounding rules. For example “We should all attend to the suffering of others, and you’re not, that’s why I say you’re in denial.”

A rule like that sounds reasonable until you remember that no one attends to the suffering of all others. Apparently there’s no litmus test that if you ignore the suffering of another, you're in bad denial.

We might also justify based on social norms, for example that drugs are crutches. But again, we’re all on drugs, if not the wine we drink at night, the endorphins we swim in after a workout or a jalapeno, and anyway there are so many ways to dissociate, so many ways to distract ourselves.

No one has yet come up with a good simple rule for what constitutes a healthy and unhealthy distraction. Some would say meditation is always a good distraction and TV is a bad one, but it’s not hard to come up with examples whereby the opposite is true, the delusional spiritualist who believes meditation solves everything; the hardworking and productive aid worker, who recharges efficiently with an hour of TV. 

I got the ideas for this article while sitting in the dentist’s chair on nitrous, a drug that calms and soothes my body while leaving my mind alert. Dissociating from discomfort long enough to step back from my life and get philosophical like that is a crutch I enjoy, a side benefit of good dental hygiene. I’m not alone in that. William James, often cited as the founder of psychology was a fan too. Some would say since it’s a drug it’s a crutch, and a bad one. I’d say it’s a crutch, but a good one. 

article continues after advertisement

Myth 10. There’s no way to tell good from bad crutches: Still, there is something to our intuitions about good and bad crutches, not an objective rule by which we would all agree about what’s a good and bad crutch but still a standard by which we all make our subjective assessments.  

We depend on crutches, at least temporarily. We do what’s necessary to maintain access to them and would miss them if we lost access to them, the way the wheelchair-bound miss their wheelchair when it’s in the shop. This suggests three rules to apply, albeit subjectively:

1. It’s bad if it’s unsustainable: We all intuit that a crutch is bad if maintaining access to it is unsustainable. We intuit for example that a drug is a crutch if a person can’t do without it and that someday the user will have to, for example, going cold turkey off morphine. That’s a reasonable intuition. Don’t get hooked on crutches you can’t maintain access too. Or at least don’t get so dependent that when it’s gone, you’re ruined.

2. It’s bad if it bends you off your better path: We also intuit that a crutch is bad if grows people in the wrong direction, drug addicts toward crime, religion devotees toward delusional thinking about practical matters, shopaholics toward poverty and debt, whatever you look at a person relying upon and say “hmmm… this won’t end well.”

3. It’s good if it inspires effort, not if it stands in for it: Boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, and she with him, thinking he can do no wrong. So he starts doing lots of wrong, using her devotion as a bad crutch, a reason he doesn’t have to try anymore to make it in the real world.  Instead he melts joblessly into her couch, basking in her support, and she doesn’t complain. And you think “That’s bad.” Boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl and she with him, which inspires confidence in him that he then parlays into better work in the world. And you think “that’s good.”  We intuit that good crutches are a complement to good work, not a substitute for it.

Of course we disagree about what meets these three intuitive standards. The debate that follows from our disagreements is healthy and useful. But it’s a debate over what to use as a crutch, not whether to use a crutch, which we all do. After all, we all have those vulnerabilities, the dark nights and the need for whatever gets us through them. 

[Mr. WEO]

I've said it before---this is exactly why the owners will not budge on weed as banned substance.  Having guys playing high is their worst fear as a investment-at-risk issue.

[Royale with Cheese]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

I've said it before---this is exactly why the owners will not budge on weed as banned substance.  Having guys playing high is their worst fear as a investment-at-risk issue.

 

Yes the owners will.  They're losing good players to suspensions and it's becoming a more accepted drug by the day.  They don't care if they smoke before a game as long as they produce.

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Yes the owners will.  They're losing good players to suspensions and it's becoming a more accepted drug by the day.  They don't care if they smoke before a game as long as they produce.

 

These guys don't believe a player can get high and produce.  Not one of them would agree to that.  Suspensions a re rare.  They don't want their players to get injured if under the influence.  They really hate paying players not to play.

 

 

[Royale with Cheese]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

 

These guys don't believe a player can get high and produce.  Not one of them would agree to that.  Suspensions a re rare.  They don't want their players to get injured if under the influence.  They really hate paying players not to play.

 

 

 

You're being incredibly naive Weo.  

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, Royale with Cheese said:

 

You're being incredibly naive Weo.  

 

 

How so?  Can you  name the white middle aged billionaire in the group who would be just fine with his players getting high right before a game?