Leafs' prospect Viktor Lööv: "There is a lot of cocaine in the NHL"

[FBI]

Yeah I'm a little bit irked by the "players be players" mentality, especially with any young kids that might be reading this thread. As well as all the "oh yeah i've tried all the stuff and it's easy to get off it" comments.

I'm in the "don't do drugs" camp, sorry for being old fashioned I guess.

[polak]

That's obviously the better mentality to have. I don't think anyone is encouraging drug use. Just not crucifying anyone for doing it.

[Weitz]

Damn that Pablo Escobar!

[Coach]

I think most people are in the "this is a surprise?" camp.

It's a group of people with lots of free time and expendable income. It's pretty much tailor-made for coke.

It's interesting that it's coming from a prospect and not a former player or something.

[Matata]

Originally Posted by FBI

Yeah I'm a little bit irked by the "players be players" mentality, especially with any young kids that might be reading this thread. As well as all the "oh yeah i've tried all the stuff and it's easy to get off it" comments.

I'm in the "don't do drugs" camp, sorry for being old fashioned I guess.

The old fashioned approach has been a colossal failure by nearly every metric.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Matata

Au contraire:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/daily...ause_most_harm

Spoiler!

Speaking as someone who's sampled a few things, Alcohol is a hard drug, one of the hardest.

Damage associated with alcohol is more often chronic damage, liver cirrhosis, encephalopathy and the like. There are obviously people who do have alcohol toxicity but a lot of the costs are associated with chronic alcohol use. The number of people who use cocaine is also obviously less than the number who use alcohol, for obvious reasons. I think to downplay cocaine by saying that it similar to alcohol, which people can safely enjoy recreationally is downright ludicrous.

Also according to your own statistics cocaine is around 1.5 times as harmful to the user and I can't access your article.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by heep223

Same, and agree. Really what makes it any different than alcohol? More addictive, but it's the same general idea. Only that one substance is illegal and one isn't.

1) Even moderate usage of cocaine can cause serious heart problems in otherwise health people.

2) Since it's illegal, and not as widely available as, say, pot, you have to be in closer contact with organized crime to get access to it. It opens you up to public association with bad people, or even blackmail. You also can't consume it in public, and yet lots of people do it while on a night out on the town, so it involves lots of furtive trips to bathrooms and stairwells. Which is just kinda ######y. And dumb for people who are already in the public spotlight.

Using coke doesn't make an NHL player an evil person, but it demonstrates really bad judgement.

Originally Posted by Matata

Au contraire:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/daily...ause_most_harm

Spoiler!

The Economist is usually pretty good with that stats, but that chart is a fail. Of course alcohol is going to be responsible for much more total harm in the UK than cocaine - it's far more widely used. The Lancet study itself makes this clear:

"Many of the harms of drugs are affected by their availability and legal status, which varies across countries, so our results are not necessarily applicable to countries with very different legal and cultural attitudes to drugs."

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Matata

Au contraire:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/daily...ause_most_harm

Spoiler!

Speaking as someone who's sampled a few things, Alcohol is a hard drug, one of the hardest.

The chart is about the aggregate amount of damage done by various drugs in the UK. Most of the adult population of Britain drinks, so you would expect it to top the list. The other drugs have far fewer users, and I strongly suspect they punch above their weight.

Correct those figures for the number of users of each drug, and get back to us.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The chart is about the aggregate amount of damage done by various drugs in the UK. Most of the adult population of Britain drinks, so you would expect it to top the list. The other drugs have far fewer users, and I strongly suspect they punch above their weight.

Correct those figures for the number of users of each drug, and get back to us.

Yeah, if the intent is to show how dangerous a drug is to a population, then the data makes sense and the number of users would be an important piece of the puzzle.

If we are talking about danger to the individual, then the total number of users isn't really important.

[Matata]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

[...]

The Economist is usually pretty good with that stats, but that chart is a fail. Of course alcohol is going to be responsible for much more total harm in the UK than cocaine - it's far more widely used. The Lancet study itself makes this clear:

"Many of the harms of drugs are affected by their availability and legal status, which varies across countries, so our results are not necessarily applicable to countries with very different legal and cultural attitudes to drugs."

it's a fair distinction to make, but it swings both ways, if booze were illegal, people would be going blind with moonshine and other dirty liquors, if coke were legal, the drug itself would be much cleaner and safer.

The chart is not a measure of total harm (if it were, alcohol and tobacco would have massive leads and a lot of those other drugs would be barely more than a sliver). Every drug is scored out of 100 based on it's characteristics. Legality and net harm influences some of the criteria used, but it doesn't dominate the data (notice that tobacco is far below Alcohol, despite killing way more people).

[Tacopuck]

Sounds like somebody recently Binge watched Narcos

[thymebalm]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but Dr. Carl Hart and Joe Rogan have a pretty interesting debate on Drugs and Sport and Drugs in general on one of his most recent podcasts. Really cracks open the greater debate hovering under this one.

http://podcasts.joerogan.net/podcasts/dr-carl-hart-2

#698

[schteve_d]

Nvm.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by Matata

if coke were legal, the drug itself would be much cleaner and safer.

So, it wouldn't lead to massive heart failures if it was cleaner? It's the cocaine that causes that, not anything it's cut with. I see what you're angling at, and in a lot of drugs that may be the case, but even with a government controlled coke, it's still going to lead to health issues.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Matata

it's a fair distinction to make, but it swings both ways, if booze were illegal, people would be going blind with moonshine and other dirty liquors, if coke were legal, the drug itself would be much cleaner and safer.

The chart is not a measure of total harm (if it were, alcohol and tobacco would have massive leads and a lot of those other drugs would be barely more than a sliver). Every drug is scored out of 100 based on it's characteristics. Legality and net harm influences some of the criteria used, but it doesn't dominate the data (notice that tobacco is far below Alcohol, despite killing way more people).

As one who at one time also used a wide range of drugs, while I agree that the legality of a drug goes a long way in determining how dangerous it is, I just find that young athletes (or anyone for that matter) use of any dangerous drugs to be disturbing. It also becomes an easy out when they try to fill in the void left when faced with retirement. I'm kind of hoping that when the Flames say they are looking for players with character, it's a bit of a code for saying they don't want any addictive drug users or alcoholics.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by polak

That's obviously the better mentality to have. I don't think anyone is encouraging drug use. Just not crucifying anyone for doing it.

For sure. I'm certainly not advocating it, I don't touch the stuff and have seen what it can do. I just don't find it that surprising that multi-millionaires, with an average age of 29, party a little harder than the average joe

[Jets4Life]

I admit to doing coke a couple of times in my life. First time was at a rave in the late 90s. Second time was around 2002. Not my cup of tea though. First thing i noticed when I moved from Winnipeg to Alberta in 2005, was how many people were doing coke on a regular basis, but that comes with all the money young people were making I guess. I can definitely see that happening with a bunch of 20-something athletes that make a career of flying city-to-city, with too much money on their hands.

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

As one who at one time also used a wide range of drugs, while I agree that the legality of a drug goes a long way in determining how dangerous it is, I just find that young athletes (or anyone for that matter) use of any dangerous drugs to be disturbing. It also becomes an easy out when they try to fill in the void left when faced with retirement. I'm kind of hoping that when the Flames say they are looking for players with character, it's a bit of a code for saying they don't want any addictive drug users or alcoholics.

I've always thought drug abuse should be considered a mental health issue, not a criminal issue (unless you are profiting from it). Alcohol is the most damaging drug in society, yet it is perfectly legal, while other drugs are not. IIRC, all studies in numerous countries show that the rate of drug use rises initially after decriminalization, and then drops back down to historic levels.

I've never really met anyone that refuses to do drugs, due to the threat of the law. If people are going to abuse hard drugs, they usually have underlying issues that need to be addressed by a mental health professional.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

I've always thought drug abuse should be considered a mental health issue, not a criminal issue (unless you are profiting from it). Alcohol is the most damaging drug in society, yet it is perfectly legal, while other drugs are not. IIRC, all studies in numerous countries show that the rate of drug use rises initially after decriminalization, and then drops back down to historic levels.

I've never really met anyone that refuses to do drugs, due to the threat of the law. If people are going to abuse hard drugs, they usually have underlying issues that need to be addressed by a mental health professional.

When I'm talking about the legality of drugs I'm not speaking about the chances of getting caught making them more dangerous. I'm more talking about transferring disease through dirty needles, not getting what you think you are buying resulting in overdoses and having to mix with the dealers to buy the drugs.

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

When I'm talking about the legality of drugs I'm not speaking about the chances of getting caught making them more dangerous. I'm more talking about transferring disease through dirty needles, not getting what you think you are buying resulting in overdoses and having to mix with the dealers to buy the drugs.

I like the program that they had in Vancouver at Oppenheimer Park. Drug addicts could just go to vans and establishments, obtain tons of clean needles (no questions asked), and proceed to get their fix without worrying about the risks of injecting with used syringes. I heard at one time, East Vancouver had the highest HIV+ rate in North America.