cannabis and the martial arts

HammerHeadGym

The fact is people need to escape the crushing drudgery of their lives. Some turn to religion, others to sports and others still to drugs (legal and illegal). Anyone who wants to get anything, can. In this town at least. The government may as well be taxing it as giving it to the drug dealers. If it was legalised and government controlled everyone would win. The user would get quality drugs and not have to worry about health risks, as much. The government would be receiving tax from the millions of people who use recreational drugs. And the rest of society would be rewarded with a massive decrease in the crime related to drug addiction. (burgalries, robbery, mugging etc). Plus every drug user could then receve correct medical treatment and advice and regular counselling.

roneythetube

Maldini2706 wrote: »

Weed more or less is legal in California where they live, anyone who suffers from "stress" or "insomnia" can get it on prescription. I know where you're coming from, but there are far more compelling arguments for legalisation than it improving someone's BJJ game, besides, marketing suggests they're selling something.

i agree that there are more valid reasons for legalisation but be sure that cannabis will certainly not make you a better BJJ player. u may gain more enjoyment and work better while using cannabis when rolling but it will in no way make you improve yer game!

some folk seem opposed to the idea of using cannabis alongside their martial art as the individual is deemed to be in an 'altered' state of consciousness therefore not fit to participate...
so think about
the hyper-stressed caffine dosed executive who arrives after a long exhausting stressful day. he is frazzled and stressed.
is his consciousness 'normal'?

or a father whose daughter has been assaulted. he arrives at the club with helpless rage and anger flowing through his system. then he steps into the ring with a young man who may have a similar appearance/background to his daughter attackers..is this man in the 'correct' state of mind?

or a student who has been staying awake for days to complete a thesis. is his mind 'normal' after days of sleep deprivation?

or a buddhist student arriving at the dojo after 24 hours meditation - is his mind altered?

i aware these are extreme examples but just to highlight that different factors can create different states of mind. and that being 'high' (as people seem to want to put it) is not really any reason not to take part in ones chosen martial art.

HOBO 83

I think its shocking how openly Joe Rogan and Eddie Bravo admit to using drugs, I'm not trying to preach to anybody, what people do is entirely there own business, but to come out on the net and openly promote it is a differant story.These people are in a certain role and need to realise that.
I have a 14 year old brother who is starting out boxing and really enjoys the whole fight scene, he is a huge UFC fan and is also a big fan of the domestic MMA scene here, he goes to most of the shows that would be on in Ireland.
It is hard enough for him and lots of kids like him to say no to the pier pressure of "smoking a joint" and the next thing they see is there role models sayin how great it is to smoke drugs and then take part in the sports that these kids love.
There is nothin great about it.

Dave Joyce

the next thing they see is there role models sayin how great it is to smoke drugs and then take part in the sports that these kids love.

Great post HOBO. Laying my cards on the table, completely think drugs are for losers and don't fall for this pile of SHEET, that it really helps people to relax. If you're life is that bad, change your job/where you live rather than have a smoke, man:rolleyes:! Its amazing when in some previous discussions on this forum certain people advocated having a good healthy lifestyle rather than concentrating on certain forms of martial arts training and yet we have people espousing the benefits of smoking dope.

Final couple of points, using dope for medicinal purposes by health professionals is by infusion NOT by having a smoke. Very few people have brought up the serious psychotic effects of long term dope use has on users. Then the EVEN more serious rubbish argument for legalisation. Do advocates REALLY think Amsterdam is all the better for legalisation OR that the criminal element have disappeared from the scene over there. Do you think that a black market could still NOT occur if drugs were legalised AND where exactly do you stop, just the so called "soft" (sic) drugs or all drugs.

Dragan

Right, i'm getting very ****ing tired of the sheer superiority OOZING from some of these posts.

Either keep the topic on Cannabis and Martial Arts or don't bother posting.

If you want an indept discussion on the legal status of drugs, your opinions on people who use them or anything else go to any of the other forums where such conversation is suitable.

Cheers.

cowzerp

Dragan wrote: »

Right, i'm getting very ****ing tired of the sheer superiority OOZING from some of these posts.

Either keep the topic on Cannabis and Martial Arts or don't bother posting.

If you want an indept discussion on the legal status of drugs, your opinions on people who use them or anything else go to any of the other forums where such conversation is suitable.

Cheers.

O'k im anti recreational illegal drugs but know enough about them to give a fair opinion on them and martial arts, Cannabis slows down mental alertness in the short and long term so has to be negative towards rolling etc..the fitness that you lose due to smoking hash is obvious in any sport requiring cardio..

personally people i know that are into smoking it are like cabbages after a smoke and are very slow to react to things, this is part of the attraction for some reason, long term users i know give off the impression that there slow, this obviously has to affect performance.

In my opinion they are not beneficial to martial arts and certainly should not be encouraged.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Dragan wrote: »

Either keep the topic on Cannabis and Martial Arts or don't bother posting.

What is there to duscuss, its bad for the sport (all sports). Its bad for the user, the user's family, friends, community and training partners. Its bad.

Btw, I've smoked weed once in the last twenty years (on a recent visit to Amsterdam), jeeze I'd no controls over even my basic functions so I couldn't imagine how people can train after a smoke. But then I'm not a regular user, and would never intend to be either.

I guess to each their own, but personally I'm with Roper, HOBO & Cowzer. It has no place in my life, any part of it. And I fail to see how weed could have a place in sport either.

D, I'm not "OOZING" sheer superiority here, but I'm the father of a 16yr old who, like HOBO's brother loves Martial Arts, its my opinion and I'll continue to press it home to my children is that drugs are for losers.

Ive never rolled high but Eddie Bravo swears by it. Nick diaz beat Gomi when high, I cant imagine its as bad as some are making it out to be from a performance point of view!

Boston

Deleted User wrote: »

Ive never rolled high but Eddie Bravo swears by it. Nick diaz beat Gomi when high, I cant imagine its as bad as some are making it out to be from a performance point of view!

erm, you can't argue with kila's post. He/she posted up studies supporting the assertion that it impairs performance. What you can or can't imagine has no bearing.

jim o doom

Boston wrote: »

erm, you can't argue with kila's post. He/she posted up studies supporting the assertion that it impairs performance. What you can or can't imagine has no bearing.

Kila posted clear evidence that I more or less agree with - however, clearly the reason that he is having difficulty imagining it's bearing is due to the fact that a CHAMPION is extolling it's virtues; a champion who has won fights wasted, correct?
That there is CLEAR PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that it must not impair you THAT much..
do you really think he is such a better fighter that he wins whilst so severely impaired, or alterntatively; it must not impair him that much. I can play games better when ruined; I don't train like that because I don't have the energy levels I feel I need to train & find it hard to push myself / but my phsyiological reactions to a substance are clearly different to this champion. Different things affect people in different ways.
yes I know in general it slows most people down somewhat, but to state that you can't argue with kila's post is totally wrong. The poster who was confused may not have used a well defined argument, but the fact that a champion is using it and still winning seems like pretty solid evidence in itself.
And to posters who are surprised/disgusted at two well respected athletes/martial artists/celebrities/ROLE MODELS FOR KIDS honestly talking about their lifestyles and how they live, roll and (gods no) abuse drugs; maybe they should approach it like many other athletes and abuse drugs in quite and LIE about it to the public. Plenty of other sportsmen use performance enhancing drugs which have side effects, look at the amount of doping in the tour de france?
I am not excusing that behaviour but at least the two athletes in question are being open and honest about how they act & if they feel that it's something which is acceptable, then they should be talking openly about it.
There are far too many people unwilling to talk about issues like this, or get up on a high horse to "protect their little babies from the dangrous outside world full of horrible drug using scum". I mean clearly the parents who have posted feel justified in preaching to us against drugs, why should these sportsmen not have the same right with regards to preaching to us about what they see as the good side? Does life as a parent grant you the sole right to decide how society should behave?

Boston

Boston wrote: »

erm, you can't argue with kila's post. He/she posted up studies supporting the assertion that it impairs performance. What you can or can't imagine has no bearing.

To be fair you've never ever smoked so you've no idea what you're talking about either.

I know from analysing my own reactions to the different levels of being stoned that if I rolled when wasted Id suck. But I also know that if I rolled after a moderate amount that Id be ok. Whether Id be slightly better or slightly worse is up for debate but I cant see myself completely falling apart and getting torn apart by n00bs etc after a moderate amoutn of cannabis.

Clive

Maldini2706 wrote: »

Marketing for what?

It's a marketing ploy for Eddie Bravo's club, DVD's, books and seminars.

The vehement hatred of the gi is gradually being replaced with Stoner Brand Zhoo Zhitsoo - precisely aimed at the demographic and personality type that seem to fall under the spell of this type of character.

Boston

jim o doom wrote: »

Kila posted clear evidence that I more or less agree with - however, clearly the reason that he is having difficulty imagining it's bearing is due to the fact that a CHAMPION is extolling it's virtues; a champion who has won fights wasted, correct?
That there is CLEAR PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that it must not impair you THAT much..
do you really think he is such a better fighter that he wins whilst so severely impaired, or alterntatively; it must not impair him that much. I can play games better when ruined; I don't train like that because I don't have the energy levels I feel I need to train & find it hard to push myself / but my phsyiological reactions to a substance are clearly different to this champion. Different things affect people in different ways.
yes I know in general it slows most people down somewhat, but to state that you can't argue with kila's post is totally wrong. The poster who was confused may not have used a well defined argument, but the fact that a champion is using it and still winning seems like pretty solid evidence in itself.
And to posters who are surprised/disgusted at two well respected athletes/martial artists/celebrities/ROLE MODELS FOR KIDS honestly talking about their lifestyles and how they live, roll and (gods no) abuse drugs; maybe they should approach it like many other athletes and abuse drugs in quite and LIE about it to the public. Plenty of other sportsmen use performance enhancing drugs which have side effects, look at the amount of doping in the tour de france?
I am not excusing that behaviour but at least the two athletes in question are being open and honest about how they act & if they feel that it's something which is acceptable, then they should be talking openly about it.
There are far too many people unwilling to talk about issues like this, or get up on a high horse to "protect their little babies from the dangrous outside world full of horrible drug using scum". I mean clearly the parents who have posted feel justified in preaching to us against drugs, why should these sportsmen not have the same right with regards to preaching to us about what they see as the good side? Does life as a parent grant you the sole right to decide how society should behave?

I found your post extremely difficult to read, so sorry if I missed a point. One swallow doesn't make a summer, one case doesn't make for physical evidence. In statical testing there will always be the one in a thousand/ one in a hundred thousand. Maybe cannabis gave this fighter physical benefits which are well outside the norms, I don't know, neither do you. The only way to know would be to conduct physical tests on him while under the influence and while not under the influence. Thats evidence because you can directly see the effect of taking cannabis for this person.

Their is also the physiological element of things which people often under estimate. If I believe hash is going to afford me the mental toughness to endure then that can outweigh the physical impact. Testing would show whether or not the benifit was physical of physiological.

Deleted User wrote: »

To be fair you've never ever smoked so you've no idea what you're talking about either.

A big fallacy is the assumption that how you're affect by a drug is going to be how everyone else is affect. You're personal experience is completely irrelevant as it will in general differ significantly from the next person. As such, it matters little to the discussion. Thats why you need to take a large sample set of people and identify trends.

Deleted User wrote: »

I know from analysing my own reactions to the different levels of being stoned that if I rolled when wasted Id suck. But I also know that if I rolled after a moderate amount that Id be ok. Whether Id be slightly better or slightly worse is up for debate but I cant see myself completely falling apart and getting torn apart by n00bs etc after a moderate amount of cannabis.

Your opponents opinion of your ability while you where stoned to varying degrees would be alot more relevant. I'm reminded of test relating to drink driving. Where people didn't notice much difference between 2 and 4 units, but tests showed a dramatic degree in response times.

Listen,the problem isn't with him suggesting it improved his ability, the problem is the suggestion that it isn't a rare occurrence, that its common, that the average joe can see the same results. This is directly contracted by what Kila posted.

jim o doom

Boston wrote: »

Listen,the problem isn't with him suggesting it improved his ability, the problem is the suggestion that it isn't a rare occurrence, that its common, that the average joe can see the same results. This is directly contracted by what Kila posted.

OK that is a very fair point, and I don't have a comeback to it (or disagree with it either for that matter..!) Personally (as I said in my 2 earlier posts) I know for a fact it doesn't work well with me and training - can't do as much physical activity/effort & sometimes slower - it also inhibits my ability to learn new techniques too; that's why I always wait until AFTER training That being said I know an Irish champion who trains more or less daily (he is in his 50's) & gets high every day before/during/after brekfast. He is also a champion in at least 2 seperate martial arts! (I ain't gonna name him so it's sort of pointless I could be making him up, eh?). That being said I am sure he probably doesn't get whacked on the day of competing.
In fact I know 3 Black belts who are all REGULAR users - they are all SUPER healthy, super fit, super conditioned & fast as hell; one is a 1st dan, one is a 3rd and the other is a 5th! To say that it's regular use would inhibit someone from training or that they arn't an athlete because they use is ridiculous! But I agree with your comment on it (in general) being anything BUT a stimulant which would help in training. It certainly isnt some magical herb which will help us all be better -
equally it is nowhere near as bad as it is painted to be by the vehemently anti drugs heads either.

Dragan

People are also forgetting about endocrinal response to a situation, such as adrenaline.

If a fighter is a naturally nervous type, inexperienced or whatever their adrenal reponse will be high, cannabis may negate that a bit meaning no adrenaline dump and subsequent burn out etc.

As Boston said, people react different, depending on personality type and natural hormone balance.

Kila

Time for another bolt out of the scientific blue.

Almost everyone is average!

Let me explain - the reason that you can cite studies performed on groups of people, the reason you can sell drugs to everyone after testing on smaller groups of people, the reason they test new products on smaller groups of people, etc. is because most people are average. While no one will deny that there are some exceptional people, they are just that - the exception. Every study contains some outliers, as every group of people will likely contain an exceptional individual. But presence of an outlier in a study does not automatically invalidate the study, in the same way that presence of an exceptional individual in any population does not automatically invalidate any assertion made about that group. When anything is tested on a sample population, provided the sample is big enough to be statistically sound, it can reasonably be asserted that what holds true for the sample population will hold true for the larger population from which they were extracted.

What all of this means is that when, for example, they test the effects of cannabis on people who participate in sports, and they come to a general conclusion, it's safe to say that most people will experience largely the same effect.

I have no doubt that, somewhere out there, there are people for whom different drugs have different effects than they are supposed to. The reason drugs come with a side effect information sheet is because, every now and again, someone will suffer from a side effect. They are an exceptional individual - an exception to the rule that people won't suffer side effects. Most who take the drugs will not suffer from any of the side effects.

It is also possible that the difference in quality of the cannabis could change the extent of its effect on the body, and I don't know of any studies (off the top of my head) that have been done to test effect against method of use (e.g. eating, smoking, etc).

But the important thing to remember is that they have studied its effects on a general population spread, and they have found it to diminish the user. This may not hold true for one or two individuals, but for most of you, it will.


Re: earlier thread comments, thank you for your compliments (where they were given).

ross-a-palooza

Really strange im not a "roller" haha get it... but a friend of mine is into his MMA and has those Eddie Bravo books...i read them bout 2 weeks ago n found it really suprising him and Joe Rogan were advocating the use of and pretty much glamourising cannabis!
my initial reaction was, as cliche as it may be, what about the kids?!
i have younger cousins n friends with younger brothers who are all UFC mad n want to get training...and these are the young people who will be buying these books, my fear would be it might lead them to experiment with a drug they may not have previously gone near simply because a star of their sport has recommend its use!

now im not saying they wouldnt try it anyway when they get older, but surely seeing a mentor using it would speed up the process.

just my 2 cents...

Roper

Clive wrote: »

It's a marketing ploy for Eddie Bravo's club, DVD's, books and seminars.

The vehement hatred of the gi is gradually being replaced with Stoner Brand Zhoo Zhitsoo - precisely aimed at the demographic and personality type that seem to fall under the spell of this type of character.

Thank you Clive. Take a lolly.

I expect at Rogan's gig there will be lots of people who wouldn't cross the street to see his poor imitation of Bill Hicks ordinarily but because he's the UFC commentator...

By the by I think Rogan is actually quite a good colour guy for the UFC shows and he definitely adds to the event.

Dragan

ross-a-palooza wrote: »

Really strange im not a "roller" haha get it... but a friend of mine is into his MMA and has those Eddie Bravo books...i read them bout 2 weeks ago n found it really suprising him and Joe Rogan were advocating the use of and pretty much glamourising cannabis!
my initial reaction was, as cliche as it may be, what about the kids?!
i have younger cousins n friends with younger brothers who are all UFC mad n want to get training...and these are the young people who will be buying these books, my fear would be it might lead them to experiment with a drug they may not have previously gone near simply because a star of their sport has recommend its use!

now im not saying they wouldnt try it anyway when they get older, but surely seeing a mentor using it would speed up the process.

just my 2 cents...

Thats the joy of Freedom of Speech i guess.

As for Rogan, he is a reasonably funny stand up but he is a great colour commentator i think.