12/21/24
May 10, 2004
Thurman Thomas works on his J.: Thomas, the former All-Pro and MVP running back of the Buffalo Bills, was nabbed with some buddies and appears to have had a little Mary Jane on him. Thomas is a candidate for the Pro Football Hall of Fame in the near future, so the question in this — does an arrest for marijuana possession have any effect on a player's chances for getting into his or her respective Hall? Where's the line?
There was a stretch of about five years where he was one of the two or three best all-around backs in the game. You could make a strong case for him to be in, if not on the first ballot. The grass thing ain't no big thing anymore, is it? It wouldn't change my mind one thing. (Nate Newton was good, but he wasn't HoF good, and larger-scale dealing is way more of a no-no than partaking occasionally, eh? I'd vote him in, if I had a vote, but I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't make it, this bust notwithstanding.
posted by chicobangs at 01:16 PM on May 10, 2004
If Jim Kelly is in, then Thurman Thomas is in. The bigger question from those Bills teams is Andre Reed, IMO. Thomas has already admitted his substance abuse problems, and I don't think his football achievements should be shrouded by these off-the-field events.
posted by bcb2k2 at 01:19 PM on May 10, 2004
Again supporting rcade's position that nothing good can happen to you between 12 and 6 am. We should just start the official RCade Hall of Up-to-No-Good Early Morning Activity Shame.
posted by jerseygirl at 01:36 PM on May 10, 2004
whatever....the laws against the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use are archaic, hypocritical, and racist. His football achievements aren't tarnished, especially considering Thomas probably didn't acquire a taste for the herb after his NFL career.
posted by garfield at 01:43 PM on May 10, 2004
the laws against the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use are archaic, hypocritical, and racist. I don't know about racist, but the other two I completely agree with. I thought about messing with my girlfriend by planting two or three marijuana seeds in her garden - except that I would be committing a felony! It's so ridiculous. I can buy a case of beer, a case of wine, and any host of OTC pills at the drugstore, but they'd put me in jail for growing a few marijuana plants.
posted by dusted at 02:57 PM on May 10, 2004
It ain't the law that's racist, but how it is applied is certainly open to debate. Thurman should get in. He was a leading back for a good stretch and this doesn't do anything to diminish that.
posted by 86 at 03:09 PM on May 10, 2004
I agree the application is particularly racist, but the law's origin comes from racism.
posted by garfield at 03:18 PM on May 10, 2004
Here is what I know: Migrant workers from Mexico and the 'black musician' scene were targetted by the classification of marijuana as a Class I narcotic.
posted by garfield at 03:21 PM on May 10, 2004
does an arrest for marijuana possession have any effect on a player's chances for getting into his or her respective Hall? Where's the line? I'd guess that the line is somewhere just west of "did lines of cocaine off of naked strippers breasts in the locker room before and after games, then sent them over to the opponent's locker room to distract them." If LT got in, having a little weed isn't going to damage Thurman's HOF chances.
posted by Bernreuther at 03:39 PM on May 10, 2004
My favorite Thurman Thomas story (as related in Sports Illustrated): Grandfather takes his son over to Thurman for a post-game autograph (after a Bills' loss). Thurman refuses. The following exchange (as best I recall) occurs: Kid: "I wouldn't want your autograph after how you played today." TT: "I was tired from fucking your momma last night."
posted by yerfatma at 04:16 PM on May 10, 2004
My favorite TT story came from Marv Levy's HOF induction speech when he paused mid-sentence to make fun of Thurman's limited vocabulary. "Like many other coaches, I've often been asked that enigmatic question – look it up, Thurman – the question being who was the best quarterback of all time?"
posted by 86 at 05:05 PM on May 10, 2004
Regardless of the law's racist origins, this has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with being a celebrity. If you're a celebrity, you are a target.
posted by justgary at 12:08 AM on May 11, 2004
I agree that this shouldn't matter. LT set some kind of benchmark for these guys.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 01:58 AM on May 11, 2004
If you're a celebrity, you are a target Ain't that the truth. Makes you wonder why anyone would really want to be famous.
posted by garfield at 06:19 AM on May 11, 2004
I agree the weed thing will have no effect on TT's drive for the Hall, and I think he'll make it, just not on the first vote. I also agree that short of killing someone, arrests seem have almost no bearing on immortality anymore. Regardless of the law's racist origins, this has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with being a celebrity. If you're a celebrity, you are a target. Last I checked, possession of marijuana is illegal. I'm all for the reform of dope laws, but don't make Thomas out to be some victim. He might not be the brightest man on Earth (re: Marv Levy), but I'm he was aware he was breaking the law.
posted by wfrazerjr at 09:25 AM on May 11, 2004
I see what you're saying wfrazerjr, but I get frustrated with the lack of reform of the dope laws. No high-level politician will touch it, even though a huge amount of Americans smoke weed. The people who defend bad laws just because "it's the law" don't help a bit, IMO. Every single person who's been thrown in jail for any victimless crime, including marijuana usage, is a victim.
posted by dusted at 10:46 AM on May 11, 2004
Marijuana law is not a victimless crime. Anyone out smoking dope on the road is in an impaired state. There should be some distinction between pot and other drugs, and no, I have no problem with people lighting up on their couches and eating a box of Ding-Dongs. But the law is on the books, and tokers choose to disobey it. You decide to do that, you run the risk of facing the consequences. IMHO, people jailed for breaking a law they knew existed aren't victims. They are two other things, however — criminals and idiots.
posted by wfrazerjr at 11:39 AM on May 11, 2004
Sure, I'll grant you that - driving while impaired is not victimless. But that's not what I was talking about. Smoking marijuana in the privacy of your own home is 100% victimless. The DEA would like you to believe that marijuana itself funds terrorism or makes you drown little babies, or turns you into a red communist, when in reality, it's the fact that that marijuana is unobtainable legally that makes it a profitable venture for criminal elements (see Prohibition). But if you're of the mind that "it's the law and that's that" - well, there's no debate possible.
posted by dusted at 12:08 PM on May 11, 2004
I completely agree, dusted — the laws are stupid and Draconian, and sitting in your house and smoking a Thurman hurts no one. Unfortunately, not everyone is glued to "That 70s Show" whilst they partake. I'm of a mind that lower-tier mood- and mind-altering substances — beer, pot, tobacco — should be legal and distributed through either governmental dealers or with govermental oversight. Then, if you get caught selling or supplying? Life in prison. William F. Buckley first proposed this idea about 15 years ago, and I discussed with him at some length. He advocated the death penalty for those selling to minors, but even I am not that extreme. For now, however, the laws are the laws. Until they are changed, saying they are ridiculous is not a valid reason to ignore them. You break them, you pay, and that IS that.
posted by wfrazerjr at 12:44 PM on May 11, 2004
so, where does this crazy idea of change fit in with what you've said? I can't seem to reconcile the two.
posted by garfield at 12:47 PM on May 11, 2004
The potsmokers of the country should unite and rise up against all the anti-marijauna laws in the country. When you get that accomplished, I've got some Jell-o for you to nail to a tree...
posted by MeatSaber at 01:12 PM on May 11, 2004
Ha, that's hilarious.
posted by garfield at 01:36 PM on May 11, 2004
It fits in like this — I could give a rat's ass about whether or not marijuana laws ever get changed because 1) I don't smoke pot and 2) I'm not in favor of other people smoking it either. However, what someone does on their own time that doesn't affect me is none of my business. So fine, work toward changing the governmental stance on the invasion of someone's personal rights. But in the meantime, pull your head of your bong and realize it's illegal. If you don't want to get arrested for smoking pot, either move to Canada ... or stop smoking pot.
posted by wfrazerjr at 07:57 PM on May 11, 2004
don't make Thomas out to be some victim. Wfrazerjr, I agree, he isn't a victim. (sorry if my comment came off that way)
posted by justgary at 02:15 AM on May 12, 2004
realize it's illegal golly gee, thanks mister. I'm not in favor of other people smoking it either I figured as much. Thanks. Let me get this straight: the laws are draconian and stupid. Responsible use hurts no one. You don't want people to be able to smoke it. And its none of your business. Its all crystal clear now.
posted by garfield at 09:16 AM on May 12, 2004
sorry for raising the topic...this isn't the right forum.
posted by garfield at 09:17 AM on May 12, 2004
I'd argue this further, but I'm too mellow at the moment... Hahahahahaha
posted by dusted at 10:50 AM on May 12, 2004
People who say that 'people shouldn't smoke pot' should be equally resolute and ask that 'people shouldn't drink beer'. Don't debate the law - debate the substance.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 10:54 AM on May 12, 2004
You're misrepresenting what i said. I'm not in favor of people of using marijuana, no. I'm not in favor of people drinking or smoking, either. I'm not in favor of people doing anything to fuck either themselves or me up. However, I'm also not in favor of the government telling people what they can and can't do in their own homes. If it doesn't affect me and doesn't hurt someone else (other than the user), it doesn't bother me. So therefore, I don't support pot smoking, but for some reason Ganjaworld denizens defy me and continue to smoke pot. Let's stop treating it the same as major crimes. One of the consistent things I hear from advocates of legalization, however, is that people shouldn't get arrested for smoking pot. Fine, but they WILL get arrested until the laws get changed, so don't whine when you get nailed for having a joint in your car. If you're fighting for change in the law, you know the risks of breaking the law, and in the interim, the law is still there. It's like eating a box of Twinkies and then bitching you got fat. Well, duh. That's all I'm saying, and I wasn't trying to tag you with that, garfield. It just seems hypocritical to me. If you know the law, and you choose to break the laws, don't complain about the consequences.
posted by wfrazerjr at 11:42 AM on May 12, 2004
and garf, hell, it's the end of the thread ... let's just hash it out until one of just gives up.
posted by wfrazerjr at 11:45 AM on May 12, 2004
"Huh-huh, huh-huh....he said 'hash'...." "Shut up, Butthead."
posted by smithers at 12:34 PM on May 12, 2004
I hear ya, man...I struggle with the dichotomy of the situation. I don't know how else to fight the law apart from sparking debate and illustrating its flaws...and hearing 'yeah, well, its still the law' is defeating. Hence my call for the inclusion of 'change'. I guess large organized smoke-outs in public places which attract alot of media attention is a start, but I'm not fucking with this Justice Department.
posted by garfield at 12:52 PM on May 12, 2004
If you knowingly break the law, you had better be prepared to face the consequences. We agree on that. But I believe that when injustice is done, like millions of people getting thrown into prisons full of violent offenders for smoking marijuana, there are most definitely victims, including every taxpayer in the country. I'll go back to what I said earlier - if there isn't a victim, there isn't a crime. You might not like people to smoke marijuana, but your neighbor might not like something you do. It's all about tolerance. I think planting my first vegetable garden really defined my views. I planted a bunch of herbs, including several listed here that have medicinal value. There are many more being studied by drug companies trying to isolate beneficial compounds. Marijuana is just another herb, but it's been so demonized that there is no longer any serious debate or study. Instead there are people asking things like "does an arrest for marijuana possession have any effect on a player's chances for getting into his or her respective Hall?"
posted by dusted at 01:49 PM on May 12, 2004
there are most definitely victims, including every taxpayer in the country amen.
posted by garfield at 02:48 PM on May 12, 2004
Thank you, brother.
posted by dusted at 06:31 PM on May 12, 2004
Well, for me he doesn't make the Hall of Fame. I mean Nate Newton put up great career numbers with 213 lbs. So Thurman is caught with one partially smoked joint? That's it? Thomas just hasn't done enough in my opinion. I wouldn't keep him out of the hall for that but I ain't a voter...