logic404

You're kidding yourself if that is what you believe.

I think OP is speaking from a medical perspective, and from that perspective I believe OP is correct. You could live a long time without complications taking a medicinal dose of heroin.

To be clear, if you abuse alcohol you get cirrhosis of the liver, if you smoke your more likely to get cancer, emphysema, etc. You don't have those types of complications just from abusing heroin.

So instead of arguing against a straw man, lets try to understand each other.

Is it your belief that heroin use causes medical problems or do you agree with the claim that heroin is relatively benign from a medical perspective. If you disagree, maybe elaborate on the what you believe are the health consequences. (Note: I'm talking about medical heroin, as was the OP. Injecting contaminated substances and sharing needles causes all sorts of health problems. I stipulate that the behavior that typically goes along with heroin abuse is unhealthy).

He's an offensive lineman. It wouldn't surprise me if there is less head trauma in that position than in others.

Here's some data wrt to OL being the worst position actually.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/10/19/offensive-play

This is a crucial point. Much of the attention in the football world, in the past few years, has been on concussions—on diagnosing, managing, and preventing them—and on figuring out how many concussions a player can have before he should call it quits. But a football player’s real issue isn’t simply with repetitive concussive trauma. It is, as the concussion specialist Robert Cantu argues, with repetitive subconcussive trauma. It’s not just the handful of big hits that matter. It’s lots of little hits, too.

That’s why, Cantu says, so many of the ex-players who have been given a diagnosis of C.T.E. were linemen: line play lends itself to lots of little hits.

From one heterosexual man to another, surely we can see that we're in a different situation than this woman was.

I am genuinely curious about this point. Why are men in a different situation? Couldn't a homosexual boss want to coerce blowjobs from male subordinates?

A couple years ago she attended a technical conference and on the first day, she wore a dress...wore a nerdy t-shirt and jeans instead, and she had a better experience that day. People assumed she was technical and didn’t dilute their explanations to her

I'm not sure this really makes the case that its sexism at play. For example, if a guy wore a suit and tie to a conference, people might assume he's not a programmer.

Isn't this anecdote evidence that its the clothes, not the gender?