Lions WR Charles Rogers admitted testing positive for marijuana

[Hostile]

BTW, on all sides a very good dsicussion in every direction it has gone. I want to thank all parties who have participated. It's been a lot of fun. IMO.

 

[iceberg]

If you use an illegal drug, that is abuse.

we'll stop cause i disagree but i completely understand your point. i agree it's illegal but i don't think that mere fact makes it abuse anymore than going 68 in a 65 is abusing your car.

abuse in this instance means using something to excess.
illegal means something may be illegal but they're not using to excess.

so'k - i do get where you're coming from.

 

[Doomsday101]

I tend to agree. Ya prude.

:wink2:

I admit at one time I worked to party with no thought what so ever about the future. I also paid a heavy price and had to learn the hard way. I'll agree with anyone who says weed is not a big deal but what is a big deal is when you choose the drug over everything else that you have worked for. If players want to get high then do so after your career is over because it is a short career to begin with don't waste it over something that is not a big deal.

 

[peplaw06]

Who profits more from the purchase?

It doesn't matter... I can't make this any clearer. They're both breaking the law.

Were I to stop buying, they would both still be breaking the law. If I stop buying, does that mean I'm supporting the illegals?? That's ludicrous. Because if I stop buying, that hurts their livelihood.

It's just part of your talking points to claim that people who don't want illegal immigrants crossing the border are looking out for big corporations. When in reality stopping illegals hurts the corporations because they can't hire cheap labor.

But feel free to keep trying to assume you know what I'm thinking because of your preconcieved political notions.

 

[Hostile]

we'll stop cause i disagree but i completely understand your point. i agree it's illegal but i don't think that mere fact makes it abuse anymore than going 68 in a 65 is abusing your car.

abuse in this instance means using something to excess.
illegal means something may be illegal but they're not using to excess.

so'k - i do get where you're coming from.

Okay. Not sure why you'd disagree, but to each his own. I don't agree that excess makes it abuse.

You tell me a secret in trust that I will keep that secret. If I tell only my wife, aren't I still abusing your trust? But by your definition since it's not to excess it isn't.

Suppose now that I don't tell my wife but I do tell your wife, and the secret was that you had an affair. Abuse of trust? Still not to excess.

Too much gray area.

 

[AbeBeta]

It doesn't matter... I can't make this any clearer. They're both breaking the law.

Were I to stop buying, they would both still be breaking the law. If I stop buying, does that mean I'm supporting the illegals?? That's ludicrous. Because if I stop buying, that hurts their livelihood.

It's just part of your talking points to claim that people who don't want illegal immigrants crossing the border are looking out for big corporations. When in reality stopping illegals hurts the corporations because they can't hire cheap labor.

But feel free to keep trying to assume you know what I'm thinking because of your preconcieved political notions.

So you are saying this is a complex issue, right?

How then is using drugs so cut and dry to you? I see issues such as individual rights, protecting inoccents from being harmed by drug use, criminality related to drug use, indirect effects of supporting the drug industry, and the livelihood of marijuana growers (many of who operate on family farms and have the same problems as farmers who grow soy, etc.) and other ancillary businesses (e.g., hydroponic manufacturers, etc.)

I don't think I said anything that would disagree with the claim that stopping "illegal" immigration would be to the benefit of big organizations - to the contrary, migrant workers are an essential part of U.S. farming and frankly, we'd pay far more at the grocery store if only U.S. workers making minimum wage were hired. Hell, we should be thanking migrant workers for their efforts.

 

[iceberg]

Okay. Not sure why you'd disagree, but to each his own. I don't agree that excess makes it abuse.

You tell me a secret in trust that I will keep that secret. If I tell only my wife, aren't I still abusing your trust? But by your definition since it's not to excess it isn't.

Suppose now that I don't tell my wife but I do tell your wife, and the secret was that you had an affair. Abuse of trust? Still not to excess.

Too much gray area.

i don't think i'd say you abused my trust in as much as betrayed it.

the legality of something to me doesn't make it abuse or not. when alcohol was illegal that would mean 1 beer would be classified as "abuse" when now it's just a beer. i look for more "permanant ways" of defining things long term.

if pot were legal tomorrow taking a hit or two wouldn't be abuse but smoking 5 j's in 10 minutes would be.

now would it be abuse in amsterdam? parts of canada? no - so "abuse" changes depending on location in this manner when to me abuse is abuse regardless of location.

like i said - i get your point i just disagree and go for more of the common denomonator of a word.

 

[peplaw06]

So you are saying this is a complex issue, right?

How then is using drugs so cut and dry to you? I see issues such as individual rights, protecting inoccents from being harmed by drug use, criminality related to drug use, indirect effects of supporting the drug industry, and the livelihood of marijuana growers (many of who operate on family farms and have the same problems as farmers who grow soy, etc.) and other ancillary businesses (e.g., hydroponic manufacturers, etc.)

I never said drug use was a cut and dried issue. There you go assuming again. I don't tend to make knee jerk reactions to issues. Most times I think over both sides of an issue and come to an opinion. In fact sometimes it's to a fault, making me reluctant to take a stand on an issue. What you see now is my opinion... the end result. You don't know what I mulled over in my mind prior to coming to my conclusions. But because it happens to be at odds with your particular opinion on the subject, you assume it's cut and dried for me or that I came to an opinion rashly.

I don't think I said anything that would disagree with the claim that stopping "illegal" immigration would be to the benefit of big organizations - to the contrary, migrant workers are an essential part of U.S. farming and frankly, we'd pay far more at the grocery store if only U.S. workers making minimum wage were hired. Hell, we should be thanking migrant workers for their efforts.

I never claimed that stopping illegal immigration would benefit big organizations. That was what you assumed my opinion was when I said crossing the border was illegal. In fact in my last post I said that stopping illegal immigration would hurt corporations/farmers.

And I love how to you it's "illegal." In my mind, if it's against the law, that means it's illegal. But I guess there are grey areas there for you too. 80% of Americans think it's illegal though, and I agree.

And should we also thank "migrant workers" for costing states in the southwest billions of dollars in education, medical care, insurance costs, etc, etc.??

 

[StanleySpadowski]

Back to Rogers, I will say that I called this before he was even drafted.

When a player surrounds himself with thugs and addicts, it doesn't take long before they have a negative effect on him.

 

[Hostile]

i don't think i'd say you abused my trust in as much as betrayed it.

the legality of something to me doesn't make it abuse or not. when alcohol was illegal that would mean 1 beer would be classified as "abuse" when now it's just a beer. i look for more "permanant ways" of defining things long term.

if pot were legal tomorrow taking a hit or two wouldn't be abuse but smoking 5 j's in 10 minutes would be.

now would it be abuse in amsterdam? parts of canada? no - so "abuse" changes depending on location in this manner when to me abuse is abuse regardless of location.

like i said - i get your point i just disagree and go for more of the common denomonator of a word.

Betrayed versus abused is splitting hairs.

Legality is exactly what makes it abuse. By very definition the illegal nature of the act makes it abuse. There's a reason why they call it drug abuse, because it is an abuse of the law. The abuse isn't talking about doing the drugs, it's talking about the laws against them.

 

[AbeBeta]

And should we also thank "migrant workers" for costing states in the southwest billions of dollars in education, medical care, insurance costs, etc, etc.??

Would you prefer those education, medical care, etc. costs were absorbed at the grocery store or in your taxes? Would you prefer to pay $5 for a side salad when you go out to eat or pay more taxes? Migrant workers keep the price of food WAY down. Residents of those states (like myself) are going to pay one way or another.

BTW -- if the receptionist at your office sees your avatar she's going to figure it out -- ya get what i'm saying?

 

[peplaw06]

Would you prefer those education, medical care, etc. costs were absorbed at the grocery store or in your taxes? Would you prefer to pay $5 for a side salad when you go out to eat or pay more taxes? Migrant workers keep the price of food WAY down. Residents of those states (like myself) are going to pay one way or another.

Does it matter? It's going to be absorbed somewhere. I would much rather have legal workers who pay their share in taxes have access to our social services than having some people get a free ride. If I have to pay a couple more cents for a head of lettuce, so be it. If the cost of living goes up because of that, then my paycheck is likely to go up as well.

Also, at least I can control my spending habits. I can't control the amount of taxes that are taken out of my paycheck, and I can't control who benefits from those taxes as it stands now.

BTW -- if the receptionist at your office sees your avatar she's going to figure it out -- ya get what i'm saying?

I hope she sees it... She's a cutie.

 

[iceberg]

Betrayed versus abused is splitting hairs.

Legality is exactly what makes it abuse. By very definition the illegal nature of the act makes it abuse. There's a reason why they call it drug abuse, because it is an abuse of the law. The abuse isn't talking about doing the drugs, it's talking about the laws against them.

like i said - i disagree. in canada or amsterdam then it would not be abuse at all then because it's legal. i view abuse to be abuse regardless of the circumstances not really let the circumstances define the word.

i perfectly understand your view, i just don't agree; that's all. doesn't make either right or wrong, just came to terms on a word. : ) WE RULE!!!

 

[Hostile]

like i said - i disagree. in canada or amsterdam then it would not be abuse at all then because it's legal. i view abuse to be abuse regardless of the circumstances not really let the circumstances define the word.

i perfectly understand your view, i just don't agree; that's all. doesn't make either right or wrong, just came to terms on a word. : ) WE RULE!!!

Okay, not trying to be a wiseacre here J, but I can't resist.

Grown man slaps his 11 year old daughter when she upsets him. It is the only time it ever happens and it doesn't leave a mark on her face. Because it isn't excessive does that mean it isn't child abuse?

If he pushes his wife down, but only one time and she isn't hurt. Because it isn't excessive is it not spousal abuse?

There's not a line that you cross where on one side your safe and the other side it's abuse. I just don't see how that holds water.