Hennessy_King
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 16,720
- Reaction score
- 25,523
i dodged a bulletI hope for your sake you didn’t catch anything else that night.
Considering you were throwing cash around.
i dodged a bulletI hope for your sake you didn’t catch anything else that night.
Considering you were throwing cash around.
Just curious what you have against psychiatry.Was this intended to be a serious response?
correct i didn't even get a dui.You pulled a rook move at a strip club and ended up getting pulled over? Or was there another one?
I'm skimming this thread now.
Now the story is getting better...correct i didn't even get a dui.
I think you have the wrong idea. None of this is "my fantasy", per say. A prescribed drug takes the liability off the league to a great extent. I never said it absolves employers and I actually gave example of when it doesn't but again, warning labels clearly warn against operating heavy equipment etc. while on the medication. If a heavy operator shows up to work impaired and doesn't inform his employer, that's on the operator. Believe me, this is not about what I believe to be right or wrong or good or bad. The NFL, by adopting a policy of accepting weed provides no benefit to them, that I can see.
It probably feels like you're talking to yourself because you're too stubborn
to look at a different viewpoint.
And for the love of God, stop saying "dime bag". We aren't talking about your local
16 year old high school dealer... smh/lol. Adults buy in greater volume, usually a half ounce to an ounce.
What legal precedent? You're just pulling things out of the air and fearmongering. People can literally sue you for whatever they want. A judge can literally tell you there's no case here and throw it out.
You're also referring to established law referencing the providers of alcohol. What law are you referencing with this, "no testing means full endorsement and responsibility for consequences," stance?
The "no testing means full endorsement and responsibility for consequences" was not my statement.
The "no testing means full endorsement and responsibility for consequences" was not my statement.
Oh... Oh.It's a summary of your position. How is that wrong?
pulls me over I crack the window slightly slide my info out the window all while talking straight ahead so he can't get a whiff of the liquor. I also was smoking a newport and chewing gum. he looked at my info asked me if I had anything to drink I said "nope" as casually and confidently as possible. He gave me my stuff back and told me license plate light was out and have a good night. My boy in the passenger seat was in disbelief. He swore we was gettin baggedNow the story is getting better...
I need details man!
Edit: Now Terence Trent D'arby is playing. I feel... saucy.
Look to yourself. You were arguing this before I entered.
And there is a difference between accepting and not testing for. Better question: what good does it do?
Awesome. Beautiful. Handled like a pro.pulls me over I crack the window slightly slide my info out the window all while talking straight ahead so he can't get a whiff of the liquor. I also was smoking a newport and chewing gum. he looked at my info asked me if I had anything to drink I said "nope" as casually and confidently as possible. He gave me my stuff back and told me license plate light was out and have a good night. My boy in the passenger seat was in disbelief. He swore we was gettin bagged
Then why are you making statements about legal precedent and what lawyers can accomplish in court?
Look at what different? Why don't you tell us what your viewpoint is on the NFL allowing players to self medicate with weed. Then we can see if it's really and truly my view point or not.
Dime Bag. Truth is you have no idea what the league is talking about. I mean, how do you think the players are going to get weed? Do you think that the teams are just going to throw them out on the table as prescription grade and the players are just going to stick to those? That's not going to happen, be it an ounce of weed or whatever. I mean, this is what I'm talking about. Nobody cares what an "adult" buys in terms of how much weed. Don't you get it?
Man these bums ain't nobody lol.Awesome. Beautiful. Handled like a pro.
I have one for you, but I'm not shooting it out in public.
It's a summary of your position. How is that wrong?
Arguing what? I never argued not testing. I only discussed the NFL approving the usage of weed, nothing more.
What good does what do? You will have to be more specific. If the question is, what good does testing do, it provides cover for the league, nothing more. If the league was really interested in stopping players from using, they would do the testing entirely differently and they would actually be interested in catching those who are using.
Nobodies have a way of undermining you at the most inopportune times...Man these bums ain't nobody lol.
Oh... Oh.
I am not diving into this pool again!
I do believe that was my general argument pages ago.Cover from what? The league is not legally liable for what the players do on their own time and not testing would not make it so.