Santonio Holmes caught with weed!

[Bronco Billy]

Would the same people who roll their eyes at those of us who take issue with this rather pervasive trend be cool with it if your employer required you to attach a devise to your car that alerted them if you ever exceeded the speed limit and then disciplined you accordingly? That's the exact same thing.

 

No, it's not even close to being the same argument. To try to set up that strawman shows how weak your position is.

 

Again, this is private industry. You want to govern how someone else runs their company. You don't see that as inherently wrong?

[The Holy Roller]

Pot smoking is powerful. Where do the candidates stand on this divisive issue?

[Bronco Billy]

Pot smoking is powerful. Where do the candidates stand on this divisive issue?

 

I think candidates ought to have to disclose their FF rosters.

[detlef]

No, it's not even close to being the same argument. To try to set up that strawman shows how weak your position is.

 

Again, this is private industry. You want to govern how someone else runs their company. You don't see that as inherently wrong?

It is absolutely 100% precisely the same thing and you're going to need to at least make an argument why it is not.

 

Speeding is illegal. Smoking pot is illegal. Speeding is also potentially dangerous. So, as an employer, I say, "Well, I don't want to have to deal with a workforce that might be getting in car wrecks, so I'm going to make sure that nobody ever speeds. So, even though you might rarely do so to the extent that the police never catch you, I want to know if you ever do at all. Thus, you must install this device in your car."

 

This is the same as saying that I want to know whether you ever get stoned at all, even if it's in the privacy of your own home and you're always completely sober when you're at work.

 

Now, as to your last point. I simply have major issues with this practice. If your read anything beyond that, you'll see that I submitted to the testing, so save me the "tell someone how to run their company" crap. Now, what I do see as inherently wrong is the fact that people take a "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" stance but only when convenient. The fact that you fail to see the speeding v pot smoking thing as the same illustrates this perfectly. You obviously don't smoke pot. Thus, when someone says it's screwed up that people should be randomly tested for pot, you think they hate America. However, when it comes to some law that you might break from time to time, you think any comparison is a strawman argument.

 

It's all the same thing. You just lack the perspective to see so.

Edited October 24, 2008 by detlef

[Bronco Billy]

It is absolutely 100% precisely the same thing and you're going to need to at least make an argument why it is not.

 

Speeding is illegal. Smoking pot is illegal. Speeding is also potentially dangerous. So, as an employer, I say, "Well, I don't want to have to deal with a workforce that might be getting in car wrecks, so I'm going to make sure that nobody ever speeds. So, even though you might rarely do so to the extent that the police never catch you, I want to know if you ever do at all. Thus, you must install this device in your car."

 

This is the same as saying, that I want to know whether you ever get stoned at all, even if it's in the privacy of your own home and you're always completely sober when you're at work.

 

Now, as to your last point. I simply have major issues with this practice. If your read anything beyond that, you'll see that I submitted to the testing, so save me the "tell someone how to run their company" crap. Now, what I do see as inherently wrong is the fact that people take a "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" stance but only when convenient. The fact that you fail to see the speeding v pot smoking thing as the same illustrates this perfectly. You obviously don't smoke pot. Thus, when someone says it's screwed up that people should be randomly tested for pot, you think they hate America. However, when it comes to some law that you might break from time to time, you think any comparison is a strawman argument.

 

It's all the same thing. You just lack the perspective to see so.

 

 

The old, "you obviously don't think the same as me so you must flatlining on your alpha waves" argument. Nice.

 

First off, I don't smoke dope. I never have - never even tried it. That said, I do support making smoking Josh Gordon legal. I see it as less pervasive in our society as far as consequences than alcohol, and we sure as hell aren't going to eradicate it. Make it legal & tax the hell out of it - sin taxes work well.

 

As far as speeding in one's car as opposed to smoking dope, you're going to have to show me where speeding in one's own car affects one's performance while working in a factory, whereas someone who was partying hard last night - whether smoking dope or drinking - can absolutely affect one's safety & performance on the job, as well as those around them. To make an equivalence between the two is irrational. We can also talk about how many days speeders miss in a year due to their actions as opposed to the number of days dope smokers miss because they don't feel like getting out of bed in the morning.

 

As far as owning one's business and requiring drug testing, the fact is whether you like it or not that smoking dope is still illegal in this country. There is a correspondance between participating in risky behavior and performance & reliability on the job, not to mention the potential impact to a company's image (which can be a critical competitive advantage in some industries) as to whether they run a drug free workplace or whether employess get busted for drug use.

 

Furthermore, the owner of a company takes the risk of placing capital on the line to establish the company, and as such they can set rules in the workplace as they see fit as long as those rules do not violate the law. Whether they have an opposition to any drugs because of not wanting employees to break the law, or because of religious grounds, or because they get breaks on their insurance, or they are concerned about lack of performance by drug users, or any other reason - what it comes down to is that it is their company and they have the right to run the company as they see fit. That you don't agree with them is your perrogative, and you are free to decide not to work for them if you so choose. There are choices to be made. Drug testing by companies is legal, and some choose to do so for reasons stated above or others. Working for a company that one considers oppressive is that employee's choice. But to force a company to concede to your desire to not be tested for drugs because you feel violated? That's not a choice you can make for them - nor should you ever be able to. What makes you think that you should have that kind of power?

Edited October 24, 2008 by Bronco Billy

[detlef]

 

The old, "you obviously don't think the same as me so you must flatlining on your alpha waves" argument. Nice.

 

First off, I don't smoke dope. I never have - never even tried it. That said, I do support making smoking Josh Gordon legal. I see it as less pervasive in our society as far as consequences than alcohol, and we sure as hell aren't going to eradicate it. Make it legal & tax the hell out of it - sin taxes work well.

 

As far as speeding in one's car as opposed to smoking dope, you're going to have to show me where speeding in one's own car affects one's performance while working in a factory, whereas someone who was partying hard last night - whether smoking dope or drinking - can absolutely affect one's safety & performance on the job, as well as those around them. To make an equivalence between the two is irrational. We can also talk about how many days speeders miss in a year due to their actions as opposed to the number of days dope smokers miss because they don't feel like getting out of bed in the morning.

 

As far as owning one's business and requiring drug testing, the fact is whether you like it or not that smoking dope is still illegal in this country. There is a correspondance between participating in risky behavior and performance & reliability on the job, not to mention the potential impact to a company's image (which can be a critical competitive advantage in some industries) as to whether they run a drug free workplace or whether employess get busted for drug use.

 

Furthermore, the owner of a company takes the risk of placing capital on the line to establish the company, and as such they can set rules in the workplace as they see fit as long as those rules do not violate the law. Whether they have an opposition to any drugs because of not wanting employees to break the law, or because of religioous grounds, or because they get breaks on their insurance, or they are concerned about lack of performance by drug users, or any other reason - what it comes down to is that it is their company and they have the right to run the company as they see fit. That you don't agree with them is your perrogative, and you are free to decide not to work for them if you so choose. There are choices to be made. Drug testing by companies is legal, and some choose to do so for reasons stated above or others. Working for a comapny that one considers oppressive is that employee's choice. But to force a company to concede to your desire to not be tested for drugs because you feel violated? That's not a choice you can make for them - nor should you ever be able to. What makes you think that you should have that kind of power?

Let's make one thing absolutely clear. I do not need a lecture on why an employer would want to control his or her employees beyond limits that the government can.

 

My point is simply this, and you have done a wonderful job of illustrating it, is that people are quick to say "get over it" when someone is complaining about people trying to control their lives as long as it is not in a manner they care about.

 

Look at how you compared speeding to pot smoking. Despite never having smoked pot once in your life you went right to "unable to work well because they partied all night." The thing is, just like have a beer or two, if you smoke a little pot, you'll be fine the next day. Where did I condone someone staying up all night getting wasted and then showing up to work hungover? I could do the same. As an employer, I'd rather have an employee who smokes a little pot now and then rather than one who drives 150 miles per hour everywhere they go. One dude is a whole lot more likely than the other to "call in sick" or, in this case, end up in the hospital.

 

So, let's show each other the decency of actually discussing the issue, not exaggerating the potential problems with the others points.

 

Sure, if nobody smoked pot, nobody would ever be stoned at work, nor suffer the effects of having smoked too much the night before. Which, btw is orders of magnitude less crippling than having drunk too much the night before. Of course, if nobody ever speeded, there'd be way less accidents on the road. So, why do you fail to see that it would be no different for an employer to want to completely eliminate that as well? It's just that speeding is a law that nearly everyone breaks now and then and smoking pot is a law that only hippies, radicals, and black men do so it's much easier for people to accept extensive means to stamp it out. That sir, is the perspective you lack. Don't let yourself off the hook by saying it's only because I disagree with you. I am very capable of recognizing valid points that I don't agree with. You just don't have one.

[The Holy Roller]

 

The old, "you obviously don't think the same as me so you must flatlining on your alpha waves" argument. Nice.

 

First off, I don't smoke dope. I never have - never even tried it. That said, I do support making smoking Josh Gordon legal. I see it as less pervasive in our society as far as consequences than alcohol, and we sure as hell aren't going to eradicate it. Make it legal & tax the hell out of it - sin taxes work well.

 

As far as speeding in one's car as opposed to smoking dope, you're going to have to show me where speeding in one's own car affects one's performance while working in a factory, whereas someone who was partying hard last night - whether smoking dope or drinking - can absolutely affect one's safety & performance on the job, as well as those around them. To make an equivalence between the two is irrational. We can also talk about how many days speeders miss in a year due to their actions as opposed to the number of days dope smokers miss because they don't feel like getting out of bed in the morning.

 

As far as owning one's business and requiring drug testing, the fact is whether you like it or not that smoking dope is still illegal in this country. There is a correspondance between participating in risky behavior and performance & reliability on the job, not to mention the potential impact to a company's image (which can be a critical competitive advantage in some industries) as to whether they run a drug free workplace or whether employess get busted for drug use.

 

Furthermore, the owner of a company takes the risk of placing capital on the line to establish the company, and as such they can set rules in the workplace as they see fit as long as those rules do not violate the law. Whether they have an opposition to any drugs because of not wanting employees to break the law, or because of religious grounds, or because they get breaks on their insurance, or they are concerned about lack of performance by drug users, or any other reason - what it comes down to is that it is their company and they have the right to run the company as they see fit. That you don't agree with them is your perrogative, and you are free to decide not to work for them if you so choose. There are choices to be made. Drug testing by companies is legal, and some choose to do so for reasons stated above or others. Working for a company that one considers oppressive is that employee's choice. But to force a company to concede to your desire to not be tested for drugs because you feel violated? That's not a choice you can make for them - nor should you ever be able to. What makes you think that you should have that kind of power?

 

I concur. And I agree that the candidates should disclose their FF rosters, lol.

[bushwacked]

What do you expect when Hines Ward is your mentor?

[Patriots]

Ok I need to know from some of you who smoke pot... is Josh Gordon addictive? I always thought that it was NOT addictive. But these athletes absolutely cannot stop getting caught with this stuff. I mean how amazingly idiotic do you have to be to jeopardize everything just to smoke pot? I'm trying to wrap my mind around this but I'm just not seeing the big picture.

 

I have Millions of dollars.

I could potentially lose Millions of dollars by getting caught smoking pot.

I continue to smoke pot.

 

 

I read somewhere once that people that want to keep their bodies in tip top shape cannot drink alcohol because of the calaries so they smoke pot instead. Bascially if you want ripped up abs you really cannot be drinking 12 beers a night. Not sure if thats true or not.

[Patriots]

I read somewhere once that people that want to keep their bodies in tip top shape cannot drink alcohol because of the calaries so they smoke pot instead. Bascially if you want ripped up abs you really cannot be drinking 12 beers a night. Not sure if thats true or not.

 

 

I think its addictive. But not a hard addiciton to overcome. If you smoke everday for a couple of weeks you def feel like crap when you stop.

[detlef]

I concur. And I agree that the candidates should disclose their FF rosters, lol.

So, you're on record with saying there should be zero tolerance but only for laws that you don't personally break? Good to know.

 

You guys realize, that is my main point here. If you want to condone random search regardling laws that you don't break, you'd better be down with random search regarding ones that you do. Especially when a valid argument can be made as to why breaking said rules could effect your ability to perform your job. Otherwise you have absolutely no integrity.

[Bronco Billy]

Look at how you compared speeding to pot smoking. Despite never having smoked pot once in your life you went right to "unable to work well because they partied all night."

 

Please stop being so damn self-righteous. We aren't talking about speeding with someone going 150 mph every time they get behind the wheel of a car, no more than we are talking about someone who has to shoot up with heroin 3 times a day while on the job. Stop being such a drama queen.

 

While I didn't smoke dope in college, 2 of my roommates did. I watched both of these guys go from very good students and good athletes to dropping out of school because all they were interested in was getting high in the morning. These were and are very good friends and very good people.

 

Both guys got into the college partying scene with some minor dope smoking the first couple of years. After we all moved into an apartment, they started smoking dope heavier at the apartment rather than going downtown to drink. Both of these guys were A/B students, and both of them were in a very tough business program. By their senior year, their smoking had gotten to the point were they needed to light up 3-4 joints in the morning just to get up the desire to go to school, and by second semester both guys - with each being less than 12 credits away from graduating and being locked into good careers with the reputation the degree carried in their industry - decided that having 4-5 joints in the morning and just not going to school was easier than finishing up a degree they had spent almost 4 years of their life pursuing.

 

One ending up working on the docks in Milwaukee, the other one went back to work as an upholseter in his father's business. They are both doing that to this day.

 

So please don't tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about. I said it before, I'll say it again. I advocate making Josh Gordon legal. I see it as actually being less harmful than alcohol, and as I stated previously, no one in their rigt mind thinks we're going to oust it from society. I believe people are responsible for their own actions, and that my buddies chose their own path and their own endings - but to think Josh Gordon is completely harmless is unsupportable.

 

Furthermore, I'll ask the real important question one more time - what makes you think that you should be able to make a business owner's decisions for them? You obviously do need a lecture on how a business runs - your position here shows that beyond the shadow of a doubt.

[Menudo]

What do you expect when Hines Ward is your mentor?

 

Your attempts are getting weaker and weaker

[detlef]

Please stop being so damn self-righteous. We aren't talking about speeding with someone going 150 mph every time they get behind the wheel of a car, no more than we are talking about someone who has to shoot up with heroin 3 times a day while on the job. Stop being such a drama queen.

 

While I didn't smoke dope in college, 2 of my roommates did. I watched both of these guys go from very good students and good athletes to dropping out of school because all they were interested in was getting high in the morning. These were and are very good friends and very good people.

 

Both guys got into the college partying scene with some minor dope smoking the first couple of years. After we all moved into an apartment, they started smoking dope heavier at the apartment rather than going downtown to drink. Both of these guys were A/B students, and both of them were in a very tough business program. By their senior year, their smoking had gotten to the point were they needed to light up 3-4 joints in the morning just to get up the desire to go to school, and by second semester both guys - with each being less than 12 credits away from graduating and being locked into good careers with the reputation the degree carried in their industry - decided that having 4-5 joints in the morning and just not going to school was easier than finishing up a degree they had spent almost 4 years of their life pursuing.

 

One ending up working on the docks in Milwaukee, the other one went back to work as an upholseter in his father's business. They are both doing that to this day.

 

So please don't tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about. I said it before, I'll say it again. I advocate making Josh Gordon legal. I see it as actually being less harmful than alcohol, and as I stated previously, no one in their rigt mind thinks we're going to oust it from society. I believe people are responsible for their own actions, and that my buddies chose their own path and their own endings - but to think Josh Gordon is completely harmless is unsupportable.

 

Furthermore, I'll ask the real important question one more time - what makes you think that you should be able to make a business owner's decisions for them? You obviously do need a lecture on how a business runs - your position here shows that beyond the shadow of a doubt.

First off, WOW. I only mentioned the 150 mph deal to illustrate that you went right to "up all night partying" example. So, who's the drama queen?

 

Here's the funny thing. I'm not saying that smoking pot is all great. I'm not saying that it can't be abused to the extent that it can ruin your life. Trust me, we agree on this. Like you however, I also realize that it's really no worse than, say drinking and should be made legal on those grounds. I also completely agree that an employer absolutely should discipline any employee who's pot smoking, or drinking, or what-have-you, affects their ability to do their job.

 

I also understand 100% why an employer would want his employees to not engage in any activities outside of staying healthy and getting plenty of rest. Hell, it's pretty freaking obvious.

 

However, for the same reasons we are protected by the constitution even to the extent that unintended and unfortunate consequences arise from those protections, we should, to some reasonable degree restrict the lengths business owners can restrict the lives of their employees. Either that, or anything goes. I, for one, lean towards the side of an employer not being able to ask any more of you than the cops. You seem to side with them being allowed to overstep those bounds, provided it is only in regards to laws that you don't happen to break but find it silly to even contemplate overstepping those bounds with regards to laws you do break.

 

Keep in mind, that, at least without making a point of exaggerating the pot smoking side, have yet to explain why speeding is any better than smoking pot.

[bushwacked]

While I didn't smoke dope in college, 2 of my roommates did. I watched both of these guys go from very good students and good athletes to dropping out of school because all they were interested in was getting high in the morning. These were and are very good friends and very good people.

 

Both guys got into the college partying scene with some minor dope smoking the first couple of years. After we all moved into an apartment, they started smoking dope heavier at the apartment rather than going downtown to drink. Both of these guys were A/B students, and both of them were in a very tough business program. By their senior year, their smoking had gotten to the point were they needed to light up 3-4 joints in the morning just to get up the desire to go to school, and by second semester both guys - with each being less than 12 credits away from graduating and being locked into good careers with the reputation the degree carried in their industry - decided that having 4-5 joints in the morning and just not going to school was easier than finishing up a degree they had spent almost 4 years of their life pursuing.

 

I don't smoke Josh Gordon, but I know ubber succesful lawyers, teachers, and college professors that do. Maybe your friends were just losers in general.

Edited October 24, 2008 by bushwacked

[Hugh 0ne]

Two of my favorite huddler's in a fight. This will help get me through a slow Friday afternoon.

[Bronco Billy]

Maybe your friends were just losers in general.

 

Birds of a feather, I guess...

[Bronco Billy]

Keep in mind, that, at least without making a point of exaggerating the pot smoking side, have yet to explain why speeding is any better than smoking pot.

 

I explained it quite clearly. That you either didn't like the explanation or didn't read it is out of my control.

[scottyjets]

I guess you can drink Hard Liquor if you don't want the calories. Although I ran into Will Witherspoon at a random dive bar in New York a few years ago and he was drinking Guiness. A lot of it.

 

So enough politics, Holmes is probably OK for this Sunday, right?

[Down Goes Frazia]

As a Columbus police officer I can tell you two things

1. This was normal in college. Anyone who encountered Mr. Holmes on non game nights knows what I am talking about. He was never an A Hole and always a pretty nice guy, but the guy was always under the influence.

2. This probably wasnt the first time this has happened for him during his pro career. Cops almost dislike these situations as much as the player involved because of the attention it draws. Unless the guy is a total a hole, which Santonio is not, it is better off to park the car and take the guy home. Now, cops do talk and when someone keeps spitting in your face after you have cut them numerous breaks, they will get a ride downtown.

 

 

we gotta cop on the boards ? He needs to get in this piss'n match.

[Chief]

As an employer, for safety and insurance purposes, I can have tested for drugs, as well as put monitors on my work vehicles that I provide. This big long debate is senseless. We and Holmes know what the rules are before you gain employment. Break them and you have to face the consequences, whatever they may be.

 

I'm sure PItt, and or Rooneys will have talk with this young man. What the consequences are, I don't know. I'm guessing has to enter a program, and maybe a one game suspension, although I doubt it. Whatever it is or will be, he has to face the consequences, same as me or you. No excuses, no drama, just own up to it.

[Down Goes Frazia]

Two of my favorite huddler's in a fight. This will help get me through a slow Friday afternoon.

 

 

agreed.....especially when it's a subject so dear to my heart.

 

[Bronco Billy]

I, for one, lean towards the side of an employer not being able to ask any more of you than the cops.

 

It doesn't matter where you lean - it's not your business. That's the whole freakin' point. When you decide to accept the risks and the costs of running a business, then you get to make the rules. Until then, you have to follow someone else's rules provided that they adhere to the law - or you find another business with rules that you can live with. That's a fundamental principle of business. Overly oppresive businesses will either have to increase compensation to retain employees who will concede to what you consider to be excessive rules or will have to face not being able to compete because they will be running off employees. It's a trade off.

 

The point being - you don't get to make the decision on which side of the tradeoff someone else's business lands. I'm still trying to figure out why you think that you should have that kind of influence on a company in which you have no ownership. There's a question that you have yet to answer.

 

As it pertains to this thread - the CBA is quite clear on drug use, even smoking pot. Holmes wants to play in the NFL, so he has agreed to abide by the contractual agreemeent between the NFL and the NFLPA. He violated that agreement, and as such he's subject to penalties explicitly spelled out in that agreement. It's pretty clear cut, it's legal, it's justifiable, and it's reasonable.

Edited October 24, 2008 by Bronco Billy

[Big John]

 

we gotta cop on the boards ? He needs to get in this piss'n match.

Mojo20 is also a cop.

[detlef]

 

As far as speeding in one's car as opposed to smoking dope, you're going to have to show me where speeding in one's own car affects one's performance while working in a factory, whereas someone who was partying hard last night - whether smoking dope or drinking - can absolutely affect one's safety & performance on the job, as well as those around them. To make an equivalence between the two is irrational. We can also talk about how many days speeders miss in a year due to their actions as opposed to the number of days dope smokers miss because they don't feel like getting out of bed in the morning.

 

 

I explained it quite clearly. That you either didn't like the explanation or didn't read it is out of my control.

I'm assuming the above was your "clear" explanation that did not include exaggerating the pot smoking part? Sorry, but you're going to have to do better.

 

Once again, we're not talking about habitual and reckless speeders or abject stoners here. Or, seemingly according your "clear" explanation, in terms of how it relates to your example, occasional speeders vs. abject stoners.

 

What rational comparison should be is between two people, both whom break the law. Neither of whom do so often enough or recklessly enough to have those transgressions get them in any trouble with the law. However, one of them is risking their livelihood, the other is not. All because more people are cool with speeding than they are with smoking pot. Once again, I'm just pointing out the flaw in this.

 

One doesn't need to drug test the type of stoner who's habit is so out of control that it really affects his job performance. Dude will likely end up stoned at work, get busted, or somehow do something really stupid at work. Any of which could then be grounds for termination or discipline. See, the thing of drug testing is that it not only catches this guy, but the guy who's job performance is totally on point but just happens to smoke a little pot a few nights per week.

 

Similarly, one doesn't need to monitor speeding through drastic measures to catch the type of driver who's likely to have his reckless behavior come back to affect his job. Understand that many people drive on company business so whether or not they're a safe driver very much affects the employer. This is why people who drive on the clock can be fired for getting too many tickets. Once again, why not monitor these people more closely than that? How is that any different than monitoring whether or not someone is smoking pot in a manner that doesn't affect his job nor puts him at much risk of running up against the law?

 

Now, as I said, I have submitted to drug testing. That doesn't mean I have to be happy about it or see the somewhat 1984 ish elements of it. There are precedents for legislating employee rights. Most of them very important, all of them are certainly subject to resulting in unfortunate and unintended consequences. So, by suggesting that employers should be limited in the degree they can avoid the limits our police have in how they deal with citizens is not some crazy idea coming out of the blue.