Santonio Holmes caught with weed!

[Grits and Shins]

Whether or not you think pot smoking is harmful or imparing and whether or not you think pot smoking should be legalized there are two underlying and undisputed facts here - 1) smoking pot is currently against the law 2) smoking pot is currently against the rules in the NFL.

 

In my opinion it takes a very stupid individual to risk an NFL career in order to get high. Of course I shouldn't be surprised because it seems as if in general most NFL players believe themselves to be above the law. If you willingly choose to break the law you are accepting the risk of the consequences when you get caught.

 

I also have to say that I don't believe a comparison can be made between speeding and getting high. Obviously both activities are certainly illegal (although the penalty for one is much harsher than for the other). However I don't believe there are many that would argue that getting high does not impair one mentailly in some fashion (isn't that the whole point). While speeding may be termed reckless depending on how fast one is driving I don't believe that anybody would say that speeding impairs one's ability mentally.

 

I also have to believe that almost any prospective employer would employee the candidate that admits to exceeding the speed limit on a regular basis over the one that admits to partaking of a controlled substance on a regular basis. For a number of reasons that includes the higher probability that the drug user is or will be undependable because of his addiction.

[Ursa Majoris]

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.

Gotta agree with all this. Some companies (say, advertising) may not give two hoots about pot use. Other companies (say, construction) care about it a lot because safety is a major issue and liability. Companies need to be free to make whatever rules they feel are necessary and if you don't like them, you're free to work elsewhere.

[dirtdickens]

I get paid to uphold the law. It is against the law to smoke pot, especially while driving. I dont need to argue that. With what came across on campus, pot was not my top priority. But, like I said if someone continues to act up, then they become a priority.

[detlef]

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.

First off, you do realize that I own a business. Guess what. There's a ton of rules placed on me about how I can deal with my employees. So, that threshold has been crossed.

 

Now, would you kindly let me know if this accurately reflects your opinion:

 

"I feel that it is fine for a business to use methods not allowed by the government to police it's place of work provided that I happen to feel the laws they're enforcing are important to me."

[detlef]

Whether or not you think pot smoking is harmful or imparing and whether or not you think pot smoking should be legalized there are two underlying and undisputed facts here - 1) smoking pot is currently against the law 2) smoking pot is currently against the rules in the NFL.

 

In my opinion it takes a very stupid individual to risk an NFL career in order to get high. Of course I shouldn't be surprised because it seems as if in general most NFL players believe themselves to be above the law. If you willingly choose to break the law you are accepting the risk of the consequences when you get caught.

 

I also have to say that I don't believe a comparison can be made between speeding and getting high. Obviously both activities are certainly illegal (although the penalty for one is much harsher than for the other). However I don't believe there are many that would argue that getting high does not impair one mentailly in some fashion (isn't that the whole point). While speeding may be termed reckless depending on how fast one is driving I don't believe that anybody would say that speeding impairs one's ability mentally.

 

I also have to believe that almost any prospective employer would employee the candidate that admits to exceeding the speed limit on a regular basis over the one that admits to partaking of a controlled substance on a regular basis. For a number of reasons that includes the higher probability that the drug user is or will be undependable because of his addiction.

Once again, someone trying to make the argument based on the assumption that the person who tests positive for having smoked pot is going to be performing their job while stoned.

 

I'll just go ahead and ad you to the category of those not arguing the issue at hand. Oh wait, I see you have a life time membership to that club. Nevermind.

[Grits and Shins]

Once again, someone trying to make the argument based on the assumption that the person who tests positive for having smoked pot is going to be performing their job while stoned.

 

That is not what I said ... I said they have a higher probability of being undependable. If an employee is arrested for possession and serves jail time I think that qualifies as undependable.

[detlef]

I get paid to uphold the law. It is against the law to smoke pot, especially while driving. I dont need to argue that. With what came across on campus, pot was not my top priority. But, like I said if someone continues to act up, then they become a priority.

Just to be clear. Despite the fact that I feel pot should be legal, I also feel that as long as it is not, that's the rules. If you get busted smoking pot, or possessing pot, or obviously under the influence of pot. Be it by your employer or a cop, you face the music. Plain and simple.

 

However, I am happy that I live in a country that doesn't allow you to randomly come into my house without cause and search myself of my home. My point is that if we allow enough important people to be able to do this, the fact that you can't doesn't end up mattering a whole lot.

[Bronco Billy]

Now, would you kindly let me know if this accurately reflects your opinion:

 

"I feel that it is fine for a business to use methods not allowed by the government to police it's place of work provided that I happen to feel the laws they're enforcing are important to me."

 

I'd be happy to, right after you respond to the question I've asked several times now - what makes you think that you should have any standing in making business decisions for a private business that is not yours as long as it is acting within the law?

[detlef]

I'd be happy to, right after you respond to the question I've asked several times now - what makes you think that you should have any standing in making business decisions for a private business that is not yours as long as it is acting within the law?

In my opinion, searching without cause is not acting within the law. Or at least, I would support legislation to that effect. Random drug testing is search without cause. It is, in many ways, no different than your boss showing up at your door, unannounced and without reason and asking to rummage through your belongings to see if you have any drugs or anything illegal.

 

My point is and has remained that we might as well not be protected from our government in terms of our rights of privacy if we must forfeit those rights in order to make a living. Why are you prepared to forfeit the rights that you have against people who are specifically trained to police our country to someone not trained or entrusted with that same job?

 

I have no problem with an employer policing his place of work to the extent that the police themselves are allowed to do. If an employer is given probable cause than an employee is in possession of or under the influence of any drug or violating any other law, they should be able to proceed in the same manner the cops are.

 

However, where does it stop? According to you, after smoking pot but before speeding, but only because that's convenient for you.

Edited October 24, 2008 by detlef

[detlef]

That is not what I said ... I said they have a higher probability of being undependable. If an employee is arrested for possession and serves jail time I think that qualifies as undependable.

Yes you did...

 

I also have to say that I don't believe a comparison can be made between speeding and getting high. Obviously both activities are certainly illegal (although the penalty for one is much harsher than for the other). However I don't believe there are many that would argue that getting high does not impair one mentailly in some fashion (isn't that the whole point).

 

Right there you mentioned that speeding doesn't impair your mental faculties but smoking pot does. Sure it does, while you're high, or if you get stoned all the time.

 

As I have said before, you don't need to drug test to find abject stoners. Stoners who somke so often that it affects their ability to do their job well.

[Bronco Billy]

In my opinion, searching without cause is not acting within the law. Or at least, I would support legislation to that effect. Random drug testing is search without cause. It is, in many ways, no different than your boss showing up at your door, unannounced and without reason and asking to rummage through your belongings to see if you have any drugs or illegal.

 

My point is and has remained that we might as well not be protected from our government in terms of our rights of privacy if we must forfeit those rights in order to make a living. Why are you prepared to forfeit the rights that you have against people who are specifically trained to police our country to someone not trained or entrusted with that same job?

 

I have no problem with an employer policing his place of work to the extent that the police themselves are allowed to do. If an employer is given probable cause than an employee is in possession of or under the influence of any drug or violating any other law, they should be able to proceed in the same manner the cops are.

 

However, where does it stop? According to you, after smoking pot but before speeding, but only because that's convenient for you.

 

I disagree with your assessment of an illegal search. First, it is not a government agency performing an illegal search, so Constitutional rights do not apply. Second, it is done with your compliance - you are not being forced to take a pee test, you are being asked to take a pee test. It is a condition for your employment. If you choose not to take the test, the employer has made it clear that he will not hire you. Are you suggesting that you have an inherent right to that job? Because that's clearly the path that you're taking this. If you don't have a right to the job, then the conditions within the law applied by the employer are quite legal, ethical, and moral. Beyond what the law requires, market forces will sort out.

 

I will guarantee you that it bothers me a great deal more that you are insisting on government interference in private enterprise well beyond what the law allows than you are with your self proclaimed 1984 "Big Brother" stance - a fictional work that I might add ironically is a government overextending itself in removing rights, something which you are exactly advocating here.

Edited October 24, 2008 by Bronco Billy

[Grits and Shins]

Yes you did...

 

 

 

Right there you mentioned that speeding doesn't impair your mental faculties but smoking pot does. Sure it does, while you're high, or if you get stoned all the time.

 

As I have said before, you don't need to drug test to find abject stoners. Stoners who somke so often that it affects their ability to do their job well.

 

Your statement: "Once again, someone trying to make the argument based on the assumption that the person who tests positive for having smoked pot is going to be performing their job while stoned." says that you believe I would disqualify substance abusers because I believe that they would be stoned at work.

 

That is NOT what I said. I said that substance abusers have a higher probability of being unreliable. So even if an employee NEVER comes to work stoned he has a higher probability of being undependable because his probability of being arrested and doing jail time are higher. Or are you arguing that my employee can be as productive while in jail as he is at work? If Holmes is suspended for four games will he be as productive for the Steelers during those 4 games as he was in the 4 games prior to his suspension?

 

We haven't even begin to explore the potential negative publicity associated with employees that get caught doing drugs.

[detlef]

I disagree with your assessment of an illegal search. First, it is not a government agency performing an illegal search, so Constitutional rights do not apply. Second, it is done with your compliance - you are not being forced to take a pee test, you are being asked[/i] to take a pee test. It is a condition for your employment. If you choose not to take the test, the employer has made it clear that he will not hire you. Are you suggesting that you have an inherent right to that job? Because that's clearly the path that you're taking this. If you don't have a right to the job, then the conditions within the law applied by the employer are quite legal, ethical, and moral. Beyond what the law requires, market forces will sort out.

Dude, I understand that it is currently not illegal for an employer to search you without cause. My whole point is that it should be. And yes, it is merely a condition of employment. I get that. You need to step back and see the spirit of my argument. Employers are given monetary incentives to go this way by their insurance company. Besides someone having ethical reasons (which is why I don't test my employees), there's no reason not to take advantage of controlling the lives of their employees to the extent that they're allowed to do so by the law. Right now, the law allows search without cause. Over time, I see no reason why so many employers will take advantage of this.

 

I mean, why not? Hell, if it was up to me, my employees would just nourish themselves in an oxygen room and prepare for the next shift.

 

The point is, at what point does the fact that we live in a country where we're protected from the government from search without cause become a useless and token gesture?

 

The funny thing is, you're at once arguing for, and against personal rights at the same time.

[Missoula Griz]

So even if an employee NEVER comes to work stoned he has a higher probability of being undependable because his probability of being arrested and doing jail time are higher. Or are you arguing that my employee can be as productive while in jail as he is at work?

 

People go to jail for smoking pot? I have never heard of this before. Sure, if your a dealer you may see jail time, but for smoking it?

 

I am sure glad I dont live in your county.

[detlef]

Your statement: "Once again, someone trying to make the argument based on the assumption that the person who tests positive for having smoked pot is going to be performing their job while stoned." says that you believe I would disqualify substance abusers because I believe that they would be stoned at work.

 

That is NOT what I said. I said that substance abusers have a higher probability of being unreliable. So even if an employee NEVER comes to work stoned he has a higher probability of being undependable because his probability of being arrested and doing jail time are higher. Or are you arguing that my employee can be as productive while in jail as he is at work? If Holmes is suspended for four games will he be as productive for the Steelers during those 4 games as he was in the 4 games prior to his suspension?

 

We haven't even begin to explore the potential negative publicity associated with employees that get caught doing drugs.

Listen, in disputing the comparison of speeding and getting high, you talked about the fact that speeding doesn't affect your mental abilities. That in itself says that you are assuming that the employee is under the affect of drugs when performing his job. How many times have I said that I don't condone drug use in the work place.

 

As far as the suspension of Holmes is concerned, that's a cyclical argument. The only reason why that suspension affects his job performance is because it's there to begin with. Unless he's taken to jail, he would be no less productive an employee as any other player unless the league actively made him less productive by suspending him.

 

Further, what was lost in the meat of the post that launched this whole deal because BB fixated on one line was the fact that we're all completely missing the point. This is not about Holmes and pot. This is about NFL players and their pathological refusal to follow any rules at all. For him it's pot, for others it's weapons, for others it's beating wives or driving drunk. This is not about pot. This is about coddled and socially retarded young men who've had someone scurrying behind them as long as they can remember picking up after them and losing track of how to stay on the right side of the line.

[Bronco Billy]

Dude, I understand that it is currently not illegal for an employer to search you without cause. My whole point is that it should be.

 

No - it shouldn't be. You're asking government to enter into something over which it should have absolutely no jurisdiction. You're the one asking for 1984 here, all the while railing against it. The less government meddles in, the better off we are. Haven't we learned anything from the latest financial crisis that government intervention into private industry triggered?

[detlef]

No - it shouldn't be. You're asking government to enter into something over which it should have absolutely no jurisdiction. You're the one asking for 1984 here, all the while railing against it. The less government meddles in, the better off we are. Haven't we learned anything from the latest financial crisis that government intervention into private industry triggered?

That's funny, one could argue that this whole financial mess can be traced back to legislation in the late 90s that deregulated the financial industry, ushering in this whole BS about guys bundling crappy loans into worthless equities and selling them on the open market.

 

As I've said before, I'm not asking employers to be held to anything more strict than the controls that govern our police force. We have those limitations in place for a reason, right? I honestly don't see this as overreaching. Simply making the assurances of our constitution actually relevant in our day to day lives. Again, if the cops can't search you without cause, why should another citizen.

 

None the less, this is where I appear we just agree to disagree. Both of us are arguing on behalf of personal privacy but neither version can be assured without compromising the other.

Edited October 24, 2008 by detlef

[Double Agent]

Per Roto: Holmes to be deactivated for Sunday's game.

[Randall]

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.

 

 

Since we're in such an economic hole shouldn't we embrace the tremendous tax revenue of legalized pot?

 

I don't advocate the illegal use of it no matter what the border guards might tell you.

 

Maybe Yukon should explore the import/export trade.

Edited October 24, 2008 by Randall

[Bronco Billy]

That's funny, one could argue that this whole financial mess can be traced back to legislation in the late 90s that deregulated the financial industry, ushering in this whole BS about guys bundling crappy loans into worthless equities and selling them on the open market.

 

Let's understand this - no business would willingly enter into a contract knowing it will lose money unless there is a countering fincial incentive to do so. Dergulation of the loan industry goes back to the 70s, but no one was making loans to people who couldn't possibly pay them back - loans greater than equity value and with nothing down - until there were the finacial incentives and assurances Congress provided through Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae, as well as penalties to companies who refused to make such loans.

 

This was social engineering disguised as financial policy through government fiat. The real irony? The guys who enacted the policies that got us into this mess are the exact same guys we're going to give $700B to fix the mess.

[Chief]

Listen, in disputing the comparison of speeding and getting high, you talked about the fact that speeding doesn't affect your mental abilities. That in itself says that you are assuming that the employee is under the affect of drugs when performing his job. How many times have I said that I don't condone drug use in the work place.

 

As far as the suspension of Holmes is concerned, that's a cyclical argument. The only reason why that suspension affects his job performance is because it's there to begin with. Unless he's taken to jail, he would be no less productive an employee as any other player unless the league actively made him less productive by suspending him.

 

Further, what was lost in the meat of the post that launched this whole deal because BB fixated on one line was the fact that we're all completely missing the point. This is not about Holmes and pot. This is about NFL players and their pathological refusal to follow any rules at all. For him it's pot, for others it's weapons, for others it's beating wives or driving drunk. This is not about pot. This is about coddled and socially retarded young men who've had someone scurrying behind them as long as they can remember picking up after them and losing track of how to stay on the right side of the line.

 

 

One thing you're not catching is, the inherent risk of employing drug users, drunks, etc,,,

If any employees decide not to be model "tokers", come to work, hurt themselves(which you have to pay for), and god forbid any other employee, worst case scenario , anyone in the public while on business time, thats quite a expensive risk.

 

If all people were dependable, don't drink and drive, don't get high outside of their own house, then I'd agree it would be a much better place. Neither I, nor you, can garuntee that, no matter how anyone wants to word it. A guy who gets high all the time, home or not, or drinks all the time, bar, home, wherever, have more inherent risk to a business than people who do niether.

[detlef]

Let's understand this - no business would willingly enter into a contract knowing it will lose money unless there is a countering fincial incentive to do so. Dergulation of the loan industry goes back to the 70s, but no one was making loans to people who couldn't possibly pay them back - loans greater than equity value and with nothing down - until there were the finacial incentives and assurances Congress provided through Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae, as well as penalties to companies who refused to make such loans.

 

This was social engineering disguised as financial policy through government fiat. The real irony? The guys who enacted the policies that got us into this mess are the exact same guys we're going to give $700B to fix the mess.

I'm not going to go into this a whole lot further as I don't like to go into things much deeper than I understand. However, I'm rather certain that you're looking at this through a rather selective set of lenses. While there is merit to what you're saying, you seem to be leaving out some very important stuff as well.

 

As I understand it, this is an example of government getting too involved and not involved enough at the same time.

 

Oh, and btw, you still haven't mentioned how you reconcile your selective means of deciding which laws it is ethical for businesses to enforce above and beyond the means our government is allowed to. I've made my stance very clear, the degree to which citizens should be able to subject another to search without cause should be limited more than it is. You, however seem to think it is fine when it comes to drugs but find that it is excessive in regards to other laws like speeding. This sir, seems like a slippery slope.

[Bronco Billy]

I'm not going to go into this a whole lot further as I don't like to go into things much deeper than I understand. However, I'm rather certain that you're looking at this through a rather selective set of lenses. While there is merit to what you're saying, you seem to be leaving out some very important stuff as well.

 

Oh - there's plenty of blame to go around. But the trigger to the issue was encouraging and supporting subprime lending, essentially providing access of loan products to people who had no capability to pay those loans back. That didn't come from the banks themselves - that came from Congress.

[detlef]

One thing you're not catching is, the inherent risk of employing drug users, drunks, etc,,,

If any employees decide not to be model "tokers", come to work, hurt themselves(which you have to pay for), and god forbid any other employee, worst case scenario , anyone in the public while on business time, thats quite a expensive risk.

 

If all people were dependable, don't drink and drive, don't get high outside of their own house, then I'd agree it would be a much better place. Neither I, nor you, can garuntee that, no matter how anyone wants to word it. A guy who gets high all the time, home or not, or drinks all the time, bar, home, wherever, have more inherent risk to a business than people who do niether.

Here's the deal. Some employees drive on company time. These same employees can often be disciplined and/or terminated for receiving too many moving violations. I have no problem with this because they are subjecting their employers to unneeded legal exposure. However, I have a feeling that many here who have no problem with the pot deal would have major objections to the wide spread use of devices that alert an employer that one of their drivers is ever speeding at all, even on their own time, even if they don't get a ticket. Once the needle hits 76, you're busted.

 

This is basically the equivalent of being alerted that one of your employees was smoking a joint at home once.

 

That is my point.

 

Oh, that and the fact we have a made a point in this country of not allowing the fact that some people can't do the right thing to be a precedent for requiring others to prove their innocence. That is what drug testing is. Because one can very clearly prove that the existence of drug users in your workplace can be a bad thing, each and every prospective and current employee must prove that they are not regardless of whether they've ever given anyone any reason to believe they are.

 

BTW, the company that made me pee in a cup? A liquor distributor. I was going to be driving around selling wine, beer, and hard alcohol. Basically everyone I worked with had at least a borderline drinking problem. At least half the people I was selling to had one as well. We were essentially drug addicts selling drugs for a living.

Edited October 24, 2008 by detlef

[The Holy Roller]

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.

 

I never break any laws. I think of them as "hints".