Duchess Jack Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 (edited) DJ - Not that Swerski needs to be defended, or for the fact that Swerski probably doesnt want to be defended,...but You can't critize Swerski because the US government has made pot illegal and Swerski is following the rules. I understand you dont agree with US drug policy, but the reality is, whether you like it or not, that the Josh Gordon is illegal...regardless of whether pot or alchohol is more harmful, which IMHO is a whole different topic. Ricky broke the rules......Ricky gets punished. All this being said, I would really like to see Ricky the human being (not the NLF player) get control of his life so that he is happy and acheiving his goals...then I would like so see him come back to the NFL and kick some arse! I understand that the NFL has a right to have this policy. I also understand that the government does as well. Its just the way things are. Swerski was making this a character issue about Ricky's smoking pot. I was simply suggesting that his own habits - such as drinking - are just as bad if not worse than Ricky's. People in glass houses shouldn't throw pots or kettles. Edited April 7, 2007 by Duchess Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 Swerski was making this a character issue about Ricky's smoking pot. I was simply suggesting that his own habits - such as drinking - are just as bad if not worse than Ricky's. People in glass houses shouldn't throw pots or kettles. No, Swerski wasn't making this a character issue of Ricky smoking pot, per se. Swerski was making a character issue of Ricky smoking SO MUCH pot that he failed several drug tests at work and got suspended a couple of times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 No, Swerski wasn't making this a character issue of Ricky smoking pot, per se. Swerski was making a character issue of Ricky smoking SO MUCH pot that he failed several drug tests at work and got suspended a couple of times. If prohibition was reenacted tomorrow, folk had ways of testing for alcohol months afterward and companies had similar policies to the NFL - half the nation would be unemployed. Besides, your tone - as illustrated by the - ATTN POTHEADS: or whatever it is you wrote was certainly derogatory. Nobody is addressing you as a lush or wine-o. Granted, I am a pothead, but you seemed to be addressing everybody else who doesn't see the world as you do as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 If prohibition was reenacted tomorrow, folk had ways of testing for alcohol months afterward and companies had similar policies to the NFL - half the nation would be unemployed. No, they would simply stop drinking... or at least do it in a manner in which they wouldn't get caught. Except perhaps for the alcoholics, who can't hold down a job anyway. Besides, your tone - as illustrated by the - ATTN POTHEADS: or whatever it is you wrote was certainly derogatory. Your tone is equally derogatory, but I don't whine like a little girl about it. Granted, I am a pothead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 No, they would simply stop drinking Yeah, that worked out in the first run of prohibition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 (edited) Yeah, that worked out in the first run of prohibition. That's funny, I don't recall businesses testing their employees for alcohol consumption in the 1920's. Edited April 7, 2007 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 That's funny, I don't recall businesses drug-testing for alcohol consumption in the 1920's. it would never happen. people would go crazy - just like they did during prohibition. I know - you missed the 'if' - too busy stoking yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 too busy stoking yourself. What was that you were saying about my tone? And if you're going to insult me, at least proofread your post beforehand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 Now most of the PhD's I've known have been people who were absolutely brilliant in their line of work, but often had some real trouble with day-to-day life. My point exactly... its kind of like how the Enterprise needs to turn down lift support to power up the shields... these folks are typically so dang smart in their field... that certain day to day things are lost to them. uh, yeah, ok You two goofballs are seriously trying to argue that people with Ph.D's as a whole have more trouble with real life than potheads do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 bump Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skilly Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 bump I thought about this thread when I heard the news yesterday. All Ricky appologists may print their retractions here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 You two goofballs are seriously trying to argue that people with Ph.D's as a whole have more trouble with real life than potheads do? A profootball player with social anxiety disorder is as repersentative of the herb smoking population as a diaper wearing astronaut is of the PhD population Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.