Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

For Weed?

R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2014 10:52:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So Josh Gordon faces a year suspension, probably for smoking joints (I believe he has been caught with codeine before unless that was just a cover-up for weed as well). Should a football player be suspended for weed?

"Performance-enhancing drug" is often seen as a hilarious oxymoron, however I have seen data that it is actually performance-enhancing in a sense. My friend, who recently started running, bought a heart-monitor for his runs. He fed the data into a computer, which produced a graph of his heart-beat while he was running. While high, his heart beats faster - and he notices his runs get a bit easier. It would seem to me that weed, speeding up your heart-rate, would in fact ease cardiovascular exertion. I have smoked while running before and not noticed much of a difference, but it certainly didn't slow me down any.

With that point aside, suspending a player for weed is pretty lame. I mean give me a break, it's one thing if guys are cheating by using steroids to bulk up, but weed is clearly simply being dragged along in the NFL because it's a culturally-significant drug and they feel some artificial sense of responsibility to control it. I don't often feel remorse for celebrities, but in this case I think it's pretty screwed-up that they would do this. I suppose the argument would be that he's promoting its use to fans, which is a pretty-easy argument to rebut on logical grounds.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
RB1
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 10:23:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Josh Gordon should have been suspended for smoking weed. He signed a contract and therefore agreed to the NFL Player Code of Conduct which states that players cannot use weed as well as other illegal substances. Also, he lives in Ohio, a state in which the use of weed is illegal. And while you say that claiming he is promoting the use of weed is an "easy argument to rebut", he is expected to be a role model and therefore has to live by higher standards.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 2:08:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Interesting and tough question. Weed does have performance enhancing effects in some aspects. So really the issue is where do you draw the line. Another common drug is caffeine and it is possible to get tested positive for caffeine if you drink too much coffee. So, if they are testing residual weed then no ban, but if he is high while playing then the answer is yes, the ban is appropriate.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 8:12:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you can't give up weed for a few years to make millions of dollars, you don't deserve the money.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 11:50:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 8:12:35 AM, TN05 wrote:
If you can't give up weed for a few years to make millions of dollars, you don't deserve the money.

That logic tends to fail, because now we are moving away from why it is wrong in the first place. If you can't give up (insert anything here) then you don't deserve the money...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 11:55:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 11:50:09 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/9/2014 8:12:35 AM, TN05 wrote:
If you can't give up weed for a few years to make millions of dollars, you don't deserve the money.

That logic tends to fail, because now we are moving away from why it is wrong in the first place. If you can't give up (insert anything here) then you don't deserve the money...

He signed a contract that says he gets a lot of money to play football, provided he avoids doing certain things - like smoking weed. It's not the NFL's fault he breached his contract.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 12:11:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 11:55:21 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/9/2014 11:50:09 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/9/2014 8:12:35 AM, TN05 wrote:
If you can't give up weed for a few years to make millions of dollars, you don't deserve the money.

That logic tends to fail, because now we are moving away from why it is wrong in the first place. If you can't give up (insert anything here) then you don't deserve the money...

He signed a contract that says he gets a lot of money to play football, provided he avoids doing certain things - like smoking weed. It's not the NFL's fault he breached his contract.

I, for one, am not a big believer in the power of contract. If you put a million-dollar contract in front of just about anyone, they will sign it no matter what it says. That bothers me. For instance, if the NFL decided its players should not ever see their families again (for whatever reason) how many players would still sign? Drew Brees's contract forbids him from riding a motorcycle... LOL. He endorses motorcycles that he is legally prevented from driving.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 12:23:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 12:11:06 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/9/2014 11:55:21 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/9/2014 11:50:09 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/9/2014 8:12:35 AM, TN05 wrote:
If you can't give up weed for a few years to make millions of dollars, you don't deserve the money.

That logic tends to fail, because now we are moving away from why it is wrong in the first place. If you can't give up (insert anything here) then you don't deserve the money...

He signed a contract that says he gets a lot of money to play football, provided he avoids doing certain things - like smoking weed. It's not the NFL's fault he breached his contract.

I, for one, am not a big believer in the power of contract. If you put a million-dollar contract in front of just about anyone, they will sign it no matter what it says. That bothers me. For instance, if the NFL decided its players should not ever see their families again (for whatever reason) how many players would still sign? Drew Brees's contract forbids him from riding a motorcycle... LOL. He endorses motorcycles that he is legally prevented from driving.

If you want money, follow the rules laid out in the contract.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 2:31:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 12:23:10 PM, TN05 wrote:

If you want money, follow the rules laid out in the contract.

You know, I don't even have that much a problem when it comes to enormous million-dollar contracts like this, but for simpler folk, who are just trying to maintain a family on modest means, I start to really take issue with such contractual language. Lucrative contracts are based on somebody doing something exceptional, but when I see drug-testing for jobs that are only paying $8/hr, I think we have a major problem. Should people who use drugs all just sit on unemployment?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 2:48:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 2:31:11 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/9/2014 12:23:10 PM, TN05 wrote:

If you want money, follow the rules laid out in the contract.

You know, I don't even have that much a problem when it comes to enormous million-dollar contracts like this, but for simpler folk, who are just trying to maintain a family on modest means, I start to really take issue with such contractual language. Lucrative contracts are based on somebody doing something exceptional, but when I see drug-testing for jobs that are only paying $8/hr, I think we have a major problem. Should people who use drugs all just sit on unemployment?

IMO, businesses have every right to know if their employees are taking drugs that could possibly impair their judgement. And considering those drugs are illegal, I think it isn't their fault - it is the fault of the user of illegal drugs.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 2:57:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 2:48:06 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/10/2014 2:31:11 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/9/2014 12:23:10 PM, TN05 wrote:

If you want money, follow the rules laid out in the contract.

You know, I don't even have that much a problem when it comes to enormous million-dollar contracts like this, but for simpler folk, who are just trying to maintain a family on modest means, I start to really take issue with such contractual language. Lucrative contracts are based on somebody doing something exceptional, but when I see drug-testing for jobs that are only paying $8/hr, I think we have a major problem. Should people who use drugs all just sit on unemployment?

IMO, businesses have every right to know if their employees are taking drugs that could possibly impair their judgement. And considering those drugs are illegal, I think it isn't their fault - it is the fault of the user of illegal drugs.

What if those drugs are prescription and the impairment is a side-effect? Should I have to report my prescription for a genetic disease so that my employer can discriminate that difference with another potential employee?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 3:22:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 2:57:24 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/10/2014 2:48:06 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/10/2014 2:31:11 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/9/2014 12:23:10 PM, TN05 wrote:

If you want money, follow the rules laid out in the contract.

You know, I don't even have that much a problem when it comes to enormous million-dollar contracts like this, but for simpler folk, who are just trying to maintain a family on modest means, I start to really take issue with such contractual language. Lucrative contracts are based on somebody doing something exceptional, but when I see drug-testing for jobs that are only paying $8/hr, I think we have a major problem. Should people who use drugs all just sit on unemployment?

IMO, businesses have every right to know if their employees are taking drugs that could possibly impair their judgement. And considering those drugs are illegal, I think it isn't their fault - it is the fault of the user of illegal drugs.

What if those drugs are prescription and the impairment is a side-effect? Should I have to report my prescription for a genetic disease so that my employer can discriminate that difference with another potential employee?

Drug tests cover legal drugs?
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 5:00:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 3:22:54 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/10/2014 2:57:24 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/10/2014 2:48:06 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/10/2014 2:31:11 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/9/2014 12:23:10 PM, TN05 wrote:

If you want money, follow the rules laid out in the contract.

You know, I don't even have that much a problem when it comes to enormous million-dollar contracts like this, but for simpler folk, who are just trying to maintain a family on modest means, I start to really take issue with such contractual language. Lucrative contracts are based on somebody doing something exceptional, but when I see drug-testing for jobs that are only paying $8/hr, I think we have a major problem. Should people who use drugs all just sit on unemployment?

IMO, businesses have every right to know if their employees are taking drugs that could possibly impair their judgement. And considering those drugs are illegal, I think it isn't their fault - it is the fault of the user of illegal drugs.

What if those drugs are prescription and the impairment is a side-effect? Should I have to report my prescription for a genetic disease so that my employer can discriminate that difference with another potential employee?

Drug tests cover legal drugs?

Legality is irrelevant; do you actually think that, when the (now) inevitable legalization of marijuana is fully realized at the national level, that drug-testers will pack their bags and close shop? Of course not. Conservatives are already preparing a war on drugs on a different front, which is represented by the power of contract you speak of.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 5:04:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 5:00:04 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/10/2014 3:22:54 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/10/2014 2:57:24 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/10/2014 2:48:06 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/10/2014 2:31:11 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/9/2014 12:23:10 PM, TN05 wrote:

If you want money, follow the rules laid out in the contract.

You know, I don't even have that much a problem when it comes to enormous million-dollar contracts like this, but for simpler folk, who are just trying to maintain a family on modest means, I start to really take issue with such contractual language. Lucrative contracts are based on somebody doing something exceptional, but when I see drug-testing for jobs that are only paying $8/hr, I think we have a major problem. Should people who use drugs all just sit on unemployment?

IMO, businesses have every right to know if their employees are taking drugs that could possibly impair their judgement. And considering those drugs are illegal, I think it isn't their fault - it is the fault of the user of illegal drugs.

What if those drugs are prescription and the impairment is a side-effect? Should I have to report my prescription for a genetic disease so that my employer can discriminate that difference with another potential employee?

Drug tests cover legal drugs?

Legality is irrelevant; do you actually think that, when the (now) inevitable legalization of marijuana is fully realized at the national level, that drug-testers will pack their bags and close shop? Of course not. Conservatives are already preparing a war on drugs on a different front, which is represented by the power of contract you speak of.

Ah ha, that's not what you were saying above. If drug tests don't apply to do legal drugs you won't have a problem. If, on the other hand, you are using an illegal drug - or one you agreed not to use as a condition of employment - you have a problem.
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 8:12:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Weed? Give me a break. You know how easily they could of made a pot advertising deal with Colorado companies?
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 8:35:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/9/2014 11:50:09 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/9/2014 8:12:35 AM, TN05 wrote:
If you can't give up weed for a few years to make millions of dollars, you don't deserve the money.

That logic tends to fail, because now we are moving away from why it is wrong in the first place. If you can't give up (insert anything here) then you don't deserve the money...

If you agree to X in a contract, you can't really complain if you fail to achieve or uphold X.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 8:37:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 2:31:11 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/9/2014 12:23:10 PM, TN05 wrote:

If you want money, follow the rules laid out in the contract.

You know, I don't even have that much a problem when it comes to enormous million-dollar contracts like this, but for simpler folk, who are just trying to maintain a family on modest means, I start to really take issue with such contractual language. Lucrative contracts are based on somebody doing something exceptional, but when I see drug-testing for jobs that are only paying $8/hr, I think we have a major problem. Should people who use drugs all just sit on unemployment?

If employers don't want them, is that not a right of the employer? I have a "right" to drink, but employers have every "right" to not want me under the effects of alcohol while on their property representing their company.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2014 8:38:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Short answer, yes. If you agree in a contract to not do X and you do X, you deserve the consequences that are outlined in that contract.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2014 5:41:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/10/2014 8:38:43 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Short answer, yes. If you agree in a contract to not do X and you do X, you deserve the consequences that are outlined in that contract.

What if an argument can be made as to the ethics of said contract?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2014 5:34:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/11/2014 5:41:03 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 6/10/2014 8:38:43 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Short answer, yes. If you agree in a contract to not do X and you do X, you deserve the consequences that are outlined in that contract.

What if an argument can be made as to the ethics of said contract?

If you can make an argument that objective ethics exist, so that one set (i.e. your set) is objectively accurate that all others ought to accept, go for it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ruckmanite
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 10:25:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
update sig
Let your words be the genuine picture of your heart- John Wesley
Money is a horrid thing to follow, but a charming thing to meet-Henry James