Ahmad Bradshaw cited for pot possession

[indyagent17]

if they league cracked down and gave an 8 game suspension without pay on the first occurrence, a full season on the second  WITHOUT pay. it would stop pretty quickly.

 

I know the NFLPA would have a fit but this is getting way out of hand 

 

[pacolts56]

if they league cracked down and gave an 8 game suspension without pay on the first occurrence, a full season on the second  WITHOUT pay. it would stop pretty quickly.

 

I know the NFLPA would have a fit but this is getting way out of hand 

 

The football or the pot smoking?

[OffensivelyPC]

I find it strange the NFL even continues to test for weed considering it is being legalized in so many states. Don't get me wrong I find it terribly hypocritical we continue to legalize pot and say it isn't so bad to smoke but we have now come to condemn cigarettes/tobacco. I don't smoke but I don't get that mentality. I know it's about taxes but still lets demonize tobacco and make it a mission to eliminate it but ignore weeds problems and how it effects the brain and lungs. Yet to see a truth commercial on that.... Guess it just in vogue.

Anyways I don't think this will change any opinions on us bring him back if we were going to begin with. I mean nothing happened to Blount and bell last year when they got busted.

The biggest issue about states legalizing it for recreational use is finding a way to strike a balance between the cost to regulate and the manpower to carry it out.  Many states are looking at CO for instance to see the problems it is up against, the tax income derived from it, etc. Denver's only been legalized for what, a little over a year?  It'll take longer than just a year to enact laws with a bit more certainty and efficiency so as to make states comfortable with how to regulate it.  Some states such as CO are okay with being the guinea pig while otehrs would rather wait.  Of course, you always have those politicians, which Indiana has a couple of them, that are a bit more conservative and still pound on the morality (or lack thereof rather) with legalizing weed.  Waiting until some of the more conservative Indiana congressmen are out of office will also take some time.  Indy each year passes a new legalization and it seems to get more support.  Indiana being conservative, it will likely to to decriminalization before actually legalizing it for recreational purposes.  But it may be sooner than later in Indiana or at least before the bible belt states given that our liquor laws are fairly relaxed despite the stupid No Sunday Sales rule which the local liquor stores keep protesting (and their reasons are far worse than those politicians claiming legalization of weed doesn't pass the morality test).

[BOTT]

Obviously you don't see the bigger picture. If you start to make exceptions for breaking the law, where do you draw the line?

Oh wow, the slippery slope argument again.....

[Nadine]

The biggest issue about states legalizing it for recreational use is finding a way to strike a balance between the cost to regulate and the manpower to carry it out.  Many states are looking at CO for instance to see the problems it is up against, the tax income derived from it, etc. Denver's only been legalized for what, a little over a year?  It'll take longer than just a year to enact laws with a bit more certainty and efficiency so as to make states comfortable with how to regulate it.  Some states such as CO are okay with being the guinea pig while otehrs would rather wait.  Of course, you always have those politicians, which Indiana has a couple of them, that are a bit more conservative and still pound on the morality (or lack thereof rather) with legalizing weed.  Waiting until some of the more conservative Indiana congressmen are out of office will also take some time.  Indy each year passes a new legalization and it seems to get more support.  Indiana being conservative, it will likely to to decriminalization before actually legalizing it for recreational purposes.  But it may be sooner than later in Indiana or at least before the bible belt states given that our liquor laws are fairly relaxed despite the stupid No Sunday Sales rule which the local liquor stores keep protesting (and their reasons are far worse than those politicians claiming legalization of weed doesn't pass the morality test).

the sunday sales thing is ridiculous.  And the 'can't refrigerate beer' thing is nonsense as well.  Don't get me started but the law started for one reason and is being carried on for completely different reasons

[OffensivelyPC]

the sunday sales thing is ridiculous.  And the 'can't refrigerate beer' thing is nonsense as well.  Don't get me started but the law started for one reason and is being carried on for completely different reasons

Exactly.  I'll never understand the argument that the local liquor stores will lose out on revenue if Sundays are open for sale of alcohol.  Like, are you serious?  You're all open 6 days a week and don't have a problem, why is a 7th day the issue?  If you're worried about sales on Sunday, then just stay closed!  No overhead, no loss of revenue.  Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[Nadine]

Exactly.  I'll never understand the argument that the local liquor stores will lose out on revenue if Sundays are open for sale of alcohol.  Like, are you serious?  You're all open 6 days a week and don't have a problem, why is a 7th day the issue?  If you're worried about sales on Sunday, then just stay closed!  No overhead, no loss of revenue.  Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Not to mention that rules don't exist to protect businesses.  Or in this case, just 'some' businesses.  The whole thing is bizarre

 

Then again, I don't understand why there has to be a law saying that car dealerships can't be open on sunday.  The law is undoubtedly there so that car dealerships don't have to think about working on sundays like so many people have to.

 

We each need laws protecting our individual businesses and work day preferences! Just saying, that's how ridiculous it is

[esmort]

Exactly.  I'll never understand the argument that the local liquor stores will lose out on revenue if Sundays are open for sale of alcohol.  Like, are you serious?  You're all open 6 days a week and don't have a problem, why is a 7th day the issue?  If you're worried about sales on Sunday, then just stay closed!  No overhead, no loss of revenue.  Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

I agree, the liquor stores argue that they won't be able to compete with other stores(grocery, drug stores, etc ...).  I find this hard to believe ... I never see a shortage of liquor stores in any other state I goto where alcohol is being sold on Sunday. 

[rock8591]

Obviously you don't see the bigger picture. If you start to make exceptions for breaking the law, where do you draw the line?

 

This is getting dangerously political...

 

To me, laws that are not biblical are not laws. Man-made laws are inherently immoral, especially when they are 100% socially constructed with no constitutional nor biblical basis. e.g. possession of 'contraband', consumption of controlled beverages/substances, Jim Crow laws, etc...

 

Jesus, Mohammed, and Buddah intended to create laws where people like Aaron Hernandez would be put away in prison (if he's guilty).

Not people like Martha Stewart for socially constructed crimes of "insider trading" for instance.

[braveheartcolt]

We'd still be British if that weren't the case.

Bunch of convicts, just like Australia.

'God save the Queen...'

[Narcosys]

I draw the line at crimes that matter.

That line of thinking is all in the eye of the beholder. It cannot be applied to everyone evenly because some that matter to you may not matter to others and vice versa. You have to respect all laws accordingly.

[Valpo2004]

If this is true.. .   this just goes back to a THEME I brought up mid season with this team as far as penalties, and drops, and all the other "discipline" issues...  

 

NO ACCOUNTABILITY ON THIS THIS TEAM...          NOT ANY, NO PRESSURE FROM A COACH TO CATCH THE BALL, PLAY DISCIPLINED FOOTBALL, OR JUST ACT RIGHT.....          OR ELSE...

 

NO ACCOUNTABILITY TO ACT RIGHT OFF THE FIELD BECAUSE THE COACH HAS YOUR BACK.   

 

THIS has got to end...   NOW..   Chuck is running a clown show.      on the field and off..    How is this team expected to beat NE when so many cannot stay out of trouble and do the basic things in life to succeed?  

 

 

This is just bad...   I am so disappointed in AB...    WELL...   

 

Melvin Gordin...    go get him.

 

For the coach having your back I believe the only player that we didn't release after an arrest was D'qwell Jackson.

[Narcosys]

We'd still be British if that weren't the case.

Wow, you're going with that argument? You just simplified that to such an extreme that you aren't even worth discussing this with.

[Narcosys]

Oh wow, the slippery slope argument again.....

oh yes, because every discussion or debate is a simple problem easily defined with a yes or no, right or wrong, answer.

[Narcosys]

This is getting dangerously political...

 

To me, laws that are not biblical are not laws. Man-made laws are inherently immoral, especially when they are 100% socially constructed with no constitutional nor biblical basis. e.g. possession of 'contraband', consumption of controlled beverages/substances, Jim Crow laws, etc...

 

Jesus, Mohammed, and Buddah intended to create laws where people like Aaron Hernandez would be put away in prison (if he's guilty).

Not people like Martha Stewart for socially constructed crimes of "insider trading" for instance.

 

I dont think it is, nor does it have to be.  merely talking about laws does not make it political.  Political gets into party beliefs and etc.  If this were the case, then we shouldnt be posting topics about breaking laws. 

 

Though i may or may not agree with you, im not going to post a response to the rest to avoid the religion discussion.  hope you understand.

[Jason_]

Obviously you don't see the bigger picture. If you start to make exceptions for breaking the law, where do you draw the line?

 

at the ones that infringe on another individual's rights or that could endanger or bring harm to another individual other than yourself.

[Jason_]

This is getting dangerously political...

 

To me, laws that are not biblical are not laws. Man-made laws are inherently immoral, especially when they are 100% socially constructed with no constitutional nor biblical basis. e.g. possession of 'contraband', consumption of controlled beverages/substances, Jim Crow laws, etc...

 

Jesus, Mohammed, and Buddah intended to create laws where people like Aaron Hernandez would be put away in prison (if he's guilty).

Not people like Martha Stewart for socially constructed crimes of "insider trading" for instance.

 

so you decided to up the ante and add religion to the discussion also.  nice job

 

but just to be clear....you really don't think that crimes like Insider trading, should exist?  What about cyber crimes?  Computer fraud, things like that?  Computers didn't exist back then so any computer-related laws would be man-made. 

[Jaric]

Wow, you're going with that argument? You just simplified that to such an extreme that you aren't even worth discussing this with.

I answered your question with an example. That's not an extreme over simplification. I could have pointed out that everyone involved in the Underground Railroad were breaking laws if you'd prefer.

Or maybe since its February I could use MLK as an example. He broke quite a few (unjust) laws and we have a national holiday because of it.

[ÅÐØNϧ 1]

That's why there's a good chance it was because the officer seen a couple black guys in a nice car and was assuming they were drug dealers.

 

Did ya visit Ferguson lately ?

[dgambill]

I agree with most of your post, however pot has only been legalized for recreational use in 3 states.  Or were you including the medical marijuana states too?

Just the trend I've been seeing...your right though. A lot of employers have a mandatory rehab etc for their employees to complete...which is what I think the NFL should do. If you get busted a 2nd time you take treatment. Minimum 30 days...in season or out. You are not cleared to play until its completed....along with community service for the NFL's anti-drug program. Once they have completed their program they are reinstated...otherwise they stay in it until they are cleared. To me this helps the employee and would keep them off the field (like a suspension) for at least 30 days. I wouldn't invoke season long bans etc until multiple times. To me this would make it look like they are trying to help as opposed to the commissioner constantly looking like the bad guy. How is he the bad guy if he is putting you in rehab. Even though in essence its still a 4 game suspension during the season and maybe none in the offseason it comes off totally different...and hopefully helps some of these guys.

[dgambill]

The biggest issue about states legalizing it for recreational use is finding a way to strike a balance between the cost to regulate and the manpower to carry it out.  Many states are looking at CO for instance to see the problems it is up against, the tax income derived from it, etc. Denver's only been legalized for what, a little over a year?  It'll take longer than just a year to enact laws with a bit more certainty and efficiency so as to make states comfortable with how to regulate it.  Some states such as CO are okay with being the guinea pig while otehrs would rather wait.  Of course, you always have those politicians, which Indiana has a couple of them, that are a bit more conservative and still pound on the morality (or lack thereof rather) with legalizing weed.  Waiting until some of the more conservative Indiana congressmen are out of office will also take some time.  Indy each year passes a new legalization and it seems to get more support.  Indiana being conservative, it will likely to to decriminalization before actually legalizing it for recreational purposes.  But it may be sooner than later in Indiana or at least before the bible belt states given that our liquor laws are fairly relaxed despite the stupid No Sunday Sales rule which the local liquor stores keep protesting (and their reasons are far worse than those politicians claiming legalization of weed doesn't pass the morality test).

Yeah...I'm pretty conservative person. I would be fine with outlawing all of it considering all the people that die from drug and alcohol related incidents etc but then again I also think the government has too much power as it is...so its a fine balance between safety and personal freedoms. I think in general this push will spread in the more liberal states fairly quickly and like you said others later. The NFL has pretty strong guidelines and I guess I think that its a little overboard. Like I said if they wanted to go about things by putting people into treatment and counting that as the suspension I think I would understand more.

[BOTT]

oh yes, because every discussion or debate is a simple problem easily defined with a yes or no, right or wrong, answer.

How you came to that conclusion based on my response I will never know.

[Narcosys]

at the ones that infringe on another individual's rights or that could endanger or bring harm to another individual other than yourself.

Smoking pot can harm others. You dont want to be working on a construction site with people who are high.

[Jason_]

Smoking pot can harm others. You dont want to be working on a construction site with people who are high.

the same could be said for a drunk construction structure worker, yet drinking is legal

[Narcosys]

I answered your question with an example. That's not an extreme over simplification. I could have pointed out that everyone involved in the Underground Railroad were breaking laws if you'd prefer.

Or maybe since its February I could use MLK as an example. He broke quite a few (unjust) laws and we have a national holiday because of it.

Ya, MLK was not a good guy. His ideals were and what he preached for change, but the man himself fell far from it. He's got some dirty secrets and major skeletons.

[Narcosys]

the same could be said for a drunk construction structure worker, yet drinking is legal

Well that's another discussion all together. It should be defined as a drug.

[Narcosys]

How you came to that conclusion based on my response I will never know.

You claimed the slippery slope argument. Because it is a complex problem, that type of argument applies. If you disagree with using that argument then you have to disagree with it being a complex problem.

[esmort]

Smoking pot can harm others. You dont want to be working on a construction site with people who are high.

 

The post you are responding to was not specific and was referring to smoking weed in general.

 

You are picking out a specific situation in which being high can be bad ... of course there are times where it can be bad ... but so can cold medicine, working with some injuries, being on one of dozens of prescribed medications, not getting enough sleep the night before, etc...etc ... 

 

Of course you don't want people who are performing specific jobs to be actively high or otherwise impaired. I would not want a taxi driver with a cold who had been taking a bunch of cold medicine driving me around either.  But, if they are at a party, a bbq, sitting at home, etc .... than that is a different story altogether and someone smoking weed harms no one. 

[OffensivelyPC]

Yeah...I'm pretty conservative person. I would be fine with outlawing all of it considering all the people that die from drug and alcohol related incidents etc but then again I also think the government has too much power as it is...so its a fine balance between safety and personal freedoms. I think in general this push will spread in the more liberal states fairly quickly and like you said others later. The NFL has pretty strong guidelines and I guess I think that its a little overboard. Like I said if they wanted to go about things by putting people into treatment and counting that as the suspension I think I would understand more.

On the treatment over suspension, I agree and disagree.  Perhaps a first violation, I could see drug treatment program being all that's necessary for recreational drugs that are on the fringe of being legalized such as weed.  But once you start getting into multiple suspensions once already in the program, then yeah, I think a suspension is necessary.  At that point, they're just showing a complete disregard for the rules.

[Carl Dzienkiewicz]

If FRANK GORE is a "shoe in" as some reports stated,to end up in INDY,than there is no problem.However that would drastically change my MOCK and wish list.My draft would look like this if GORE ended up here. 1-SHAQ-----move to ss

2-cory robinson----ot

3-rakim Wilson----ilb

4---ledarius gunter-- cb

5---Anthony chikalo--de

6---kaleb eulis----dt

6--Jordan hicks---lb f/a wish list----spikes,iupati,delmas

[OffensivelyPC]

Smoking pot can harm others. You dont want to be working on a construction site with people who are high.

 

 

the same could be said for a drunk construction structure worker, yet drinking is legal

I get where you're both coming from.  But I think where anyone can find common ground here is that doing either, whether it's driving or operating heavy machinery among other things, should be outlawed.  At that point, your impairment can potentially harm others.  Doing so in your own house generally does not.  Yeah there are other issues associated with it, typically abuse that, in some homes, include those who become violent.  But those kinds of problems are not caused by alcohol alone without some sort of underlying problem with the person who drinks or smokes.  For those who can do it in moderation, it's no big deal to themselves or anyone around them. 

 

Whether or not it should or should not be legalized is really just a matter of preference.  Plenty of studies have shown that marijuana is no worse than alcohol, if not better from a health perspective.  It makes no difference to me really.  Though, as I've said before, there are lots of reasons to illegalize a drug, but in this current day and age, one of the biggest arguments against marijuana is bascially that it doesn't pass the morality test and that it's always been illegal so it should continue to be illegal.  That's nonsense to me.  I get that money, regulating it, and developing an efficient way to enforce those regulations are the barrier.  But if the majority of a states population want it legalized, then it should do what it can.  Of course, how often do politicians as a collective group speak for the majority of people for that politicians state? 

[Narcosys]

The post you are responding to was not specific and was referring to smoking weed in general.

You are picking out a specific situation in which being high can be bad ... of course there are times where it can be bad ... but so can cold medicine, working with some injuries, being on one of dozens of prescribed medications, not getting enough sleep the night before, etc...etc ...

Of course you don't want people who are performing specific jobs to be actively high or otherwise impaired. I would not want a taxi driver with a cold who had been taking a bunch of cold medicine driving me around either. But, if they are at a party, a bbq, sitting at home, etc .... than that is a different story altogether and someone smoking weed harms no one.

All very true, but unfortunately it's the law and therefore should obey it. So I don't feel bad when someone breaks it.

[Jason_]

All very true, but unfortunately it's the law and therefore should obey it. So I don't feel bad when someone breaks it.

I don't feel bad for Bradshaw getting caught. He knew the risks. However I also don't think smoking weed makes someone a thug or immoral.

[esmort]

All very true, but unfortunately it's the law and therefore should obey it. So I don't feel bad when someone breaks it.

 

There are plenty of ridiculous or outdated laws.  People who do something, don't do something, or believe something solely based on the existence of a law and let the government legislate their beliefs without doing any critical thinking of their own are sheep. 

 

Marijuana laws = Prohibition laws ... the only difference is it only took the government about 13 years to realize it's stupidity and rectify the prohibition mistake. 

[BOTT]

You claimed the slippery slope argument. Because it is a complex problem, that type of argument applies. If you disagree with using that argument then you have to disagree with it being a complex problem.

That's nonsense and you know it.

[Johnny colt]

Tell that to the players sucking the oxygen on the sideline. A lot of players are way out of shape.

Too many RB's can't play the down after a 20+ yard run.

Maybe these are the guys smoking weed?

Josh Gordon? Biggest waste of talent in decades due to him not being disciplined enough to not smoke pot.

Regardless, professional athletes should have enough discipline to not smoke during their career.

And apparently this message board is full of pot smokers...

I agree.Lets just string up those evildoers and sing songs about it in church.Right?No more having a beer or a glass of wine.Or caffine.PFT...Are you serious with this post dude???Someone quick,put a meme up here to show how ridiculous it is.

[Jaric]

The post you are responding to was not specific and was referring to smoking weed in general.

You are picking out a specific situation in which being high can be bad ... of course there are times where it can be bad ... but so can cold medicine, working with some injuries, being on one of dozens of prescribed medications, not getting enough sleep the night before, etc...etc ...

Of course you don't want people who are performing specific jobs to be actively high or otherwise impaired. I would not want a taxi driver with a cold who had been taking a bunch of cold medicine driving me around either. But, if they are at a party, a bbq, sitting at home, etc .... than that is a different story altogether and someone smoking weed harms no one.

Exactly.

This really isn't as complicated as we make it. Treat it exactly like alcohol. Heck, you can pick up things at CVS right now without a prescription (NyQuil for example) that would make a person far more dangerous operating heavy machinery than marijuana. That's not saying we should be allowed to operate machinery (and other things of course) while under the influence of anything that impairs their ability to operate it safely. Marijuana included.

But some people at home watching a movie...come on. We have better things to do with our time than worry about that don't we?

[TKnight24]

This has become a bit shocking now, week after week somebody screws up. So who gets it next week?

I'm thinking Trent Richardson or maybe the surprise...... Hilton

[Narcosys]

That's nonsense and you know it.

Which part? That it's a complex problem or that if you don't like using that argument then you disagree with it being a complex problem?

[Narcosys]

There are plenty of ridiculous or outdated laws. People who do something, don't do something, or believe something solely based on the existence of a law and let the government legislate their beliefs without doing any critical thinking of their own are sheep.

I never said to not do any critical thinking or to blindly follow a law just because it exists. You can still oppose and fight to change a law without having to break it.

If your idea of opposing a law is to just break it, then that's just plain dumb and get you no where.

That's like those Ferguson rioters, oh we don't like the verdict, so let's vandalize our own town (disputable), and intentionally attack police. That accomplished very little than just hurting themselves and their community.