Carlton Rocked Again

[naughty monkey]

Originally posted by TheHeatleyStand
I reckon you guys are more twisted than Laurie.
Laurie didnt screw your club over he has a mental problem.

What mental problem causes you to take recreational drugs?

He deserves everything he gets.
Angwin has absolutely no respect for anyone around him.

 

[-WWJD-]

Originally posted by TheHeatleyStand
No its not about him just being caught. I know his employer.

And I know the girl who goes out clubbing with him nearly every night of the week. She knows him and Karl "intimately". This isn't the first time he's screwed up this year and won't be the last.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by Leaping Lindner
I think Sydney should pick up Angwin if he's sacked from Carlton.

That way their half forward line could read ; ANGWIN - NICKS - GOODES.

 

[Macca19]

Originally posted by naughty monkey
What mental problem causes you to take recreational drugs?

Recreational Drugs are a lot more common in Young Australians that the majority of society thinks. The amount of people that take or have taken Amphetamines (pills, speed, meth) would be close to equally as common as smoking cigarettes these days. There was a report i read about 2 months ago that stated 1 in 5 aussies in their 20s take pills at least once a month. And thats just the regular users. Then there is the once off users, the once a year users, then there is the meth users, the weed smokers, the coke snorters. All bloody common in todays society. I could easily say that i know more people that regularly take a recreational drug (be that weed, amphets.) than smoke cigarettes. Easily. The days that the only people that took drugs were deros, dole bludgers and losers are over. Loads of people from the right backgrounds, who are quite intellectual, have good jobs, good lives take drugs. Why? Cos they can really. Young Australians like to experiment these days.

It may be sad but its a fact nowadays. Drugs are easily accessable, they cost no more than say 7 or 8 beers at a pub would cost and a lot of young people these days like to experiment. The amount of people that hav tried or take drugs regularly would have tripled if not more than say 10 years ago.

Its hardly a huge shock that they took recreational drugs. Most if not the vast majority of young australians would have taken recreational drugs at some point so i hardly see why footballers and other sportspeople are considered void of these sorta things. Considering the money they make they can afford to take up a habit like this and keep it up regularly whilst still making more money than most 20-somethings.

What they do in their private life is their own business. If they choose to take pills, smoke, snort or whatever then its their choice. However, going to your place of work whislt on these drugs is just plain ridiculous and idiotic. They definately arent the only footballers ever to take pills. Over the past 3 years I would have seen at least 12 AFL footballers (current and ex) on them.


Might be disturbing that recreational drugs are common place in the young society these days but its the truth.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by Macca19
Recreational Drugs are a lot more common in Young Australians that the majority of society thinks. The amount of people that take or have taken Amphetamines (pills, speed, meth) would be close to equally as common as smoking cigarettes these days. There was a report i read about 2 months ago that stated 1 in 5 aussies in their 20s take pills at least once a month. And thats just the regular users. Then there is the once off users, the once a year users, then there is the meth users, the weed smokers, the coke snorters. All bloody common in todays society. I could easily say that i know more people that regularly take a recreational drug (be that weed, amphets.) than smoke cigarettes. Easily. The days that the only people that took drugs were deros, dole bludgers and losers are over. Loads of people from the right backgrounds, who are quite intellectual, have good jobs, good lives take drugs. Why? Cos they can really. Young Australians like to experiment these days.

It may be sad but its a fact nowadays. Drugs are easily accessable, they cost no more than say 7 or 8 beers at a pub would cost and a lot of young people these days like to experiment. The amount of people that hav tried or take drugs regularly would have tripled if not more than say 10 years ago.

Its hardly a huge shock that they took recreational drugs. Most if not the vast majority of young australians would have taken recreational drugs at some point so i hardly see why footballers and other sportspeople are considered void of these sorta things. Considering the money they make they can afford to take up a habit like this and keep it up regularly whilst still making more money than most 20-somethings.

What they do in their private life is their own business. If they choose to take pills, smoke, snort or whatever then its their choice. However, going to your place of work whislt on these drugs is just plain ridiculous and idiotic. They definately arent the only footballers ever to take pills. Over the past 3 years I would have seen at least 12 AFL footballers (current and ex) on them.


Might be disturbing that recreational drugs are common place in the young society these days but its the truth.

Yes but it doesn't make it right.

I agree with everything you say and I accept that they are part of todays society. Although, I have never taken anything myself I know a lot of people who have and as you say some of those people are from "the right background". Unfortunate really.

Whats has society come to??????

 

[ClintEastwood]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Although, I have never taken anything myself I know a lot of people who have and as you say some of those people are from "the right background". Unfortunate really.

Whats has society come to??????

I'm not into drugs either, but those comments sound pretty moralistic and judgemental.

 

[spindoctor]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Yes but it doesn't make it right.

I agree with everything you say and I accept that they are part of todays society. Although, I have never taken anything myself I know a lot of people who have and as you say some of those people are from "the right background". Unfortunate really.

Whats has society come to??????

Maybe you should keep your arrogant preaching until you've actually tried a drug. You have NO RIGHT to comment on how 'unfortunate' drugs are until you have actually tried one.

Just because something is illegal does not mean it is necessarily a bad thing. In fact, marijuana is probably safer then cigarettes and definitely safer than alcohol, but the history of puritanical *****s has meant many mind-altering substances are illegal - except for alcohol.

There are many justifications for the legalisation and government control of drugs.

You need to shut your pompous mouth if you know nothing about the subject, how dare you tar all drugs as 'not right'? And you haven't even tried it.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by spindoctor
Maybe you should keep your arrogant preaching until you've actually tried a drug. You have NO RIGHT to comment on how 'unfortunate' drugs are until you have actually tried one.

Just because something is illegal does not mean it is necessarily a bad thing. In fact, marijuana is probably safer then cigarettes and definitely safer than alcohol, but the history of puritanical *****s has meant many mind-altering substances are illegal - except for alcohol.

There are many justifications for the legalisation and government control of drugs.

You need to shut your pompous mouth if you know nothing about the subject, how dare you tar all drugs as 'not right'? And you haven't even tried it.

Now that didn't take long did it

 

[PAfolwr]

The only drug users being misfits and Yobos? No somehow I don't think that has ever been the case. Not even in the so called "old days" Macca.
Reporters and politicians were just allowed a bit more freedom and latitude in the way they used to portray things.

However, I think whether you (EDIT: "you" meaning anyone in general) are in favour of drugs or not, in whatever capacity, has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Footballers get paid heaps and heaps of money to do a job.
As part of the contract they have to abide by certain rules that their club deems necessary to get the best possible out of those players. The Clubs have every right to do that.
After a few warnings goodbye sunshine. End of story really.
I haven't heard of first time offenders of anything being sacked by footy Clubs, unless they are out to get that player.

If you think that's harsh should see the Australian Army. They have random drug testing. THC stays in your body for a relatively long time. Have a joint this Saturday night while on holidays, get tested the following Monday (9 or so days later), test positive and bye bye and more. Thems the rules, and they certainly do not get paid anywhere near the amounts that Footy players do.

 

[MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl]

the little **** has got what he deserves.

k
xx

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by PAfolwr
The only drug users being misfits and Yobos? No somehow I don't think that has ever been the case. Not even in the so called "old days" Macca.

I'm confused.

I'm not sure whether by Macca you are referring to me or Macca19, but whichever one you are referring to, neither of us made the statement that "The only drug users being misfits and Yobos"

My point was that once again Angwin has betrayed the faith shown in him - this time by Carlton.

 

[PAfolwr]

Originally posted by macca23
I'm confused.

I'm not sure whether by Macca you are referring to me or Macca19, but whichever one you are referring to, neither of us made the statement that "The only drug users being misfits and Yobos"

My point was that once again Angwin has betrayed the faith shown in him - this time by Carlton.

Whoops, double mistake.
In that bit I was replying to Macca19 where he said The days that the only people that took drugs were deros, dole bludgers and losers are over., plus meant to have a smilie after it.

Have to remember we have two Maccas.

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by PAfolwr
Whoops, double mistake.
In that bit I was replying to Macca19 where he said The days that the only people that took drugs were deros, dole bludgers and losers are over., plus meant to have a smilie after it.

Have to remember we have two Maccas.

No probs mate.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Angwin has a right to take drugs, even if it illegal. However, Carlton then have the right to sack him for not giving 100% to being a footballer. Stupid really as he has just forfeited a decent pay packet & career. Drugs are the least of Angwin's problems. Hope he can sort his life out as he has some real issues.

 

[spindoctor]

Drugs have never been the preserve of just 'yobboes' anyway - drugs have been used by the aristocratic classes in human society since the dawning of time.

It's only in the 20th century that puritanical American do-gooders have led the charge to codify anti-drug sentiments into law.

I'll tell you this much - there are no recorded fatalities from marijuana. NONE. ZERO.

Add up how many for cigarettes and alcohol though? Literally hundreds of thousands.

And what should really be illegal?

Disclaimer: I am arguing with logic here, not personal taste - I don't smoke marijuana, don't like it, and love alcohol, but I can see that logically marijuana shoul be legal ahead of alcohol.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by spindoctor
Drugs have never been the preserve of just 'yobboes' anyway - drugs have been used by the aristocratic classes in human society since the dawning of time.

It's only in the 20th century that puritanical American do-gooders have led the charge to codify anti-drug sentiments into law.

I'll tell you this much - there are no recorded fatalities from marijuana. NONE. ZERO.

Add up how many for cigarettes and alcohol though? Literally hundreds of thousands.

And what should really be illegal?

Disclaimer: I am arguing with logic here, not personal taste - I don't smoke marijuana, don't like it, and love alcohol, but I can see that logically marijuana shoul be legal ahead of alcohol.

Once again, I think you make some very valid points. While it might be true that there are no recorded fatalities from marijuana, I am pretty sure that it has been linked to some serious mental illnesses such as schizophrenia. I think that either way its a no win situation.

 

[PAfolwr]

Originally posted by spindoctor
...It's only in the 20th century that puritanical American do-gooders have led the charge to codify anti-drug sentiments into law.
...

The cotton growers probably had more to do with it than the puritans, but that's another story.

Carlton still had every right to sack Angwin, or anyone else, over this issue.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by PAfolwr
Carlton still had every right to sack Angwin, or anyone else, over this issue.

That goes without saying.

If I rocked up to work in "unfit" state, i sure as hell would get the kick in the backside and asked to close the door on my way out.

 

[spindoctor]

Marijuana is linked to schizophrenia in a very tiny proportion of cases, it is to do with a pre-existing condition in the person's brain that is triggered by large amounts of marijuana usage.

There are plenty of LEGAL substances that can tip off a mental illness in people with a far greater likelihood - do we ban them too?

It is certainly far less likely than alcohol or cigarette-related problems.

 

[Jars458]

Illegal drugs can't be GOOD for you that's for sure.

How bad they are is a long and complicated debate.

I guess I personally don't take drugs because they are illegal and certain steretypes are rightly or wrongly attached to illegal drug users.

The main problem seems to be the risk of following the drug tree upwards from the relatively harmless marijuana to the far more dangerous herion, which has ruined many a life. This may only happen in a low proportion of cases but I think why take the risk, esp when its illegal.

I have enough vices - alcohol being one of them which certainly can be worse than many illegal drugs when combined with violence or driving etc.

But for whatever reason alcohol is legal and mary jane, ecstacy etc are not.

THerefore if a player comes to training under the influence of illegal substances they will play the price.

In Angwin's case, due to his prior history, it has cost him his job.

He clearly can't make rational decisions or help himself from stuffing up and he needs help. I hope he gets it and recovers to lead some sort of normal life, but what a sad waste of talent.

People taking pleasure in it though need to take a good hard look at themselves.

 

[PAfolwr]

Originally posted by Jars458
...THerefore if a player comes to training under the influence of illegal substances they will play the price.
...

Or "legal" substances, such as being *issed at team meetings and training.

 

[marvin]

Originally posted by Jars458
People taking pleasure in it though need to take a good hard look at themselves.

I don't see miuch schadenfreude here.

A combination of:
- Relief that releasing an obviously talented player isn't going to bite the Crows
- Anger at a waste of talent
- Frustration that someone can blow their second, third, fourth, fifth AND sixth chances

On another note, I refuse to buy this argument that the AFC recruiting staff were misled. They obviously had some doubts about his off-field character, hence the drafting of Handby as babysitter. If they did have doubts, they should have dug further. Failure to do so is a black mark against the recruiters.

 

[spindoctor]

Originally posted by Jars458
Illegal drugs can't be GOOD for you that's for sure.

That's an arguable question. We do so many things that aren't 'good' for us, it's kind of a moot point.

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by spindoctor
That's an arguable question. We do so many things that aren't 'good' for us, it's kind of a moot point.

Why is that an arguable question??

Yes, people do many things that are harmful to them, and taking illegal drugs is just one of them.

That doesn't alter or lessen the question of whether illegal drugs are harmful in their own right - if they're harmful, they're harmful.

I'm not arguing the moral aspect of drugtaking, just your comment as to why you think it's a moot point.

 

[Crow-mosone]

I don't know why the criteria for singling out a class of substances is whether they are 'illegal' or not.

doesn't seem to have much bearing on anything to me.