Analysis Drugs in Sport

[M Malice]

rather than repeat my views, just pasted a few of my posts from another thread and one from another poster who i thought put it pretty well.
note: would be treated like alcohol in the workplace ie. you can't turn up to work/training drunk/stoned. my very basic point is- treat it as a health issue not criminal.

was going to start a thread on this, then did a search to see if i could bump one. i am in agreement with OldBlueFan on this one.
my thoughts.
1. admit the war on drugs can't be won through the courts. how many billions of dollars worldwide have been spent on this unwinnable war, and the incarceration of users? treat it as a health problem not a criminal one.
2. decriminalize.
3. regulate their manufacture as per alcohol and tax in the same way.
4. provide a much better funded and resourced (through the extra revenue gained from its taxation) counselling and rehabilitation service.

with this method you would hopefully see.
A. in large part the removal of the criminal element in the manufacture and distribution side of it. ie. you don't see a great deal of police and court resources taken up with the tracking down and prosecuting of backyard still and distribution cartels. this would free up police and courts to concentrate on other illegal activities.
B. having the previous illegal drugs regulated for quality (they would not be cut with other ingredients) would mean you would know what you are getting.

some interesting graphs and article here.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...kjcrYrcjKAhUGjZQKHTwWDUMQsAQIIw&dpr=1#imgrc=_
https://www.americanscientist.org/libraries/documents/200645104835_307.pdf
a small snippet from the article. "if alcohol were a newly formulated beverage, its high toxicity and addiction potential would surely prevent it from being marketed as a food or drug".

note: i was a heavy drinker in my youth and am now a very occasional (1 or 2) drinker and have had 1 personal use experience with an illegal substance.

great post Showbags, my feelings precisely. also with the resulting rise in the price of illegal drugs, the low level users ie. the break and enters that are committed to finance their habit must by necessity increase, thus continuing the never ending cycle.
politicians in the main win votes from the populace by being tough on crime, and until this is seen as a health issue and not a crime issue i can not see that changing. i did have an association with a high ranking police officer in the QPS 12 to 15 years ago and believe me they do not think this war can be won.

not sold by the government, by private business as happens with alcohol. the government just regulates for quality and strength. the reasons for this have been discussed extensively in this thread. would be interested in your theories on ways that we may win this unwinnable war on drugs that consumes vast amounts of taxpayer money in policing, court resources and incarceration. what we are doing now is certainly not working. i would expand on Illinois Nazi 3 points and add a 4th. use money raised through taxation on these products and the large amount of money that would be saved through police and court time being caught up in this never ending cycle.
4. greatly expand rehabilitation and counseling services.

not sure. i know prohibition didn't work in the USA 1920s to early 30s. we have to try another strategy to combat the drug issue and the related direct and indirect criminal consequences.
i am open to decriminalization or legalization but i don't want the status quo.

Which is where taxes regulation can help dramatically. Ban imports while producing the product here dramatically cuts into the organised crime element. then instead of outlawing drug use you assign different classes to different drugs on who can sell them and in what quantities.
Say pot could be sold at servo provided they follow the same regulations as tobacco, plain packaging, can't be advertised in anyway.
Whereas something like Meth requires a prescription, enrollment in a rehab program which is all part of an overall drive to wean them off it.
If we see spikes in usage for certain drugs that are a particular problem you can raise taxes under health reforms to drive users away from that product and we combine it with common sense education programs to discourage usage.

There are those who will adopt the mantra that we shouldn't pay for other people's addictions, thing is we already do. We pay for it with addicts stealing to get their fix, with gangs shooting people in the street over turf wars, with police resources tied up in dealing with it, with our courts backlogged by the number of cases and our prisons overflowing and worst of all stupid stoner sloth ad's.

it defies belief that we are still bothering with this "war" in 2016, let's look at the crux of the issue, the average user is not the thing people issues with most are no different then a those who enjoy a beer at the end of the week, they just choose to use a different drug.

The issue is addicts, But again the fact is most addicts do not commit crimes beyond taking the drugs, there non violent and no threat to the community. they just can't function now if that's your definition of a criminal why aren't we locking up thousands of people who are addicted to over the counter painkillers? in both cases the person dramatic physical and psychological withdrawals. In both cases the person can barely get through the day without a hit.

The only difference is the person addicted to an illegal drug needs to ring some dodgy bloke come around his house to drop off the product that can be cut with anything from drain cleaner to battery acid and be overcharged for the service, being paranoid that he'll be sprung by police in the middle of a deal. Meanwhile the bird who needs to pop 3 panadols every two hours can simply roll down to priceline and buy two packs while they're on sale, they can be sure the ingredients on the label are the actual ingredients, are informed of the the side effects, no worries about being disowned by their families if anyone finds and if they finally decide they need help getting off the drug, they are free to have it treated as an actual health problem and not a police matter.

I've actually worked with a bird who was addicted to panadeine, she was so stuffed by the s**t it wasn't funny, she took so many for so long it eventually stuffed up her stomach to the point that she required surgery and she still couldn't kick the s**t.

have heard that view before on various life style type choices, where do you draw the line?
should the same apply to?
1. drink drivers.
2. obese people re. the associated health problems ie. diabetes, heart disease etc.
3. cigarette smokers.
4. people who engage in risk taking activities eg. base jumping, fire walkers/breathers etc.
5. stupid decisions eg. crossing a flooded road.

and who is the arbiter of what the system will pay for and what it wont? the department of stupid decisions? presiding minister- james hacker?

yep, one of my main points on this whole drug issue is- if you are a sound of mind adult you should be able to ingest or do anything you want as long as it does not negatively affect other people or property.

yep, "the war on drugs" what a f.....g joke.

yep. i have had a bit to do with drug addicted individuals family and acquaintances, they have a hole in their life and as you say they fill it with drugs. a lot self harm for the same reason ie. they want to feel something. nobody IMO chooses to be a "junkie".

performance enhancing and recreational 2 different issues IMO.

 

[MacMum]

There is nothing "recreational" about drugs. They destroy lives.

In the last six months I have sat back and watched my in-laws go from a loving tight-knit family to a disintegrated mess due to so called legal high drugs bought from under the counter of a sex shop. Quite common I believe. The problem started years ago apparently, and slowly but surely took over his life, and eventually the family found out.

The person concerned is now doing rehab interstate. We'll see, but he has gone from being a university educated, sensible, loving son to a lying deceitful debt-ridden, unemployed low-life.

I hope he can turn his life around, but he has ruined so many peoples lives, not just his own..

Had to look up these so-called legal high drugs, we had never heard of them. Some of them are more addictive and dangerous than the illegal stuff, yet can be bought legally from any "reputable" sex shop or tobacco shop.

With all the education and exposure the drug issue gets, I have never understood how any intelligent person can even think experimenting or taking drugs is anywhere near a fun thing to do..

... getting back to the players taking drugs, my thoughts are to get them any help they may require, but their career is over........then other young players coming into the system just might think twice before doing the same thing.

 

[Dylan12]

Place your bets on what media distraction plan Eddie will launch tomorrow?

Pies to play a H&A game in Pyongyang?

Eddie to challenge Trump at the GOP Convention?

Nope, turned the focus into a confidentiality issue.

Don't worry about addressing the issue at hand, rather do whatever you can to deflect the issue.

 

[M Malice]

There is nothing "recreational" about drugs. They destroy lives.

In the last six months I have sat back and watched my in-laws go from a loving tight-knit family to a disintegrated mess due to so called legal high drugs bought from under the counter of a sex shop. Quite common I believe. The problem started years ago apparently, and slowly but surely took over his life, and eventually the family found out.

The person concerned is now doing rehab interstate. We'll see, but he has gone from being a university educated, sensible, loving son to a lying deceitful debt-ridden, unemployed low-life.

I hope he can turn his life around, but he has ruined so many peoples lives, not just his own..

Had to look up these so-called legal high drugs, we had never heard of them. Some of them are more addictive and dangerous than the illegal stuff, yet can be bought legally from any "reputable" sex shop or tobacco shop.

With all the education and exposure the drug issue gets, I have never understood how any intelligent person can even think experimenting or taking drugs is anywhere near a fun thing to do..

it should be treated as a health/addiction issue not a criminal one, as a previous poster said they don't lock up and criminalize alcoholics. with the additional funds available from ending the "war on drugs" there would also be more resources available to treat dependency on "legal" drugs.

edit: i feel a bit too serious/deep discussing these societal issues on our main board, maybe it should be moved to "The Den" mods? where we can get all serious and sometimes confrontational.

 

[Toffee Lion]

As someone who has done some research into recreational marijuana and the legalisation of it in Denver, I would fully support it anywhere in Australia.

It is a no brainer, it helps eliminate the black market and poor creation of the product and brings in a LOT of tax revenue for the state and new jobs, as well as the increased access for medicinal users.

I went to Denver only 2 months ago and the strict procedures to purchase it was spot on, lots of signs outside the shop and you walk in and no drugs in sight - you wait to get verified (All medicinal patients get first preference, even if they just walked in the door) and then accompanied behind doors to conduct your business.

But call me hypocritical, I draw the line at marijuana and would never advocate the use of further illicit drugs (Cocaine etc).

So I'm fine with players in the off-season doing their thing, as long as they do it sensibly and leave it behind during the season.

The amount of marijuana use in the NBA is astronomically high, I just hope the 'use' in our sport isn't all just lines of Coke.

 

[carnthemlions]

All I am saying is legalizing recreational drugs, to me, seems like a recipe for disaster. Essentially I see it as Australia has a large drug problem, and some people's solution to the problem is to make drugs more readily available.

The parallels I am drawing to my gun debate reference was simply that both solutions involve flooding society with more of the stuff that is already damaging society. Regulations are great in principle, but in reality they would be governed and enforced by the same people that according to many here, is already failing at their jobs.

Overall I just think prevention (keep the drugs illegal) is a better method than the reaction one (make the drugs legal).

Just my opinion of course

Just fyi, one of the aims of de-criminalisation is actually prevention. If that fails, mitigating the harm caused is a far better approach than simply demonising drug users. Let's be honest, all that does is make people who get caught up in the hysteria feel better, like the government is actually doing something.

so much facepalm by the pro druggies... I thought TBD was a teacher? Wouldn't you want students that wanted to learn? Attend classes? Be involved?

When I was growing up some of my peers were bright, enthusiastic students that came from good homes. They were introduced to weed through kids at school and it drastically changed their attitude. What was once confident, outgoing, energetic kids they were replaced with ones that would barely turn up to class, didn't do the work required and eventually dropped out before finishing their study. This happens within a culture where drugs are illegal, looked down upon by parents and the government and are relatively hard for high school students to get hold of. Now imagine illicit drugs are legalised and have flooded all levels of society... embraced by this current generation much like how alcohol was embraced by previous generations. This is when we as a society will fall apart...

The sad case above that I outlined will be common place in class rooms in 25 years time. Alcohol abuse is rife throughout the age group of 14+ now. Just add in potential addiction to weed, meth, or any other 'high' and you will get the point. I've seen the effects illicit drugs has on people first hand more than enough to know that legalising will be the worst thing this nation would do since electing Rudd as PM. We just can't afford to take on this legalising 'experiment'. It is almost impossible to make something illegal after it is legal so there will be no reverting back. If they had a ban alcohol referendum I'd be the first to vote YES but I know for a fact this will never ever happen. I will feel sorry for my kids.

You should all read 'With Love from Dad' by Malcolm Smith. A lot of it is valid today.

Familiar with the history of prohibition? It didn't work, it wouldn't work now either. I'm sorry man, you're WAY off here.
As for society falling apart... plz. You're arguing out of ignorance here. Do yourself a favour and attain a more broad understanding of the issue before coming to definite conclusions.

There is nothing "recreational" about drugs. They destroy lives.

In the last six months I have sat back and watched my in-laws go from a loving tight-knit family to a disintegrated mess due to so called legal high drugs bought from under the counter of a sex shop. Quite common I believe. The problem started years ago apparently, and slowly but surely took over his life, and eventually the family found out.

The person concerned is now doing rehab interstate. We'll see, but he has gone from being a university educated, sensible, loving son to a lying deceitful debt-ridden, unemployed low-life.

I hope he can turn his life around, but he has ruined so many peoples lives, not just his own..

Had to look up these so-called legal high drugs, we had never heard of them. Some of them are more addictive and dangerous than the illegal stuff, yet can be bought legally from any "reputable" sex shop or tobacco shop.

With all the education and exposure the drug issue gets, I have never understood how any intelligent person can even think experimenting or taking drugs is anywhere near a fun thing to do..

... getting back to the players taking drugs, my thoughts are to get them any help they may require, but their career is over........then other young players coming into the system just might think twice before doing the same thing.

The issue of 'legal highs' is interesting. Essentially, it's a case of governments failing to address the issue despite clear evidence of a problem.
Drug education is one of the reasons why people continue to take drugs. It's improving, but much of it can still be boiled down to 'drugs are bad'. You might think that's helpful- it isn't. People need to be informed of the risks, but they also need to know how they can use drugs safely and which drugs are safer if they're going to do it anyway.

 

[WA Lion]

Still a lot of over complicating going on. talk about prohibition etc is a complete waste of time.

It boils down to one very simple fact. Taking a drug is a choice. Don't make that choice. Not difficult. At all really.

 

[Doobies]

There is nothing "recreational" about drugs. They destroy lives.

In the last six months I have sat back and watched my in-laws go from a loving tight-knit family to a disintegrated mess due to so called legal high drugs bought from under the counter of a sex shop. Quite common I believe. The problem started years ago apparently, and slowly but surely took over his life, and eventually the family found out.

The person concerned is now doing rehab interstate. We'll see, but he has gone from being a university educated, sensible, loving son to a lying deceitful debt-ridden, unemployed low-life.

I hope he can turn his life around, but he has ruined so many peoples lives, not just his own..

Had to look up these so-called legal high drugs, we had never heard of them. Some of them are more addictive and dangerous than the illegal stuff, yet can be bought legally from any "reputable" sex shop or tobacco shop.

With all the education and exposure the drug issue gets, I have never understood how any intelligent person can even think experimenting or taking drugs is anywhere near a fun thing to do..

... getting back to the players taking drugs, my thoughts are to get them any help they may require, but their career is over........then other young players coming into the system just might think twice before doing the same thing.

Yeah but you can make the same argument about anything. I've seen gambling destroy lives, alcohol destroys lives hell I've even seen fitness destroy lives. Anything can destroy a life if there are underlying mental health issues. I know plenty of recreational drugs users who are very successful in life, same with people who like to have a punt on the weekend. If you have the self control you're fine. The argument of decriminalisation is aimed toward treating the issue rather than punishing the user. I'm all for that, throwing someone in jail ruins their lives for good. I'd just like to point out as well that I'm sure every single one of you would take prescription pills that the doctor gave you because they're 'legal'. I've lost three friends to drugs. One was due to illegal drugs the other two were because of benzo 's and painkillers prescribed by doctors when in all honesty they weren't needed to be prescribed. Prescription drugs are the biggest drug issue in our country, not ice or weed. Yet they are conveniently never brought up.

 

[Full Wingspan]

My response will be structured in three main parts; the decriminalisation of recreational drugs in society, use in an AFL/elite sporting environment and rebuttal of some of the points raised that I disagree with.

As many before me on this forum have noted, the war on drugs is failing miserably. Do yourself a favour and have a read of the below article that outlines the mechanisms adopted by the Dutch in tackling Heroin addiction. (VICE is trash now, but I loved some of their articles from a couple of years ago).

https://news.vice.com/article/only-...addicts-complain-about-free-government-heroin

For those who didn't read the article, the Dutch have adopted an approach where they treat their heroin addicts as individuals who require assistance rather than criminals who should be locked away and disregarded.

“Sometimes they come in because cops get them. Not to throw them in jail, but to help them. Arresting somebody ten times for drug abuse is pointless,” De Ridder. “You’ve got to look at what a person really needs.”

The government has established these clinics whereby heroin addicts can receive their fix, for free, in a safe/sterile environment, and it is funded entirely by the taxpayer. Addicts have strict appointments they must make on time in order to receive their dosage; if they don't turn up, they have to wait until their next appointment.

The net result:

• Heroin related crime is now non-existent. The black market is eradicated as the government's product is the most pure (and free). This means you don't have addicts stealing property of innocent third parties to fund their habit.
  
• The administration of the drug is done in a controlled, medically supervised environment. The spread of HIV/Aids and many other diseases has dramatically reduced among addicts, and there is no dirty syringes disposed of in the public domain.
• Addicts can access services at these centres relating to rehabilitation, welfare and other genuinely helpful resources in order to get their lives in livable order.

It is this type of model that we must attempt to adapt in order to minimise the risk and damage caused by drugs and drug crime. I am aware that this specific type of program will not be suitable for every single substance (e.g. ice), but it demonstrates that we must take an approach where we work with the users in a way that is cohesive with their best interests.

Consistently using resources on finding addicts, pushing them through the courts and sending them into prison is a costly and ineffective exercise that leaves all involved short-changed.

I am not 100% certain but I believe other European countries in the region are adopting much more advanced strategies on addressing the issue, with policies that move away from the 'us v them' mentality.

Specifically in an AFL context, Collingwood have been left out to dry over this issue (as much as I would love to sink the boots into them), as there are two other teams reportedly with a higher number of players returning positive tests! I see it as an evener for all the undeserved good publicity they receive.

Personally I do not care what AFL players do in their own time, however I can fully understand and appreciate why the league should introduce a policy that prohibits players from using substances that are currently outlawed. Whether we like it or not, players are in fact role models for our children and they should set an appropriate example (it's all part of the deal with receiving a six-figure salary).

The 3-strike/2-strike policy is utterly stupid as it does not inform the player's own club. If I were to devise an approach, it would 1-strike, inform the club and provide the necessary support to the player in question.

I can appreciate that there are certain risks with taking many forms/types of recreational substances, and overall, they probably are not an ideal intake for an athlete's dietary program. However, much like the example in the Netherlands, we need to take an approach that doesn't crucify the player in question, but give them the support they need to kick the habit. More often than not, there are underlying reasons (anxiety, depression, etc.) that are the true issues that their drug use attempts to mask.

I am perplexed at those who are calling for players to be axed on their first offence, then go on to endorse that they can have a 'well earned drink or two' in the off season. One could make a considerable case that alcohol is the most destructive substance of all, and those who think that by injecting 420 marijuanas over the off season is going to kill them probably need to educate themselves on the entire topic of recreational drug use.

We live in the internet age now, expose yourself to actual studies and academic journals, don't just inherit your parent's ill-informed 1960s mentality. I even read a study suggesting MDMA has cancer preventing properties.

Also, as soon as someone links performance enhancing drugs to recreational, I no longer want to converse with that type of individual.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Still a lot of over complicating going on. talk about prohibition etc is a complete waste of time.

It boils down to one very simple fact. Taking a drug is a choice. Don't make that choice. Not difficult. At all really.

Are we overcomplicating or are you oversimplifying and/or missing the point?

We aren't debating whether people should or shouldn't choose to do drugs. I imagine most if not all of us think its preferable not to but we live in the real world where people do choose to do it.

What we are discussing is how to handle those that do. Like carnthemlions said above, we are all focusing on prevention - we just think there is a different and more effective way to go about it. Quite simply, it's a policy discussion. And policy needs to be more nuanced than "it's simple... don't do it".

 

[Mr Ripper]

Shoot them. In the knackers so they can't breed.

 

[WA Lion]

Are we overcomplicating or are you oversimplifying and/or missing the point?

We aren't debating whether people should or shouldn't choose to do drugs. I imagine most if not all of us think its preferable not to but we live in the real world where people do choose to do it.

What we are discussing is how to handle those that do. Like carnthemlions said above, we are all focusing on prevention - we just think there is a different and more effective way to go about it. Quite simply, it's a policy discussion. And policy needs to be more nuanced than "it's simple... don't do it".

Think we will have to agree to disagree!

For me life is actually very simple, and its only people that make it complicated. This IMO opinion is one of those times. It really is as simple as don't do it. Nothing more, nothing less IMO.

 

[M Malice]

addicts have a problem that is why they use ie. they have a hole in their lives that needs to be filled- they want to feel something. it is very similar to girls (in the main) who self harm. i had a very personal experience with someone i love dearly who was cutting, you can't say to them "it's quite simple darling, just don't do it".
life is not black and white, yes and no, do it and don't do it. walk in someones shoes, have empathy and compassion.

 

[Full Wingspan]

Think we will have to agree to disagree!

For me life is actually very simple, and its only people that make it complicated. This IMO opinion is one of those times. It really is as simple as don't do it. Nothing more, nothing less IMO.

It's good that it is simple for you, but the sooner you realise that not everyone on this planet rationalises decisions in the same manner that you do, have the same qualities and traits as you do, and have lived through the same life experiences and events as you have, you'll realise that in formulating a viable policy you must consider other individuals and base the decision on what works most effectively to capture the issue you are targeting.

So in this case, people who choose to consume recreational drugs. You cannot seem to comprehend how and why people would do that, so any discussion about forming a viable policy (that acknowledges the realities of human nature) probably has no further place for you on this thread.

 

[Ironmonger]

Nope, turned the focus into a confidentiality issue.

Don't worry about addressing the issue at hand, rather do whatever you can to deflect the issue.

Actually, I think that probably is the biggest issue here. Whatever strategy the AFL uses going forward, players need to trust that they won't get burnt by it.

 

[WA Lion]

It's good that it is simple for you, but the sooner you realise that not everyone on this planet rationalises decisions in the same manner that you do, have the same qualities and traits as you do, and have lived through the same life experiences and events as you have, you'll realise that in formulating a viable policy you must consider other individuals and base the decision on what works most effectively to capture the issue you are targeting.

So in this case, people who choose to consume recreational drugs. You cannot seem to comprehend how and why people would do that, so any discussion about forming a viable policy (that acknowledges the realities of human nature) probably has no further place for you on this thread.

No further place in this thread?? Who the hell do you think you are?! Sorry to tell you this but but your s**t stinks just like everyone else's

He we were engaging in a respectful debate where everyone was expressing their opinions constructively and politely, and you come in making comments like that?grow up.

I have a right to express my opinion just like you. You would do well to remember that and not degenerate the conversation to a personal level such as my supposed lack of comprehension. People like you ruin perfectly good and respectful debates.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Actually, I think that probably is the biggest issue here. Whatever strategy the AFL uses going forward, players need to trust that they won't get burnt by it.

I have a feeling Robbo just made it harder on himself to secure access to players for interviews in the near future.

 

[ZoBlitz]

Keep it civil people.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Think we will have to agree to disagree!

For me life is actually very simple, and its only people that make it complicated. This IMO opinion is one of those times. It really is as simple as don't do it. Nothing more, nothing less IMO.

But people are still doing it regardless. That's what we are saying. So "don't do it" isn't working.

So what is the next step... that is what is being discussed. You seem to be drawing the lines of the debate on "drugs are bad" when pretty much everyone already agrees with that. You seem to be arguing a counterpoint to an argument no one is making.

 

[MacMum]

Get tough is what you do! Stop pussy footing around........build lots of rehab places, throw them in there, not to come out until well and truly clean. If they get into again, then off to jail..yes jail.

..it's all about consequences of one's own actions........and at the moment, there are none. Life's peachy, we can do what we want, nothing will happen.

Self control it's called, knowing right from wrong, just doing the right thing.

I wonder how many people like to eat a good healthy diet, look after their bodies etc?...........then go have some recreational drug just to top it off. Is that sensible?.....and don't tell me it's a mental issue, because it's not, It's a smart-arse, I'm a real cool dude attitude to the world and it's social niceties.

When looking up these legal high drugs, saw on one site about how they get the user in with regular stuff (all legal) then gradually change it contain all the wicked stuff, still all legal....but hey, it's ok, they're recreational so it doesn't matter!!

oh, and JB says players should be named after the 1st strike.

 

[WA Lion]

But people are still doing it regardless. That's what we are saying. So "don't do it" isn't working.

So what is the next step... that is what is being discussed. You seem to be drawing the lines of the debate on "drugs are bad" when pretty much everyone already agrees with that. You seem to be arguing a counterpoint to an argument no one is making.

Yeah my argument is purely the use (and consequences) of recreational drugs in the AFL, not the wider community. I could perhaps of been clearer with that.

Of course people are still doing that, that is obvious. The point I am trying to make is IMO one of the reasons they are still doing it is due to the lack real consequences for doing it. Consequences would of course still need to be in conjunction with education, support, counselling etc but there should still be consequences. They just need to fit the crime

 

[Full Wingspan]

No further place in this thread?? Who the hell do you think you are?! Sorry to tell you this but but your s**t stinks just like everyone else's

He we were engaging in a respectful debate where everyone was expressing their opinions constructively and politely, and you come in making comments like that?grow up.

I have a right to express my opinion just like you. You would do well to remember that and not degenerate the conversation to a personal level such as my supposed lack of comprehension. People like you ruin perfectly good and respectful debates.

So that escalated quickly...

I'm not saying you're not entitled to your opinion - I was merely pointing out your own point of view (drugs are bad, don't do it at all, don't overcomplicate the issue), and noting that if you cannot comprehend the complexity that myself and other posters appear to appreciate, then I do not really see how you can add to the discussion on policy.

And it works both ways - I cannot comprehend your view that it is a simple and straightforward issue. That's what a debate is - identifying areas of disagreement and demonstrating the reasoning behind that view, usually with evidence to further strengthen your argument (something that you haven't really done, nor have you addressed many of the key points some posters have raised).

After you signed off on 'agree to disagree', that further reinstated that your view on the issue was finalised and left for others to discuss as I described as 'viable' policy.

Sorry if you thought I was undermining your right to discussion, all I am trying to do is undermine your view by providing thoughts to the contrary.

 

[Full Wingspan]

Yeah my argument is purely the use (and consequences) of recreational drugs in the AFL, not the wider community. I could perhaps of been clearer with that.

Of course people are still doing that, that is obvious. The point I am trying to make is IMO one of the reasons they are still doing it is due to the lack real consequences for doing it. Consequences would of course still need to be in conjunction with education, support, counselling etc but there should still be consequences. They just need to fit the crime

This a point of yours I can agree on.

I wouldn't want to make the consequence one-strike wins you a torn up contract. Obviously it depends on the individual circumstances surrounding the player, whether it was exceptional behaviour or a repeated occurrence - it is very easily to fall into the trap to place all individuals who violate the drug code into the one basket.

Not only is their a variance in the individual circumstances surround a breach/player, it appears many of us on this forum have a different view to the degree of risk associated with recreational drug use.

For example, some flat out state that it ruins lives, and I would disagree partially with this. I would say ice addiction 100% ruins lives. However if a player received three strikes for having three joints I would be quite angry if they got sacked over a drug that is probably less harmful than tobacco and alcohol and probably going to be made legal in a recreational sense within a decade or so.

Then there are others who seem to place it in the same category as performance enhancers (they're the people I don't really have time for).

Some discretion must be given to the clubs, and most importantly, the clubs should be made aware of a positive testing from the onset. I do not see a need to make it public - in fact it should be entirely confidential just like any other medical arrangement.

 

[WA Lion]

So that escalated quickly...

I'm not saying you're not entitled to your opinion - I was merely pointing out your own point of view (drugs are bad, don't do it at all, don't overcomplicate the issue), and noting that if you cannot comprehend the complexity that myself and other posters appear to appreciate, then I do not really see how you can add to the discussion on policy.

And it works both ways - I cannot comprehend your view that it is a simple and straightforward issue. That's what a debate is - identifying areas of disagreement and demonstrating the reasoning behind that view, usually with evidence to further strengthen your argument (something that you haven't really done, nor have you addressed many of the key points some posters have raised).

After you signed off on 'agree to disagree', that further reinstated that your view on the issue was finalised and left for others to discuss as I described as 'viable' policy.

Sorry if you thought I was undermining your right to discussion, all I am trying to do is undermine your view by providing thoughts to the contrary.

What an incredibly dismissive position to take. I don't share your perspective on an issue therefore I cannot contribute to it's resolution?

I think you find that it is only by people challenging one another that appropriate outcomes are reached. If you are not challenged all you achieve is mediocrity. And you can debate with someone with taking it to a personal level. Making judgements about me as a person and my 'lack of comprehension' is no way to win over someone who shares a different opinion. Taking things to a personal level only ever reflects negatively on the person writing the comment.

You can disagree with the validity or reasoning of my arguments all you like, that is your right, but making personal assumptions and dismissing my right to post in this thread simply because I don't share the same opinion as you will lose you respect quickly. Certainly from me it will anyway

 

[Full Wingspan]

What an incredibly dismissive position to take. I don't share your perspective on an issue therefore I cannot contribute to it's resolution?

I think you find that it is only by people challenging one another that appropriate outcomes are reached. If you are not challenged all you achieve is mediocrity. And you can debate with someone with taking it to a personal level. Making judgements about me as a person and my 'lack of comprehension' is no way to win over someone who shares a different opinion. Taking things to a personal level only ever reflects negatively on the person writing the comment.

You can disagree with the validity or reasoning of my arguments all you like, that is your right, but making personal assumptions and dismissing my right to post in this thread simply because I don't share the same opinion as you will lose you respect quickly. Certainly from me it will anyway

I'll firstly start by saying that this is a public internet forum, it's very hard to 'get personal' in the truest sense of the word. But if you define personal as attacking your reasoning then I guess I 'went personal'. In fact, every time you engage with another poster, you're essentially getting 'personal'.

Maybe I am challenging you to provide further reasoning as to why it is such a simple matter with a straightforward resolution?

At first I was challenging your comprehension of my viewpoint and the view that a few others seem to share, and I pointed out that I felt your view could not really further add to that discussion we were having as it was going beyond your viewpoint (as TBD pointed out). I also noted I welcome your right to post but I was merely trying to understand where your view stood in the conversation of the thread as much of my argument went beyond 'it's bad, don't do it.'

Now after reading your latest post, I will question your overall comprehension of language as I addressed many of the points you have again brought up, including your right to post.