no, but for the most part only black ppl are prosecuted for it. Probably why our drug laws are considered racists. And that would apply to the NFL
Fair enough, I'm not an expert on performance enhancing drugs, I guess I was referring to steroids or anabolic steroids, but I'm glad you could have your moment and get to throw in little ostentatious phrases like "panoply of red herrings" and tell me how much I don't know, when really it is common sense that prevails, not philosophical logic and clever arguments. Plenty of athletes have admitted to the adverse effects of using steroids and/or some type of HGH. Regardless of what you want to call it, do you think what Mcguire, Canseco, and Bonds did to their bodies is a healthy thing? That is what I was referring to, but instead of considering the possibility that I was referring to different types of steroids, you eagerly took the chance to pontificate again.
Then they shouldn't smoke it if thats the case. Sounds like it's just not for them. Isn't free will amazing?
Yes the same for alcoholics and compulsive gamblers, there are millions of people that can partake in those without running their lives over it, and out of the three, marijuana is the last harmful, the most harm is the part where the law gets involved
HGH and steroids are completely different substances. HGH is not a steroid. But keep mixing them up to make your point in order to dismiss mine. _
Racism is a belief. Laws have no belief. Anyone who would say a law is racist doesn't even know what racism is. Laws can be deemed discriminatory though based on their impact on races.
laws are a reflection of the ruling party. So maybe a 'law' has no belief, but the ruling party that creates the law can be racist bigots.
Whether the lawmakers are racist is a completely separate issue than whether the laws are discriminatory. The only thing that matters is whether the enforcement of the law is done so in a discriminatory manner. If a law maker is racist but the law is enforced equally across races than the lawmaker's racism is irrelevant and the law is fine. If the lawmaker is not racist but the law disparately impacts certain races differently than the law can be deemed discriminatory. Your refute simply has no relevance. Laws cannot be racist, only discriminatory.
For example cocaine that one snorts is a white mans treat. Cocaine that you smoke is a black mans treat. Guess which form of cocaine carries a much, much stiffer consequence. But no, you're right, laws are not racist.
Sure thing bud. Regardless of the semantic between addiction, and abuse Sheldon made a poor decision. you have your opinion on addiction and abuse of marry jane and I have mine. Give me a notable published study that shows marjiuana IS addictive. I think you'll be hard pressed to find one as THC is not addictive. I could supply you with a dozen published study's that prove this to be statistically significant. If you're claiming THC is addictive than I'm done arguing with you about this.
In the classical way of understanding addiction, the ability for a substance to be addictive is in the substance itself. That is, if the substance is such that a human body will begin to utilize the substance in central nervous system processes that are typically mediated by neurotransmitters an addiction can be present. Hence, we find that addictive substances resemble naturally occurring molecules in the body. Milk can never be addictive. Even if someone drinks a gallon a day, and then is barred from drinking any and has convulsions, vomits, has a fever, etc., there is no addiction to milk. This person has become psychologically dependent on milk and may exhibit all the signs of withdrawal but in no case can it be that he is addicted to milk since milk does not contain a substance that the central nervous system would use for communication. As for pot, I don't think a conclusive result has been determined by the scientific community but thus far, there is no evidence of an addictive substance in marijuana. Still, a person can be dependent and unable to stop consuming due to rewards such as feeling good that are associated with the drug.
A "gambling addiction" is like a "sex addiction" in that the person seemingly cannot control their behavior, and perhaps the reason is the biological pleasure that is gained from doing the act. But there are real philosophical problems with labeling these behaviors as addiction since once one does so, any compulsive behavior can be said to be addictive regardless of the causal factor(s). For example, a serial rapist can be said to be addicted to rape. This conclusion leads to the idea that one has little responsibility for their actions since their biological drives are so strong as to overwhelm any "free will". It is commonplace for this discussion to occur in a court of law when personal responsibility for a crime is argued.
No, that isn't racist, if would be discriminatory. You simply keep validating my original statement -- that anyone who would claim that the law is racist doesn't actually know what racism is. You can continue to be ignorant of what racism is and means, and therefore the difference between racism and discrimination, but arguing your incorrect definition if racism is an indictment of your ignorance. You aren't validating your argument with facts, you are validating my argument with your continued defense. There is nothing subjective about these topics. Racism and discrimination are two different concepts.
Whether you don't like the definition of addiction is irrelevant. The definition is what it is. Beyond that, addiction doesn't absolve anyone of their actions legally, so that is another irrelevant argument. It might make treatments available to them but to my knowledge I've never heard of the not guilty by reason if addiction defense before.
I just admitted they were different and reiterated. You were correct. I remember reading once that Bonds did steroids combined with HGH (among other things), so unfortunately I think its not uncommon for people to lump HGH with steroids, as I did in such a novice way. To get back to football, I never think its a good thing when a guy misses playing time especially right off the bat. That's obvious, but I feel like the risk of injury becomes greater if your not consistently playing in games every week, and you don't know what to expect from a player all year. Missing a quarter of a season is tough in the NFL. I really wanted to see this defensive line together all year and I'm hoping they can all stay healthy, because our D-Line could be historically fun to watch if they are all clicking. That being said, Let's see what Leonard's got.
I think we can agree on that--how many times have we seen guys hold out or come back from suspension and immediately pull a hammy or a quad. Maybe it's more perception than reality--but it just seems like it. I think it happened to Revis. _
Wow, 19 pages. Anything on whether this suspension will affect Richardson's eventual contract negotiations?
