You're wrong and don't understand what "addiction" means. There all kinds of addictions which have nothing to do with physical properties...gambling, sex, pornography, TV, running, adrenalin junkies (although their bodies create adrenalin, there is no physical substance they take prior to or while doing those activities). I won't even go into your spelling and grammatical errors.
I'd have to think that the fact that he's one failed test away from a season long suspension would make the team extremely hesitant to give him a lot of long term guaranteed money. Also, players are eligible to negotiate new deals after the 3rd year of their rookie contract. Knowing Sheldon he probably would've tried to do so after this year, but the suspension should decrease his short term value and make him less likely to hold out. I would just use this as an opportunity to extend Mo. Keep he and Sheldon together for this year, next year and then Sheldon's 5th year option, then either franchise him or let him walk. I know it's rash to take him out of the long term plans over 2 failed drug tests, but if you have 2 elite defensive lineman, one of whom who has a clean record and the other is one hit of a blunt away from missing a whole year, which one would you choose if you could only have one? Sheldon can preach about reform all he wants, but where did that get Josh Gordon? Consecutive season long bans. Now that he's being tested 10 times per month, there's 0 margin for error with Richardson. Give me the Mo/Sheldon/Leo trio for 4 years then call it a day.
In short, his options seem diminished, and his probable contract value is lower. How much is a difficult question, but it has to be somewhat.
Great fucking post. I am sorry, but Sheldon's mouth got himself in enough trouble with this regime, now add the drug issue and you have 2 strikes. There won't be talk about Sheldon getting money until he's in the last year of his deal. To me, that's fine by me if I am the Jets, let's lock Mo up.
Well. At least we have a valid reason for not giving a huge contract yet. He'll just spend it on wacky weed.
Nah, being one failed piss test away from being banned for an entire season should have no impact whatsoever on a long-term contract extension with huge guaranteed money.
Leonard "Reggie White as per @James Hasty" Williams should easily replace Sheldon Richardson if he were to act up again - it's unfortunate, but that's football. Wilkerson, for some reason soured on a lot of fans on this board, but not me. He's the guy that demands the majority of double teams. He makes the players on the D-Line around him better, hell Richardson is talented - but Wilkerson is the more versatile player. I got respect for those guys. That's what qualities, Joe Klecko brought to the table as a Jet. Richardson is fucked, there shouldn't be 1 whisper from his camp about $$$ until he's a year away from being a FA. Love Richardson, the player, but I don't like him speaking up for other players, like Mo who may or may not have a difference stance.
I think we outta sign mo now before he increases his value in this great defense by having a 12-14 maybe even 15 sack season.. which is amazing for a player at that position in a 3-4. AFter that Mo gonna be like "We don't just want Watt money... we want SUH money!!!"
All I'm saying is that THC is not addictive. To call Sheldon Richardson an "addict" for smoking marjiuana is a hit below the belt and wrong. That's what I was referencing when this started. Very dumb yes, but not addicted to THC. I think you the other poster are referencing being addicted to to something or even somebody as the psychological aspect to addiction (two similar but different things). I know I'm a bad speller and have gramerical errors, appreciate you noticing...
Your continued nonsense about THC not being addicting has no bearing on whether someone can become addicted to marijuana. I already posted a link describing how marijuana addiction exists. Addiction isn't dictated by a foreign substance like THC triggering an addicted chemical in the brain. The difference between addiction to a physical substance and an intangible behavior like gambling doesn't minimize either one as less of an addiction. If someone can't stop smoking pot even though they know it is harmful to them, not physically but professionally, you know like they will get suspended from their job and lose hundreds of thousands of dollars and possibly a large contract they are pursuing, that inability to control their behavior, which smoking weed certainly is, would qualify that lack of control as an addiction. That's simply the fact of how addiction is determined and it has nothing to to with THC. Don't believe me, just take a few seconds to read the information that is at your fingertips. Whether or not he's addicted we don't know because we don't know if he just can't control his use or doesn't care.
You use the term addiction very loosely. Or more accurately in a different sense than those who consider psychoactive drugs as having some physical property that causes PHYSICAL withdrawal symptoms - that is not THC. People can develop all sorts of habits. You refer to gambling. No doubt one or two posters here have a habit of viewing gay porn. A habit, even one someone cannot control, is not the same as a physical addiction. Regareding the bolded part of your post, it's not clear that the someone you are referring to CANNOT stop, just because they have not. The point is a physical withdrawal symptom complicates the psychology of stopping a habit.
I'm not using it loosely, I'm using it accurately. Addiction is not defined and identified solely as the physical reaction to physical properties, with everything else being habit. Addiction is a state characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli, despite adverse consequences. It can be thought of as a disease or biological process leading to such behaviors. I never said he couldn't stop and therefore he was an addict. My position has been to dispute the claims that it is impossible to be addicted to marijuana.
He DIDN'T stop. That in itself does not establish addiction. Given your wide definition of addiction, your statement taht one can be addicted to marijuana is meaningless if the subject has to do in any way with its specific and particular qualities. One can be "addicted" to anything the way you define it.
Under your definition, anything can be addictive so why limit your argument to pot? If someone eats pizza every night to the extent that they have to throw up each night seems like an addiction under your definition. Are they addicted to pizza?
It's not my definition. I do not control language and set the definitions. I never said he was addicted. How many different ways do I have to say that for you to grasp that simple concept? In fact, if you could comprehend what was written in plain English you would see my previous post where I stated clearly whether he us addicted or not is unknown. Perhaps, just as you think this is my personal definition of addiction, you have your own language with your own definitions and that is why communication is so difficult for you. If so, please stop applying your own personal definitions to the words I use and apply the standard and existing definitions, that way we are using the words the same.
Again, not my definition. Do you really think I made that up? What kind of asinine argument is that? And I never said my argument was limited to pot? How could you even draw that conclusion. I hate to break this to you, but there is food addiction, so your own example to try and dispute my factual position actually disputes your own argument. Why would you bring up an argument that disputes your own position unless you don't even understand what you are arguing?
Sadly, some people are so misinformed or ignorant that they don't even know what they don't know, yet they are oddly compelled to make it clear to everyone else how little they know on that subject.
Haha--You're right that I didn't know that popular culture has gone so far as to label gluttony a food addiction. Point for you.
