Jake Livermore tests positive for cocaine
Scroll to see replies
Original post by ozzyoscy
There are many different ways people get addicted. These are all assumptions you're making when there are so many different avenues. It's not just people taking it at an adult age to be cool or experimental.
Sacking him gives him nothing to aim for, his chances of rehabilitation go down to nil. It also wouldn't deter other addicts, because they're addicted. They're not taking the drugs out of choice. It's more a mental illness.
As for punishing him for his mistakes, in this hypothetical situation where he's a long gone drug addict, he's already being punished.
I wouldn't expect many to want to lock up Clarke Carlisle and throw away the key, I don't see why anyone else in the same situation should be punished in that manner.
Sacking him gives him nothing to aim for, his chances of rehabilitation go down to nil. It also wouldn't deter other addicts, because they're addicted. They're not taking the drugs out of choice. It's more a mental illness.
As for punishing him for his mistakes, in this hypothetical situation where he's a long gone drug addict, he's already being punished.
I wouldn't expect many to want to lock up Clarke Carlisle and throw away the key, I don't see why anyone else in the same situation should be punished in that manner.
I think we should agree to disagree on this matter, as there seems to be an ideological difference between our opinions.
When I made the point about setting an example to others, I meant an example about taking drugs in the first place, as if he is punished for it then many other people will think before they do something illegal/stupid.
May I ask what other ways there are to get addicted, as I have to say I have not heard about these "different avenues"?
Original post by Paul Krugman
I think we should agree to disagree on this matter, as there seems to be an ideological difference between our opinions.
When I made the point about setting an example to others, I meant an example about taking drugs in the first place, as if he is punished for it then many other people will think before they do something illegal/stupid.
May I ask what other ways there are to get addicted, as I have to say I have not heard about these "different avenues"?
When I made the point about setting an example to others, I meant an example about taking drugs in the first place, as if he is punished for it then many other people will think before they do something illegal/stupid.
May I ask what other ways there are to get addicted, as I have to say I have not heard about these "different avenues"?
One tried it because their friends did and they wanted to make friend.
Another grew up around it.
One was tricked into given a drug, and became addicted.
Another was so depressed that they tried it with nothing to lose.
Another was on a medication that led to addiction to a drug, which led to progression to other drugs.
Another was just bored.
There is more than one way for anything to happen.
Someone getting fired evidently hasn't stopped drug use, it isn't a magical solution to the problem if he is majorly addicted, and it doesn't stop someone taking drugs if they've started because they're addicted, and it doesn't stop others starting in many scenarios. There's no logical reason in that situaton to just fire him. Suspend him, fine him, rehabilitate him, give him a second chance, and be there for any relapses.
If he took drugs for the sake of entertainment, isn't addicted, and isn't remorseful for the act rather than being caught, than a termination of contract would be a more viable option.
Original post by ozzyoscy
One tried it because their friends did and they wanted to make friend.
Another grew up around it.
One was tricked into given a drug, and became addicted.
Another was so depressed that they tried it with nothing to lose.
Another was on a medication that led to addiction to a drug, which led to progression to other drugs.
Another was just bored.
There is more than one way for anything to happen.
Someone getting fired evidently hasn't stopped drug use, it isn't a magical solution to the problem if he is majorly addicted, and it doesn't stop someone taking drugs if they've started because they're addicted, and it doesn't stop others starting in many scenarios. There's no logical reason in that situaton to just fire him. Suspend him, fine him, rehabilitate him, give him a second chance, and be there for any relapses.
If he took drugs for the sake of entertainment, isn't addicted, and isn't remorseful for the act rather than being caught, than a termination of contract would be a more viable option.
Another grew up around it.
One was tricked into given a drug, and became addicted.
Another was so depressed that they tried it with nothing to lose.
Another was on a medication that led to addiction to a drug, which led to progression to other drugs.
Another was just bored.
There is more than one way for anything to happen.
Someone getting fired evidently hasn't stopped drug use, it isn't a magical solution to the problem if he is majorly addicted, and it doesn't stop someone taking drugs if they've started because they're addicted, and it doesn't stop others starting in many scenarios. There's no logical reason in that situaton to just fire him. Suspend him, fine him, rehabilitate him, give him a second chance, and be there for any relapses.
If he took drugs for the sake of entertainment, isn't addicted, and isn't remorseful for the act rather than being caught, than a termination of contract would be a more viable option.
The logical reason for his firing is that, in most cases, it will be his fault. Obviously, there are exceptions, such as growing up being tricked/medication leading on to it, but the other reasons, such as boredom, are not valid excuses for drug taking. Yes, you could say the damage is done, so there is no need to but you would not see many other workplaces allowing a person who turns up to work high, or at least who has taken cocaine recently, to continue in their job sans punishment.
And to use a more severe analogy, would you allow a murderer to get off scot free if a sentence is unlikely to deter others from doing so? The bottom line is that, regardless of consequences, what he has done is wrong as well as illegal and therefore there needs to be a punishment of some sort.
Original post by Paul Krugman
The logical reason for his firing is that, in most cases, it will be his fault. Obviously, there are exceptions, such as growing up being tricked/medication leading on to it, but the other reasons, such as boredom, are not valid excuses for drug taking. Yes, you could say the damage is done, so there is no need to but you would not see many other workplaces allowing a person who turns up to work high, or at least who has taken cocaine recently, to continue in their job sans punishment.
And to use a more severe analogy, would you allow a murderer to get off scot free if a sentence is unlikely to deter others from doing so? The bottom line is that, regardless of consequences, what he has done is wrong as well as illegal and therefore there needs to be a punishment of some sort.
And to use a more severe analogy, would you allow a murderer to get off scot free if a sentence is unlikely to deter others from doing so? The bottom line is that, regardless of consequences, what he has done is wrong as well as illegal and therefore there needs to be a punishment of some sort.
Murder is the unlawful killing of another. Drug addiction is the unlawful killing of oneself.
Original post by Depleted
Yes let's legalise class A drugs then
yeah we should
Original post by ozzyoscy
Murder is the unlawful killing of another. Drug addiction is the unlawful killing of oneself.
Yet it is still illegal, and often also affects those close to the addict/other people. Therefore, punishment is justified, although I did say murder was an extreme example.
Original post by difeo
yeah we should
Are you being serious?
Original post by Paul Krugman
Yet it is still illegal, and often also affects those close to the addict/other people. Therefore, punishment is justified, although I did say murder was an extreme example.
Yes, it affects those close to them, if they have anyone, which is why rehabilitation should be the priority, just as locking up a murderer is primiarily for rehabilitation purpose, as wrong as that can be in reality sometimes.
Original post by ozzyoscy
Yes, it affects those close to them, if they have anyone, which is why rehabilitation should be the priority, just as locking up a murderer is primiarily for rehabilitation purpose, as wrong as that can be in reality sometimes.
Locking up a murderer is mainly for deterrent, just like the death sentence, as the magnitude of the punishment deters some people from committing murder. Of course, you will still get people who are so set on murder there is no turning back, but prison time for major offences is used primarily as a deterrent.
Original post by Paul Krugman
Are you being serious?
Are you being serious?
- harder for young people to get hold of. A dealer doesn't ask for ID.
- they'll actually be regulated, rather than cut with who knows what.
- known strength, so overdosing is less likely
- less HIV/Hepatitis transmission from unclean needles.
- support for addicts rather than being unable to seek help without risking prison
- public money saved from not pushing harmless addicts through the legal system
- tax revenue
- prison space saved
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by difeo
- harder for young people to get hold of. A dealer doesn't ask for ID.
- they'll actually be regulated, rather than cut with who knows what.
- known strength, so overdosing is less likely
- less HIV/Hepatitis transmission from unclean needles.
- support for addicts rather than being unable to seek help without risking prison
- public money saved from not pushing harmless addicts through the legal system
- tax revenue
- prison space saved
- they'll actually be regulated, rather than cut with who knows what.
- known strength, so overdosing is less likely
- less HIV/Hepatitis transmission from unclean needles.
- support for addicts rather than being unable to seek help without risking prison
- public money saved from not pushing harmless addicts through the legal system
- tax revenue
- prison space saved
I can see the validity of your points for something like weed, but for cocaine? The negative effects of legalisation would far outweigh the positives you have listed.
Original post by Paul Krugman
Locking up a murderer is mainly for deterrent, just like the death sentence, as the magnitude of the punishment deters some people from committing murder. Of course, you will still get people who are so set on murder there is no turning back, but prison time for major offences is used primarily as a deterrent.
If it was a derrent, here at least, there'd be real life sentences, and certainly no releasing people for good behaviour. It's all about getting the person to see what they've done is wrong and want to better themselves. Long sentences are a part of that, so that they won't want to do it again. Just firing someone won't stop an addict from continuing to hurt themselves and maybe others, though.
Original post by Paul Krugman
I can see the validity of your points for something like weed, but for cocaine? The negative effects of legalisation would far outweigh the positives you have listed.
The negative effects being more people using? That might happen but they'd be using a safer form with a known quantity unlikely to cause an overdose. So I imagine you'd see more users but a smaller proportion of them dead/seriously ill. But it's not like there'd be a massive increase in users, I'm pretty sure most people don't want to try the worst drugs at all, for the risks rather than the illegality.
(edited 8 years ago)
What an absolute bellend. His club are in serious danger of getting relegated and he's out snorting lines without a care in the world, Brucey must be absolutely livid. It isn't a performance enhancing drug but a professional athlete should not be taking recreational drugs during the season.
He'll definitely be sacked from Hull for breach of contract. Interested to see what the FA do.
He'll definitely be sacked from Hull for breach of contract. Interested to see what the FA do.
Original post by ozzyoscy
He might need help rather than an outright sacking.
Pretty much this, it's ridiculous that you get the sacked for having drugs in your system yet you're allowed to do a pissup whenever you like and kid fiddl.
Original post by sr90
What an absolute bellend. His club are in serious danger of getting relegated and he's out snorting lines without a care in the world, Brucey must be absolutely livid. It isn't a performance enhancing drug but a professional athlete should not be taking recreational drugs during the season.
He'll definitely be sacked from Hull for breach of contract. Interested to see what the FA do.
He'll definitely be sacked from Hull for breach of contract. Interested to see what the FA do.
Maybe he's depressed about the situation or about how his career has gone.
Original post by difeo
- harder for young people to get hold of. A dealer doesn't ask for ID.
- they'll actually be regulated, rather than cut with who knows what.
- known strength, so overdosing is less likely
- less HIV/Hepatitis transmission from unclean needles.
- support for addicts rather than being unable to seek help without risking prison
- public money saved from not pushing harmless addicts through the legal system
- tax revenue
- prison space saved
- they'll actually be regulated, rather than cut with who knows what.
- known strength, so overdosing is less likely
- less HIV/Hepatitis transmission from unclean needles.
- support for addicts rather than being unable to seek help without risking prison
- public money saved from not pushing harmless addicts through the legal system
- tax revenue
- prison space saved
This.
Drugs should be legal, make this place like Cali.
Let's not discuss the legalisation of drugs here, chaps. Plenty of other places on here to have a proper discussion about that with more like-minded folk.
Brucey is said to be devastated by it, but it's unforgivable from Livermore really. He'll struggle coming back from this and I imagine that it'll be a long way to Callum Davenport-esque lows. He'll be playing non-league football in 2 years, I'm calling it.
Brucey is said to be devastated by it, but it's unforgivable from Livermore really. He'll struggle coming back from this and I imagine that it'll be a long way to Callum Davenport-esque lows. He'll be playing non-league football in 2 years, I'm calling it.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Am jealous of Jake
- English Language Paper 1 Question 5 (AQA)
- what car should i get?
- Formal lab report
- Official Heriot-Watt University 2023 Applicant Thread
- Choosing a University
- What to expect with studying Marketing with Digital Communication at BCU
- Which 'celebrities' are a worse influence than the KarJenners
- Warwick-Graduate entry medicine work experience
- Mental illness in occupational health assessment
- I (28m) don’t trust my gf (28f)
- Can someone help me with this Biology question please?
- Maths at heriot watt or Edinburgh
- What are some typical interview questions?
- Taylor Swift EPQ ideas
- Can conditional offer holders apply for accommodation?
- What things should I know for a nursing interview?
- Accounting Graduate Scheme Preparation
- HELPP - im super confused about the ion tests for alevel chemistry ocr a
- pregnancy test
