PDA

View Full Version : Pac Man suspended 4 games minimum


Giantsfan1080
10-14-2008, 01:59 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3643240

There's the link. Cowboys better need some corner help for the next month.

NY+Giants=NYG
10-14-2008, 02:02 PM
http://sk1.yt-thm-a01.yimg.com/image/25/f10/454671641

Im_a_Romosexual
10-14-2008, 02:02 PM
******* nightmare

Mr. Stiller
10-14-2008, 02:03 PM
Matt Jones?

Damn you Pacman.. if only you were snorting Cocaine in your car!

Gribble
10-14-2008, 02:04 PM
Disturbing "pattern" of behavior? I don't understand that aspect of the quote... This was only one incident that was totally blown out of proportion.

CashmoneyDrew
10-14-2008, 02:06 PM
****. ****. ****. Balls. ****. I was hoping for that extra 6th rounder this year. Now we lose the 5th too. Idiot couldn't stay out of trouble for just one damn year.

CC.SD
10-14-2008, 02:07 PM
If only they had just used a first round pick on a corner, maybe they'd have something to fall back on. :) It's time for Jenkins to step up to the plate, he should have something to prove given that he fell relatively far from what his expectations were at one point.

Antoine Cason says hello btw.

Vikes99ej
10-14-2008, 02:08 PM
The league is ridiculous.

CC.SD
10-14-2008, 02:09 PM
It's true these suspensions and their inconsistency are completely out of control.

They should think about Patrick Surtain, aren't the Chiefs having a firesale?

Babylon
10-14-2008, 02:09 PM
I think the league probably gave Jerry some time to police his own player and when he didnt they were glad to oblige. Now they probably lose the player for a longer period of time. This guy is not going to turn it around, we arent talking some isolated incident here.

Giantsfan1080
10-14-2008, 02:10 PM
If only they had just used a first round pick on a corner, maybe they'd have something to fall back on. :) It's time for Jenkins to step up to the plate, he should have something to prove given that he fell relatively far from what his expectations were at one point.

Antoine Cason says hello btw.

Jenkins is now going to be the #1 Cb for about a month. Looks like some teams will be able to pick on the secondary for a while.

Brodeur
10-14-2008, 02:11 PM
Are you flipping kidding me Godell?

Paul
10-14-2008, 02:13 PM
The last 10 days for the Cowboys:

- Pac gets into fight with own body guard
- Terrence Newman out at least a month with Sports Hernia
- Non stop coverage by media of TO's feelings of the offense.
- Loses to Cards in overtime
- In the Cards game alone we:
- Lose Romo for 4 weeks
- Lose Mat McBrair for the Year
- Lose Felix for 2(?) weeks
- Lose Sam Hurd for the rest of season.
- Now Pac Man is suspended for 4 games.

Lovely.

Im_a_Romosexual
10-14-2008, 02:15 PM
Jenkins is now going to be the #1 Cb for about a month. Looks like some teams will be able to pick on the secondary for a while.

They weren't doing that before?

eaglesalltheway
10-14-2008, 02:15 PM
Sorry, I'm usually level-headed, but not when it comes to Pacman.

Haha, got what he deserves. Keep it up man, soon enough we will never have to hear your name again.

This puts the 'boys in a tough spot though. Jenkins is the higher pick, but will Scandrick get the start? I heard that he was the one impressing coaches, and Jenkins was relatively unimpressive. Has he come around?

AntoinCD
10-14-2008, 02:17 PM
Was Scandrick not getting more playing time than Jenkins? Either way that secondary is in trouble. I think Ellis and Spencer have to help take pressure off Ware in pass-rushing and that will in turn help out the secondary

Giantsfan1080
10-14-2008, 02:20 PM
They weren't doing that before?

They were but at least you had one capable CB so far. We don't know what Jenkins is yet and what you have behind him doesn't look to be anything special.

Number 10
10-14-2008, 02:21 PM
The question here is, how will Jones react? The word minimum cannot be overlooked and if he gets fed up with Goodell which is a good possibility, he may have played his last game in Dallas.

Giantsfan1080
10-14-2008, 02:22 PM
The question here is, how will Jones react? The word minimum cannot be overlooked and if he gets fed up with Goodell which is a good possibility, he may have played his last game in Dallas.

You mean his last game in the NFL.

CC.SD
10-14-2008, 02:23 PM
Honestly cornerbacks don't even matter that much in Wade Phillips' scheme because he always plays with a 10 yard cushion minimum and either the rush gets there, the throw is hurried and off, or the corners only job is to watch helplessly and make tackles sometimes.

Throw in the fact that PacMan wasn't exactly playing lights out and I don't think we'll see too much of a difference in the Cowboy D. Basically there's no scenario where this secondary will be all that great.

Let alone the greatest secondary of the decade.

d34ng3l021
10-14-2008, 02:30 PM
The last 10 days for the Cowboys:

- Pac gets into fight with own body guard
- Terrence Newman out at least a month with Sports Hernia
- Non stop coverage by media of TO's feelings of the offense.
- Loses to Cards in overtime
- In the Cards game alone we:
- Lose Romo for 4 weeks
- Lose Mat McBrair for the Year
- Lose Felix for 2(?) weeks
- Lose Sam Hurd for the rest of season.
- Now Pac Man is suspended for 4 games.

Lovely.

lol. Falcons last year:

Star QB goes to jail for killing dogs.
Head Coach leaves in the middle of the night.
So much more.

That really ***** things up. But we were not really contenders. That sucks though. Nothing terrible however. You guys are still LOADED with talent.

CashmoneyDrew
10-14-2008, 02:32 PM
You mean his last game in the NFL.

Al Davis is still alive and kicking.

AntoinCD
10-14-2008, 02:33 PM
Al Davis is still alive and kicking.

He's not crazy enough to have two ridiculously overrated CBs. Oh wait did you AL Davis? Nevermind

Vikes99ej
10-14-2008, 02:34 PM
The last 10 days for the Cowboys:

- Pac gets into fight with own body guard
- Terrence Newman out at least a month with Sports Hernia
- Non stop coverage by media of TO's feelings of the offense.
- Loses to Cards in overtime
- In the Cards game alone we:
- Lose Romo for 4 weeks
- Lose Mat McBrair for the Year
- Lose Felix for 2(?) weeks
- Lose Sam Hurd for the rest of season.
- Now Pac Man is suspended for 4 games.

Lovely.

All of that < being coached by Brad Childress

brat316
10-14-2008, 02:34 PM
Seriously why is he suspended for fighting, like Stillers said should have just done some Coke.

But DAMN dallas, lost Jones, Newman, Romo, Pack, who next T.O. Maybe next weeks Rams game won't be as easy.

SeanTaylorRIP
10-14-2008, 02:35 PM
While I hate how the league has gotten and how inconsistent they are with punishment, the only reason why Pacman got back in the league was because he basically had an agreement that he could stay as long as Rodge didn't ever hear his name again. The guy just doesn't get it. I think his career is hopeless. With the amount of second chances he's gotten, I can't say I feel bad for him.

Twiddler
10-14-2008, 02:43 PM
While I hate how the league has gotten and how inconsistent they are with punishment, the only reason why Pacman got back in the league was because he basically had an agreement that he could stay as long as Rodge didn't ever hear his name again. The guy just doesn't get it. I think his career is hopeless. With the amount of second chances he's gotten, I can't say I feel bad for him.

Yeah, I understand both sides. Either way, the guy just can't stay out of trouble, and whether or not this incident was that severe, he should have known better by now.

Brodeur
10-14-2008, 02:54 PM
While I hate how the league has gotten and how inconsistent they are with punishment, the only reason why Pacman got back in the league was because he basically had an agreement that he could stay as long as Rodge didn't ever hear his name again. The guy just doesn't get it. I think his career is hopeless. With the amount of second chances he's gotten, I can't say I feel bad for him.

It's a shoving match with a body guard, not exactly a DUI. Has Jones even been convicted of one thing yet? The NFL's policy is mind boggingly ridiculous and this suspension is one of the worst yet (Thurman for a full year last year for no reason is the worst).

brat316
10-14-2008, 02:58 PM
It's a shoving match with a body guard, not exactly a DUI. Has Jones even been convicted of one thing yet? The NFL's policy is mind bogglingly ridiculous and this suspension is one of the worst yet (Thurman for a full year last year for no reason is the worst).

Its Mind Bottling.

DMWSackMachine
10-14-2008, 03:15 PM
While this is clearly a PR move by Goodell, I can't say that I feel sorry for Pacman (I think we can go back to calling him that now). If he didn't "get it" before, he should now. IF WE EVER HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT YOU EXCEPT SAVING KITTENS STUCK IN TREES AND HELPING OLD LADIES ACROSS THE STREET, YOUR ASS IS GONE.

That is what Goodell told him before the year started, and he still thought it was ok to go to a Nelly concert and get up on stage, or go out and enjoy the nightlife in the metroplex. STAY THE **** HOME, DUMBASS. He didn't get it before. Who knows if he will now. But this is merely a product of his own stupidity.


As for our CB situation, I'm not too worried. If we had gone into the year with Henry/Jenkins/Scandrick as our 3 best CBs, we would still be in the upper half of the league, so I'm not concerned. Scandrick has been a roaring success, and Jenkins has certainly lived up to expectations so far. He had a TD saving pass deflection against Philly that displayed excellent athleticism and ball skills. I can't see us being any worse than the mediocrity we've shown so far, so this isn't that big a deal to me. It will be good to see Jenkins get more burn.

TitleTown088
10-14-2008, 03:23 PM
******* nightmare

******* nightmare your management put itself in position for. Who didn't see something like this coming? Kick his dumb ass out already. How many chances should he get?

http://www.jazjaz.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/pac-man.jpg

TitleTown088
10-14-2008, 03:26 PM
Matt Jones?

Damn you Pacman.. if only you were snorting Cocaine in your car!

That's irrelevant, Wasn't he a first time offender? This is what, nearly Pac mans 10th instance now?

People say this league is ridiculous, it's the same thing our judicial system does. Repeat offenders get screwed, and they deserve to. Bring the silver hammer Goody.

Im_a_Romosexual
10-14-2008, 03:26 PM
******* nightmare your management put itself in position for. Who didn't see something like this coming? Kick his dumb ass out already. How many chances should he get?


I was mostly commenting on the recent rash of injuries and overall bad luck. A when it rains, it pours situation

TitleTown088
10-14-2008, 03:31 PM
I was mostly commenting on the recent rash of injuries and overall bad luck. A when it rains, it pours situation Fair enough, feel the pain with the Packers, Seahawks, ect. You're certianly not alone. Perhaps more serious, but not alone.

Mr. Stiller
10-14-2008, 03:32 PM
That's irrelevant, Wasn't he a first time offender? This is what, nearly Pac mans 10th instance now?

People say this league is ridiculous, it's the same thing our judicial system does. Repeat offenders get screwed, and they deserve to. Bring the silver hammer Goody.

So a guy never convicted for anything, but based on appearances only can be suspended like crazy...

But a guy that had to plead out his case to get into Rehab... Admitting guilt and being Convicted...

Doesn't even get a 1 game suspension?

I'm not advocating for Pacman.. he's a moron.. I'm just saying there is 0 consistency.. Sure Case to Case.. fine, but you have to let every first offender go if you don't think Cocaine on a first offense (Let alone being actually convicted) is a big deal.

In that case .... Thurman shouldn't have been suspended a year for a DUI, because he only should be guilty of the missed drug test (Or the other way around).

Darryl Blackstock and Shawne Merriman shouldn't have been Suspended for Steroids.. first offense.

Jared Allen should've missed only 1-2 games because 1 DUI would've been his "First offense"

with a first offense leniency policy, you open the can of worms..

Should have the same Black and white policy for everyone.

The Unseen
10-14-2008, 03:34 PM
Hmm...dunno what I think about this one.

For those talking about Matt Jones, a) he may be suspended in the future and it just hasn't happened yet b) potentially injuring/killing a person whilst drunk >>>>>>>>>>>>> snorting coke

Mr. Stiller
10-14-2008, 03:35 PM
Hmm...dunno what I think about this one.

For those talking about Matt Jones, a) he may be suspended in the future and it just hasn't happened yet b) potentially injuring/killing a person whilst drunk >>>>>>>>>>>>> snorting coke

No doubt...

but here's the confusion.


1 DUI = 1 year suspension
2 DUI = 4 Game suspension.

Not to mention Jones was in his car while snorting... Which in most cases of having alcohol open while sitting in a vehicle.. usually ends up as intent to drive while impaired.

TitleTown088
10-14-2008, 03:35 PM
So a guy never convicted for anything, but based on appearances only can be suspended like crazy...

But a guy that had to plead out his case to get into Rehab... Admitting guilt and being Convicted...

Doesn't even get a 1 game suspension?

I'm not advocating for Pacman.. he's a moron.. I'm just saying there is 0 consistency.. Sure Case to Case.. fine, but you have to let every first offender go if you don't think Cocaine on a first offense (Let alone being actually convicted) is a big deal.
There is consistency. How many first time offenders do you see get the hammer? Johnny Jolly hasn't so far for the Packers, neither did nick Barnett. It's all about the leash Goody applies, Jones had a 2 footer, with a choke collar and a electric zapper, and he knew it. How stupid can he be? Well, this stupid apparently.

BlindSite
10-14-2008, 04:24 PM
The suspension isn't unorthodox or unfair. Face it, Adam, Pacman, whatever is a recidivist and a two bit thug who happens to be able to read a playbook. There's a reason he's playing for Dallas... no one else would want him...

He's already been suspended for a year and his reinstatement was on the provision he didn't act like a criminal. He did, if I was goodell I would've given him the rest of the year off.

illmatic74
10-14-2008, 04:28 PM
The suspension isn't unorthodox or unfair. Face it, Adam, Pacman, whatever is a recidivist and a two bit thug who happens to be able to read a playbook. There's a reason he's playing for Dallas... no one else would want him...

He's already been suspended for a year and his reinstatement was on the provision he didn't act like a criminal. He did, if I was goodell I would've given him the rest of the year off. He has yet to be convicted of anything yet. He is a victim of the 24 hour news cycle.

BlindSite
10-14-2008, 04:41 PM
He has yet to be convicted of anything yet. He is a victim of the 24 hour news cycle.

God damnit, when will people learn this isn't the big bad evil Goodell trying to attack one man.

Pacman Jones in his time has been accused and or charged and convicted of the following:

Assault
Vandalism
Disturbing the Peace
Violating conditions of his parole
disorderly conduct
public intoxication
Assault
Failing to Obey a police officer
Misdemeanor assault
Obstruction of justice
possession of marijuana
Driving under the influence
AssaultIn addition to these charges one of the men witness say he was conferring with shot and paralyzed a former pro-wrestler and fired upon a security guard.



While you may not think him legally guilty and a jury of his peers may not have convicted him either, that doesn't have any affect on his relationship with the NFL.

The NFL's policy is a player conduct policy. Whether or not he commits a crime if he's in a drunken scuffle outside a nightclub, he's found to be breaking that policy, a provision of his re-reinstatement and thus deserves the suspension.

He hangs around with violent people, he hangs around with drug dealers and has been identified in an investigation speaking to a drug dealer over the phone, failing that on 5 separate occasions in 3 cities he's been accused of spitting on and hitting women. He's not some poor downtrodden man being beaten down by the evil commissioner, he's a scum bag.

B-Dawk
10-14-2008, 05:01 PM
the cowboys should lose at least that 5th from the titans as a penalty from the league

illmatic74
10-14-2008, 05:13 PM
God damnit, when will people learn this isn't the big bad evil Goodell trying to attack one man.

Pacman Jones in his time has been accused and or charged and convicted of the following:


Assault
Vandalism
Disturbing the Police
Violating conditions of his parole
disorderly conduct
public intoxication
Assault
Failing to Obey a police officer
Misdemeanor assault
Obstruction of justice
possession of marijuana
Driving under the influence
AssaultIn addition to these charges one of the men witness say he was conferring with shot and paralyzed a former pro-wrestler and fired upon a security guard.



While you may not think him legally guilty and a jury of his peers may not have convicted him either, that doesn't have any affect on his relationship with the NFL.

The NFL's policy is a player conduct policy. Whether or not he commits a crime if he's in a drunken scuffle outside a nightclub, he's found to be breaking that policy, a provision of his re-reinstatement and thus deserves the suspension.

He hangs around with violent people, he hangs around with drug dealers and has been identified in an investigation speaking to a drug dealer over the phone, failing that on 5 separate occasions in 3 cities he's been accused of spitting on and hitting women. He's not some poor downtrodden man being beaten down by the evil commissioner, he's a scum bag. That was a weekend for the 90s Cowboys

CC.SD
10-14-2008, 05:16 PM
That was a weekend for the 90s Cowboys

Ziiiiiing batta batta

BlindSite
10-14-2008, 05:38 PM
That was a weekend for the 90s Cowboys

What are you three years old?

"Mummy he done it first, so I shouldn't get punished"

M.O.T.H.
10-14-2008, 05:44 PM
Henry/Jenkins/Scandrick

is still better than

Henry/Reeves/Nate Jones

that is what we were rocking last year. ugh.

Mr. Stiller
10-14-2008, 05:57 PM
What are you three years old?

"Mummy he done it first, so I shouldn't get punished"

I think he was just making a generalized Statement about how the league has made a huge "Image" Change in the last 10 or so years.

But, Nice come back.

ChezPower4
10-14-2008, 06:10 PM
Henry/Jenkins/Scandrick

is still better than

Henry/Reeves/Nate Jones

that is what we were rocking last year. ugh.

Two Rookies make it iffy though, although Jenkins has played really well from what I've seen.

M.O.T.H.
10-14-2008, 06:14 PM
Two Rookies make it iffy though, although Jenkins has played really well from what I've seen.

If you're comparing the two...this current corner trio is head and shoulders above the one with Henry/Reeves/Jones...Reeves and Jones are ST players at best, they're horrible. The fact that Reeves got that enormous deal is the most absurd thing I saw all off-season...and the Texans are paying for it, in more ways than one. The guy is fast, that's it. Nate on the other hand should just be happy that he is still in the league. Even as rookies, Jenkins and Scandrick are so much better and it's really not close.

Obviously, it's not ideal but, still better than last year when Newman went down to injury.

ChezPower4
10-14-2008, 06:18 PM
If you're comparing the two...this current corner trio is head and shoulders above the one with Henry/Reeves/Jones...Reeves and Jones are ST players at best, they're horrible. The fact that Reeves got that enormous deal is the most absurd thing I saw all off-season...and the Texans are paying for it, in more ways than one. The guy is fast, that's it. Nate on the other hand should just be happy that he is still in the league. Even as rookies, Jenkins and Scandrick are so much better and it's really not close.

I never said that Henny/ Reeves/ Jones were better all I said was that with two rookies playing it make things more difficult for Dallas. The rookies are better than the afore mentioned group but like all rookies they're going to make mistakes and CB is a position that when you make a mistake often times that mistake costs your team 6 points.

M.O.T.H.
10-14-2008, 06:19 PM
I never said that Henny/ Reeves/ Jones were better all I said was that with two rookies playing it make things more difficult for Dallas. The rookies are better than the afore mentioned group but like all rookies they're going to make mistakes and CB is a position that when you make a mistake often times that mistake costs your team 6 points.

You missed my last edit...I guess.

Like i said, it is in no way ideal but, still in better shape than last season. Obviously, it's not a strength, though. Not anymore.

Gay Ork Wang
10-14-2008, 06:25 PM
I cant believe people are even saying this suspension was wrong...

E-Thuggin
10-14-2008, 06:27 PM
http://blogs.tampabay.com/juice/images/2007/09/04/tbdjeezy090507.jpg

Mr. Stiller
10-14-2008, 06:29 PM
I cant believe people are even saying this suspension was wrong...

No one is arguing it.. Pacman should be banned from the league IMO.

Just seems like Goodell is throwing random #'s out for suspensions.

Gay Ork Wang
10-14-2008, 06:31 PM
No one is arguing it.. Pacman should be banned from the league IMO.

Just seems like Goodell is throwing random #'s out for suspensions.
How is that? He says its at least 4. Could be forever

E-Thuggin
10-14-2008, 06:32 PM
How is that? He says its at least 4. Could be forever

It's another in the long list of random punishments...there's no consistency...this has been rehashed a million times on this website.

Gay Ork Wang
10-14-2008, 06:37 PM
It's another in the long list of random punishments...there's no consistency...this has been rehashed a million times on this website.
gtfo Moses

But yes we also said he had like what 2-3 years. give him some time to ******* settle down

Mr. Stiller
10-14-2008, 06:53 PM
How is that? He says its at least 4. Could be forever

....I'm not talking about Pacman only.. But again, thanks for jumping in without a clue.

Gay Ork Wang
10-14-2008, 06:56 PM
....I'm not talking about Pacman only.. But again, thanks for jumping in without a clue.
yea ur talking about Matt Jones in a thread that has nothing to do with him. And still uve said it a couple of times, its kinda lame after a while

illmatic74
10-14-2008, 07:27 PM
God damnit, when will people learn this isn't the big bad evil Goodell trying to attack one man.

Pacman Jones in his time has been accused and or charged and convicted of the following:

Assault
Vandalism
Disturbing the Peace
Violating conditions of his parole
disorderly conduct
public intoxication
Assault
Failing to Obey a police officer
Misdemeanor assault
Obstruction of justice
possession of marijuana
Driving under the influence
AssaultIn addition to these charges one of the men witness say he was conferring with shot and paralyzed a former pro-wrestler and fired upon a security guard.



While you may not think him legally guilty and a jury of his peers may not have convicted him either, that doesn't have any affect on his relationship with the NFL.

The NFL's policy is a player conduct policy. Whether or not he commits a crime if he's in a drunken scuffle outside a nightclub, he's found to be breaking that policy, a provision of his re-reinstatement and thus deserves the suspension.

He hangs around with violent people, he hangs around with drug dealers and has been identified in an investigation speaking to a drug dealer over the phone, failing that on 5 separate occasions in 3 cities he's been accused of spitting on and hitting women. He's not some poor downtrodden man being beaten down by the evil commissioner, he's a scum bag. I hate when people attack people's personalities when they don't even know the person or had a conversation with them. Pacman could be an all around douche but I don't know because I never met him. The commisioner should let the Judicial System run its course before giving out these suspensions. Also, public intoxication, possession of marijuana, Driving under the influence aren't scumbag crimes. Marijuana should be legal and the other two are just mistakes. I have a cousin who got a DWI I was dissapointed with him at first but since I know he made a mistake that he will never make again I still love him the same. This all comes back to the ridiculous notion that pro athletes need to be role models. Pro athletes are people who have a current skill that is only useful in their career. Just because someone can run a 4.3 and bench 400 lbs should they be look up to as heroes. Parents should be role models not athletes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMzdAZ3TjCA
Another Quick question if you beat up your bodyguard can he still be your bodyguard? That is like if the president beat up his secret service.

Gay Ork Wang
10-14-2008, 07:30 PM
who cares about his character, he ****** up.

illmatic74
10-14-2008, 07:36 PM
who cares about his character, he ****** up. No he got into a fight

TitleTown088
10-14-2008, 07:43 PM
No he got into a fight

Hence, " ******* up" like Renji just stated. He should have known not to put himself in the situation. He should have known that 3-4 arrests ago.

Mr. Stiller
10-14-2008, 08:39 PM
yea ur talking about Matt Jones in a thread that has nothing to do with him. And still uve said it a couple of times, its kinda lame after a while

In a thread about suspensions.. I talked about inconsistency among suspensions.

God.. my audacity to mention such a thing.

P-L
10-14-2008, 08:47 PM
Does Goodell really think this guy will ever "get it?" This has to be his last chance. It just has to.

D-Unit
10-14-2008, 08:51 PM
Does Goodell really think this guy will ever "get it?" This has to be his last chance. It just has to.
Goodell runs the league through Jerry Jones. Who doesn't know that???

ChezPower4
10-14-2008, 09:20 PM
I hope pacman is gone for good, let him go wrestle for a living... although he'll probably **** that up too.

toddmlazarchick
10-14-2008, 11:10 PM
What a ***** move by Goddell. Put Mrs. Pac-man where he belongs...on the ******* street!

DragonFireKai
10-14-2008, 11:12 PM
What I want to know is what the hell was in the water in the Old Virginia area in 2005? You had Pac Man and Chris Henry at WVU, Marcus Vick at VT, and Ahmad Brooks at UVA. Talk about an overabundance of thugnificence...

Gay Ork Wang
10-15-2008, 05:00 AM
What I want to know is what the hell was in the water in the Old Virginia area in 2005? You had Pac Man and Chris Henry at WVU, Marcus Vick at VT, and Ahmad Brooks at UVA. Talk about an overabundance of thugnificence...
Dont u forget Michael Vick

the_legend_killer
10-15-2008, 07:32 AM
4 weeks then reevaluation? That's barely enough time for Pacman to get in shape for another TNA World Tag Team Title run....

Modano
10-15-2008, 08:43 AM
What I find silly is that the league called the incident "alcohol-related". Pacman wasn't intoxicated or drunk. He's 21 so I guess he has the right to drink alcohol.

I don't want to argue with Pacman new suspension, but Goodel has no consistency with his suspensions. I understand why he ignores that the law says "innocent until proven guilty", it's because he wants to show that the league has zero-tolerance with thugs. But why no consistency with this policy? For example, why he suspended Pacman but didn't say a word about LJ?

Via CBS:

Chiefs RB Larry Johnson was charged with pushing a woman at a Kansas City nightclub in February, the third time the Chiefs running back has been charged with assaulting a woman. He is to appear in court Dec. 3 and could face a maximum jail term of six months and a $500 fine. "I'm sure the league will get involved in it, I would assume," coach Herm Edwards said. "But I don't know that. I haven't heard anything." Edwards was evasive when asked if the two-time Pro Bowler would play this week against Tennessee. "I haven't made a decision on anybody right now," Edwards said.

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/players/playerpage/396164

I can't wait for the day he suspend a player before he's proven guilty and then the jury finds the guy innocent.

yourfavestoner
10-15-2008, 12:28 PM
So a guy never convicted for anything, but based on appearances only can be suspended like crazy...

But a guy that had to plead out his case to get into Rehab... Admitting guilt and being Convicted...

Doesn't even get a 1 game suspension?

I'm not advocating for Pacman.. he's a moron.. I'm just saying there is 0 consistency.. Sure Case to Case.. fine, but you have to let every first offender go if you don't think Cocaine on a first offense (Let alone being actually convicted) is a big deal.

In that case .... Thurman shouldn't have been suspended a year for a DUI, because he only should be guilty of the missed drug test (Or the other way around).

Darryl Blackstock and Shawne Merriman shouldn't have been Suspended for Steroids.. first offense.

Jared Allen should've missed only 1-2 games because 1 DUI would've been his "First offense"

with a first offense leniency policy, you open the can of worms..

Should have the same Black and white policy for everyone.

The reason Blackstock and Merriman were suspended is because testing positive for performance enhancers has an automatic 4 week suspension. It's always been like that and has nothing to do with Goodell's new personal conduct policies.

Turtlepower
10-15-2008, 12:32 PM
The reason Blackstock and Merriman were suspended is because testing positive for performance enhancers has an automatic 4 week suspension. It's always been like that and has nothing to do with Goodell's new personal conduct policies.

Yeah, people gotta stop comparing the two. It is really apples and oranges.

BlindSite
10-15-2008, 04:49 PM
People need to grasp that in this suspension he's not being suspended for a drunken brawl.

No where has goodell said "a drunken brawl is good for 4 games"

Pacman's reinstatement was on the provision that he did not violate any of the player conduct rules or he could face suspension indefinitely and a term of not less than four games. Pacman agreed to these stipulations.

Pacman knew that if he messed up it would be four or more. This isn't Goodell saying that a brawl is worse than genocide or cocaine sniffing or anything. It is, what it is. A player being punished to the letter of his agreement.

Loggerhead
10-15-2008, 08:12 PM
http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72235

Now that is just wrong. Pac messed with the guy while he was pissing?!!! He is a ******* douche. I hope he gets banned.

Bruce Banner
10-15-2008, 08:23 PM
He is a grade A piece of ****.

illmatic74
10-15-2008, 09:01 PM
What I want to know is what the hell was in the water in the Old Virginia area in 2005? You had Pac Man and Chris Henry at WVU, Marcus Vick at VT, and Ahmad Brooks at UVA. Talk about an overabundance of thugnificence... I am from NY but if I was from the VA I'd be pissed. Abundance of thugness what are you saying. Except for marijuana charges (shouldn't be illegal) and some drinking arrests which are mistakes but common mistakes that don't show someone is a bad person. All other charges they were exonerated on. Oh yeah what the Vicks do that was so bad? Underage drinking(extremely common), marijuana(should be legal), giving the middle finger(not a big deal just an expression, stomping on someone(it was wrong but you get away with doing alot of things you wouldn't be capable of doing in the real world and dogfighting. I will rehash my point on Vick because this still upsets me. It was an attack of a man by a hypocritical judicial system and public. The judge was an avid hunter meaning he KILLS ANIMALS FOR SPORT. At least with Vick dogs got to go out on their own terms like gladiators. Also if you criticized Vick and ate bacon that same day you are beyond hypocritical you are reaching massive levels of stupidity. `

DragonFireKai
10-16-2008, 01:27 AM
I am from NY but if I was from the VA I'd be pissed. Abundance of thugness what are you saying. Except for marijuana charges (shouldn't be illegal) and some drinking arrests which are mistakes but common mistakes that don't show someone is a bad person. All other charges they were exonerated on. Oh yeah what the Vicks do that was so bad? Underage drinking(extremely common), marijuana(should be legal), giving the middle finger(not a big deal just an expression, stomping on someone(it was wrong but you get away with doing alot of things you wouldn't be capable of doing in the real world and dogfighting. I will rehash my point on Vick because this still upsets me. It was an attack of a man by a hypocritical judicial system and public. The judge was an avid hunter meaning he KILLS ANIMALS FOR SPORT. At least with Vick dogs got to go out on their own terms like gladiators. Also if you criticized Vick and ate bacon that same day you are beyond hypocritical you are reaching massive levels of stupidity. `

You are so misinformed... where should I start? Let's see, there's the Sexual Molestation of a Minor case that Marcus Vick settled out of court. There's the time he pulled a gun on a man in a McDonald's parking lot that he plea bargained. Oh, and there's his outstanding DUI and eluding police case. Sounds like an upstanding citizen.

As for Pac Man Jones? He's been on probation 3 different times. Once for a felony assault conviction in 2004 in which he had a 1 year prison term commuted to 2 years probation. He was put on probation again after being convicted of misdemeanor assault in 2006. Then in 2007 he was convicted of Conspiricy to commit dissorderly conduct and given a suspended sentence of one year in prison along with more probation. Another model for humanity!

Chris Perry was convicted of aggravated assault with a firearm in 2006. Let's not forget the pending assault case where he punched a kid and threw a beer bottle at him because he "mistook him for someone who owed him money". Great guy.

Ahmad Brooks? He currently has a pending assault charge for punching a woman in the face. It takes a big man to punch a little woman.

And Mike Vick? Did you seriously defend dog fighting? Seriously? Going out on their own terms? I guess you missed the part where Vick drowned the dogs that he couldn't use anymore. Or the part where he electrocuted them. Or the part where he lynched them like some sick sacrifice to Odin. Like gladiators... right.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe you should stick to talking about NY athletes, you might have some passing notion about what goes on there, but you certainly have no idea what was going on in the Virginias.

Bruce Banner
10-16-2008, 01:33 AM
At least with Vick dogs got to go out on their own terms like gladiators. Also if you criticized Vick and ate bacon that same day you are beyond hypocritical you are reaching massive levels of stupidity.

Sig'd. These could be the most disturbing lines of text I've ever read on this site. Are you this dense? Their own terms? Those chose to be pitted against each other? Knowing they would be beaten and neglected even more if they didn't kill the other dog.

DragonFireKai
10-16-2008, 01:34 AM
Sig'd. This could be the most disturbing lines of text I've ever read on this site.

You know, I was thinking about digging up some of the pictures of the dogs they pulled out of Vicks kennel, to show him how they were doing "on their own terms", but I think I might get banned for that.

BlindSite
10-16-2008, 02:42 AM
Spoiler them?

yourfavestoner
10-16-2008, 02:59 AM
Meh....never saw the big deal about the dogfighting. The dogs were all his property. There have been far greater travesties in the world.

Bruce Banner
10-16-2008, 03:07 AM
Meh....never saw the big deal about the dogfighting. The dogs were all his property. There have been far greater travesties in the world.

I think I know why it isn't a big deal to you.


I can't wait to see him back on the field. I'll always love Mike Vick.

yourfavestoner
10-16-2008, 03:13 AM
I think I know why it isn't a big deal to you.

It could have been Tom Brady, and I wouldn't have particularly cared. The dogs were his. He paid for them. They were his property. He's from the cuddie ass deep south, and they do that **** down there.

I've backed almost every player that's gotten into trouble and/or been suspended. I know what it's like to be arrested. I don't live my life according to anybody else's morals but my own, and I don't expect other people to live according to mine.

Bruce Banner
10-16-2008, 03:17 AM
It could have been Tom Brady, and I wouldn't have particularly cared. The dogs were his. He paid for them.


I paid to adopt a child. I should pay to adopt another and have them duke it out for my enjoyment, loser gets the burlap bag and a baseball bat.

He's from the cuddie ass deep south, and they do that **** down there.


The KKK hail from the south, I guess that makes what they do right.


I've backed almost every player that's gotten into trouble and/or been suspended.

Why would you support those that break the law?


I know what it's like to be arrested.

Who's fault?

I don't live my life according to anybody else's morals but my own, and I don't expect other people to live according to mine.

Well, you still live in this country that has laws which may or may not conflict with your morals, either way, accept that fact and follow the rules, ignore them and be punished (which seems to be your M.O.), or simply leave.

yourfavestoner
10-16-2008, 03:39 AM
I paid to adopt a child. I should pay to adopt another and have them duke it out for my enjoyment, loser gets the burlap bag and a baseball bat.
Paying to adopt a child doesn't make said child your property. It should be afforded all the basic human rights all people deserve. A dog? What makes a dog superior to any other animal that is killed for entertainment?

]The KKK hail from the south, I guess that makes what they do right.
Not at all. However, when you're exposed to certain behaviors growing up, then you may be less inclined to think of them as wrong. I'd also support the KKK's right to destroy whatever personal property that they may own.


]Why would you support those that break the law?
Usually because I don't care for the particular laws that they break. Plenty of people break the law. Just because something is illegal doesn't necessarily mean that it's wrong. Further, somebody who breaks the law isn't necessarily a bad person.



Who's fault?
The dumbass that was driving and got pulled over, then consented to letting the car being searched.



Well you still live in this country that has laws which may or may not conflict with your morals, either way, deal with it or leave.
Believe me, if I had the means to just pack up and move outta this country, I would have done it by now.

Bruce Banner
10-16-2008, 03:41 AM
YFS, I'll go about this tomorrow, err in a few hours, after some shut eye. It's 4 in the morning and you make some compelling arguments that I cannot match in my current state of mind.

farfromforgotten
10-16-2008, 08:40 AM
When news broke about this newest Pac Man story, my first thought was lets see how commited Jerry Jones is to what he said about agreeing to a no nonsense policy. I thought that even if he were to man up about the situation, no matter how silly of a situation it might be, and atleast suspend him for 1 or 2 games, that would probably have been good enough for Goodell. Jones coming out and saying they werent going to do anything, pretty much put the nail in the coffin on this one. I blame it on Jerry. Just the way I see it.

farfromforgotten
10-16-2008, 08:43 AM
Believe me, if I had the means to just pack up and move outta this country, I would have done it by now.

The view of the youth in America now-a-days. This statement is unbelievably moronic. You think we have things rough over here with our rules and regulations... Wow. Do people like you even know anything about foreign lands and their policies?

MetSox17
10-16-2008, 09:49 AM
IN!
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t49/chezmaradine/inbeforelock.png

illmatic74
10-16-2008, 10:11 AM
Sig'd. These could be the most disturbing lines of text I've ever read on this site. Are you this dense? Their own terms? Those chose to be pitted against each other? Knowing they would be beaten and neglected even more if they didn't kill the other dog.
Pigs are treated far worse.

CashmoneyDrew
10-16-2008, 10:21 AM
In before lock!

LonghornsLegend
10-16-2008, 12:23 PM
I love when people act like Mike Vick invented dog fighting, it's not like this has been going since the 12th century all across the world or anything, nope, let's paint the picture he is this terrible man who started this crime.

yourfavestoner
10-16-2008, 12:31 PM
The view of the youth in America now-a-days. This statement is unbelievably moronic. You think we have things rough over here with our rules and regulations... Wow. Do people like you even know anything about foreign lands and their policies?

Are there places far worse? Yes. Are there places that are better? Yes. I think the sugarcoated idea that America is the "best" and "freest" place in the world is the unbelievably moronic one. The United States imprisons more people than any other country in the world. The Land of the Free has about half a million more prisoners than Communist China. Amazing, when you consider how much greater China's population is than our's.

California has the largest prison system in the Western industrialized world, a system 40% larger than the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The State holds more inmates than Great Britain, France, Germany, Singapore, Japan, and the Netherlands COMBINED.

Bruce Banner
10-16-2008, 03:03 PM
Are there places far worse? Yes. Are there places that are better? Yes. I think the sugarcoated idea that America is the "best" and "freest" place in the world is the unbelievably moronic one. The United States imprisons more people than any other country in the world. The Land of the Free has about half a million more prisoners than Communist China. Amazing, when you consider how much greater China's population is than our's.

California has the largest prison system in the Western industrialized world, a system 40% larger than the Federal Bureau of Prisons. [SIZE=2][FONT=Verdana][FONT=&quot]The State holds more inmates than Great Britain, France, Germany, Singapore, Japan, and the Netherlands COMBINED.


I'm failing to see the point of this post. What are you saying? The system is putting too many lawbreakers behind bars or there are too many criminals in the US?

Pigs are treated far worse
As are cows and chickens. When we start eating dogs, tell me.

Paying to adopt a child doesn't make said child your property. It should be afforded all the basic human rights all people deserve. A dog? What makes a dog superior to any other animal that is killed for entertainment?


Isn't it kind of a known thing that we have given all domesticated pets more "rights" than other animals?


Not at all. However, when you're exposed to certain behaviors growing up, then you may be less inclined to think of them as wrong. I'd also support the KKK's right to destroy whatever personal property that they may own.


This explains A LOT.


The dumbass that was driving and got pulled over, then consented to letting the car being searched.

Don't associate yourself with bad people/dumb people.


Believe me, if I had the means to just pack up and move outta this country, I would have done it by now.

This is sad to hear.

D-Unit
10-16-2008, 03:05 PM
So what happens to the Pacman trade if he doesn't complete the season? I forgot what the Cowboys gave up in the first place. Someone remind me.

Turtlepower
10-16-2008, 03:09 PM
So what happens to the Pacman trade if he doesn't complete the season? I forgot what the Cowboys gave up in the first place. Someone remind me.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3369608

The crux of the deal is Dallas giving up a fourth-round pick this year and a sixth next year, plus Jones getting a four-year contract. The Cowboys would get back a fourth-rounder in 2009 if Jones isn't reinstated, or a fifth-rounder if he returns then gets busted again.

yourfavestoner
10-16-2008, 04:23 PM
I'm failing to see the point of this post. What are you saying? The system is putting too many lawbreakers behind bars or there are too many criminals in the US?

I just did a fourteen minute speech in my Argumentation class on this topic. I could write pages and pages on this, but I'll try to keep it as concise as possible.

The system puts too many lawbreakers behind bars. In fact, the system exists to put people behind bars. Have you heard of the military-industrial complex? The build-up of a nation's military power for profit in the private sector regardless of the actual need for said military build-up? Well, it exists in the judicial system as well, through the prison-industrial complex. Who is behind it and benefits from it? Politicians, both liberal and conservative use the fear of crime to gain votes; rural areas, where prisons represent a large part of their economic development; prison guard unions; and private companies who build prisons. All of these groups see the roughly $35 billion the American taxpayers spend every year as a lucrative market. In order to keep the whole thing rolling, America has made imprisonment the answer to every question. Crimes that in other countries would consist of community service, fines, or drug treatment (or would not be considered crimes at all) lead to a prison term in the United States - by far the most expensive form of punishment.

It goes back to the argument that if you make fewer things illegal then, logically, there would be less crime, as there would be fewer acts that you could commit that are punishable by law.

Isn't it kind of a known thing that we have given all domesticated pets more "rights" than other animals?
Sure it's known. But the question you have to ask is why. Why does a dog have any more right to live than, say, a pig or a cow that is grown strictly for human consumption. We certainly don't need to consume these animals for our survival. We kill them and eat them for our enjoyment - making it a form of entertainment.



This explains A LOT.
Let me try to explain myself more clearly. I try to be as empathetic as possible with every person. I am in no way trying to advocate dogfighting or say that I support it. But I understand how somebody else may not see anything wrong with it at all. Just how some people take serious offense to people who hunt defenseless animals for sport. People who grow up around hunting wouldn't find anything wrong with it at all. The only difference is the legality surrounding the two issues.

Don't associate yourself with bad people/dumb people.[/qoute]
:sigh: I know, I know.



[quote]This is sad to hear.
Meh...it's just my personal preference. Although, I could definitely think of a lot of worse places to live than in southern California. What I'd really like is for California to secede from the United States and form it's own country, but that's just me living in fantasy land.

I am the beast
10-16-2008, 04:32 PM
There are over ONE MILLION non-violent drug offenders in jail/prison in the US. Think about that. One million citizens are criminals who are caged 24 hours per day because of their usage and/or distribution of drugs.

Why not lock up obese people, smokers, and alcoholics? After all, they're doing harm to themselves just like drug users. Also, better lock up every Bacardi, DuMaurier, and McDonald's employee since they are supplying these people with these dangerous substances.

BamaFalcon59
10-16-2008, 04:40 PM
The league is rediculous, Goodell is horrible. The whole incident was blown out of proportion.

BlindSite
10-16-2008, 05:02 PM
There are over ONE MILLION non-violent drug offenders in jail/prison in the US. Think about that. One million citizens are criminals who are caged 24 hours per day because of their usage and/or distribution of drugs.

Why not lock up obese people, smokers, and alcoholics? After all, they're doing harm to themselves just like drug users. Also, better lock up every Bacardi, DuMaurier, and McDonald's employee since they are supplying these people with these dangerous substances.

I don't recall Johnny Walker or Ronald McDonald hitting a few kids with stray bullets when they were getting pay back on Jack Daniels or The colonel for taking their corner...

What matters, whether or not you agree with the law, is that society as a whole has deemed that it is wrong to pit two animals against each other for the purpose of seeing them maim and hill each other. Society has deemed the practice barbaric, inhumane and therefore illegal.

Michael Vick chose to knowing break that law and in doing so made a conscious decision to go outside of societies law. Regardless of whether he was smokin' bud or raping women, you break laws, you face consequences.

It doesn't matter whether its traditional for you to do something, or if its culturally acceptable.

Don't try and liken narcotics to fast food or alcohol either, its plain stupid and you'll get embarrassed.

Don't like it move to another country where the laws are different.

BlindSite
10-16-2008, 05:05 PM
There are over ONE MILLION non-violent drug offenders in jail/prison in the US. Think about that. One million citizens are criminals who are caged 24 hours per day because of their usage and/or distribution of drugs.

Why not lock up obese people, smokers, and alcoholics? After all, they're doing harm to themselves just like drug users. Also, better lock up every Bacardi, DuMaurier, and McDonald's employee since they are supplying these people with these dangerous substances.

The league is rediculous, Goodell is horrible. The whole incident was blown out of proportion.

So there was never a violation of the leagues conduct policy?

GOODELL DOESN'T NEED A CRIMINAL CONVICTION!!!!!

ALL THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IS FOR A PLAYER TO VIOLATE THE LEAGUES CONDUCT POLICY. THE ONUS OF TRUTH IS ON THE DEFENSE (THE PLAYER) IF THEY CAN'T DEFEND THEIR ACTIONS THEY GET SUSPENDED.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM.

ACCEPT IT!!!!!!!!

yourfavestoner
10-16-2008, 05:16 PM
I don't recall Johnny Walker or Ronald McDonald hitting a few kids with stray bullets when they were getting pay back on Jack Daniels or The colonel for taking their corner...

What matters, whether or not you agree with the law, is that society as a whole has deemed that it is wrong to pit two animals against each other for the purpose of seeing them maim and hill each other. Society has deemed the practice barbaric, inhumane and therefore illegal.

Michael Vick chose to knowing break that law and in doing so made a conscious decision to go outside of societies law. Regardless of whether he was smokin' bud or raping women, you break laws, you face consequences.

It doesn't matter whether its traditional for you to do something, or if its culturally acceptable.

Don't try and liken narcotics to fast food or alcohol either, its plain stupid and you'll get embarrassed.

Don't like it move to another country where the laws are different.

Ronald McDonald and Jack Daniel don't have to protect their turf because it's they right to sell their products, which society has a high demand for. Take away the illegality of narcotics and you take away most of the black market for it. Which leads to fewer kids getting killed by stray bullets. If anything, drug wars do nothing but provide an argument against prohibition of certain narcotics. Remember the Italian mafia and the killing they made during the prohibition of alcohol? Yeah, the same thing's happening today, except it's with narcotics instead of alcohol. Anytime there is a product that is illegal, yet still retains a high public demand, will always command a large black market. And with black markets comes more crime and violence.

Also, how is it plain stupid to compare narcotics to alcohol? Alcohol is a liquid narcotic, for all intents and purposes. Even fast food is more comparable than you'd think. Fast food companies create products that they know are both harmful and addictive. People consume their product because they want to. And the government lets them, so you can't really say it's a public health issue.

bantx
10-16-2008, 05:21 PM
i think u can type that without the large font, does that represent that ur yelling or somtehing calm down

BlindSite
10-16-2008, 05:35 PM
1. Ronald McDonald and Jack Daniel don't have to protect their turf because it's they right to sell their products, which society has a high demand for. 2. Take away the illegality of narcotics and you take away most of the black market for it. Which leads to fewer kids getting killed by stray bullets. 3. If anything, drug wars do nothing but provide an argument against prohibition of certain narcotics. Remember the Italian mafia and the killing they made during the prohibition of alcohol? Yeah, the same thing's happening today, except it's with narcotics instead of alcohol. Anytime there is a product that is illegal, yet still retains a high public demand, will always command a large black market. And with black markets comes more crime and violence.

Ok, I'll play.

1. You just tried to justify the death and injury of innocent bystanders in gang violence because men are choosing to sell an illegal product...

2. While you take away the black market you increase the strain on your already over-strained health care system because 1. Drugs aren't taxed by the government and 2. All drugs, weed, cocaine, ecstasy,ice, whatever have health implications.

3. Prohibition was making alcohol illegal when he was legal. That would be like tomorrow making chewing gum illegal because of the litter. Sure the market for it develops and those that rise to fill it get rich, but it doesn't make someone a business man. They're still a peddler. While I will agree, that some narcotics should probably be legalised and properly explored. The main causes of addiction, Ice, Heroin, Cocaine, crack coacaine, etc, are not safe to use due to their side affects and therefore are far outside of society. There is a huge difference in the impacts of booze to the aforemtntioned narcotics and they are the drugs responsible for the most crime and violence in gang areas...


Also, how is it plain stupid to compare narcotics to alcohol? Alcohol is a liquid narcotic, for all intents and purposes. Even fast food is more comparable than you'd think. Fast food companies create products that they know are both harmful and addictive. People consume their product because they want to. And the government lets them, so you can't really say it's a public health issue.

1. Alcohol can be quality controled, it can be strictly inspected so that people can use it safely or responsibly. With the exception of high grade ecstasy general coming from holand, most ecstasy in the american, australian and asian markets is locally made and therefore subject to differing quality. Making this drug legal would be disasterous to the health system. The same can be said about just about every drug except Marijuana.

2. Due to the fact that you can control the grade and regulate who its sold to you can prevent the vast majority of issues with alcohol.

3. Due to the high rate of tax on alcohol it becomes a non-issue with what it causes. A recent study done in Australia and Britain found that the revenue from the taxation on alcohol sales was enough money for the respective governments to pay for the salaries of the police, the ambulance service, the doctors and any issue health or otherwise alcohol related incidents cost the state every year.

In other words, Alcohol doesn't worsen society.

5. Fast food is reallistically a choice. The companies do not make food addictive, that's a fallacy created by the liberal media. The addiction isn't to the food, but to the ease with which said food can be obtained. The difference between fast food and dope is that no one dies from fast food. They die from a lack of exercise.

Finally, I agree that marijuana should be decriminalised, he'll I've written a 4,000 word essay on it for my law classes detailing its medicinal benefits as well as scientific research conducted into it.

The issue though is that this is where the safe illegal narcotics ends. All else have harmful side affects and should remain illegal.

Bruce Banner
10-16-2008, 05:49 PM
I am just going to end the discussion now because it's all philosophical differences, and none of the strong minded individuals involved will change their views. (further discussion WILL lead to infractions). Any continuation WILL lead to political talk.

Gay Ork Wang
10-16-2008, 06:00 PM
thats whats horrible with Discussions. People dont try to change their view. They think ITS THEIR OPINION, and they have a right to THEIR OPINION. If someone critizes them they think its a critique on THEIR OPINION and therefor on themselves. I hate to discuss with people who dont try to change their opinion.

I am the beast
10-16-2008, 06:46 PM
1. You just tried to justify the death and injury of innocent bystanders in gang violence because men are choosing to sell an illegal product...


Huh? The whole point of legalizing drugs is to eliminate this sort of thing. How many people die from gang violence associated with alcohol or tobacco? Barely any, because they are legal and thus controlled by large corporations. If drugs were legalized tommorow, you take the power away from gangs. This leads to safer drugs (they would be regulated unlike drugs are today where you have no clue what is in them) and less violence (it's legal so nobody is going to buy drugs off some guy on a street corner when you can walk into 7-11 and buy it legally for cheaper).

Remember when alcohol was illegal? Al Capone? Look at what happened when it was legalized. Bye bye crime.


2. While you take away the black market you increase the strain on your already over-strained health care system because 1. Drugs aren't taxed by the government and 2. All drugs, weed, cocaine, ecstasy,ice, whatever have health implications.


Taxing drugs is another issue but if you legalize drugs you can easily tax them, just like tobacco. More money in your pocket instead of all that money going tax-free into some gangster's pocket.

Strain the health care system? How many people who are addicted to drugs are effected by the legality of them? Do you think a heroine addict cares AT ALL that they'll go to jail for using the drug? Of course not, in the same way that they don't care that the drug is killing them. Making something illegal does not mean usage will drop.

Also, Big Macs are absolutely terrible for you. So is drinking soda. I would argue that drinking 2 litres of soda a day like some people do is far worse than puffing a joint or whatever else. Should we lock people up for making poor health decisions? No, of course not, we should educate them and hope they make better decisions. You can't enforce health on people.


3. Prohibition was making alcohol illegal when he was legal. That would be like tomorrow making chewing gum illegal because of the litter. Sure the market for it develops and those that rise to fill it get rich, but it doesn't make someone a business man. They're still a peddler. While I will agree, that some narcotics should probably be legalised and properly explored. The main causes of addiction, Ice, Heroin, Cocaine, crack coacaine, etc, are not safe to use due to their side affects and therefore are far outside of society. There is a huge difference in the impacts of booze to the aforemtntioned narcotics and they are the drugs responsible for the most crime and violence in gang areas...


This paragraph makes little to no sense. Drugs have not been illegal forever. If you actually researched the topic, you would realize that most drugs were outlawed as a way of attacking minorities, particularly Blacks and Mexicans. I suggest you watch the History Channel special called "Hooked - Illegal Drugs and How They Got That Way" for a history of drug law in America.

Do you not understand why drugs cause all of the problems with crime, violence, and gangs? It's the very fact that they're illegal! Legalize them and there's no black market and thus no more drug-related violence!


1. Alcohol can be quality controled, it can be strictly inspected so that people can use it safely or responsibly. With the exception of high grade ecstasy general coming from holand, most ecstasy in the american, australian and asian markets is locally made and therefore subject to differing quality. Making this drug legal would be disasterous to the health system. The same can be said about just about every drug except Marijuana.


Why can't drugs be quality controlled? Oh wait, they can! Ever take a prescription drug? What separates them from legal drugs? Nothing, except for arbitrary decisions made decades ago. Legalize drugs and Pfizer will be producing marijuana, cocaine, and whatever else. They'll be manufactured and sold in a safe manner, and only to people of age. I don't think you're getting the fact that legalizing drugs means taking them off the street corners and into reputable places like pharmacies.


2. Due to the fact that you can control the grade and regulate who its sold to you can prevent the vast majority of issues with alcohol.


See above.


3. Due to the high rate of tax on alcohol it becomes a non-issue with what it causes. A recent study done in Australia and Britain found that the revenue from the taxation on alcohol sales was enough money for the respective governments to pay for the salaries of the police, the ambulance service, the doctors and any issue health or otherwise alcohol related incidents cost the state every year.

In other words, Alcohol doesn't worsen society.


See above. Tax drugs. Simple as that.


5. Fast food is reallistically a choice. The companies do not make food addictive, that's a fallacy created by the liberal media. The addiction isn't to the food, but to the ease with which said food can be obtained. The difference between fast food and dope is that no one dies from fast food. They die from a lack of exercise.


Nobody dies from fast food? Diabetes is supposedly going to be a huge killer for the Boomerang generation. You don't think that's caused by fast food? Diabetes has nothing to do with exercise and everything to do with diet.

Also, many drugs are not physically addictive. Also, how can smoking be legal (addictive and harmful) but other drugs not? It's hypocrisy.

Just because something is not physically addictive doesn't mean it isn't habit-forming. Playing World of Warcraft isn't physically addictive but I bet you'll find many people who are more dependent on that game than smokers are on tobacco.


Finally, I agree that marijuana should be decriminalised, he'll I've written a 4,000 word essay on it for my law classes detailing its medicinal benefits as well as scientific research conducted into it.

The issue though is that this is where the safe illegal narcotics ends. All else have harmful side affects and should remain illegal.

Thank you sir.

BlindSite
10-16-2008, 10:34 PM
I'm leaving it at what Bruce said.

I agree to disagree and I'll leave this thread in saying Pacman is getting what he deserved

yourfavestoner
10-17-2008, 02:37 AM
I'm leaving it at what Bruce said.

I agree to disagree and I'll leave this thread in saying Pacman is getting what he deserved

Ditto, about Pacman as well. The actions he has made pretty much signify that he's an idiot. There's no doubt about that. Do I think he's a bad person necessarily? Nah. Like most people, he's just misunderstood.

You presented your arguments very well, though, and in a very educated and well thought out manner (which is more than most of this board can say).

Bucs_Rule
10-17-2008, 10:09 PM
The government could control the quality of drugs that they legally allow to be sold in stores. Drug Dealers and gangs could try to still sell illegal drugs, but people will be much more likely to buy from stores knowing what their getting and likely much better price. The same is true about alcohol. The mafia that sold alcohol in prohibition would have tried to continue after but they wouldn't be able to compete with the legal alcohol sales.

That wouldn't be true about Weed, as people would grow a ton in their homes and sold from farms, but that won't poss nearly the concerns as with drugs made in labs.

BTW, the Caps are really annoying and I didn't read any of it.