The truth about drugs

[Dan Moody]

Nothing - the problem is every anti drug person on here either has no answers, argues against points that no one has made in the first place, or assumes taking a line of coke in the off season is cheating.


Not really. Certainly don't think it's the AFL's place to test players for illicit drugs outside game time. But n the other hand very anti performance enhancing drugs.

Not that either.

How about we just settle at calling you stupid? If I could talk to you like a normal person I'd give you more respect. All you have done so far is misinterpreted what thers have said and built a straw argument.

Pretty sharp last time i checked.

Ruining the game? All in your head.

i wish the public transport system was as reliable as your comebacks.
i'm bored with you now so lets just settle for you being anti-establishment and not really giving a shit about the reputation of our great game and call it quits. your obviously a man (?) of honour and strong conviction that see's no problem with children idolising people like cousins and joey johns, then seeing how shattered they are when it comes out that they are drug cheats. maybe if the identities had been made public earlier, the kids would've had a chance to follow someone with some more respect for the game and their teammates.
end.

 

[bunsen burner]

. your obviously a man (?) of honour and strong conviction that see's no problem with children idolising people like cousins and joey johns, then seeing how shattered they are when it comes out that they are drug cheats.

Care to explain this? It's not the first time I've asked.

 

[bunsen burner]

Ferris, I don't think bb knows what he is debating here. He's not pro-drugs, but then he's not really anti-drugs either. He doesn't want to legalise drugs, but he hates users of these illicit substances being punished for breaking the law. And then says drugs are not bad.

A mish-mash of arguments that fall neither here nor there, and really just seem to push his personal agenda against those that do oppose drugs, because they must be stupid, conservative people that have no idea of the real world.

My argument is very clear. Problem is with peope like you is that you can only see things in black and white. You don't have the ability to see a number of separate issues within the one big issue, and you think that people contradict themselves if some of their views are closer to black and others are closer to white.

This isn't a case of either being pro drug or anti drug with nothing inbetween.

Take a pizza - you ony have the ability to cut it in half. Others have the ability to cut it into amost infinite slices. And no, I don't think you're intelligent enough to understand the true meaning of that analogy.

 

[bunsen burner]

Read this you f***wits:

-----------------------------------
An Open Letter
AS EXPERTS in the fields of medicine, drug dependency and law enforcement, we wish to make abundantly clear our positions on a number of matters in relation to the current "illicit drugs in sport" debate.
We believe that the AFL has been a leader in responding to illicit drugs. Its policies in relation to illicit drug use among players are probably as effective as can be achieved in a world where some young adults are exposed to, and will experiment with, illicit drug taking and the drug culture. Their policy clearly sends a message that drug taking is dangerous and not acceptable.

• We further believe that the prime objective of any "drugs in sport" policy must be the health and welfare of the player concerned. Where this conflicts with another objective of the club concerned, the AFL or the government, the player’s welfare must be paramount.
• We commend and support the AFL and the AFL Players’ Association for taking a reasoned, sensible and strong leadership stance in relation to these issues, and for resisting the pressures from populist quarters to use such issues for partisan ends. Such populist approaches ignore the mass of evidence that humane harm minimisation and treatment approaches to issues of illicit drug use are far more effective at diminishing drug-related harm to the individual and the community than are punitive ‘name and shame’ approaches.
• The AFL’s policy is, in fact, in line with current community practices towards people found to be using illicit drugs – they are most often diverted towards the drug treatment system and away from the criminal justice system. This approach is the policy of all governments in Australia, because the evidence is that it is far more effective in dealing with drug use and harm from illicit drugs than are punitive measures.
• The blurring of the distinction between the use of performance-enhancing drugs and the use of illicit recreational drugs is potentially forcing upon the AFL and other sporting bodies roles for which they have no mandate or capacity – roles as law enforcement agencies. As good citizens, bodies like the AFL have the responsibility of deterring crime where possible, and reporting crime where appropriate – it is not their role to seek out and detect crime.

Rather than being criticised, the AFL should be applauded by governments, community leaders and the media for their approach. For those of us at the coalface of treating drug addiction and developing policy, watching the criticism is frustrating.
We congratulate the AFL and the AFL Players’ Association, and encourage and support them in retention of the AFL Illicit Drug Policy.
Associate Professor Robert Ali, Chair, Australasian Chapter of Addiction Medicine, Royal Australasian College of Physicians
Sam Biondo, Executive Officer, Victorian Alcohol & Drug Association
Donna Bull, former CEO Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia; Specialist Technical Adviser on AOD matters for the Australian Defence Force and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Professor Nick Crofts, Director, Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre
Professor Jon Currie, Professor of Addiction Medicine, St Vincent’s Hospital, Melbourne
Associate Professor John Fitzgerald, Principal Research Fellow, University of Melbourne
Professor Wayne Hall, University of Queensland School of Population Health; Vice-President, Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia
Professor Margaret Hamilton, AO, University of Melbourne
Dr Ian Kronborg, Director, Drug and Alcohol Services, Western Health (DASWest).
Dr Bruce Mitchell, President, Sports Medicine Australia
Professor Rob Moodie, Professor of Global Health, The Nossal Institute for Global Health, University of Melbourne
David Murray, Executive Director, Youth Substance Abuse Service
The Hon Alastair Nicholson, AO RFD QC, National Patron, Australian Drug Foundation; Honorary Professorial Research Fellow, Department of Political Science, Criminology and Sociology, University of Melbourne.
Professor David Penington, AO, Former Vice Chancellor, University of Melbourne
Professor Robert Power, Director, Centre for Harm Reduction, Burnet Institute for Medical Research and Public Health
Professor Robin Room, Chair of Social Alcohol Research, School of Population Health, University of Melbourne; Director, AER Centre for Alcohol Policy Research, Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre
Daryl Smeaton, CEO, Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation
Bill Stronach, CEO, Australian Drug Foundation
David Templeman, CEO (acting), Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia
Professor Ian W Webster, AO, Emeritus Professor of Community Medicine and Public Health, University of New South Wales.
Professor Steve Wesselingh, Director, Macfarlane Burnet Institute for Medical Research and Public Health
--------------------------------------

 

[bunsen burner]

For those here who are drug counsellers, what do you have to say for yourselves? How did you get it so wrong?

 

[Dan Moody]

Read this you f***wits:

-----------------------------------
An Open Letter
AS EXPERTS in the fields of medicine, drug dependency and law enforcement, we wish to make abundantly clear our positions on a number of matters in relation to the current "illicit drugs in sport" debate.
We believe that the AFL has been a leader in responding to illicit drugs. Its policies in relation to illicit drug use among players are probably as effective as can be achieved in a world where some young adults are exposed to, and will experiment with, illicit drug taking and the drug culture. Their policy clearly sends a message that drug taking is dangerous and not acceptable.

• We further believe that the prime objective of any "drugs in sport" policy must be the health and welfare of the player concerned. Where this conflicts with another objective of the club concerned, the AFL or the government, the player’s welfare must be paramount.
• We commend and support the AFL and the AFL Players’ Association for taking a reasoned, sensible and strong leadership stance in relation to these issues, and for resisting the pressures from populist quarters to use such issues for partisan ends. Such populist approaches ignore the mass of evidence that humane harm minimisation and treatment approaches to issues of illicit drug use are far more effective at diminishing drug-related harm to the individual and the community than are punitive ‘name and shame’ approaches.
• The AFL’s policy is, in fact, in line with current community practices towards people found to be using illicit drugs – they are most often diverted towards the drug treatment system and away from the criminal justice system. This approach is the policy of all governments in Australia, because the evidence is that it is far more effective in dealing with drug use and harm from illicit drugs than are punitive measures.
• The blurring of the distinction between the use of performance-enhancing drugs and the use of illicit recreational drugs is potentially forcing upon the AFL and other sporting bodies roles for which they have no mandate or capacity – roles as law enforcement agencies. As good citizens, bodies like the AFL have the responsibility of deterring crime where possible, and reporting crime where appropriate – it is not their role to seek out and detect crime.

Rather than being criticised, the AFL should be applauded by governments, community leaders and the media for their approach. For those of us at the coalface of treating drug addiction and developing policy, watching the criticism is frustrating.
We congratulate the AFL and the AFL Players’ Association, and encourage and support them in retention of the AFL Illicit Drug Policy.
Associate Professor Robert Ali, Chair, Australasian Chapter of Addiction Medicine, Royal Australasian College of Physicians
Sam Biondo, Executive Officer, Victorian Alcohol & Drug Association
Donna Bull, former CEO Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia; Specialist Technical Adviser on AOD matters for the Australian Defence Force and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Professor Nick Crofts, Director, Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre
Professor Jon Currie, Professor of Addiction Medicine, St Vincent’s Hospital, Melbourne
Associate Professor John Fitzgerald, Principal Research Fellow, University of Melbourne
Professor Wayne Hall, University of Queensland School of Population Health; Vice-President, Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia
Professor Margaret Hamilton, AO, University of Melbourne
Dr Ian Kronborg, Director, Drug and Alcohol Services, Western Health (DASWest).
Dr Bruce Mitchell, President, Sports Medicine Australia
Professor Rob Moodie, Professor of Global Health, The Nossal Institute for Global Health, University of Melbourne
David Murray, Executive Director, Youth Substance Abuse Service
The Hon Alastair Nicholson, AO RFD QC, National Patron, Australian Drug Foundation; Honorary Professorial Research Fellow, Department of Political Science, Criminology and Sociology, University of Melbourne.
Professor David Penington, AO, Former Vice Chancellor, University of Melbourne
Professor Robert Power, Director, Centre for Harm Reduction, Burnet Institute for Medical Research and Public Health
Professor Robin Room, Chair of Social Alcohol Research, School of Population Health, University of Melbourne; Director, AER Centre for Alcohol Policy Research, Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre
Daryl Smeaton, CEO, Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation
Bill Stronach, CEO, Australian Drug Foundation
David Templeman, CEO (acting), Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia
Professor Ian W Webster, AO, Emeritus Professor of Community Medicine and Public Health, University of New South Wales.
Professor Steve Wesselingh, Director, Macfarlane Burnet Institute for Medical Research and Public Health
--------------------------------------

thats just dandy, i think the original point was to name them you git!
and as for calling us ****wits, is all of this hitting you a little too close to home, you're getting mighty defensive.
all the names of the experts, well that's just mighty friggin impressive, don't give a shit really, who says high court judges get their decisions right all the time, for ****s sake there was a story that one of them kept falling asleep in court. you can put "elmer fudd, director of wabbit hunting" down on the list for all i care, still doesn't change my opinion that the drug cheats or those taking "recreational" drugs are breaking the law and deserved to be named like anyone else in society that breaks the law.
now run off and steal some hubcaps off cars or something will you, you bloody peasant.

 

[clobba]

i wish the public transport system was as reliable as your comebacks.
i'm bored with you now so lets just settle for you being anti-establishment and not really giving a shit about the reputation of our great game and call it quits. your obviously a man (?) of honour and strong conviction that see's no problem with children idolising people like cousins and joey johns, then seeing how shattered they are when it comes out that they are drug cheats. maybe if the identities had been made public earlier, the kids would've had a chance to follow someone with some more respect for the game and their teammates.
end.

Drugs have done squat to the reputation of the game (not good for some player reps tho) this year compared to the constant talk off tanking.

 

[clobba]

thats just dandy, i think the original point was to name them you git!
and as for calling us ****wits, is all of this hitting you a little too close to home, you're getting mighty defensive.
all the names of the experts, well that's just mighty friggin impressive, don't give a shit really, who says high court judges get their decisions right all the time, for ****s sake there was a story that one of them kept falling asleep in court. you can put "elmer fudd, director of wabbit hunting" down on the list for all i care, still doesn't change my opinion that the drug cheats or those taking "recreational" drugs are breaking the law and deserved to be named like anyone else in society that breaks the law.
now run off and steal some hubcaps off cars or something will you, you bloody peasant.

Truly the ignorance displayed in some of the rants are amusing but hell leave those blinkers on as you know you are all right plus I like laughing at the stupidity of others.

 

[bunsen burner]

thats just dandy, i think the original point was to name them you git!

What is it about this bit that you don't understand?:

humane harm minimisation and treatment approaches to issues of illicit drug use are far more effective at diminishing drug-related harm to the individual and the community than are punitive ‘name and shame’ approaches.

and as for calling us ****wits, is all of this hitting you a little too close to home, you're getting mighty defensive.

Defensive about what? My views are pretty close to that of MANY experts.

all the names of the experts, well that's just mighty friggin impressive, don't give a shit really, who says high court judges get their decisions right all the time, for ****s sake there was a story that one of them kept falling asleep in court.

Yes of course, the experts are wrong and you are right.

The f***wit call seems quite justified.

you can put "elmer fudd, director of wabbit hunting" down on the list for all i care, still doesn't change my opinion that the drug cheats or those taking "recreational" drugs are breaking the law and deserved to be named like anyone else in society that breaks the law.

Wow! You can now distinguish between a drug cheat and a rec drug user. Looks like you have learnt something from this thread afterall.

now run off and steal some hubcaps off cars or something will you, you bloody peasant.

Yes of course, anyone who doesn't have a blanket "drugs are bad mmmkay" attitude must be a druggie, lowlife, thief, and lower class scum.

 

[Dan Moody]

Truly the ignorance displayed in some of the rants are amusing but hell leave those blinkers on as you know you are all right plus I like laughing at the stupidity of others.

please explain the ignorance?
and i agree about the laughing, i have been pissing myself at the saints pathetic "board challenge" all day! we've made a million dollar profit, so lets have a spill. nathan burke made jackshit sense at all on radio today and andrew thompson is a turncoat that should think himself lucky that they kept a liability such as him on the books at all.
now back to that ignorance thing, please go on...

 

[Dan Moody]

What is it about this bit that you don't understand?:

humane harm minimisation and treatment approaches to issues of illicit drug use are far more effective at diminishing drug-related harm to the individual and the community than are punitive ‘name and shame’ approaches.

Defensive about what? My views are pretty close to that of MANY experts.


Yes of course, the experts are wrong and you are right.

The f***wit call seems quite justified.

Wow! You can now distinguish between a drug cheat and a rec drug user. Looks like you have learnt something from this thread afterall.

Yes of course, anyone who doesn't have a blanket "drugs are bad mmmkay" attitude must be a druggie, lowlife, thief, and lower class scum.

bravo
you are quite a wordsmith!
assuming that someone may breed with you (?), i hope you have as much luck explaining the "drugs are bad" policy to any kids you may have.
lets just agree to disagree and move on because i'm losing faith in humanity conversing with bleeding hearts like you.

 

[bunsen burner]

assuming that someone may breed with you (?), i hope you have as much luck explaining the "drugs are bad" policy to any kids you may have.

I have 2 kids. And I will have no problems explaining drugs to them. It's the "drugs are bad mmmkay" policy that you advcate that is far more dangerous.

It doesn't work because you show kids the worst case scenario, they may start off with the ignorant "drugs are bad mmmkay" view but when they see in reality that cool guy Johnny takes drugs and isn't that skinny, unwashed, track marked gutter junkie they were propagated, the education often goes out the window.

lets just agree to disagree and move on because

Why would I agree with you when you are ignorant and wrong?

i'm losing faith in humanity conversing with bleeding hearts like you.

I'm far from a bleeding heart. This is nothing to do with bleeding hearts. Shame you can't see that.

 

[Hanis]

So Bunse if the AFL drop the naming and shaming then how do they go about explaining to the paying public why player X has been suspended???

considering there is no way in hell they are going to drop the 3 strikes rule

4 week Hamstring??
ACL joint??
Family Matters??
Attempting to punch in the changerooms??

how do they explain Player X's absence from the field or from the training track for that matter???

Remember that players still get paid to train in the off season and hence are still representatives of the AFL!!

I mean you are arguing that they shouldn't be tested in the off season yet the are still paid employees of the AFL - professional sportsman!!

 

[Chewy]

There is something I've never understood about these anti-drugs people.

Why do they care so much about what Fred Smith (aged 23) does to his own body?

What business is it of theirs?

 

[Hanis]

There is something I've never understood about these anti-drugs people.

Why do they care so much about what Fred Smith (aged 23) does to his own body?

What business is it of theirs?

With regards to professional AFL footballers - I indirectly pay their wages by financial supporting the club that they play for. I pay for them not to take recreational drugs no matter how miniscual and no matter how ineffective the drug may be. The players are payed to play and train (in the off season as well). Professional team sportsmen are payed not to take drugs!!

 

[WestCat]

Having not sifted through the 25 pages of this thread, I'm not sure whether this has been covered or not. But getting back to the Cousins issue, it's quite well known that he has been a very frequent user for a lot longer than the mid 2005 timeline that the Eagles have publicised. Now the original post seemed to go along the lines of helping the players and ensuring that things don't get out of hand, so my question is, do you believe the Eagles should've stepped in far earlier or do you think they did the right thing by ignoring an issue because it would've cost them a flag if they did something about it?

My personal opinion in the matter is that the AFL do need to step up their drug testing through more testing (it's not like the AFL don't have the money) and increased confidentiality, which is key to stamping out the problem. There are two key ways to solving the confidentiality problem, which is to increase the level so that players aren't aware of when they're going to be tested (as currently they are aware of when tests will be taking place) or to follow the mining industry and test everyone before they play.

While people use the argument that the AFL reflects society, I think perhaps what gets hidden away in that argument is that society also reflects the AFL. As much as some players hate to be ocnsidered role models, they are, those guernseys that kids wear to the footy so that they can look like their heroes pay the salaries of those heroes. If drug use is rife in the AFL, it's likely to increase through society. So perhaps instead of just making excuses for these players, the AFL, the clubs and of course "society" should take a more pro-active approach. Basic economics says that if you can decrease demand, supply will drop, which will have a positive impact on society as a whole.

 

[skilts]

With regards to professional AFL footballers - I indirectly pay their wages by financial supporting the club that they play for. I pay for them not to take recreational drugs no matter how miniscual and no matter how ineffective the drug may be. The players are payed to play and train (in the off season as well). Professional team sportsmen are payed not to take drugs!!

Rather than posting on here, I advise you take the obvious, other option if players' lifestyles offend you so much. Cease financially supporting the competition. There, that wasn't too hard, was it?

Footballers are paid to play football.

 

[skilts]

.As much as some players hate to be ocnsidered role models, they are, those guernseys that kids wear to the footy so that they can look like their heroes pay the salaries of those heroes. If drug use is rife in the AFL, it's likely to increase through society. So perhaps instead of just making excuses for these players, the AFL, the clubs and of course "society" should take a more pro-active approach. Basic economics says that if you can decrease demand, supply will drop, which will have a positive impact on society as a whole.

.It doesn't work because you show kids the worst case scenario, they may start off with the ignorant "drugs are bad mmmkay" view but when they see in reality that cool guy Johnny takes drugs and isn't that skinny, unwashed, track marked gutter junkie they were propagated, the education often goes out the window.

Why would I agree with you when you are ignorant and wrong?
.QUOTE]

It astounds me that the professional protectors of children have such defective memories of what it was to be a child. FFS, when I was eight years-old I realised that my parents and the rest of my family had lied to me about the god of their religion, morals, sex and the inevitability of death. Should I have been protected from knowing this? I'm afraid the cat was out of the bag already with the Father Xmas thing. The Easter Bunny was never really an issue after about the age of four either.

Might it not be better if kids know that footballers are merely human and share all of the foibles and weaknesses of mere mortals? Is there not a possibility that if children are taught this, they may look elsewhere for that mythical ****ing 'ROLE MODEL'?

As for you Bunsen, were you never taught not to interfere with the god-given right to keep your children in profound ignorance of the world until they're at least...well...28 years-old? Is that long enough? I feel sorry for you. Your upbringing must have been sorely lacking to end up with such an informed, realistic view of the world. Your parents, and all of the footballers you ever admired, must be ashamed of the part they played in your inevitable downfall.

Edit: I shamefacedly admit that I still believe in the tooth fairy. When you reach my age, it's a salve to feelings of mortality.

 

[thatswhatimtalkinabout]

With regards to professional AFL footballers - I indirectly pay their wages by financial supporting the club that they play for. I pay for them not to take recreational drugs no matter how miniscual and no matter how ineffective the drug may be. The players are payed to play and train (in the off season as well). Professional team sportsmen are payed not to take drugs!!

Get a grip mate. If you work for a steel company and I buy some steel off your company, does that give me the right to say I don't want you buying a slab this week and possibly giving your missus a touch up because I indirectly paid for that?

Grow up. You support your 'heroes' - you don't own them.

 

[GoldenSky]

Why do you keep bumping this thread up?

I have 2 kids. And I will have no problems explaining drugs to them. It's the "drugs are bad mmmkay" policy that you advcate that is far more dangerous.

You advocate the "drugs are not bad mmmkay" policy then?

It doesn't work because you show kids the worst case scenario, they may start off with the ignorant "drugs are bad mmmkay" view but when they see in reality that cool guy Johnny takes drugs and isn't that skinny, unwashed, track marked gutter junkie they were propagated, the education often goes out the window.

A big leap in your logic here. How do you know that instilling negative attitudes towards drugs in your child means they are more likely to take drugs than someone who wasn't taught that? That sounds fairly illogical to me.

It's quite obvious you don't see anything wrong with drugs. But as a parent, regardless of what you think about drugs, you should be teaching your children to be law-abiding citizens. You're teaching your children to break the law. You're a fantastic parent mate.

Not showing them the worst case scenario just sends mixed messages at a time when it should be solely up to the parent to teach them. Many children may not have exposure to the hard drugs until their mid to late teens, by which time they should be smart enough to stay away from drugs, because of the values and knowledge you gave them some years ago.

 

[FuManchu]

The truth about rec drugs in football is that they have no place in professional teams.

They can affect the health of players. They can affect the team planning thru indifferent training performances due to the early in the week use of drugs.

Forget about civil liberties in terms of players being able to make decisions to use rec drugs. The players sign contracts not to use them. The clubs expect the players to present at all times in tip top shape. Its simple, the players when signing on the dotted line have made an agreement not to use them. So why even the debate?

If the players think that using drugs is more important than playing the game, then they should leave the game and go their hardest away from the confines of the AFL.

 

[.Shotties.]

You advocate the "drugs are not bad mmmkay" policy then?

My parents advocated the "We can't stop you from doing this, but we'd rather know and be able to help if something went wrong mmmkay" policy.

Works fine for me

A big leap in your logic here. How do you know that instilling negative attitudes towards drugs in your child means they are more likely to take drugs than someone who wasn't taught that? That sounds fairly illogical to me.

This is akin to saying to a child that there is something huge and scary in a box and that they're NEVER to open it, EVER! and assuming that the child will just obey those directions and never consider the box again.

 

[GoldenSky]

This is akin to saying to a child that there is something huge and scary in a box and that they're NEVER to open it, EVER! and assuming that the child will just obey those directions and never consider the box again.

Works for the majority of people.

 

[Ron The Bear]

My parents advocated the "We can't stop you from doing this, but we'd rather know and be able to help if something went wrong mmmkay" policy.

Works fine for me

We can't stop you from surfing trains, but we'd rather know and be able to help if something went wrong mmmkay.

Irresponsible.

 

[.Shotties.]

We can't stop you from surfing trains, but we'd rather know and be able to help if something went wrong mmmkay.

Irresponsible.

That's a terrible analogy and not even remotely comparable.