NB Paragraphs rearranged by theme. Hope you don't mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliantha
As I said, the club did their own investigation. Do you think they would have dumped them if they felt they'd acted in self defence for example? Probably not after they've already invested a great deal of money in the players.
Anyway, one of the players involved has been charged and he'll front court. The other was simply involved in the melee. Maybe a tough call for him to have been dumped, but maybe the club wants to send a clear message to other young players.
|
Some good points, I grant you. The club would probably prefer to keep players than have to dump them. But even a friendly club investigation still doesn't constitute fair trial. And particularly tough on the non-charged guy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliantha
With regard to drugs, I can't explain how the distinctions are made other than how quickly they will kill you if you get a bad batch. I don't know of anyone who has ever keeled over after a bad drop of red, but I do know people who've died because they snorted something impure. I believe that's probably a similar distinction that a lot of other people make when they think about good and bad drugs.
|
I'm probably
but the lethal overdose argument doesn't cut it (so to speak). Sculling a bottle of spirits will kill you (and quite a few people die this way). smoking an ounce of cannabis won't.
If it is the impurities that worry you, they are there
because the drug is illegal.
If you haven't heard this all before then I congratulate you on recently emerging from your 20 year coma.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliantha
Legal protien supplements aren't classed as drugs if you're just having whey powder. It's when they lace them with steroids that they become illegal.
|
You've ducked the issue there. I am asking
why they are classed as drugs and made illegal.
I offer this olive branch: the distinctions between good drugs and bad drugs are arbitrarily placed. There is no non-arbitrary way of placing them. Yet we need distinctions, the only other option being anything goes. Therefore we have to make do with arbitrary distinctions. But, since we acknowledge that they are arbitrary, it is legitimate to argue about where they should be drawn and to argue in favour of moving them.
Whaddayareckon, mate?