Illicit Drug Use in AFL

[Little Goffy 14,442]

Coincidentally, I've just come across some old footage of the 1996 AFL draft camp. You can even see the standard vertical jump tests starting from 27.25.

 

 

But meanwhile, seriously, we've got two gun midfielders swearing off sugar except for the energy drinks and lollies associated with games. I doubt they'd do much more than a couple of eccys once a year, on a non-training weekend in November.

But the Ben Cousins, Chris Mainwaring legacy has to be that we all learn the lesson that drug use is compartentalised. You can be the consummate professional football player, lawyer, statutory urban planner, parliamentary staffer, or whatever, but switch into the different environment and the 'other normal' has a party.

Most drug users and even many outright addicts are 'high functioning', able to get on with life more or less normally, so long as their cash flow keeps up. To toss them in a ditch the moment there's a slip, especially when you're subjecting an individual to significant extra scrutiny, is absurd, and the most likely effect is to immediately send the user into a rapid downward spiral.

Just to be clear, I'm under no illusions about the damage drugs do and I think the current approach to drugs in society is an idiotic near-random mix of 'too soft' and 'too hard' right alongside eachother, with 'not enough resources' the loudest message everywhere.

And I guess it wasn't just for fun that I linked to a Prodigy performance.

[DeezNuts 624]

Ok, let’s keep it simple. Black and white.

1. Test all players (mandatory).

Will it hurt teams in the short term? Probably.

Will it have a long term lasting effect?   Yes.

2. Or, don’t. 

(There’s no middle ground here, someone will always try to exploit the grey areas.)

The leagues choice..

 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,687]

12 hours ago, chookrat said:

I couldn't disagree more. The AFL cannot take an ethical stance on illicit drugs that only applies to the players. Im fine that PED testing should only apply to players but there is no justification to only subject players to illicit drug testing. Everyone under the AFL banner should be subject to the same cultural standards. 

Is the AFL taking an ethical stance? I don't think it's that. I think its a commercial decision and (perhaps, although I'm not 100% convinced), a player welfare decision. With respect to the commercial issue, AFL players caught taking recreational or performance enhancing drugs damages the AFL brand.

The player welfare link is not as clear cut. Some (many? most? all?) illegal drugs can be harmful, but I'm not sure the AFL is concerned about the harmful effects of illegal drugs on individual players who voluntarily take them. I suspect that stated position is lip service to make the AFL looks like it cares for something that's arguably not its concern.

[daisycutter 29,600]

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Is the AFL taking an ethical stance? I don't think it's that. I think its a commercial decision and (perhaps, although I'm not 100% convinced), a player welfare decision. With respect to the commercial issue, AFL players caught taking recreational or performance enhancing drugs damages the AFL brand.

The player welfare link is not as clear cut. Some (many? most? all?) illegal drugs can be harmful, but I'm not sure the AFL is concerned about the harmful effects of illegal drugs on individual players who voluntarily take them. I suspect that stated position is lip service to make the AFL looks like it cares for something that's arguably not its concern.

and let's face it, judging by the number of tests per player per year, it's just the afl paying lip service

they made the decision a few years ago in haste under outside pressure and now they are unwillingly stuck with it

they don't have any hard conviction over illicit drugs, they now just employ secrecy and spin and hope that with so few tests they can keep it under the radar, but it still bubbles along and occasionally threatens to erupt

it's their redheaded step daughter

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,687]

2 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

and let's face it, judging by the number of tests per player per year, it's just the afl paying lip service

they made the decision a few years ago in haste under outside pressure and now they are unwillingly stuck with it

they don't have any hard conviction over illicit drugs, they now just employ secrecy and spin and hope that with so few tests they can keep it under the radar, but it still bubbles along and occasionally threatens to erupt

it's their redheaded step daughter

Up until recently, I would have thought your reference to a "hard conviction over illicit drugs" referred to Tony Mokbel.

Witness X has changed all that. The AFL's conviction, as weak as it might be, might still now be stronger than Mokbel's.

[daisycutter 29,600]

6 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Up until recently, I would have thought your reference to a "hard conviction over illicit drugs" referred to Tony Mokbel.

Witness X has changed all that. The AFL's conviction, as weak as it might be, might still now be stronger than Mokbel's.

ah-ha, but don't forget the afl have their afl-X 

[Smokey 4,388]

On 3/4/2019 at 8:30 PM, chookrat said:

Part of the solution needs to be alchohol and ilicit drug testing not only for players but anyone while working for the AFL or Clubs, including coaching and support staff, back office personnel, media (while working at an AFL event or function) and executive management.  As it stands the players would see this inconsistency and game the system, where as if you make sure whats good for the duck is good for mother goose then there is at least some integrity about the policy. 

This type of conservative thinking paves the way to a hyper-nanny state which is terrifying to imagine. To suggest conducting drug testing in jobs beyond those that would benefit from performance-enhancing drugs or pose serious physical safety issues is as invasive as it is downright stupid. What on earth would a positive drug test from a office staffer prove (other than potentially ruining someones livelihood because they prefer some ecstasy on the weekends instead of a bottle of scotch)?

Come on, its almost 2020 - can we please consider moving away from this ridiculous hard line approach to the war on drugs that that puts trillions of dollars in the hands of criminal groups globally, poisons our children with substances they never intended on taking and criminalizes addicts for life instead of treating the addiction with medical/psychological intervention? Switzerland made heroin completely legal and free to obtain in clinics and the stats are in - heroin use is significantly down in that country. Instead of criminalizing users with endless litigation and police resources, they diverted that money into mental health initiatives for addicts, which in turn uncovered the underlying cause of their use and saw an overall drop in usage, despite its open availability. Modern problems require modern solutions - prohibition didn't work for alcohol and your a fool to think it will work for other drugs (I saw other drugs because alcohol is no different, other than being legal and socially acceptable). There are other examples of effective progressive thinking like in Portugal or The Netherlands, but  I digress ... 

The main focus should be to catch players using performance enhancing substances, which I'm all for as no-one wants to see a game played by people with unfair advantages. Recreational testing should be for impairment on game day only, not for the presence of substances in the system outside of game day. Instead of teaching kids that adults, including their footy idols, take drugs - let them figure it out the natural way; in a seedy nightclub after their 18th birthday surrounded by friends and questionable loud music (unless you live in NSW as I don't think you guys are allowed out after midnight anymore thanks to your "liberal" government) 

[rjay 24,852]

11 minutes ago, Smokey said:

This type of conservative thinking paves the way to a hyper-nanny state which is terrifying to imagine. To suggest conducting drug testing in jobs beyond those that would benefit from performance-enhancing drugs or pose serious physical safety issues is as invasive as it is downright stupid. What on earth would a positive drug test from a office staffer prove (other than potentially ruining someones livelihood because they prefer some ecstasy on the weekends instead of a bottle of scotch)?

Come on, its almost 2020 - can we please consider moving away from this ridiculous hard line approach to the war on drugs that that puts trillions of dollars in the hands of criminal groups globally, poisons our children with substances they never intended on taking and criminalizes addicts for life instead of treating the addiction with medical/psychological intervention? Switzerland made heroin completely legal and free to obtain in clinics and the stats are in - heroin use is significantly down in that country. Instead of criminalizing users with endless litigation and police resources, they diverted that money into mental health initiatives for addicts, which in turn uncovered the underlying cause of their use and saw an overall drop in usage, despite its open availability. Modern problems require modern solutions - prohibition didn't work for alcohol and your a fool to think it will work for other drugs (I saw other drugs because alcohol is no different, other than being legal and socially acceptable). There are other examples of effective progressive thinking like in Portugal or The Netherlands, but  I digress ... 

The main focus should be to catch players using performance enhancing substances, which I'm all for as no-one wants to see a game played by people with unfair advantages. Recreational testing should be for impairment on game day only, not for the presence of substances in the system outside of game day. Instead of teaching kids that adults, including their footy idols, take drugs - let them figure it out the natural way; in a seedy nightclub after their 18th birthday surrounded by friends and questionable loud music (unless you live in NSW as I don't think you guys are allowed out after midnight anymore thanks to your "liberal" government) 

I pretty much agree with what you are saying...there's a lot of self interest and big money propping up the war on drugs and it's not all on the criminal side.

...but if the AFL want to continue the current farcical system for me it's one in all in...

Maybe then they will have a good think about what they are doing...

Me, like you I think they need to stick to weeding out the performance enhancing stuff.

[hemingway 7,615]

6 minutes ago, Smokey said:

This type of conservative thinking paves the way to a hyper-nanny state which is terrifying to imagine. To suggest conducting drug testing in jobs beyond those that would benefit from performance-enhancing drugs or pose serious physical safety issues is as invasive as it is downright stupid. What on earth would a positive drug test from a office staffer prove (other than potentially ruining someones livelihood because they prefer some ecstasy on the weekends instead of a bottle of scotch)?

Come on, its almost 2020 - can we please consider moving away from this ridiculous hard line approach to the war on drugs that that puts trillions of dollars in the hands of criminal groups globally, poisons our children with substances they never intended on taking and criminalizes addicts for life instead of treating the addiction with medical/psychological intervention? Switzerland made heroin completely legal and free to obtain in clinics and the stats are in - heroin use is significantly down in that country. Instead of criminalizing users with endless litigation and police resources, they diverted that money into mental health initiatives for addicts, which in turn uncovered the underlying cause of their use and saw an overall drop in usage, despite its open availability. Modern problems require modern solutions - prohibition didn't work for alcohol and your a fool to think it will work for other drugs (I saw other drugs because alcohol is no different, other than being legal and socially acceptable). There are other examples of effective progressive thinking like in Portugal or The Netherlands, but  I digress ... 

The main focus should be to catch players using performance enhancing substances, which I'm all for as no-one wants to see a game played by people with unfair advantages. Recreational testing should be for impairment on game day only, not for the presence of substances in the system outside of game day. Instead of teaching kids that adults, including their footy idols, take drugs - let them figure it out the natural way; in a seedy nightclub after their 18th birthday surrounded by friends and questionable loud music (unless you live in NSW as I don't think you guys are allowed out after midnight anymore thanks to your "liberal" government) 

Agree Smokey, some really good points.

Drug taking in all its forms does not discriminate on grounds of gender, age or social class. 

I have lived in country towns and cities and it is destroying the fabric of both. As time goes on and nothing changes in terms of government policy, more and more criminals are encouraged to get involved in sourcing, making and distributing drugs, with violence and reprisals a daily reality.  I know of one country town where locals are afraid to walk the streets after dark and where farmers in the region cannot sell their farms or pass them on to their sons because many of the sons have become addicts. This occurring after the crims moved in to town and started distributing to the teenagers.  

Until we treat it first and foremost as a health issue and decriminalise its use, we will never win the war or begin to reduce the users and the suppliers. It will continue to grow and create ever increasing social problems. 

There are problems in the short-term in decriminalising its use, but unless societies make radical changes rather than piecemeal changes, we are in for a very bleak future. 

 

 

[Ethan Tremblay 30,823]

It depends on what drugs you’re talking about legalising, people on heroin just pass out, they don’t want to fight. Ice has the exact opposite effect on people. Ask any copper, Paramedic or first responder what their thoughts are on legalising ice and you’ll get the same answer. 

[rjay 24,852]

7 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

It depends on what drugs you’re talking about legalising, people on heroin just pass out, they don’t want to fight. Ice has the exact opposite effect on people. Ask any copper, Paramedic or first responder what their thoughts are on legalising ice and you’ll get the same answer. 

By legalising it you have more chance of controlling it 'Ethan'...it is already out of control under current restrictive policies, that horse has bolted.

If you take the marketers and distribution network out (criminals) then maybe you have a chance.

The war on drugs is a failed public policy backed by those who make money out of the misery.

Many in so called legit businesses.

[Ethan Tremblay 30,823]

14 minutes ago, rjay said:

By legalising it you have more chance of controlling it 'Ethan'...it is already out of control under current restrictive policies, that horse has bolted.

If you take the marketers and distribution network out (criminals) then maybe you have a chance.

The war on drugs is a failed public policy backed by those who make money out of the misery.

Many in so called legit businesses.

Legalise it and more and more people will take it. If you’ve ever dealt with someone on meth, you’d understand that legalising it won’t work. It can take up to six coppers to restrain even a slim built person on meth. 

If you think Police and Hospital resources are stretched now, times that by 100 if meth were legalised.

Police and Paramedics are the ones dealing with meth heads day in day out, they’re some of the most dangerous people to deal with. Legalising meth will only increase the amount of these people within our society. 

Edited March 6, 2019 by Ethan Tremblay

[Demonstone 22,298]

7 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Legalise it and more and more people will take it

Myth.   Anyone interested in taking any drug will already be doing so as it so easy to obtain if you want it.

Would you start taking ice or heroin just because it was legal?   I sure as hell wouldn't go near them myself.

 

[binman 42,614]

26 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

It depends on what drugs you’re talking about legalising, people on heroin just pass out, they don’t want to fight. Ice has the exact opposite effect on people. Ask any copper, Paramedic or first responder what their thoughts are on legalising ice and you’ll get the same answer. 

You will. But that answer will be that ice is small change and the impact of the ice 'epidemic' is blown way out of proportion, that the crazy ice head going ballistic in ER is largely a myth (though can happen) and that far and away the biggest drain on their resources and the most dangerous drug in terms of people going ballistic is alcohol.

Edited March 6, 2019 by binman

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,687]

1 hour ago, Smokey said:

This type of conservative thinking paves the way to a hyper-nanny state which is terrifying to imagine...

In the old days - and not that long ago - conservative politics was the opposite of the nanny state. 

[dl4e 5,851]

7 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

In the old days - and not that long ago - conservative politics was the opposite of the nanny state. 

It still is.

[Ethan Tremblay 30,823]

8 minutes ago, binman said:

You will. But that answer will be that ice is small change and the impact of the ice 'epidemic' is blown way out of proportion, that the crazy ice head going ballistic in ER is largely a myth (though can happen) and that far and away the biggest drain on their resources and the most dangerous drug in terms of people going ballistic is alcohol.

Being a copper I can only talk from experience, and meth is by far more of a strain. Two coppers can restrain a drunk, it can take at least six to restrain a slim built meth head. 

When I was a first responder, most Friday and Saturday nights were spent at the ER dealing with meth heads. 

[dieter 3,325]

17 hours ago, Biffen said:

I have forwarded the same idea as Dane Swan on this forum some time ago.

I feel intellectually vindicated .

 

Not often that can happen. Is this happenchance??????

[Ethan Tremblay 30,823]

15 minutes ago, demonstone said:

Myth.   Anyone interested in taking any drug will already be doing so as it so easy to obtain if you want it.

Would you start taking ice or heroin just because it was legal?   I sure as hell wouldn't go near them myself.

 

Chronic was all the rage a couple of years ago because it was seen as a legal form of marijuana.

People who were too scared to purchase cannabis, due to it being illegal, were smoking chronic because they knew they couldn’t get into any trouble with the law.  

Luckily afternoon a number of teen deaths (mostly suicides) it’s now illegal as well. 

Edited March 6, 2019 by Ethan Tremblay

[The Stigga 1,090]

5 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Being a copper I can only talk from experience, and meth is by far more of a strain. Two coppers can restrain a drunk, it can take at least six to restrain a slim built meth head. 

When I was a first responder, most Friday and Saturday nights were spent at the ER dealing with meth heads. 

All I can imagine is Zach Galifinakis patrolling our streets...

[Guest]

On 2/26/2019 at 11:42 AM, daisycutter said:

and them pretenders in the northern stand too, eh?

Only if they get tested in the new social club. The presence of Ronald Dale hurling abuse at them as they provide their follicles to the inspectors is a pre requisite for this to happen.

[binman 42,614]

1 hour ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Being a copper I can only talk from experience, and meth is by far more of a strain. Two coppers can restrain a drunk, it can take at least six to restrain a slim built meth head. 

When I was a first responder, most Friday and Saturday nights were spent at the ER dealing with meth heads. 

Fair enough. You have personal experience on your side of the argument, which is a pretty good start.

 

[Ethan Tremblay 30,823]

3 minutes ago, binman said:

Fair enough. You have personal experience on your side of the argument, which is a pretty good start.

 

I agree something needs to change, unfortunately there’s not an easy answer. 

I can see the benefits of legalising some illegal drugs, I just struggle to see the benefits when it comes to meth.

Edited March 6, 2019 by Ethan Tremblay

[binman 42,614]

8 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

I agree something needs to change, unfortunately there’s not an easy answer. 

I can see the benefits of legalising some illegal drugs, I just struggle to see the benefits when it comes to meth.

I think a key benefit is that it takes the control of the supply away from the evil mofos who currently control it - in Victoria hat is mainly bikes and of course organised crime. 

But i agree it is wicked drug. And i don't mean in a good way. 

[Demonstone 22,298]

Some interesting discussion here.

Genuine question ET:  Which drugs would you legalise and which would you not?