I have obviously missed something. I did not know that the AFL were conduction hair tests on players. Results will be out shortly according to the Hun. 

Arguments about the legality of drugs are one thing, and there are good reason for decriminalisation.

But getting back to Ginnivan as a footballer and member of a football club ... snorting cocaine, especially over the long term, may cause anything from damage to nasal passages through to depression and heart problems. At the extreme end an overdose can cause seizures, stroke or cardiac arrest leading to death. Regular use can cause poor mental function. Coming down from taking it may cause irritability, paranoia, mood swings and exhaustion.

https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/cocaine

Why would any football club interested in the welfare and performance of their professional footballers and the team want to turn a blind eye to that? Is just recreational use once in a while or in the off-season acceptable, or should they only accept "never"?

That's aside from any issues to do with footballers being public role models, or examplars and influences to their team mates.

Ginnivan did make his own choice, "raw deal" or not. You could argue 4 matches is comparatively weak.

@mauriesy I believe the substance was ketamine, not cocaine.  Your argument is valid nonetheless.

Yeah, so ketamine is a whole lot better ...

https://adf.org.au/drug-facts/ketamine/

I wonder how many ex-addicts or family members of addicts or people who work in drug re-hab want to abandon the war on drugs.  

3 hours ago, BW511 said:

Interesting to hear the different takes on this one and I sense you can see the different generations coming through.

I’ve been around recreational drugs for 20 years through friends, family, work colleagues - almost every group in my life. Those seriously affected, among a sample size of hundreds of people, probably amounts to 2-5 people.

Had one teammate commit suicide as a 16 year old who was a big cannabis user, another schoolmate did time for getting caught up selling Coke among other things. One more who’s teenage cannabis use triggered schizophrenia. After that, I’d struggle to list any more.

This is people from all walks of life and every opposing living situation you could imagine.

I can and have certainly seen the bad in what drugs do, but I’ve also seen far more people become alcoholics or gambling addicts and now with kids of my own, seeing what phones/tablets do to them.

There isn’t a one size fits all answer to the issues in society but I don’t think the ‘drugs are bad’ argument is no longer valid these days because it’s happening whether you like it or not.

As for Ginnivan, he was the one caught but you can guarantee at least half his teammates were doing the same, they just didn’t get filmed.

Good balanced response and mostly echoes my own experience.  

I only had one close mate descend into the really hard stuff with any regularity - and he has (largely) since pulled himself out of it. Smartest guy I know which is often the way - he's self-confessed on the spectrum (undiagnosed) and just finds life a bit boring without drugs. I worry for what he's done to his system over time & he has been a bit addled here & there (stutters etc. developed), but he's mellowing a little as he grows up. He's still a good person.

Several other friends and in-laws have been badly impacted by cannabis. Brother in-law the prime example, with teenage use causing extreme schizophrenia & ultimately violence against his own family, my wife included. I've got no time for people who try to tell me that Cannabis is harmless. 

As for whether any of it should be legal or not - it's really difficult & I can see the arguments from both sides. Given my lived experience though I tend to revert to the status quo (illegal) - ultimately the damage that can be done is catastrophic & as we know all laws sadly need to cater to the weakest person in society. This is not to say that Alcohol is really any different though, and its peculiar that it is allowed when others are not. 

As for Ginnivan - he deserves whatever punishment he gets - IMO less because he's breaking AFL rules, moreso because he's a young man who needs guidance & direction to help him mature. That should be the Collingwood's #1 concern. If he loves playing footy then the suspension is an appropriate punishment. I'm not convinced given his character that he'll be at all concerned by having his reputation damaged. 

As for footy more generally - it doesn't make it right but we all know he's not alone. His teammates would have been in the next cubicle...maybe he's been exposed because there are still a lot of people that loathe the way he plays. Someone out to get him perhaps. 

There was a comment on twitter that said if we caught and suspended all the AFL players who've used , we wouldn't have a league to watch, which I think is probably true. I've seen enough of them in person to convince me of this - including certain stars we love to talk about on this site.     

10 minutes ago, fr_ap said:

As for whether any of it should be legal or not - it's really difficult & I can see the arguments from both sides. Given my lived experience though I tend to revert to the status quo (illegal) - ultimately the damage that can be done is catastrophic & as we know all laws sadly need to cater to the weakest person in society. This is not to say that Alcohol is really any different though, and its peculiar that it is allowed when others are not ...

... There was a comment on twitter that said if we caught and suspended all the AFL players who've used , we wouldn't have a league to watch, which I think is probably true. I've seen enough of them in person to convince me of this - including certain stars we love to talk about on this site.     

Drugs like cocaine and ketamine are far more dangerous when taken with alcohol. I think it would be a fair assumption that since Ginnivan was at the Torquay hotel, he wasn't just drinking lemonade.

In relation to drug use among footballers, I think we have to be careful not to make an assumption, based on a Twitter comment, that "everyone is taking it" and they are somehow different to the rest of society.

The rate of cannabis taking among the general population is estimated around 12%, but hard drugs like cocaine, ecstasy and meth/amphetamine are less than 3%. There's no evidence to say footballers would be well above those figures. The fact they are young men would increase the likelihood, but they are also professional sportspeople with excellent resources and objectives and that would diminish it.

https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/illicit-use-of-drugs/illicit-drug-use

1 hour ago, mauriesy said:

Arguments about the legality of drugs are one thing, and there are good reason for decriminalisation.

But getting back to Ginnivan as a footballer and member of a football club ... snorting cocaine, especially over the long term, may cause anything from damage to nasal passages through to depression and heart problems. At the extreme end an overdose can cause seizures, stroke or cardiac arrest leading to death. Regular use can cause poor mental function. Coming down from taking it may cause irritability, paranoia, mood swings and exhaustion.

https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/cocaine

Why would any football club interested in the welfare and performance of their professional footballers and the team want to turn a blind eye to that? Is just recreational use once in a while or in the off-season acceptable, or should they only accept "never"?

That's aside from any issues to do with footballers being public role models, or examplars and influences to their team mates.

Ginnivan did make his own choice, "raw deal" or not. You could argue 4 matches is comparatively weak.

This is the point when it comes to footballers. Not only are there the medical reasons you list in this and your other post on ketamine, but these players work in an environment where the slightest change to diet, a weight regime, 2 minutes extra at training can make an enormous difference to their performance during the year. These guys work in an elite performance environment and the challenge of that is if you slip, even slightly, in your preparation you can ruin a game or even entire year, for yourself and the team. 

The medical reasons you list, as well as the most minor disruptions to your bodies performance that would be negligible for the rest of the population but huge for athletes and also the fact this substance could be cut with something banned that sees you before ASADA and out for a year make it a very stupid  thing for a pro athlete to be doing. 

I’m sure I’m certain football player circles they make arguments that these drugs are better than alcohol as you burn them quickly and can take them in a way that doesn’t wreck your skin folds but the risks outweighs these relatively minor pros. It takes a certain disregard for your conditioning and health to take these risks and while these players operate under huge stress and deserve a chance for relief, anything that risks their career and health should be avoided and that’s the way the clubs should be educating their players, which I believe they are. Stupid from Ginnivan. 

2 hours ago, Vipercrunch said:

I wonder how many ex-addicts or family members of addicts or people who work in drug re-hab want to abandon the war on drugs.  

Whilst their experience and feelings are valid, the decision for limited legalization should be made using the advice of medical professionals backed up by data. It's the same reason that jail terms are not not set by victims of crime.

If we replace that phrase 'the war on drugs' (good band, btw) with 'harm minimisation', we might make some progress

3 hours ago, mauriesy said:

Drugs like cocaine and ketamine are far more dangerous when taken with alcohol. I think it would be a fair assumption that since Ginnivan was at the Torquay hotel, he wasn't just drinking lemonade.

In relation to drug use among footballers, I think we have to be careful not to make an assumption, based on a Twitter comment, that "everyone is taking it" and they are somehow different to the rest of society.

The rate of cannabis taking among the general population is estimated around 12%, but hard drugs like cocaine, ecstasy and meth/amphetamine are less than 3%. There's no evidence to say footballers would be well above those figures. The fact they are young men would increase the likelihood, but they are also professional sportspeople with excellent resources and objectives and that would diminish it.

https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/illicit-use-of-drugs/illicit-drug-use

I'm not basing it on a twitter comment - I'm basing it on having been a young Aussie male in the same venues, both City and Country, as players many times...and witnessing it with my own eyes.

Considering I rarely see players out and about otherwise in this city of 4-5m people, I'd say that's more than coincidence. But acknowledge it could be, and also acknowledge the subjectivity of my individual observations. Maybe I've only witnessed the exceptions to the rule.

Edited February 21, 20232 yr by fr_ap

4 hours ago, mauriesy said:

Arguments about the legality of drugs are one thing, and there are good reason for decriminalisation.

But getting back to Ginnivan as a footballer and member of a football club ... snorting cocaine, especially over the long term, may cause anything from damage to nasal passages through to depression and heart problems. At the extreme end an overdose can cause seizures, stroke or cardiac arrest leading to death. Regular use can cause poor mental function. Coming down from taking it may cause irritability, paranoia, mood swings and exhaustion.

https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/cocaine

Why would any football club interested in the welfare and performance of their professional footballers and the team want to turn a blind eye to that? Is just recreational use once in a while or in the off-season acceptable, or should they only accept "never"?

That's aside from any issues to do with footballers being public role models, or examplars and influences to their team mates.

Ginnivan did make his own choice, "raw deal" or not. You could argue 4 matches is comparatively weak.

Especially as two of them are practise matches. In answer to para 3 lots of administrators are primarily concerned about winning first, last and in the middle. Don't assume they all have the players long term interests in their view finder.

4 hours ago, mauriesy said:

Why would any football club interested in the welfare and performance of their professional footballers and the team want to turn a blind eye to that?

Maybe because the people in FD's, Admin, AFL HQ etc also partake in said activities . 

Pot.   Kettle.

4 hours ago, mauriesy said:

Ginnivan did make his own choice, "raw deal" or not. You could argue 4 matches is comparatively weak.

Smith got only 2 games for an almost identical set of circumstances.  One could argue Smith's were worse. 

Having set the Smith precedent the AFL couldn't go any harder on Ginnivan.   And Smith didn't lose any income.

Edited February 21, 20232 yr by Lucifers Hero

4 hours ago, mauriesy said:

Arguments about the legality of drugs are one thing, and there are good reason for decriminalisation.

But getting back to Ginnivan as a footballer and member of a football club ... snorting cocaine, especially over the long term, may cause anything from damage to nasal passages through to depression and heart problems. At the extreme end an overdose can cause seizures, stroke or cardiac arrest leading to death. Regular use can cause poor mental function. Coming down from taking it may cause irritability, paranoia, mood swings and exhaustion.

https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/cocaine

Why would any football club interested in the welfare and performance of their professional footballers and the team want to turn a blind eye to that? Is just recreational use once in a while or in the off-season acceptable, or should they only accept "never"?

That's aside from any issues to do with footballers being public role models, or examplars and influences to their team mates.

Ginnivan did make his own choice, "raw deal" or not. You could argue 4 matches is comparatively weak.

All very reasonable points.

The very same arguments could be made about the many and varied health impacts of alcohol use

(Noting that the National Health and Medical Research Council Australian guidelines to reduce the risk of harm from alcohol-related disease or injury recommend healthy men and women should drink no more than 10 standard drinks a week and no more than 4 standard drinks (3 stubbies) on any one day)

I had no idea how many wowsers were on Demonland. 

Great thread. I haven’t had time to read it all, so apologies if this has already been said. 
 

As far as I am concerned our drug laws need a complete overhaul, in particular with respect to cannabis use. Yes, there can be a detrimental impact, I have seen it firsthand, but I have seen far worse from alcohol.  Domestic violence and alcohol abuse seem to go hand in hand.

In Ginnivan’s case, it is more than likely there is a clause in his contract about the use of drugs. Similar to mining companies, where if you test positive to drugs it is instant dismissal, and I recall drug testing was quite common (not sure if this is still the case). In some ways, football players get off lightly compared to other Australian employees. 
 

I am not saying the policy is correct, but it is the policy they sign up to. If you do the crime you do the time.

That said, the public hounding he is getting reeks of hypocrisy given that alcoholic benders seem to be celebrated.

4 hours ago, Vipercrunch said:

I wonder how many ex-addicts or family members of addicts or people who work in drug re-hab want to abandon the war on drugs.  

The War On Drugs was and will continue to be an epic failure, so I’m not sure why the people you mention would have a problem with it being discontinued, unless they have a penchant for wasting taxpayer money (the USA alone has spent over one trillion dollars on this “war” so far with nothing to show for it) and lining the pockets of drug cartels and militant groups. 
 

Drugs - be they medically/societally approved or otherwise - are here to stay. So the only way to combat the negative aspects of this are to look deeply into why people take them, and try to address those issues. 

4 minutes ago, Mel Bourne said:

The War On Drugs was and will continue to be an epic failure, so I’m not sure why the people you mention would have a problem with it being discontinued, unless they have a penchant for wasting taxpayer money (the USA alone has spent over one trillion dollars on this “war” so far with nothing to show for it) and lining the pockets of drug cartels and militant groups. 
 

Drugs - be they medically/societally approved or otherwise - are here to stay. So the only way to combat the negative aspects of this are to look deeply into why people take them, and try to address those issues. 

I'd like for them to be asked rather than just assume what they'd say.

5 hours ago, Vipercrunch said:

I wonder how many ex-addicts or family members of addicts or people who work in drug re-hab want to abandon the war on drugs.  

🙋‍♀️ I do. That is, I don’t want to abandon the war on drugs; I just want to change the rules of engagement. 

25 minutes ago, Vipercrunch said:

I'd like for them to be asked rather than just assume what they'd say.

Well for a start, you’d have to ask several million people. 
 

But as somebody who has personally lost more people to drugs than I care to count, I am not exactly of the opinion that the War On Drugs was ever fighting on their behalf. 
 

The majority of people I’ve known who died from overdose or prolonged usage had a troubled past (invariably involving violence or other forms of abuse at a young age). For them, drugs provided relief and periods of time when their lives weren’t fraught, fearful or any other form of “unbearable” (yes, this was of course a ‘band-aid’ solution, but have you not noticed how ineffective modern society has been in providing an alternative?). The War On Drugs saw and continues to see and treat people like these as the enemy. 
 

It has always sought to vilify the drug-user, rather than view them as the group it was trying to help. The prisons are clogged with drug-users, while the ones doing the most damage are not only roaming free, but occasionally doing so with the assistance of the US government (there are countless substantiated accounts of the CIA giving green lights to Sinaloan, Panamanian, Venezuelan and Afghan drug operations in exchange for information, kickbacks and the like). 
 

No, I can’t speak for all of the people you mention. Not one individual ever could. But if they were to all know the truth behind the War On Drugs, I strongly suspect that most would feel horrifically betrayed by it. 
 

A single case in point: in the late nineties I had four friends die from heroin overdose. These four were what is known as “dabblers” - very occasional users. They led productive, respectable and respectful lives (you’d be surprised how many do). They died because the purity of the heroin that was coming to Australia suddenly went rapidly up. They took their regular hit and were dead within minutes. That’s the black market for you. And while there is a “war” against it, that’s what the drug industry will continue to be until the world boils. 
 

So what, eliminate the need for drugs entirely? Well, it seems to me that until you eliminate stress, poverty, violence, depression, corruption and a whole lot of other undesirable aspects of daily life that drive many to seek refuge in the only place they can find it, it ain’t gonna happen. 

Kids prefer to do that than drink 🤔 he'll learn from it..