http://news.theage.com.au/fevola-caught-on...80317-1zyk.html

Lets see if Carlton do something about this silly boy.

:D what a p!sser !!!

Exactly why a curfew is a splendid idea.

The longer you are out, the more alcohol you consume, the bigger [censored] you become.

Big deal.

:D what a p!sser !!!

Actually after reading Talking Carlton fans give it to us for bad player behaviour, it will be interesting to see what Carlton's leadership group does.

They have an important game against Richmond on Thursday, so will be interesting to see if they suspend him for any matches.

Surely he is on his last chance and can't stay in their leadership group.

Ohhhh what Judd must be thinking now, and he has to help decide the penalty. Apparently their leadership group are meeting ASAP as he has admitted it to the club.

his tank must have sprung a leak !!!!!!

his season is down the drain

lets see what fine carltank might consider giving him...maybe they will pull a number out of their arses aswell, maybe $5172.50?

lets see what fine carltank might consider giving him...maybe they will pull a number out of their arses as well, maybe $5172.50?

If they just fine him it will be a joke.

This is interesting as it will really test their 'new' philosophy of a new beginning.

The man was using drugs - he was intoxicated in a public place (against the law) - he then broke another law by peeing in public.

He has brought the game into disrepute and must be suspended by the AFL.

:D what a p!sser !!!

Anyone posted it on www.liveleak.com?

He joins the Pee Train as another footy legend.

The man was using drugs - he was intoxicated in a public place (against the law) - he then broke another law by peeing in public.

He has brought the game into disrepute and must be suspended by the AFL.

Who mentioned anything about drugs?

Who mentioned anything about drugs?

I think TD is referring to alcohol as a drug.

The positive about our decision to suspend Sylvia is it has now put pressure on Carlton to do the same. If Carlton are soft on Fevola I think the general football public and media will be quite critical.

Considering Fevola's past and the fact he has already been in the media this preseason (speeding) I think Judd's hands are tied. Fevola will not play round 1. If he does Carlton are pathetic (but we already know that ).

I thought it was Carltanks defence that was supposed to be leaky?

Who mentioned anything about drugs?

In case you are not aware - alcohol is a drug. A drug which is the second greatest killer of people in Australia after tobacco.

It is an offence to be drunk in a public place. As is the serving of alcohol to someone who is intoxicated. Urinating in public is also an offence.

He has brought the game into disrepute - the AFL must act on this.

He has brought the game into disrepute - the AFL must act on this.

You mean Carlton must act. This has nothing to do with the AFL.

TD i understand what you are saying, but by making comments such as

The man was using drugs - he was intoxicated in a public place (against the law) - he then broke another law by peeing in public.

you really are suggesting that he was both 'on drugs' and intoxicated.

now i drink socially quite often, and while technically alcohol is a drug, i have never heard anyone refer to it as drugs in the act of taking it have you?

people don't say do you want some drugs? they say 'do you want a beer?'. police don't say 'driving under the influence of drugs' they say 'driving under the influence of alcohol'.

i agree that alcohol can cause damage and can be quite harmful however it is not an illegal substance, is not considered a 'drug' in the sense that other illicit drugs are considered, and given the current climate involving afl players and drug taking you post just appeared to try and fuel the fire a bit.

now i drink socially quite often, and while technically alcohol is a drug, i have never heard anyone refer to it as drugs in the act of taking it have you?

people don't say do you want some drugs? they say 'do you want a beer?'. police don't say 'driving under the influence of drugs' they say 'driving under the influence of alcohol'.

Agreed. I'm drugged up right now at work (just had my morning coffee)

out of interest here is a little paragraph from wikipedia explaining how the american government defines drugs:

"In the United States, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act definition of "drug" includes "articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals" and "articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals."[7] Consistent with that definition, the U.S. separately defines narcotic drugs and controlled substances, which may include non-drugs, and explicitly excludes tobacco, caffeine and alcoholic beverages."

i know we are in australia and i know this is wikipedia, but it is interesting to see that this government defines what you refer to as 'drugs' as 'narcotics' and explicitly excludes alcohol.

the shag or australia's dumbest man was caught doing this at 4:00am on Saturday morning....

as mentioned, anytime after 1:00am, you really are inviting trouble upon yourself...

all of the facts presented, you would suggest a suspension and fine would be in order.. however, expulsion from the leadership group and a fine will be the penalty imposed....

out of interest here is a little paragraph from wikipedia explaining how the american government defines drugs:

"In the United States, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act definition of "drug" includes "articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals" and "articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals."[7] Consistent with that definition, the U.S. separately defines narcotic drugs and controlled substances, which may include non-drugs, and explicitly excludes tobacco, caffeine and alcoholic beverages."

i know we are in australia and i know this is wikipedia, but it is interesting to see that this government defines what you refer to as 'drugs' as 'narcotics' and explicitly excludes alcohol.

Deanox - I would suggest you don't cite wikipedia (I am spending the first few weeks of this semester drumming into my 1st/2nd/3rd yr students that I will mark them down if they cite that in their essays).

Worse than that though - I would suggest you avoid any reference to the US when it comes to dealing with drug issues. They are leading the war on drugs - have been since well before Nixon made Elvis a special agent!

Many of their allies are abandoning this approach - almost quicker than they are the war in Iraq. It has been a catastrophic failure - even worse than the attempt at alcohol prohibition.

To give you an example - current rates of new HIV transmissions among injecting drug users in the US are around 30% of all notifications. Here in Australia it is currently less than 1%. The reason - needle and syringe programs which US federal law bans the use of federal funding for.

Alcohol is a drug - a dangerous one that kills many more people than all the illicit drugs combined. Vested interests however mean that we are stuck with grog. Meanwhile the drug industry entrepreneurs (aka dealers) make billions - none of which goes into govt coffers.

Drugs are bad - the war on drugs is worse. But chocolate is nice and makes me happy - does that make me a 'druggie'?

TD i understand what you are saying, but by making comments such as

you really are suggesting that he was both 'on drugs' and intoxicated.

now i drink socially quite often, and while technically alcohol is a drug, i have never heard anyone refer to it as drugs in the act of taking it have you?

people don't say do you want some drugs? they say 'do you want a beer?'. police don't say 'driving under the influence of drugs' they say 'driving under the influence of alcohol'.

i agree that alcohol can cause damage and can be quite harmful however it is not an illegal substance, is not considered a 'drug' in the sense that other illicit drugs are considered, and given the current climate involving afl players and drug taking you post just appeared to try and fuel the fire a bit.

Deanox - I suggest you have a look at the names of most state and federal health departments agencies that deal with these issues. Most now call themselves something like 'alcohol and other drug' agencies.

I was perhaps being a tad inflammatory - but at no time did I suggest he was [censored] and high on other drugs. He was, as far as I know, just [censored]. The reason I spend most weekend nights at home.

Go Dees - please don't drive me to drink this year. One more can of Melbourne Bitter and I think I will be sick.

Deanox - I would suggest you don't cite wikipedia (I am spending the first few weeks of this semester drumming into my 1st/2nd/3rd yr students that I will mark them down if they cite that in their essays).

Worse than that though - I would suggest you avoid any reference to the US when it comes to dealing with drug issues. They are leading the war on drugs - have been since well before Nixon made Elvis a special agent!

Many of their allies are abandoning this approach - almost quicker than they are the war in Iraq. It has been a catastrophic failure - even worse than the attempt at alcohol prohibition.

To give you an example - current rates of new HIV transmissions among injecting drug users in the US are around 30% of all notifications. Here in Australia it is currently less than 1%. The reason - needle and syringe programs which US federal law bans the use of federal funding for.

Alcohol is a drug - a dangerous one that kills many more people than all the illicit drugs combined. Vested interests however mean that we are stuck with grog. Meanwhile the drug industry entrepreneurs (aka dealers) make billions - none of which goes into govt coffers.

Drugs are bad - the war on drugs is worse. But chocolate is nice and makes me happy - does that make me a 'druggie'?

you are correct RE wikipedia, but as a 5th year student i know it is as good a place as any to do some background reading first up without having to read through a whole pile of academics trying to prove to the world that they are important. if i was writing a paper i would have used appropriate references. given i was replying to a post on 'www.demonland.com' wikipedia is good enough.

alcohol is a drug. but it is legal, its effects have been well studied. if used within reasonable limits is 'probably not going to kill you'. sorry i don't have a source on that one. alcoholism will kill you. binge drinking is a problem. but drinking too much coffee has its side affects also.

im not sure where you are going with that line about chocolate. are you trying to claim that ethanol is a drug, but caffine isnt? the majority of people who go out on the weekend and 'get smashed' function all week at work without alcohol. people who drink coffee often need that fix before they can work properly. which one seems more drug like?

you are correct RE wikipedia, but as a 5th year student i know it is as good a place as any to do some background reading first up without having to read through a whole pile of academics trying to prove to the world that they are important. if i was writing a paper i would have used appropriate references. given i was replying to a post on 'www.demonland.com' wikipedia is good enough.

alcohol is a drug. but it is legal, its effects have been well studied. if used within reasonable limits is 'probably not going to kill you'. sorry i don't have a source on that one. alcoholism will kill you. binge drinking is a problem. but drinking too much coffee has its side affects also.

im not sure where you are going with that line about chocolate. are you trying to claim that ethanol is a drug, but caffine isnt? the majority of people who go out on the weekend and 'get smashed' function all week at work without alcohol. people who drink coffee often need that fix before they can work properly. which one seems more drug like?

Ox - I was just trying to point out the double standards - as we know chocolate contains caffeine (a drug) - and one that I enjoy especially while the major stores are peddling it so aggresively atm.

The fact that alcohol is legal yet is known to kill many people every year is what I was trying to highlight. How many people die from cannabis overdoses?

Dr Alex Wodak (one of the world's leading authorities on AOD issues) made a very impressive submission to Bronwyn Bishop's 'Winnable War on Drugs' inquiry last year about how cannabis should come under a similar tax regime as alcohol and tobacco and the revenue could be taken out of the pockets of the drug dealers and go towards helping people experiencing problems with cannabis (btw a small percentage of those that use the stuff). A compelling argument I thought. Bishop labelled him 'a drug industry elite' who was undermining her governments zero tolerance approach.

Prohibition does not work, we have evidence from the failed alcohol prohibition that is very clear. We need to look at alternative approaches.

Another example is the new crisis we face with the strong 'afghan brown' heroin that is now on the market in the bigger cities (not yet here in Tassie though). Howard claimed his tough on drugs approach had led to a fall in use of this drug. In reality they just switched to what was more readily available on the market - ice, speed and cocaine. Now the market has changed again and we are witnessing a new wave of heroin related deaths. Will we ever learn?

I still think Fev has brought the game into disrepute and should be investigated and suspended by the AFL as a serial offender. We need to take a zero toelrance approach to pi**heads.