Work / Alcohol / Drugs
(Top Posts - Social/Legal - 060107 to 060307)

Compilation of posts made on these
issues from 060107 to 60307:

- - -

Goodell endorses NFL Prohibition?

Not really. Just disassociating the NFL from
being tied to alchohol via "team functions"
or on "buses or flights", applicable to "players,
owners, coaches, and guests".

Not really sure why guests are required to par-
ticipate in the prohibition, but whatever, once
an individual decides to play 'God' and dictate
behavior, difficult for him to stop, I suppose.

Anyway, back to prohibition, no, the NFL still
endorses alcohol promotion via its TV ads in
which the promotion of beer is one of its big-
gest and most profitable enterprises (indirectly,
as the revenue goes to the networks which pay
the NFL for the broadcasts), and it still indir-
ectly endorses the use of a wide variety of
drugs to deal with the many maladies caused
by the nature of the sport, so long as their
usage is within the parameters of doctor en-
dorsed prescriptions.

- - -
NFL bans alcohol for team functions, flights

May 31, 2007
CBS wire reports
- - -

- - -

In reply to a poster who wrote:

> It is a smart move. No reason to have alcohol
> at such events related to the business and there
> is no reason players cannot drink outside of
> business.

Whatever, why a flight home from a game
is considered a 'business event' and why
alcohol is banned on such flights, as if
such banning is somehow commendable,
as if by putting a smiley face on a preten-
tious policy of soberholicism as beauteous
babes promote the abundant consumption
of the substances by its fans, while the sale
of said products goes right towards the
bottom line of the owners, both hyper-
critical and disingenuous.

Oh, and by the way, I wonder how many 
NFL owners promote alcohol-free zones
in their owner suites during football games.
Seems to me, they think that by sterilizing
their airflights, they can act like they are
promoting sobriety for the 'good' of the
players, when in actuality, it's all an act,
a shallow, pitiful display of "do what I say,
not what I do".

Oh, and I wonder how many owners even
bother to fly on their team planes. Probably,
most of them simply climb aboard their pri-
vate jets and do whatever they want outside
the public spotlight.

<and, make no mistake, playing in every
fan's and player's heads is a constant
stream of oft-times sex charged, enter-
taining, and seductive solicitations to
imbibe, sponsored by, and profiting by,
indirectly, that hypercritical pretentious
gang of "do what I say, not what I do"
NFL owners>

- - -

In reply to a poster who wrote:

> It is not just that fact though. The NFL
> and most pro sports have a history of
> chemical and alcohol abuses by their 
> employees. So this is a safe move by
> the NFL.

Silly, hypycritical, pretentious, presumptious,
and will have, for all practical purposes, no
impact on NFL players deciding whether to
imbibe, how much to imbibe, whether to 'do
illegal drugs', how much illegal drugs to do,
whether to use substances prescribed or not
prescribed in excess, or not.

As for 'guests', not sure why the NFL thinks
it's 'right' to prohibit their alcohol consumption,
but whatever, as I stated previously, since
Goodell is trying to act as if dictating behavior
is his job, it's obvious that the power has gone
to his head.

The number one reason for alcohol consumption

a) life's a bitch, and then you die
b) escape
c) fun
d) social
e) to get a buzz
f) pleasure
g) lowering of social barriers
h) it *should* be your right to con-
   sume anything -if- you are aware
   of the risks and consequences,
   and -if- your consumption does
   not unacceptably risk the safety
   of others

By the way, alcohol prohibition bombed and
was tossed out, after much misery and suffer-
ing and rejection by the American public, said
tossing out led by a group of religious women
who could clearly see that prohibition was
causing far more harm than good.

Would that a group of citizens, in the modern
day, clearly see that drug prohibition, the denial
of rights referenced above, the anti-constitutional
denial of the right to the "pursuit of happiness",
the propagandistic demonization of  any substance
that politicians get off on banning regardless of
its positive influences, that all that, not to mention
the millions whose lives have been demeaned and
harmed by arrests and imprisonments, all that and
more marks drug prohibition as one of the biggest
f*ckups in American history, one that we should
toss out ...

... and replace with knowledge of 1) positives,
2) risks, and 3) consequences of usage of sub-
stances  formerly *politically* banned mostly for
the sake of votes by projecting an image of it be-
ing a demon.

Instead, if properly distributed and regulated, to
adults, now illegal drugs offer far more in the way
of positives and far less in the way of risks than
does the current out-dated, anachonistic, insane
drug war on the American people!

- - -
Reference: War on Drugs
- - -

Oh, the U.S., promoter of 'peace' and
'prosperity' in the world, seems to be
into waging war, what with its War on
Drugs which is actually a Drug War on
the American people, its War on Terror-
ism which turned out to be a War on the
Taleban followed by a War on Iraq fol-
lowed by a War on What's Left of Iraq.

Meanwhile, U.S. illegl drug usage is
among the highest in the world, and
the most liberal drug usage country
in the world, the Netherlands, as far
**less** drug usage.

Drug War Facts : The Netherlands and
the United States: A Comparison

- - -

In reply to a poster who wrote:

> ... my work has the right to say "you may
> not consume this during business ventures,
> or we will let you go and you can find a
> company that will let you."

A right stolen is a right no more.

> Freedom is a multi way street and that includes
> allowing a business owner the right to run his
> business.

<rant warning>

You've been corrupted by the slavery mindset
at play in the western world ever since Roman
authoritarians ruled. That corruption, transferred
to the christian authorities and to kings and as-
sorted monarchs for the greater part of close
to 2,000 years, now at play in America.

Oh sure, it once was used to invoke dominance
over the latest group to enter the country, at
worst to invoke dominance over slaves, but
now ...

... It's used to endorse authoritarianism over
the lives and fates of every citizen and non-
citizen at work in this country.

Work harder, work longer, work without pay,
work while at home, work on-call 24 hours
a day, work-work-work, and what do we gain
from all this work?

Most of us, the overwhelming majority, get
the opportunity to be tossed on the street
at the whim of some of the richest and
most self-centered group of masochists
the world has ever seen. Does it matter
how hard you work? Hell no, all that mat-
ters to them is their bottom line, ** any-
thing to further the welfare of the rich is
their motto **, and you are but one of
many in this country who have been fooled
into blindly following whatever the rich dic-
tate to you.

War on drugs? War on the American peo-
ple is actually what's happening.

Freedom and liberty? War on the American
people is actually what's happening.

Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of hap-
piness? The right to work at piteously low
pay, with no rights whatsoever spare that
of the protection against discrimination on
the basis of sex, race, or religion, see how
far that gets you when some rich goon de-
cides he can lower his cost by hiring some
Indians (natives of India) to work at one-
fifth of what you were making.

America, land of the free and home of the
brave? No, America, land of the formerly
free and home of the victims of the enrich-
ment of the upper class at the cost of Amer-
ican freedom, liberty, and right to choose.

Meanwhile ...

Sure, in America, Goodell can get away
with any insanity that doesn't violate the
few protections we have, and after all, since
the NFL Players Union has also been cor-
rupted by the massive amount of money
flowing into NFL coffers (reminder, much
of which comes from promotion of alcohol
consumption), it tends to say "how high"
when the NFL says "jump".

Whatever. I, for one, am sick and tired of
being forced to abandon my freedom and
liberty and enslave myself to authoritarian
masters whose sole primary and funda-
mental goal, by far, is the welfare and power
garned by them and their kind, the richest
in America, no matter the cost to the over-
whelming majority of Americans forced to
subject themselves to slavery in order to

<end rant>

- - -

In reply to a poster who wrote:

>You don't have the right to do whatever you
> want with someones business though.

Corporations don't belong to 'someone', and
point in fact, are beholden to the gang men-
tioned in the previous post, you know, the
upper 10% of the richest people on the planet,
for the most part.

And your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness don't disappear, logically, by
the fact that in this society, you are forced to
enslave yourself to survive. Surely, point in
fact, the rich ensure that their rights to en-
slave you are protected, but their right to
enslave you is neither moral nor defensible
by their endeavor to further their own wel-
fare no matter the costs to their employees.

> Ahh, okay... so true freedom is getting a job
> and then not following the rules of that job?

You have the right to work for the most fascist
outfit you can manage to come up with. Not
sure where that list exists. I know I've worked
for quite a large number, both corporations and
sole proprietorships, but mostly corporations,
who invoked the "we can screw you if we feel
like it, and you can't to a damn thing about it"
rule that's in place at most workplaces and
locales in this country.

> Please, in any animal kingdom there are rules.
> There are things you do, things you don't do, |
> things that will get you killed, things that are
> socially acceptable, things that aren't socially
> acceptable, things that will keep you alive. etc.
> Last but not least, no matter if you like it or not,
> majority rule. If 80% of a group wants you to
> live a certain way then they can force that.
> Nothing can stop that barring outright rebellion |
> and an outrage to make people think differently.

Think differently, or better yet, THINK,
don't blindly follow the way things are
simply because slavery has been the
way things are for so long for so many.


A correction to one part you, perhaps, did
not read. I said "... Most of us, the over-
whelming majority, get the opportunity to
be tossed on the street at the whim of
some of the richest and most self-cen-
tered group of masochists the world has
ever seen. ..."

"Masochists", incorrect, I should have said
"sadistic implementers of masochism for
their own pleasure".

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and in
America, having granted as close to abso-
lute power as has ever existed in American
history to the current crop of rich 'elites', it's
no wonder that human affairs are so bad for
so many so often.

The American dream, now?

Hanging on for dear life, as disposable trash
to be used by the rich for whatever they want,
and keep our mouths shut, and follow, just
follow baby, and don't dare complain on the
way, 'cause the rich have never had it better,
and to hell with the poor and the middle class
and to whomever wants to improve their lot
in life. They'll do so, only if lucky, and only if
they're willing to kiss rich butt and not rock
the boat the rich rode in on, and own.

- - -

In reply to a poster who wrote:

> Corporations do belong to someone or a
> group of people. You may not like that fact
> but they are either the ones who started the
> organization or were trusted enough to have
> it sold or handed down to them. Your Utopia
> does not require rich men though right? So
> why are you living by rich men? You should
>have no problem organizing your own shin dig.

Look up the stats on poverty, the middle class,
and the wealthy, and how the rich have gotten
richer, the poor have gotten poorer, and the
middle class have barely gotten by, thus far.
All this under Bush's leadership, and as has
always been typical of Republicans, when they
lead, most of the country bleeds, and a signifi-
cantly large percentage of the rich, most of
who feed off the Republican welfare for the
rich programs, are delighted (not all).

> Life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness
> do not mean you have a right to have it
> handed to you. PURSUIT.

What does the right to life mean, to you?

The government can't kill you, legally, and
no one else can, legally, unless in self-
defense, or via, in the case of the state,
the state murder policy (i.e., capital pun-
ishment) that most  of the western world
has ceased practicing. The government,
if sincere about the right to life, can't let
you die, even if you're unable to afford
food or health care.

Liberty, if the government is sincere about
that, they can't lock you up for your use of
substances, unless your use harms others
or places unreasonable risk on harming

The pursuit of happiness, likewise, if the
government is sincere about that, they
can't deprive you of your liberty merely
because your pursuit isn't on their list of
pursuits allowable in the particular Utopia
those in power are espousing, so long
as your use doesn't harm or cause un-
reasonable risk to others. 

> I am not getting into a capitalism vs
> communism debate with you.

Jesus of the New Testament was a socialist.
Aren't you, or do you oppose the New Testa-
ment stories where he fed the masses, helped
the weak and sick and those in need, called
out to love your fellow men?

Do you think our government is doing enough
to help those apart from the wealthy, -or- do
you think the government could do better, -if-
only an inspirational and visionary JFK-like
leader came on the scene?

Perhaps Barak Obama can pull it off. Maybe
Al Gore can make a comeback. You have to
admire the leadership he's provided on alert-
ing us all to the dangers of global warming.
Hillary Clinton? Something about her just
doesn't register with me, but hey, it's a long
campaign, so ... still, the one thing that most
concerned me about Bill Clinton's stint in
office was *not* his lying, nor his sexual
shenanigans, but instead, it was his aband-
onment of so many basic liberal values, and
his wife appears to be of that same ilk.

- - -