Ben Cousins

[Psyber]

I agree with what you say above Quichey. But we do have to face the reality that some people are simply nasty and selfish and can't be changed, either because the behaviour has been too entrenched for too long, or because there is a genetic factor.
In my public service days I also had to deal with a few sociopaths, and I think that is a fault in the wiring rather than the upbringing and training.

But, only a very tiny portion of the population could be 100% labelled as such.

Possibly, I don't have any figures, but I suspect it is a small percentage rather than "a very tiny portion" as you suggest.
My impression from my dealing with the public daily in my work is that the percentage is increasing slowly but steadily too - perhaps as a result of a gradual cultural shift towards self-interest as a life style??

[Q.]

I agree with what you say above Quichey. But we do have to face the reality that some people are simply nasty and selfish and can't be changed, either because the behaviour has been too entrenched for too long, or because there is a genetic factor.
In my public service days I also had to deal with a few sociopaths, and I think that is a fault in the wiring rather than the upbringing and training.

But, only a very tiny portion of the population could be 100% labelled as such.

Possibly, I don't have any figures, but I suspect it is a small percentage rather than "a very tiny portion" as you suggest.
My impression from my dealing with the public daily in my work is that the percentage is increasing slowly but steadily too - perhaps as a result of a gradual cultural shift towards self-interest as a life style??

If I'm feeling pessimistic I'll agree with your last sentence, but when I'm feeling optimistic I tend to believe that society is tapping into a selfless conscience. It's all speculation and anecdotes at the moment Psyber, who really knows, eh?

[Psyber]

True..

[PitBull]

Drug laws in Australia are to soft thank himself lucky hes not in Malaysia were he could face jail for 20 years. Hes lucky his involved in a great team sport were you play for your guernsey and your mates who will be there for him.
Play the drug game you will loose.
Ben Cousins should be used as an example ban him or anyone else for life,it is a small punishment compared to the affects that are left on his family and friends and the crime dugs lead to.

[Q.]

Yes, they are far too soft. Let's ban beer and wines and spirits and cigarrettes. Then we can ban porno. Hell, we'll ban anything remotely depicting anything of a sexual nature. Then we can ban anything that's violent, on television or otherwise, yep, sorry, footy is too violent, ban it. Instead of having any autonomy whatsoever, you can just work for 16 hours a day, you don't need choices, the government makes them for you now.

[Adelaide Hawk]

Yes, they are far too soft. Let's ban beer and wines and spirits and cigarrettes. Then we can ban porno. Hell, we'll ban anything remotely depicting anything of a sexual nature. Then we can ban anything that's violent, on television or otherwise, yep, sorry, footy is too violent, ban it. Instead of having any autonomy whatsoever, you can just work for 16 hours a day, you don't need choices, the government makes them for you now.

Ben Cousins made a good choice.

[Q.]

I note your sarcasm

He did make some poor choices given the nature of his profile and his occupation. He made choices that currently aren't tolerated for a person in his position and for that he will have to cop the ramifications on the chin.

Footballer's aren't the sharpest knives on the block, there'll always be a few that forget they aren't afforded the same level of privacy as you or I.

[JAS]

Sorry Dog_ger but no way..the guy deserves nothing...especially after that shaving/waxing stunt...yeh that really sent out the right message of remorse and a willingness to toe the line.

If I'd ever been moronic enough to try illegal drugs and got caught I'd have been immediately kicked out of my career without benefits, reference or any right of appeal...zero tolerance...should be brought into every workplace imo. Doesn't stop it completely...nothing ever will cos there will always be dh's...but it makes a lot of people think twice.

Regards
JAS

I don't want to detract too much from the core argument of this thread, but that isn't a rational point of view. It is the basic right of an individual to have self-determination and what they do out of hours is nobody's business.

If you call for zero tolerance, how about zero tolerance to all drugs, that includes alcohol and nicotene. Wonder how many people will be left at your workplace then?

If alcohol and nicotine were illegal then I'm pretty sure there would have been zero tolerance of them too. I'm afraid the 'what I do outside of work is nobody elses business' arguement doesn't always apply. My actions outside work could have relevance to my career and, if necessary, could be scrutinised at will by my employers...but you accept that when you work for the military or government.

I believe that in Cousins case his actions outside work are also relevant. He chose a career that would knowingly put him in the spotlight and subject him to a certain amount of public/media scrutiny. The same applies to any sportsperson the same way it does to actors and popstars. You can't flaunt yourself in front of the cameras etc when it suits you and then expect the cleb obsessed public who lap up every article or appearance to back off so you can indulge your hedonistic lifestyle in private. IMHO if he can't accept responsability for the way he represents his sport on and off field and set an example to other players and his army of young fans then he's in the wrong job. And just to be clear it's not only him...I say the same about anyone who behaves in a similar way...George Best, Gazza, Kate Moss, her DH ex etc etc etc.

Regards
JAS

Of course our actions outside of work could impact on our actual work. My heavy drinking could impact on my performance. Mrs Y's poor diet could impact, Mr X's marital tension could impact, Mr Z staying up all night playing World of Warcraft could impact. These are all life choices that may or may not impact on our work. But let us be judged on how we actually perform at work regardless of what we do outside of it.

JAS, I went to task over your original statement of blanket testing in every workplace. Besides its implications on morale in the workplace, I don't see us solely as a commodity for profit. We aren't robots, most of us don't live to work.

Obviously the Cousin's saga throws a heap of other factors into the mix, some of which you have mentioned. We could easily turn this into a discussion about the bloodthirsty nature of tabloid media vs the vapid, attention-seeking celebrity culture.

Quichey the word you failled to highlight in my posts is 'illegal'. I'm talking about zero tolerance for the use of illegal drugs etc. Unless of course I'm mistaken and the stuff he was using is all legal and above board in Australia. Even if it is legal I still believe that his choice to put himself in the spotlight means he has to consider how he can and probably will influence young people in their life choices...and it does happen...look at the whole 'size 0' skinny models thing...there's a huge increase in young girls with eating disorders...and sadly that's a legal one.

As for the impact testing would have on morale...I think once people are used to the idea it would have no impact at all...unless you're one of the guilty ones...afterall many work places hace CCTV cameras watching the workers these days and other methods of keeping tabs on what they do...does that effect morale...probably not.

An occasional Government advertising campaign and a slap on the wrists from the courts hasn't and won't make any difference to illegal drug use and, as has been seen with binge drinking, health warnings are ignored but maybe if the consequences where more direct to the individual...ie you will lose your job if caught then people might just think again...but that would have to apply to everyone and not include exceptions just because someone is a 'media darling'.

I believe that over here there are many companies that use random drug testing now... http://www.drug-aware.com/random-drug-testing.htm

Regards
JAS

[Q.]

Quichey the word you failled to highlight in my posts is 'illegal'. I'm talking about zero tolerance for the use of illegal drugs etc. Unless of course I'm mistaken and the stuff he was using is all legal and above board in Australia. Even if it is legal I still believe that his choice to put himself in the spotlight means he has to consider how he can and probably will influence young people in their life choices...and it does happen...look at the whole 'size 0' skinny models thing...there's a huge increase in young girls with eating disorders...and sadly that's a legal one.

As for the impact testing would have on morale...I think once people are used to the idea it would have no impact at all...unless you're one of the guilty ones...afterall many work places hace CCTV cameras watching the workers these days and other methods of keeping tabs on what they do...does that effect morale...probably not.

An occasional Government advertising campaign and a slap on the wrists from the courts hasn't and won't make any difference to illegal drug use and, as has been seen with binge drinking, health warnings are ignored but maybe if the consequences where more direct to the individual...ie you will lose your job if caught then people might just think again...but that would have to apply to everyone and not include exceptions just because someone is a 'media darling'.

I believe that over here there are many companies that use random drug testing now... http://www.drug-aware.com/random-drug-testing.htm

Regards
JAS

A hardline, zero tolerance approach to drugs has been shown to have no effect on decreasing use. Even in countries where you get ridiculous jail terms for minor possession there is still no decrease in use, instead you are locking up countless innocent people and overpopulating the jails. In fact the zero tolerance approach to drug use has been shown to have negative consequences not least of all through the spreading of misinformation, complete lack of constructive and useful drug education, and absolutely no quality control. Besides this, it is a fundamental flaw of the State to flaunt such hypocrisy by shoving some types of drugs down society's throats yet persecuting those who use other types. It is laughable and is why more and more people don't tow the zero tolerance line.

People these days have no trouble exercising their right to self-determination in this regard, however, it just carries with it more risk (not that it stops people) than if we were to progress to a harm-minimisation policy. There's drug testing in the AFL, still doesn't stop players from using. I don't exactly think that in today's current climate Cousins should necessarily have exceptions, but I can't help but think that if attitudes were different, situations wouldn't have been swept under the carpet early on, blind eyes wouldn't have been turned, and he'd be playing AFL next year.

And just for the record, I would pass a piss test, but out of principle I still wouldn't take one.

[Psyber]

I'm inclined to think the community should not, in fairness, pick up any extra cost of living and health care for, and any destructive behaviour to public property by, those who make bad "self-determination" decisions though. Perhaps those who make those choices should be required to be responsible for them and take out insurance to cover the extra risk they choose to take.

Medicare Australia, for example, could be privatised and subsidised at a basic level, and those making certain choices could pay a premium for "additional risk" on an actuarial basis?
That premium would in effect be "self-determined"!

[Q.]

Fair enough, but we already pick up the hefty tab for the futile War on Drugs. Besides, money can be made from legalisation to counter said costs.

[Psyber]

Fair enough, but we already pick up the hefty tab for the futile War on Drugs. Besides, money can be made from legalisation to counter said costs.

A former patient of mine used to claim he had the answer to Australia's economy - a government run Heroin dispensing machine next to the government run Pokie on every major street corner!

[Q.]

Fair enough, but we already pick up the hefty tab for the futile War on Drugs. Besides, money can be made from legalisation to counter said costs.

A former patient of mine used to claim he had the answer to Australia's economy - a government run Heroin dispensing machine next to the government run Pokie on every major street corner!

Heroin is passé. These days it would be a methamphetamine vending machine

[catchit]

Drug laws in Australia are to soft thank himself lucky hes not in Malaysia were he could face jail for 20 years. Hes lucky his involved in a great team sport were you play for your guernsey and your mates who will be there for him.
Play the drug game you will loose.
Ben Cousins should be used as an example ban him or anyone else for life,it is a small punishment compared to the affects that are left on his family and friends and the crime dugs lead to.

what about the blokes who have tested positive and have 2 strikes.. lets not forget ben has never been tested positive.. so get off your HIGH horse..

[Adelaide Hawk]

Drug laws in Australia are to soft thank himself lucky hes not in Malaysia were he could face jail for 20 years. Hes lucky his involved in a great team sport were you play for your guernsey and your mates who will be there for him.
Play the drug game you will loose.
Ben Cousins should be used as an example ban him or anyone else for life,it is a small punishment compared to the affects that are left on his family and friends and the crime dugs lead to.

what about the blokes who have tested positive and have 2 strikes.. lets not forget ben has never been tested positive.. so get off your HIGH horse..

Two entirely different issues. The players on 1 or 2 strikes haven't been to rehabilitation centres for drug addiction. Don't confuse the issues here. There are immense differences between use and abuse.

And I grow tired of asking this question: "How can a confessed drug addict never test positive to a drug test"? I never get a satisfactory answer to that one.

[Q.]

Two entirely different issues. The players on 1 or 2 strikes haven't been to rehabilitation centres for drug addiction. Don't confuse the issues here. There are immense differences between use and abuse.

And I grow tired of asking this question: "How can a confessed drug addict never test positive to a drug test"? I never get a satisfactory answer to that one.

We'll never know for sure, but it can really only be one of two answers. Either he was very lucky, or he had help skipping or rigging his testing.

[Barto]

At least the war on drugs is over. The drugs won.

As reported in the Messenger, none of the SANFL clubs want Cousins. I'd have him in my team, there's worse idiots getting around and he made the fatal mistake of admitting his problems.

[SimonH]

And I grow tired of asking this question: "How can a confessed drug addict never test positive to a drug test"? I never get a satisfactory answer to that one.

We'll never know for sure, but it can really only be one of two answers. Either he was very lucky, or he had help skipping or rigging his testing.

No luck involved. Story last year (maybe late 2006) where Michael O'Loughlin stated that he had never been tested in over a decade at the top level.

Which in turn tells me that the guys on 2 strikes are more than just casual, occasional users, unless they're so unlucky they should buy a reverse-lottery-ticket and stay well away from thunderstorms lest they be struck by lightning.

[Q.]

And I grow tired of asking this question: "How can a confessed drug addict never test positive to a drug test"? I never get a satisfactory answer to that one.

We'll never know for sure, but it can really only be one of two answers. Either he was very lucky, or he had help skipping or rigging his testing.

No luck involved. Story last year (maybe late 2006) where Michael O'Loughlin stated that he had never been tested in over a decade at the top level.

Which in turn tells me that the guys on 2 strikes are more than just casual, occasional users, unless they're so unlucky they should buy a reverse-lottery-ticket and stay well away from thunderstorms lest they be struck by lightning.

I reckon protocols may have changed in very recent years though, don't know for sure though.

[saveyourlegs]

Drug laws in Australia are to soft thank himself lucky hes not in Malaysia were he could face jail for 20 years. Hes lucky his involved in a great team sport were you play for your guernsey and your mates who will be there for him.
Play the drug game you will loose.
Ben Cousins should be used as an example ban him or anyone else for life,it is a small punishment compared to the affects that are left on his family and friends and the crime dugs lead to.

what about the blokes who have tested positive and have 2 strikes.. lets not forget ben has never been tested positive.. so get off your HIGH horse..

Two entirely different issues. The players on 1 or 2 strikes haven't been to rehabilitation centres for drug addiction. Don't confuse the issues here. There are immense differences between use and abuse.

And I grow tired of asking this question: "How can a confessed drug addict never test positive to a drug test"? I never get a satisfactory answer to that one.

Two entirely different issues? if one person is taking drugs and another person is taking drugs,i reckon its called taking drugs .. maybe the people on 2 strikes should be put into rehab so they dont get to a 3rd strike.. he does the right thing and admitts he has a prob and now he wont play again .. what sort of message does that send other people who are on it?