Can the Hawks release Miles Smokey Plumlee?

[AHF]

Voiding is not realistic here guys.  Just in case anyone is getting legit excited at the idea.  Won't happen over this.

[bleachkit]

9 hours ago, Vol4ever said:

What about the kids?   Is that not the most important factor?   

Should we go back to prohibition because we don't want teens to drink? If you make the "what about the kids" argument, you are conceding drugs should be legal for adults.

[Vol4ever]

10 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

Should we go back to prohibition because we don't want teens to drink? If you make the "what about the kids" argument, you are conceding drugs should be legal for adults.

You are deflecting.  Drugs are bad for kids, and adults using drugs in front of kids is bad.  No, just should not be legal period.

[bleachkit]

Just now, Vol4ever said:

You are deflecting.  Drugs are bad for kids, and adults using drugs in front of kids is bad.  No, just should not be legal period.

It's sounds like your the one who is deflecting. Stop making the perfect the enemy of the good. The cost of drug prohibition far outweighs the downsides of legalization. Drugs are going to exist no matter what. At least when they are legalized they can be taxed and regulated to reduce harm. Your "drugs are bad" is laughably simplistic, and clearly you are not well versed on the issue.

[AHF]

Guys - please take the debate over regulation of drugs to the politics board.  It is too deep and divisive a subject to get into in Homecourt.

[thecampster]

On 9/5/2017 at 9:30 PM, LucastheThird said:

Waiting on @thecampster to come through with the same hate he gave Mike Scott

Only 2 issues with this.

1. I was a serious fan of Scott.

2. Scott was caught with way more than just a joint.

 

And with that said, I was for releasing Plumlee before this.  I couldn't care less about him either way.

[thecampster]

Piling on...if I offered anyone on this board a $6 million per year job with the only stipulation being you have to give up pot, how many of you would be like...hell no?  Or better yet, if any of you had that job, how many of you would risk it by trying to smoke on the down low? Anyone that does is a moron.

[gurpilo]

Considering guys like Hawes or Zeller are free agents now I think we should release Plumlee and take a chance on Zeller that could develop in a valuabke player.

[LucastheThird]

On 9/8/2017 at 3:20 PM, thecampster said:

Only 2 issues with this.

1. I was a serious fan of Scott.

2. Scott was caught with way more than just a joint.

 

And with that said, I was for releasing Plumlee before this.  I couldn't care less about him either way.

It was said in fun. Not trying to start anything with you. I agree about giving up drugs, they're illegal anyway

[BrazilianHawk]

On 06/09/2017 at 0:32 AM, bleachkit said:

Wow, not to get too political but I'm disappointed you guys apparently support our governments longstanding drug prohibition. The war on drugs has been an unmitigated disaster from its inception. It increases crime by creating a black market, it funds overseas drug cartels, it prevents ways to reduce harm, it's oppressive and draconian.The whole notion that using a chemical for the purpose of altering mood or consciousness is criminal or immoral is absurd, and empirically false based on cross referencing evolutionary biology and historical norms. The war on drugs will one day be dumped on the trash heap of history along with slavery, jim crow, prohibition, and other forms of statist oppression.  Plumlee has a right to consume any chemical he sees fit, his body belongs to him and him alone. Anything else is tyranny.

Well that's OK. I also agree he has the right to do drugs. But, if he wants to do that, then he shouldn't join a league that stricly prohibits the use of such substances.

 

[thecampster]

On 9/5/2017 at 11:32 PM, bleachkit said:

Wow, not to get too political but I'm disappointed you guys apparently support our governments longstanding drug prohibition. The war on drugs has been an unmitigated disaster from its inception. It increases crime by creating a black market, it funds overseas drug cartels, it prevents ways to reduce harm, it's oppressive and draconian.The whole notion that using a chemical for the purpose of altering mood or consciousness is criminal or immoral is absurd, and empirically false based on cross referencing evolutionary biology and historical norms. The war on drugs will one day be dumped on the trash heap of history along with slavery, jim crow, prohibition, and other forms of statist oppression.  Plumlee has a right to consume any chemical he sees fit, his body belongs to him and him alone. Anything else is tyranny.

I couldn't disagree more. There is a very, very clear problem with your "my body, my right" argument.  Plumlee was engaged in the public arena. He was out and about with drugs.  He was in the public square. Using your logic, a couple could have sex on a park bench in the middle of the day. It is their body, their right. A person owning an automobile could drive 150 mph on 285...after all, it is his car, his own life he takes into his hands. The reason people do drugs, drink, etc is that the substances have a mood/body/state altering effect. They change awareness, judgement and intention.  When you do these things in the public square, you affect more than yourself.  Even further, the act of buying drugs supports an underground industry filled with people who are subverting the law of the land.  We can argue whether or not it should be illegal, but the fact is it is currently illegal and operating in an illegal fashion supports those operating within the illegal industry....ie giving power to the criminals that sell drugs. The act of buying (legal or otherwise) supports the industry and normalizes the behavior in society, moving the needle on acceptable behavior farther toward more dangerous drugs and other behaviors.  Laws are a reflection of the attitude of society. He most certainly doesn't have the right legally (well except in Colorado and Washington) and neither does he have that right contractually, nor via the social contract.

Edited September 22, 2017 by thecampster

[AHF]

On 9/7/2017 at 10:23 AM, AHF said:

Guys - please take the debate over regulation of drugs to the politics board.  It is too deep and divisive a subject to get into in Homecourt.

B4 the lock.

[thecampster]

16 hours ago, AHF said:

B4 the lock.

Actually its less political and team related so its relevant here.

 

[AHF]

3 hours ago, thecampster said:

Actually its less political and team related so its relevant here.

 

There is nothing team related in there.  Nothing in that debate relates to the slap on the wrist he will get under the CBA.  Take it to the political board unless you are actually focused on the NBA.

[bleachkit]

On 9/22/2017 at 5:45 PM, thecampster said:

I couldn't disagree more. There is a very, very clear problem with your "my body, my right" argument.  Plumlee was engaged in the public arena. He was out and about with drugs.  He was in the public square. Using your logic, a couple could have sex on a park bench in the middle of the day. It is their body, their right. A person owning an automobile could drive 150 mph on 285...after all, it is his car, his own life he takes into his hands. The reason people do drugs, drink, etc is that the substances have a mood/body/state altering effect. They change awareness, judgement and intention.  When you do these things in the public square, you affect more than yourself.  Even further, the act of buying drugs supports an underground industry filled with people who are subverting the law of the land.  We can argue whether or not it should be illegal, but the fact is it is currently illegal and operating in an illegal fashion supports those operating within the illegal industry....ie giving power to the criminals that sell drugs. The act of buying (legal or otherwise) supports the industry and normalizes the behavior in society, moving the needle on acceptable behavior farther toward more dangerous drugs and other behaviors.  Laws are a reflection of the attitude of society. He most certainly doesn't have the right legally (well except in Colorado and Washington) and neither does he have that right contractually, nor via the social contract.

Nice straw man arguments there. First, lets look at your speeding metaphor. According to the logic of drug prohibitionists such as yourself, we should outlaw all cars because people could speed in them. Your sex argument, so should we outlaw all sex because people might have sex in public? No we would never do that. Nor should we do that with drugs. You regulate them to reduce harm, you have laws about where and how they can be used, sure. But to outright criminalize is wrong, and misguided. There is no upside to punitive drug laws, literally none. The black market you speak of only exists due to them being illegal. You might want to study up on why alcohol prohibition was a failure, it created an an entire criminal underworld buoyed by the completely unnecessary criminalization of alcohol. The economic forces behind drug prohibition are exactly the same, and we have nearly 40+ years of empirical evidence showing its futility.

[lethalweapon3]

Apparently, the consensus answer to the thread question is 'NO'; we'll all just have to Bear with Smokey for as long as he's here. Choose your coping substances carefully!

~lw3