Two Zags Arrested on Drug Charges

[Tod]

I agree on Prohibition and some of it may be hypocritical. So, shall we all just obey the laws we pick and chose? There are many laws you could break and make some arguement no one else was harmed. Would you drive a car on shrooms? I doubt it. I

You mentioned that you may be fine driving 85, so I guess you can pick and choose which laws you follow, but others can't?

Meth and Heroin, maybe, should be illegal, and probably some other drugs. But pot and other soft drugs? No way.

We all pick and choose which laws we follow, some people more than others, and some broken laws have more severe penalties than others.

If there's no victim, there should be no crime (I'm not talking about DUI, etc., where there's a proven increase in the chance of creating a victim).

 

[Grizbacker1]

I agree on Prohibition and some of it may be hypocritical. So, shall we all just obey the laws we pick and chose? There are many laws you could break and make some arguement no one else was harmed. Would you drive a car on shrooms? I doubt it. I

You mentioned that you may be fine driving 85, so I guess you can pick and choose which laws you follow, but others can't?

Meth and Heroin, maybe, should be illegal, and probably some more drugs. But pot and other soft drugs? No way.

We all pick and choose which laws we follow, some people more than others, and some broken laws have more severe penalties than others.


If there's no victim, there should be no crime (I'm not talking about DUI, etc., where there's a proven increase in the chance of creating a victim).

I bet Mark Few will tell you there is more than one victim. Do you not think there is damage done to the Gonzaga program?

I made it very clear that if I chose to drive 85 I know I am breaking the law and that there is a penalty if caught. I didn't say anything that you imply and you know it. Try a comprehension class.

You think mushrooms are soft drugs? Do you even know why the Wa State Legislature classified them as Class B Felony if you are in possession of them? I suppose you think you can safely operate a motor vehicle on them.

They did it, they knew the penalty, now they can sit and watch their team play without them. They are going to miss at least a year, if Gonzaga doesn't cut them loose all together. Yeah, no one but them got hurt, yeah right. :lame:

 

[Tod]

I agree on Prohibition and some of it may be hypocritical. So, shall we all just obey the laws we pick and chose? There are many laws you could break and make some arguement no one else was harmed. Would you drive a car on shrooms? I doubt it. I

You mentioned that you may be fine driving 85, so I guess you can pick and choose which laws you follow, but others can't?

Meth and Heroin, maybe, should be illegal, and probably some more drugs. But pot and other soft drugs? No way.

We all pick and choose which laws we follow, some people more than others, and some broken laws have more severe penalties than others.


If there's no victim, there should be no crime (I'm not talking about DUI, etc., where there's a proven increase in the chance of creating a victim).

I bet Mark Few will tell you there is more than one victim. Do you not think there is damage done to the Gonzaga program?

I made it very clear that if I chose to drive 85 I know I am breaking the law and that there is a penalty if caught. I didn't say anything that you imply and you know it. Try a comprehension class.

You think mushrooms are soft drugs? Do you even know why the Wa State Legislature classified them as Class B Felony if you are in possession of them? I suppose you think you can safely operate a motor vehicle on them.

They did it, they knew the penalty, now they can sit and watch their team play without them. They are going to miss at least a year, if Gonzaga doesn't cut them loose all together. Yeah, no one but them got hurt, yeah right. :lame:

There is damage done to Gonzaga, but only because of the laws that were broken, not because any person was victimized.

I'm not sure about mushrooms, I don't know much about them. Like I said, certain drugs should be illegal, while others should not. Since I'm not an expert, I should not be the one to decide on which should be illegal. I only say that some should be illegal because of their destructiveness.

I made it clear in my last post, I think, that DUI without getting caught is still DUI, because it's proven that the likelihood of victimizing somebody is drastically increased, whether it's booze or drugs. So if you're caught DUI, you should pay for it, period.

My point is that soft drugs should not be illegal in most cases. I can understand airline pilots, military personnel, etc., being legally bound to abstain from such activities.

But my comprehension is fine. You stated that you chose to break the law, then asked if people should be allowed to pick and choose which laws they follow.

Apparently, the answer is yes.

You apparently believe that your choices are correct, and theirs are incorrect.

That's fine, for you.

I wonder if you'd still speed if you'd be suspended from your job or fired for a ticket. Or if your name would be all over the region/country, shaming you and your family.

 

[WyomingGrizFan]

Shrooms may be less toxic than asprin, but I defy you to try to perform your occupation after choking down some super mario caps.

That's one thing that I can't understand. Why do individuals call controlled substances 'recreational drugs' while at the same time they make reference to 'how one performs his occupation?' Is that how alcohol and tobacco has been regarded throughout the years? As what someone indulges on the job? But nowadays there are 'no smoking' establishments and one has to go outside, in most instances, in many states, in Federal Buildings, in order to satisfy a nicotine addiction that is stronger, reportedly, than heroin.
Is that the way of the previous generations that in order to do their 'job' that they had to takes a couple swigs to do so?

I suppose that if I ever smoke some 'pot' that I'am viewed as being 'stoned' for the rest of my life just as much as if I took a drink that I'am going to be drunk for the rest of my life as well. Some logic.

 

[Grizbacker1]

I agree on Prohibition and some of it may be hypocritical. So, shall we all just obey the laws we pick and chose? There are many laws you could break and make some arguement no one else was harmed. Would you drive a car on shrooms? I doubt it. I

You mentioned that you may be fine driving 85, so I guess you can pick and choose which laws you follow, but others can't?

Meth and Heroin, maybe, should be illegal, and probably some more drugs. But pot and other soft drugs? No way.

We all pick and choose which laws we follow, some people more than others, and some broken laws have more severe penalties than others.


If there's no victim, there should be no crime (I'm not talking about DUI, etc., where there's a proven increase in the chance of creating a victim).

I bet Mark Few will tell you there is more than one victim. Do you not think there is damage done to the Gonzaga program?

I made it very clear that if I chose to drive 85 I know I am breaking the law and that there is a penalty if caught. I didn't say anything that you imply and you know it. Try a comprehension class.

You think mushrooms are soft drugs? Do you even know why the Wa State Legislature classified them as Class B Felony if you are in possession of them? I suppose you think you can safely operate a motor vehicle on them.

They did it, they knew the penalty, now they can sit and watch their team play without them. They are going to miss at least a year, if Gonzaga doesn't cut them loose all together. Yeah, no one but them got hurt, yeah right. :lame:

There is damage done to Gonzaga, but only because of the laws that were broken, not because any person was victimized.

I'm not sure about mushrooms, I don't know much about them. Like I said, certain drugs should be illegal, while others should not. Since I'm not an expert, I should not be the one to decide on which should be illegal. I only say that some should be illegal because of their destructiveness.

I made it clear in my last post, I think, that DUI without getting caught is still DUI, because it's proven that the likelihood of victimizing somebody is drastically increased, whether it's booze or drugs. So if you're caught DUI, you should pay for it, period.

My point is that soft drugs should not be illegal in most cases. I can understand airline pilots, military personnel, etc., being legally bound to abstain from such activities.

But my comprehension is fine. You stated that you chose to break the law, then asked if people should be allowed to pick and choose which laws they follow.

Apparently, the answer is yes.

You apparently believe that your choices are correct, and theirs are incorrect.

That's fine, for you.

I wonder if you'd still speed if you'd be suspended from your job or fired for a ticket. Or if your name would be all over the region/country, shaming you and your family.

You missed again, so your comprehension isn't as sharp as you think it is. I will leave it at that, not worth the time to try and draw a picture. :thumb:

 

[griz217]

The thing that really makes me laugh is that Heytvelt has said in a few interviews this year that he has grown-up and matured a lot since last year because he has a baby now. If this is more mature, I wonder what he was like before.

Since this happened in Cheney, it makes me wonder how much stuff has been swept under the rug that has happened in Spokane. Since they are the only big time team in Spokeane, Zag players are treated like gods. In Cheney they are just a couple of college kids that with drugs. I have heard of the team going to house parties and looting the house before leaving.

The program is big time now and they are starting to get the garbage that comes with big time athletes.

 

[MM7CAT]

I can't believe Gonzaga recruited these kids knowing full well they were going to use drugs. They must be California recruits eh chitown?

 

[Grizbacker1]

The thing that really makes me laugh is that Heytvelt has said in a few interviews this year that he has grown-up and matured a lot since last year because he has a baby now. If this is more mature, I wonder what he was like before.

Since this happened in Cheney, it makes me wonder how much stuff has been swept under the rug that has happened in Spokane. Since they are the only big time team in Spokeane, Zag players are treated like gods. In Cheney they are just a couple of college kids that with drugs. I have heard of the team going to house parties and looting the house before leaving.

The program is big time now and they are starting to get the garbage that comes with big time athletes.

I have always viewed Heytvelt as an underachiever for the most part. As much ability as he has he doesn't seem mentally in the game a lot of the time. Maybe we know why now.

As for the program sweeping things under the table. I don't buy that. In a town where you are literally the only game in town I don't think they could cover anything up for long. I think this is more an isolated incident with Gonzaga than a trend. Mark Few isn't the type of guy who wants bad apples in his program. If you watched the Press Conference, and the game yesterday on Fox, Few was clearly shaken up about it. Credit the rest of the Zags for stepping up and winning a tough game.

 

[Bay Area Cat]

incredible, just incredible, that 70 years after the folly of prohibition, and 40 years after the summer of love, marijuana is still illegal, while nicotene and alchohol, medically proven to be far more dangerous and addictive, are not only legal, but promoted by the by the most sophisticated advertising appartus known to mankind--madison avenue.

as the stones said in satisfaction--"...but he can't be a man...cause he doesn't smoke... the same cigarettes as me."

if i'm mark few, here's my punishment:

nothing.

City,

In spite of your bleeding heart rants, it appears Mark Few disagrees with you completely, and it appears their actions did injure someone else.

"The program is shocked and extremely disappointed," coach Mark Few said at a news conference before leaving for Saturday night's game against Saint Mary's. "We regret the far-reaching effect this has on our program and the university."

The only damage that was done by their possession of drugs was because of the legal implications of the drugs being illegal. As city has noted, those particular drugs are, in reality, less dangerous to society than alcohol.

So no "real" harm was done to anyone by their actions. The only harm that resulted was the artificial harm caused by the stigma of their legal status.

These drugs laws, once again, cause more harm than they prevent by a huge, huge margin.

It's time for change.

 

[Grizbacker1]

incredible, just incredible, that 70 years after the folly of prohibition, and 40 years after the summer of love, marijuana is still illegal, while nicotene and alchohol, medically proven to be far more dangerous and addictive, are not only legal, but promoted by the by the most sophisticated advertising appartus known to mankind--madison avenue.

as the stones said in satisfaction--"...but he can't be a man...cause he doesn't smoke... the same cigarettes as me."

if i'm mark few, here's my punishment:

nothing.

City,

In spite of your bleeding heart rants, it appears Mark Few disagrees with you completely, and it appears their actions did injure someone else.

"The program is shocked and extremely disappointed," coach Mark Few said at a news conference before leaving for Saturday night's game against Saint Mary's. "We regret the far-reaching effect this has on our program and the university."

The only damage that was done by their possession of drugs was because of the legal implications of the drugs being illegal. As city has noted, those particular drugs are, in reality, less dangerous to society than alcohol.

So no "real" harm was done to anyone by their actions. The only harm that resulted was the artificial harm caused by the stigma of their legal status.

These drugs laws, once again, cause more harm than they prevent by a huge, huge margin.

It's time for change.

So you don't think it is any big deal what they did?

 

[Bay Area Cat]

So you don't think it is any big deal what they did?

In the context of them doing harm to anyone based on their actions? Absolutely not.

In the context of there being laws in place that make it a big deal from purely a legal perspective, yes they did something wrong.

So only in the artificial state of arbritrary laws did they do something wrong.

But then, apparently it is a "big deal" for people to bet egriz bucks on sporting events ... so we are all aware of exactly how artificial and silly "big deals" can be.

Isn't it amazing that if the pointless laws outlawing things were to go away, suddenly there would be a lot less scandals about people doing things wrong, and yet there would be no additional harm done to society? We as a society are a bit too hung up on pointless stigmas, and we like to punish people for violating our stigmas as opposed to actually doing harm to society in any real way.

 

[Grizbacker1]

So you don't think it is any big deal what they did?

In the context of them doing harm to anyone based on their actions? Absolutely not.

In the context of there being laws in place that make it a big deal from purely a legal perspective, yes they did something wrong.

So only in the artificial state of arbritrary laws did they do something wrong.

But then, apparently it is a "big deal" for people to bet egriz bucks on sporting events ... so we are all aware of exactly how artificial and silly "big deals" can be.

Isn't it amazing that if the pointless laws outlawing things were to go away, suddenly there would be a lot less scandals about people doing things wrong, and yet there would be no additional harm done to society? We as a society are a bit too hung up on pointless stigmas, and we like to punish people for violating our stigmas as opposed to actually doing harm to society in any real way.

What about the cunduct expected of the Gonzaga Students? Do you really believe Gonzaga is not harmed by their actions? I could be wrong, but when the msu students got busted I saw an awful lot of bobcat fans saying that msu was going to suffer as a result. Were they just saying that?

 

[Bay Area Cat]

Refer back to my post above.

They will suffer from it due only because of the STIGMA attached to it -- not because harm was done to anyone in any real way.

Remove the stigma, and everything is peachy.

 

[Grizbacker1]

Refer back to my post above.

They will suffer from it due only because of the STIGMA attached to it -- not because harm was done to anyone in any real way.

Remove the stigma, and everything is peachy.

Damage is damage. That is like saying well it wasn't his fault the car got run into, but the damage is still there. In Gonzaga's case, Basketball is a money pit to them. In the Thursday San Jose Mercury News there is a column suggesting that Gonzaga is/has lowered admissions standards to "assist" the BB program in their recruiting efforts. My point is I think Gonzaga feels this is very damaging. You already know I think MJ should be leaglized. The shrooms I don't know enough to make that call, but they must be a class B felony for a reason while MJ is a misdemeanor.

 

[Bay Area Cat]

Refer back to my post above.

They will suffer from it due only because of the STIGMA attached to it -- not because harm was done to anyone in any real way.

Remove the stigma, and everything is peachy.

Damage is damage. That is like saying well it wasn't his fault the car got run into, but the damage is still there. In Gonzaga's case, Basketball is a money pit to them. In the Thursday San Jose Mercury News there is a column suggesting that Gonzaga is/has lowered admissions standards to "assist" the BB program in their recruiting efforts. My point is I think Gonzaga feels this is very damaging. You already know I think MJ should be leaglized. The shrooms I don't know enough to make that call, but they must be a class B felony for a reason while MJ is a misdemeanor.

I agree that damage is damage. But the damage in this situation is all artificial and could be erased with simple change to our silly drug laws.

My understanding from people who know a lot more about it than I do is that mushrooms are essentially harmless (and are certainly less harmful than booze) ... but they are a felony thanks to the folks who hated hippies in the 60s and 70s.

If we strip back all of the societal stigmas we have been taught, isn't it just a little funny that people make a big deal out of two people having in their possession a plant and a fungi that have been created by nature?

Does that make God and/or Mother Nature criminals?

 

[Grizbacker1]

Refer back to my post above.

They will suffer from it due only because of the STIGMA attached to it -- not because harm was done to anyone in any real way.

Remove the stigma, and everything is peachy.

Damage is damage. That is like saying well it wasn't his fault the car got run into, but the damage is still there. In Gonzaga's case, Basketball is a money pit to them. In the Thursday San Jose Mercury News there is a column suggesting that Gonzaga is/has lowered admissions standards to "assist" the BB program in their recruiting efforts. My point is I think Gonzaga feels this is very damaging. You already know I think MJ should be leaglized. The shrooms I don't know enough to make that call, but they must be a class B felony for a reason while MJ is a misdemeanor.

I agree that damage is damage. But the damage in this situation is all artificial and could be erased with simple change to our silly drug laws.

My understanding from people who know a lot more about it than I do is that mushrooms are essentially harmless (and are certainly less harmful than booze) ... but they are a felony thanks to the folks who hated hippies in the 60s and 70s.

If we strip back all of the societal stigmas we have been taught, isn't it just a little funny that people make a big deal out of two people having in their possession a plant and a fungi that have been created by nature?

Does that make God and/or Mother Nature criminals?

Have the people who know more about shrooms than you said whether or not someone should operate a motor vehicle while under the influence? I am not saying Heytvelt was on them when he was arrested either just to be clear.

I agree there are a lot of laws that many of us don't like. But, we live in a society with a representative form of Government. People are free to try and get the laws changed. Marijuana penalties are not near as penal as the used to be, at least as far as possession of amounts that are consistent with personal use.

Would you legalize all drugs BAC? I sense that you would.

 

[MidNiteRambler]

Last time I ate shrooms I went to a Griz game. God, I love football. :dope:

 

[Bay Area Cat]

Have the people who know more about shrooms than you said whether or not someone should operate a motor vehicle while under the influence? I am not saying Heytvelt was on them when he was arrested either just to be clear.

I agree there are a lot of laws that many of us don't like. But, we live in a society with a representative form of Government. People are free to try and get the laws changed. Marijuana penalties are not near as penal as the used to be, at least as far as possession of amounts that are consistent with personal use.

Would you legalize all drugs BAC? I sense that you would.

It goes without saying that one shouldn't drive under the influence of anything that impairs/alters one's motor or mental skills (be that cough syrup or shrooms).

I probably wouldn't legalize all drugs, just because some are so addictive that the pushback would be hard to refute (as I really do think they are too dangerous for most people to handle responsibly). I do think, though, that legalling all drugs would probably lead to fewer problems with those drugs -- even the ones that I personally feel that a person would have to have a deathwish to try.

However, I am just pragmatic enough to realize that the moment you legalized crack, the very first time a person died from crack, the reactionaries would be calling for one's head ... even if the number of people who had died from crack had actually gone down as a result of the drug's legalization.

But in terms of drugs such as pot, ecstasy, shrooms, and probably others ... there just isn't that much risk here ... and the risk of addiction is actually much lower than that of booze. If a person has to pick a poison, it's fair to say that these are preferable alternatives than alcohol.

That argument aside, I just think it should be up to each adult to make up their own mind as to how much risk they want to take in all aspects of their life, and not the role of our government. And prohibition simply leads to a black market and the related violence that comes with it.

 

[Bozgriz]

Interesting comments, however they probably belong in another thread under the political section...

The kids arrested broke the law, are involved in a high profile activity and embarassed themselves and their university...Whether or not it should be illegal or not really isn't the point. Would it be any different if they were busted for soliciting a prostitute?

 

[Bay Area Cat]

Would it be any different if they were busted for soliciting a prostitute?

Not to me ... that shouldn't be illegal, either. It's not harming anyone else, so I don't care who does it. It's just capitalism at work.