Report: JaMarcus Russell arrested for controlled substance
Former Oakland Raiders quarterback and NFL free agent JaMarcus Russell was arrested on Monday in Mobile, Alabama for possession of codeine syrup.
Email
PrintComments
OH SHIT!
My dads friend, whose cousins boyfriend is Terdell Sands, told this guy that I work with that JaMarcus sips syrup. My dads friend used to go out and party with them after games and Terdell told him that JaMarcus was on this shit. Damn they were right. No wonder the dude is so damn slow.
Maybe the Raiders knew as well and that's why they trying to get their $9.55 million.
Cable Bumaye! Raiders Bumaye!
Glad this guy is no longer associated with the Silver and Black.
Looking forward to the Kevin Kolb era.
5-8-10...the day the Purdue Boilermakers basketball team won the 2011 NCAA Championship!!
I hope
The Raiders aren’t considering signing him again. Now that he’s truly gone thugging.
@MAD_Marvin
The FairWeather Channel - Sports Comics and Bandwagon Forecast
Don't care too much for my avi?
He’s a more accurate depiction of our former football thrower (since it’s a diss to any competent player to call him a QB).
by Raider Zealot on Jul 5, 2010 3:47 PM PDT reply actions 3 recs
Poor dumb ol' JaMarcus
Can’t even get arrested with a cool drug. This is about the level of getting arrested for stealing hubcaps.
Someone had a funny tweet that the Raiders, upon hearing the news, were suddenly interested in re-signing him.
@WorldBLee
Fortunately, he had plenty of money to waste
But yeah, I speculated on twitter that it could have contributed to his slow feet and mind on the football field.
@WorldBLee
Nah, the team knew.
They just didn’t make that big of a deal of it because they didn’t want it all over the news. I think they handled it quite well, actually. They shoulda cut him by week 3 but I guess you live and you learn.
by Raider Zealot on Jul 5, 2010 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Al Davis lawsuit???
maybe this could have an effect on the Raiders lawsuit in their effort to regain the 9.55m? As in if they can somehow find proof he was sippin’ during his time with the Raiders….
Hmmmm? Great take...It will definitley be brought up...If it wasn't already.
It is all about coming together as a team. At the end of the day, the team is all we have. - T. Branch 10-14-09
by Raymond St. Martin (Saint) on Jul 5, 2010 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions
lmfao!
I knew I recognized that look on his face and the twinkle in his eyes.
Jasssipppinon Russizzup
"If your only ambition in life, is to be a better person; well, that's just the best ambition you can have..." Wayne "Rabbit" Bartholomew
I remember
Someone making a fanpost a while back based on their own knowledge and their own “sources” that Russell had been doing this for awhile dating back to LSU days. It was the person’s explanation as to why he was so lazy and seemed like he didnt care. This obviously confirms it.
Yeah that post was deleted.
"We want to win. The Raider fans deserve it. The Raider players deserve it, even my organization deserves it. You have to win and you have to win with a vision for the Super Bowl. That's our passion here." - Al Davis
by Ozraider on Jul 5, 2010 5:04 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Codine syrup?
At least he coulda got caught with weed..
Then he could explain his slowness AND weight
Try some coedine
and you will see how slow it makes you. It hits you like a tonne of bricks. Harder than weed any day.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Jul 6, 2010 6:07 AM PDT up reply actions
I think he was saying
Weed would explain the fatness better than sizurp…munchies…
by transparent58 on Jul 6, 2010 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions
I just saw a report on Syrup
and it’s Opium based (like Morphine) and they mix it with Soda and Candy so no wonder his weight ballooned.
But I do have to say that when I spoke weed I’m so slow I can’t even get off the couch…
If Syrup is worse then I’d probably be stuck on the floor…
by KiwiRaiderFan on Jul 6, 2010 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions
this explains the five-pat sandlot quarterback
I watched his mardi dras video again, and he does talk like he is purpled. Poor guy. He is responsible for his own ecisions, like Oedipus, but oh how sad – just as with Oedipus.
by Spirals galore on Jul 6, 2010 7:33 PM PDT up reply actions
I hope he turns it around. Drugs are a slippery slope.
Especially those with the genes that crave em. I think it is too much to say that his play was a result of the drugs. How many players have been addicted to pain killers and have played well while high? Look at Favre.
I don't like superstitious people. They're bad luck.
by Rich Langford on Jul 6, 2010 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Some thrive, so don't.
I am the type that quits cold turkey if my alief tells me to.
by Spirals galore on Jul 6, 2010 10:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Agreed and I think it is a lot harder for others to stop.
And the source of that difficulty is a great debate.
I think we all know people though that function better high than the normal person does.
I don't like superstitious people. They're bad luck.
by Rich Langford on Jul 6, 2010 11:05 PM PDT up reply actions
The NFL
drug testing is more than just performance enhancing, how do you think Ricky Williams got nailed for weed years back.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Jul 6, 2010 6:08 AM PDT up reply actions
Test
If they test for opiates, would they not pick this up?
by Mallard Davis on Jul 6, 2010 7:47 AM PDT up reply actions
Lucky
Maybe tests coincided with when wasnt drinking it
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Jul 6, 2010 8:38 AM PDT up reply actions
I think the problem was, anyone could've gotten scrips for Phenargan w/ Codeine for coughs
and produced them as needed. It would take some time and a repetitive pattern to determine he was consistently on it. HIs play and lack of performance prove to me he was probably on it more often than not.
And I worked in the oil industry for a lot of years, and know that tests do not always use the same reagents to find certain things. I’m sure the NFL runs its own tests, but there are those to determine trace amounts that require secondary tests to use reagents to look for specific drugs.
I think its quite possible the tests were not looking for this. You can be damn sure they will going forward.
"If your only ambition in life, is to be a better person; well, that's just the best ambition you can have..." Wayne "Rabbit" Bartholomew
Yeah
I am sure you are correct about what they are testing for. Codeine would seem to be low on the list at this time AND I am certain that it is thrown around the NFL like Gatorade.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Jul 6, 2010 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions
ha
jamarcus is the man atleast he’s consistent
Success is not measuredby what you accomplish, but by the opposition you have encountered, and the courage with which you have maintained the struggle against overwhelming odds...
-Orison Swett Marden
I really don't know if I'm happy or sad.
At first I laughed, but it really is just sad. He was probably on this stuff while he was here and contributed to his mental stagnation.
Whatever though, c’est la vie, we got rid of him and we’re moving in a great direction. Cable Bumaye! Raiders Bumaye!
Cable Bumaye! Raiders Bumaye!
I remember when a poster came in with this story and it was taken down. (Month's ago, before he was cut)
To me he sounded sincere, but the Captain or Chiefs took it down. He talked about how he was addicted to the purple stuff…
The RaiderLaker
i knew
nobody could possibly be that sluggish, out of it, and irresponsible (not to mention oblivious) and NOT be sippin on dat sizzurp
I MIGHT feel slightly bad for the guy,
had the lazy bastard tried at all on the football field. If he was cut because he was trying really hard to get better, but just wasn’t, then was cut, then when face first into slurpees, I’d probably feel a little bad. Now? This just makes me laugh even more….
Good... bad... I'm the guy with the gun.
Screw the Wings.
Wow
he really is only 6’5 1/2"
Tom from Woodland is my hero
by luckthefakers on Jul 5, 2010 11:02 PM PDT up reply actions
This is his life from now on..It's sad, but he's put himself there.
The only true wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing.
I wonder how long that will last for?
"Oh boy! If you don't like that you don't like Kings basketball"-Peaches
Al's case for the 9 million just got better. Thank you Bama's finest
S-O-B: ITS HOW I ROLL, DEAL WITH IT.
saw it and loved every word
just wish there was more.
I am curious as to why the cops felt the need for this.
It was the result of an undercover investigation. What?
There better be more to it then this.
First of all, how is this worth the man power or money? Are we really funding undercover purple drank stings? Or trying to bust football players who use painkillers without a prescription?
Second, they busted him at his house. Jesus Christ! How many football players or people would be fucked if the cops came and searched their house?
Thirdly, I am actually shocked and disappointed this is all they found. Russell seems so fucked and lost that I was half expecting/hoping the list of drugs found would be 10 pages long. Shit, the king of pop was taking crazier shit than Russell. Rush Limbaugh is more hard core than this.
This is bullshit. I am pissed Russell didn’t try harder to be a better QB, but that has nothing to do with this and unless there is a lot more that comes to light about this arrest, I think it is discriminatory bullshit that was a giant waste of time and money.
I don't like superstitious people. They're bad luck.
noon, this was suspected long ago. He has been doing this since his college days. Finally they shed some light on his addiction.
But yeah, I do hope there is a lot more to this. Maybe some homie of his called it in just as a means to get back at him for not letting him leach anymore as he just recycled him with another dude taking turns “drankin da purple drank”.
A guy broke this story months ago here in this blog, he said he was close to him or something like that and that he had a problem with this particular type of liquid substance. But his post was taken down, now I doubt he made it up.
The RaiderLaker
clearly
someone close to him snitched. only way cops would show up at his house looking for syrup. What’s perplexing is him taking painkillers, you need to workout to have somekind of pain…
by raiders4liffe on Jul 6, 2010 4:00 AM PDT up reply actions
It was larger
than targeted to Russell. Apparently it was a larger sting operation that was aimed at people in general. If you do some research you will find out that drinking “syrup” is a bigger issue than you would think. The best drugs on the market and in most demand right now are pharmacueticals. Oxycoton is a massive issue and coedine has been a long standing problem with addiction. The addiction may have contributed to his lack of playing ability so the 2 do go hand in hand. Obviously he has a problem larger than laziness.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Jul 6, 2010 6:14 AM PDT up reply actions
yes
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5356585
The link above has a video on it about other athletes caught using the purple drink. And a doctor on it talks about how the drink is perceived as non-drug.
by Spirals galore on Jul 6, 2010 6:52 AM PDT up reply actions
How do you know it was larger? I haven't seen anything. I hope it is, because
as it is now, it seems useless.
I don’t believe I made any statement about the severity of drinking the drank. Your point about pharmaceuticals was my point as well. It is a massive issue, which is why I find it odd that this bust was made the way it was. I could give a shit if he was injecting dilauded mixed with heroin. People don’t become the target of under cover investigations, because they use drugs.
I don't like superstitious people. They're bad luck.
by Rich Langford on Jul 6, 2010 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Exactly
It was stated that it wise a wide spread investigation in the Mobile area. If it is useless that would be subjective. Why is it useless, I think it is useful. Do you really believe the Mobile PD have time to set up an investigation to just directly target JaUseLessFatAss? Really? I don’t think so. If they do so what he shouldn’t be using codeine in that manner anyhow that would be illegal. They should crack down on all of that type of abuse (that would be subjective of me to state but I think so).
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Jul 6, 2010 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions
The police had to act, JaJuicer was endangering the Mobile donut population
S-O-B: ITS HOW I ROLL, DEAL WITH IT.
by Sons-of-Blanda on Jul 6, 2010 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Good one SOB!
NO MERCY!
by RAIDERSNOMERCY on Jul 6, 2010 8:07 PM PDT up reply actions
LOL..that's right...blame the cops...
Wanna keep the police out of your life? STOP BREAKING THE GODDAMN LAW…
Upon moving to AL, I let my wife decide who she would root for. After one day at a new job full of Bama fans, she met me at the door with a hearty cry of "WAR EAGLE"
by SandMountainTiger on Jul 6, 2010 6:33 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
+1
Come to think of it. You are right. Why do people muddy the waters with semantics and conjecture when he was allegedly caught with a controlled substance that he has no record of prescription or need for.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Jul 6, 2010 6:39 AM PDT up reply actions
Because it is different than how other users are treated.
and when that happens it begins to cross the lines of discrimination.
I don't like superstitious people. They're bad luck.
by Rich Langford on Jul 6, 2010 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions
How is he being discriminated against?
All users are treated the same. He got caught. Maybe he can room with Johnny Jolly in jail.
How many users get busted at their house as the result of undercover operations?
I don't like superstitious people. They're bad luck.
by Rich Langford on Jul 6, 2010 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions
I really don't know the statistics
But I can tell you it happens in Chicago. In smaller towns, it happens even more. When I go back to my hometown, Wausau, WI (hometown to Jim Otto by the way), the drug arrests are listed and generally, they are grabbing people out of their homes. Reading the paper, watching the news and hearing about things certainly doesn’t qualify as complete scientific study but makes me say that it doesn’t shock me that he was busted the way he was.
I don't see these kinds of arrests or hear of them.
They are a rare occurrence. They have to get a search warrant and this takes time and money. This is not something cops do for the typical user.
I don't like superstitious people. They're bad luck.
by Rich Langford on Jul 6, 2010 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Wausau huh?
My hometown is Tomahawk, 40 minutes north. I thought I was the ONLY one wearing silver and black in northern WI. I can confirm these kind of raids go on all the time back home. I wasn’t surprised at all when I found out JaBoom was busted the way he was, and I’m quiet shocked a lot of you don’t see this as common police work.
"We've got to start listening to coach Belichick...we've got the best coach of all time. He's got the answers."
-Tom Brady, May 10/10
Miss the area.
My family still lives in Wausau so I get up there from Chicago fairly often. My brother sports the Raiders gear as well so if you get to Wausau and see Raiders garb on a guy with a black goatee, it’s probably my bro. Used to work out with another Raider fan up there too. Now I know 4 of us! Will be heading to Minocqua (an annual trip) in September and always stop at the Dog n’ Suds in Tomahawk. What beautiful country in your neck of the woods huh?
In terms of the bust, I was shocked that these guys didn’t find it a common practice as well.
Dog and Suds...
I use to date a girl or two there! My family had a condo at the Beacon’s for the longest..really miss that place. Clearwater FL is holding up nicely though, I’m sure I’ll get home sick for the northwoods soon enough. After all, sleds on snow is funner than sleds on water!!! (and I build custom jet skis here!)
"We've got to start listening to coach Belichick...we've got the best coach of all time. He's got the answers."
-Tom Brady, May 10/10
Everyone should date a girl from the Dog n' Suds!
Nice work!
I’m one of those odd northerners that prefers the sleds on the water. The cold and snow is nice around Christmas and that’s about it. The cottage we stay at is south of the Beacon’s. Can’t wait to go up there in September when all of the Fib’s (like me now!) have gone. Small world. Great meeting you!
By the way
You amy want to jump on the Badger’s blog – Bucky’s 5th Quarter. Great place to get team info when you’re out of state!
You sound a bit nervous Noon....
You can hide your stash at my house if you’d like…..
They’ll never find it here. Bwahaha.
by Raider Zealot on Jul 6, 2010 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions
Well
U hear about this JaUseLessLardo because he was in the NFL. How about LT and getting busted for solicitation of prostitution? Is that discriminatory? I dont think he is guilty but he is not the only person getting busted for that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time in the wrong situation that he should have been smart enough to stay out of. The same goes for JR.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Jul 6, 2010 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
SMT, you fail to see the big picture. Unless there is a lot more to it
this was a giant waste of money. There are much bigger fish to fry.
The point, SMT, is that it appears that Russell is being signaled out. This is the kind of activity and arrest that you only see concerning dealers. Not users.
I haven’t heard they busted him with intent to sell. Maybe they are hoping he will narc on some bigger sources or maybe they got faulty information. As it is now, yes I blame the cops, because it was a giant waste of time and money. I’d hope they’d be doing something more productive with their limited resuources.
I don't like superstitious people. They're bad luck.
by Rich Langford on Jul 6, 2010 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions
Singled not signaled that is.
I don't like superstitious people. They're bad luck.
by Rich Langford on Jul 6, 2010 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions
Dude
are you telling me that because he is black its ok for him to drink codeine syrup and busting him for it as a result is discriminatory? Or because he is JR that he is being singled out therefore it is discriminatory? Maybe if you go to Mobile you can defend him and tie the case up to collect some of the millions wasted on this JaLardo.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Jul 6, 2010 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I didn't claim he was being discriminated against, because he is black.
I also didn’t say it was ok for him to drink the drank. The way the details of the story are now show that he is being treated different than other people. I am not saying anything about his judgment. I am saying this better be part of a bigger picture or I think the entire thing was a waste of resources and would show the execution of some sort of vendetta against Russell. Athletes shouldn’t receive preferential treatment nor should they be subject to harsher treatment than anyone else.
I don't like superstitious people. They're bad luck.
by Rich Langford on Jul 6, 2010 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions
What is it
that is making him being treated differently than others? It was already said he was part of a bigger sting operation and the only reason his name is in the media is because he was in the NFL. I am sure that he is not the only one being charged, Getting your face in the media for such charges come with the territory of being “famous”. Tough luck take the millions and all of the baggage that comes with it.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Jul 6, 2010 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I haven't seen these reports that it is part of a bigger sting operation.
I don't like superstitious people. They're bad luck.
by Rich Langford on Jul 6, 2010 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions
According to the AP JaMarcus was nothing more than a big name, but a small fish in the overall scheme of things. Here are the details:
The arrest of JaMarcus Russell for alleged possession of codeine syrup resulted from a two-month undercover investigation that could result in more arrests.
Mobile County Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman Lori Myles said Tuesday that the investigation wasn’t targeting the former Oakland Raiders quarterback but that his name and home address had come up several times.
Basically the cops were looking for big fish and when you look for the big fish you pay attention to the little guppies.
by Spirals galore on Jul 6, 2010 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Thanks
for the research once again. IT proves that JaSyrupAss was not the subject of a specific targeting in the investigation.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Jul 6, 2010 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions
This makes much more sense.
Thanks Spirals.
I don't like superstitious people. They're bad luck.
by Rich Langford on Jul 6, 2010 10:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Well there you
go making statements without the facts and making accusations yourself about the Mobile PD discriminating and targeting, being unfair. Get the facts and make sound statements.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Jul 7, 2010 5:25 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think if you re-read you'll see that I qualified my statements
that there better be more to it and that my opinion was based on the facts that were in the article that this thread was based on.
I don't like superstitious people. They're bad luck.
by Rich Langford on Jul 7, 2010 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions
Not likely
You were commenting on anothers comment really. Calling out discrimination and for legalization of controlled substances is not factual based statements.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Jul 7, 2010 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
This sub-thread was from my original comment.
I don't like superstitious people. They're bad luck.
by Rich Langford on Jul 7, 2010 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions
he may be being singled out
because of his fame to try to deter other, unfamous, people from sippin sizurp…I think, though, we agree that drug prohibition is kinda silly in any form. It’s victimless, IMO and people should be allowed to do what they want…
by transparent58 on Jul 6, 2010 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Well said about the victimless crimes.
Also, I am not a fan of police departments deciding they should treat anyone differently to set an example.
Besides that, I would seriously doubt the results they would get from limiting the use of the purple drank this way. My guess is that more people will use it now, instead of stay away from it. That is the way drugs work. That is certainly fodder for many discussions in itself, but I imagine there are more people thinking, “you know, I didn’t really know about that, I’d like to try that. I wouldn’t have a problem with that.” Than people are saying, “Wow, that drug is bad for me. I won’t ever try that.” or even better, “Oh, the purple drank is bad for me? I should stop.”
I don't like superstitious people. They're bad luck.
by Rich Langford on Jul 6, 2010 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Victimless?
Tell that to the people who are robbed or mugged by people that use the moeny and or things they steal to by drugs. What about the terroists that make money off of the drug trade and use the money, say to blow up buildings or crash jetliners into them. Now, what about those poor folks that end up in the hospital because of their usage and because all of their money goes into drugs, they have no insurance. Who pays for that Amigo? You and I do. The cost of drug use to our society is huge!
by Rusty23 on Jul 6, 2010 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
So
let’s lock up all the users and dealers because that’ll fix the problem…The policy itself creates the market and the visciousness of the market for drugs. The act of using drugs only victimizes the user. Stealing to buy drugs is and should remain a crime. In the case of JaSippinSizurp, he was only hurting himself, and I really don’t care about him doing that…
If we put a fraction of the money allocated for the “War on Drugs” into treatment and education it would be more effective. Right now we’re throwing money down a bottomless pit and still only stopping about 10% of the flow of opium, coca, and cannibis into this country. Simple economics will teach you that so long as theres a demand, there will be a supply. People like to get high, and have liked it for centuries…no law is going to change the demand, and prohibition only empowers the vicious in supplying the demand…
by transparent58 on Jul 6, 2010 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
EXACTLY!
Do you know who put all the bootleggers out of business?
Budweiser, that’s who. This whole “War on Drugs” thing is a cheap ploy to mask the bigger issues at hand.
by Raider Zealot on Jul 6, 2010 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions
You didn't address
the vicitms of crime because of drug use. How about the wasted human potential? (i.e. Jamarcus)
I never said that what we are doing in terms of prevention of these problems was the only course of action. You brought that up becuae you could not address the victimless issue. That said, I agree with you that education and family/ ommunity involvement will take us much further than we are now.
I did address it
you just missed it. The act of doing drugs only victimizes the user. It’s a concious choice. Someone smoking crack is only hurting themselves. If they become addicted and have to steal to get their rocks, then they’re victimizing someone…though the acts are related, the use itself is victimless. Pretty much all “vice” laws prohibit victimless or self destructive behavior. It’s similar to the drinking. I can legally drink myself silly, but once I get behind the wheel of car, then I endanger other people, and I’m committing a crime…it’s the same concept with any drug…
As for the terrorist angle, importation is neccessary because you can’t grow your own here. We’re talking about plant derived substances. If you could grow your own weed or poppies or coca plants, would we need to import those substances from other countries and indirectly fund terrorists? I doubt it. The US is home to some of the most fertile soil in the world…
Finally, to quote Judge Smales “the world needs ditch diggers, too.” No amount of physical potential will force someone to act right. Lawrence Taylor, Darryl Strawberry, Doc Gooden, et al are all rarely talented individuals who chose to screw up their lives with drugs. The fact that it was illegal didn’t stop them…
by transparent58 on Jul 6, 2010 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Then you're saying
that there is no cost to society for using drugs? They very demand and subsequent use creates victims beyond the user as I stated above. I understand where you’re going with this but there are reactions to that action taken by the individual. That’s how I see it anyway. Will have to agree to disagree I guess.
Funny, I thought of that Judge Smales quote this afternoon when I mentioned the wasted human potential. However conservative I can be at times, I never forget those individuals with great talents/minds who have thrown it all away because of drug use. Perhaps they wouldn’t have found the cure for cancer or become politicians we can actually trust…but we’ll never find out now. That, is a waste.
I see my comment post was taken down.... Why?
Is that KC guy lurking here and reaking havic? Punk.
But if it was some of the main dudes here then why?
The RaiderLaker
No clue JJ
It might have been part of a conversation with Raider Zealot and it sounds like his comments will be put back up. Your comment then should too. As far as I know. And I don’t know a lot apparently.
The "KC Guy" Joel is a good dude, actually
Rusty’s right. Hella comments got deleted ‘cause I was banned. Now that all my posts have been restored, all of the replies to my posts have remained deleted. And I apologize for that. The conversation was just gettin’ interesting……
I agree with Transparent though, this whole War on Drugs thing is a sham and I don’t know why people still support it.
by Raider Zealot on Jul 6, 2010 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Of course there's an overall
societal impact, but the legality of the action doesn’t diminish that impact, either. People are going to contine to do it whether it’s legal or not.
by transparent58 on Jul 7, 2010 8:34 AM PDT up reply actions
Humn Potential
Have we gotten into circular logic on victimless crime here? What about the lost human potential? Some of us were talking about all the people who try to scam you on the internet these days. What could be accomplished if they put that energy into honest work?
by Mallard Davis on Jul 6, 2010 7:19 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Shielded Lives
Many of us are shielded from the real world and just intellectualize it. Years ago I was on the jury of a murder trial in Richmond, CA. We put a 20 year old away for life. His grandmother, mother, and sister all had children at 13. All his uncles were constantly in and out of jail. None of the family ever finished school. Everyone was on AFDC and welfare. The grandmother would rob her neighbors with her grandkids. They all sold drugs for a living. The guy we put away though he was a bad ass and tried to rob someone and shot through the van as it was speeding away killing the driver. Victimless crimes?
by Mallard Davis on Jul 6, 2010 7:58 PM PDT up reply actions
No - he had his victims.
The question is not whether he be excused, but what needs to be done to prevent future victims. Not everyone coming from such background becomes a victimizer. So, the focus must be, in my view, shifted – what is it that makes someone a victimizer, while another, from the same background, is not? Nurture doesn’t trup nature.
by Spirals galore on Jul 6, 2010 8:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Agree
But drugs were a big factor in this case. My other point is many of us don’t know this is a way of life for some. How would you feel putting a 20 year old away for life?
by Mallard Davis on Jul 6, 2010 8:27 PM PDT up reply actions
I am on the fence
and thinking about it.
by Spirals galore on Jul 6, 2010 8:48 PM PDT up reply actions
If he was a murderer
I’d have zero problem with it. I’m not advocating lawlessness. My primary problem is the allure of selling drugs, at least in part, is there because of the legal issues surrounding them. If I could buy an 8 ball at Wal Mart along with a 12 pack of Coors, would the trafficking of that substance still create the issues it created here? If you take the drugs off the street and legitimize their sale and manufacture would the violent culture surrounding them now still exist?
by transparent58 on Jul 7, 2010 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions
You can't mandate
that people live up to their potential, though. Free will is a bitch that way.
by transparent58 on Jul 7, 2010 8:35 AM PDT up reply actions
+1
Victimless=doubtless. Take a deeper look to what happens when people buy drugs. Who gets the money? Oh thats right those upstanding citizens that build school houses, feed the starving, clothe the poor etc etc. Uhuh, it is a debate that goes round and round. Where does the legality start for legalizing drugs and where does it end. Will be ok to shoot up in public with heroin? What about chopping some lines at the restaurant before I get my entree? If I cant do that why not?
When the Roman empire was on the edge of collapse they were trying to figure out what vices they could legalize to keep the people happy. That is a true sign of a society on the edge. Why is there a consenting age for sex? If a 14 year old wants to have sex why not? What makes him any less capable of making the mature decision without ramifications. Where does the morality stop?
So before you say using drugs is a victimless crime think longer before you say it or maybe not? Apparently prostitution is a victimless crime too?
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Jul 6, 2010 5:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Apparently prostitution is a victimless crime too?
Who’s the victim?
by Spirals galore on Jul 6, 2010 7:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Well
ask the women that are forced out there by pimps if they are a victim. Ask the prostitutes that get raped who is the victim. Ask the prostitutes that get a few dollars of the hundreds they may earn if they are victims. Ask the wives/husbands that get a disease from said prostitute because their significant other slept with a prostitute and gave them one who is a victim.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Jul 7, 2010 5:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Ok
but you quoted my prostitution comment which would make me believe you were referring to that.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Jul 7, 2010 7:24 AM PDT up reply actions
my bad:)
Sometimes I am too elliptical.
by Spirals galore on Jul 7, 2010 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions
Again it relates to the
stigma of it being illegal. In Nevada, there doesn’t seem to be much of an issue…at least not on the scale of other places.
by transparent58 on Jul 7, 2010 8:47 AM PDT up reply actions
Oh yes
I certain the prostitutes in Nevada just love their jobs and the stigma that goes with it. I am sure if you cracked open the heads of those women to look inside you would see lots of deep issues within that make it a very dark place to live in.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Jul 7, 2010 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions
You have a very wide paint brush.
I don't like superstitious people. They're bad luck.
by Rich Langford on Jul 7, 2010 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions
Ok
maybe I do but explain to me where it starts and where it stops and how you argue the morality for anything if limitations are put on.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Jul 7, 2010 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Where what starts and stops?
Some of those questions may be answered in Spirals above link.
I don't like superstitious people. They're bad luck.
by Rich Langford on Jul 7, 2010 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Spirals link
is simply a clear article showing that JR was not a specific target of investigation.
The stop and starts as I have clearly stated a few times refers to the legalization issue of drugs. Yes some are legal BUT with supposed legitimate rationales for the use i.e. Oxycontin for pain of a cancer patient. Now of course some jackass’s abuse that privilege and should be prosecuted for so. Allowing someone to get high everyday of their life just so because they want to is a waste.
So where does the legalization start and where does it stop? Where do you draw the line of prohibition? Is heroine a drug that should be legalized? Should it just be pot or hash? Why not CrystalMeth?
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Jul 7, 2010 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions
I meant the link right above in the
comment that preceded her saying she was too elliptical.
I don't like superstitious people. They're bad luck.
by Rich Langford on Jul 7, 2010 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Also, I was referring to your prostitution comment here.
I don't like superstitious people. They're bad luck.
by Rich Langford on Jul 7, 2010 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Obviously
the substance is lost here of what I was saying.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Jul 7, 2010 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions
I was using this part of the thread to discuss your views on prostitution.
For a greater idea on why I said what I did check out Spirals’ link.
I don't like superstitious people. They're bad luck.
by Rich Langford on Jul 7, 2010 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions
seriously
who here has a right to judge anyone?
who here has a right to say this is good and this is bad?
who here has the right to tell another human what choices to make?
NOBODY.
i am thankful for your provincial views and opinions, and your beliefs… but NOONTIDE and you stand at OPPOSITE sides of the spectrum arguing that its best on your side.
there is no best side. there is not right, no wrong. its all irrelevant from a certain point of view…
Big brother will tell you drugs are bad. they arent, but the abuse of drugs to the exclusion of all things “LIFE” is bad. if you cant get your stoned ass off the couch and deal with life, its escapism. its a willingness to forgo your right as a human to experience life…
i say let each do as he wants, but dont step on your neighbors toes…. maybe you need to smoke a fatty to reach at-one-ment, maybe you dont.
To each his own….
I'll Get Inside Your FACE!
by VaderBDCRaider on Jul 9, 2010 6:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Well
we elect people to make these decisions and if you are against the choices they make for us then get another that will carry through the things we/you want to be rightful freedoms. My only real question through this entire discussion and no to this point has yet to in detail or otherwise is to what extent does the legalization go? I haven’t said if I am for or against legalization but people spoke up and I therefore asked them how do you take it and make it so? No one has answered that.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Jul 10, 2010 7:01 AM PDT up reply actions
One could
and I have argued that keeping these substance illegal provides the conduit for the money from drug sales to end up in the hands of thugs. Alcohol isn’t the best drug, it’s not even top 5, but it’s convenient. If you had to wait 2 hours in a Denny’s parking lot for a six pack of Pabst (I’m totally ripping off Doug Stanhope, here) I doubt you would.
My whole problem it the attempt to legislate morality on a broad federal level. States and localities should determine policy on “vices.” Clearly the “it’s illegal so I shouldn’t do it” doesn’t stop a thing…
by transparent58 on Jul 7, 2010 8:44 AM PDT up reply actions
You could argue that
Where does the line start and stop? What drugs to you legalize and which ones do you not. Where is the line of use drawn for use of said drugs i.e. You can only snort lines in designated clubs or home?
Do you really think the thugs will be stopped. As I said before Oxycontin is legal if you have a prescription but there are those out there that will sell you it…………….. for a price. If pot is legalized do you not think that people will still find a way to capitalize on selling it illegally by under cutting the market or getting a better quality?
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Jul 7, 2010 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
You guys are arguing about where the line starts and stops.
The line has always been blurred.
I think the questions you ask can be answered by viewing prohibition. The results during and the results after.
I don't like superstitious people. They're bad luck.
by Rich Langford on Jul 7, 2010 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions
Clarify it then.
Please enlighten me. Unblur the lines for us or me more precisely. You are obviously more informed and have insight.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Jul 7, 2010 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The lines are blurred because some drugs are legal.
You asked where does the line start and stop etc. It seemed like you were asking because you felt that, that process has not already begun.
You brought up thugs and legalizing issues. I think the best way to glimpse what would happen is to look at what happened when it did happen.
I don't like superstitious people. They're bad luck.
by Rich Langford on Jul 7, 2010 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Sounds as though
You dont have an answer to clearly define the issue.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Jul 7, 2010 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don't know, I thought the issue was pretty well defined.
As far as the issue, I think there are just opinions, not answers. The only real example of possible result for legalizing substances we have in this country is from prohibition.
I don't like superstitious people. They're bad luck.
by Rich Langford on Jul 7, 2010 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions
So you were just
stating opinion. You had no clear definition other than to oppose. You still have yet to defend the opinion(s) to legalization of prohibited drug use and defining it as a victimless crime without facts to sustain it. The issue is your stance and seems it has not been well defined because you are just talking in circles. As for the link to the article it does not discuss all people affected by prostitution.
My reference to prostitution was a metaphorical comparison to drug use as a victimless crime. It was put out as an analytical comparison to supposed victimless crimes. The article discusses opinion in your link. No factual evidence is given.
Try giving straight answers with fact and try not to talk in circles.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Jul 7, 2010 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
There's definitely collateral damange with both, but the question is more
about the degree of social intervention. Basically, it’s always the same balancing between individual freedom and the common good. Politics, instead of something more substantial, decides what balance will be struck btw the common good and personal freedom. it also is established by private contract, e.g. Raiders sign players who’ll keep their minds and bodies in top form. Russell breached that contract and I hope Al sues him for everything he and his backwards family has.
S-O-B: ITS HOW I ROLL, DEAL WITH IT.
by Sons-of-Blanda on Jul 7, 2010 8:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Thank you and good point
There in lies the problem with legalization of controlled substances AND issues i.e. prostitution. It isnt as simple as legalize it because there are degrees of such. How far does legalization go in terms of what, where, and who.
One more thing is as much as I would appreciate JR getting stripped of all his ill gotten goods I doubt it will happen. Rather a steady rate of decent into a free fall of destitution.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Jul 8, 2010 4:24 AM PDT up reply actions
your view on human nature manegement may be a bit too hands-on
I just read a blog on internet addiction. It’s not yet classified as a controlled substance, just as most other addictions weren’t at first. Some people argue that the internet ruins a lot of things for the addict’s family and friends. There are other side effects too. Would you be for regulating internet use too?
Too much pressure results in counterpressure.
by Spirals galore on Jul 8, 2010 6:18 AM PDT up reply actions
For addiction
intervention and self realization of a deteriorating condition are I believe suitable. If there is a person that has responsibilities such as children and dependents then there should probably be some regulation. That however does go with the same situation as alcohol addiction. Eventually if a person is not going to change their persona for the better then they will degenerate to a point of no return. An addiction to internet does not put others in direct harms way as someone high or drunk operating heavy machinery or vehicles. Not everything can be regulated to total compliance as human nature will always push some to test limits. Putting in guidelines for some things is required.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Jul 8, 2010 6:28 AM PDT up reply actions
An addiction to internet does not put others in direct harms way as someone high or drunk operating heavy machinery or vehicles.
So – if someone high or drunk doesn’t operate heavy machinery and vehicles, they do not put others in direct harm’s way? If so, why meddle with what they do?
by Spirals galore on Jul 8, 2010 7:29 AM PDT up reply actions
Alcohol is a controlled
substance but as I said people will always press the limits but breaking laws such as drinking and driving. As for drugs my only question for this entire thread (very long heavily weighted and debated thank you all) has been where does the legalization of now controlled substances go? As in which drugs are legalized and to what end are they allowed? That is all I have asked of anyone who advocates legalization. I have never said if I am for or against legalization. I am interested in neophytes who just spew out rhetoric to legitimize sales of narcotics. How far does the legalization go? What, who, where and how are they legalized.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Jul 8, 2010 9:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Rusty...I don't think you understand what victimless means.
I don't like superstitious people. They're bad luck.
by Rich Langford on Jul 6, 2010 10:52 PM PDT up reply actions
I didn't realize the string when I made this comment.
I love this site. Look where JaMarcus led us. We are now discussing the merits of legalizing drugs.
I don't like superstitious people. They're bad luck.
by Rich Langford on Jul 6, 2010 10:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Are you still saying I don't understand "victimless?"
I do understand it. What I am saying is that there are victims! A number of us have pointed that out.
by Rusty23 on Jul 7, 2010 7:08 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Then it's not victimless.
I don't like superstitious people. They're bad luck.
by Rich Langford on Jul 7, 2010 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions
Maybe the whole thing does have something to with the lawsuit
According to this, the Raiders could get back any moneys they already paid him. How much was that?
by Spirals galore on Jul 6, 2010 8:12 AM PDT up reply actions
A bday gift to Al?
I don't like superstitious people. They're bad luck.
by Rich Langford on Jul 6, 2010 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions
not really. I've suspected before that they are building a case against him
so the bday is coincidental.
by Spirals galore on Jul 6, 2010 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions
ha!!
geeezz .. Its cocaine youre supposed to be selling ..not codeine :\ well he knew it started with a “C” ..Experts project russell to be the biggest bust in drug selling history
Man LMAO! This made my mornin' Hahahahaha!!!
"The San Diego Super chokers ain't never getting that ring sooo live with it!!!"
Remember that Mardi Gras video of JR?
He is veeeereeey relaaaxed aaand mellow there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeyMZaporX8
I feel really sorry for him. Stupidity is a terrible burden.
I have, above all, pity for this pitiful child
now, a monumental squandering of talent.
"If your only ambition in life, is to be a better person; well, that's just the best ambition you can have..." Wayne "Rabbit" Bartholomew
I believe I speak for us all when I say
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The article I read mentioned it was the result of an undercover operation. Probably long-term. I bet it was Al who tipped off the cops.
These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others. -Groucho Marx
by RDreamer on Jul 6, 2010 1:39 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
ESPN’s Mike Golic picked us as his surprise team and the team with the best chance with five or fewer wins from 2009 to make the playoffs.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jul 6, 2010 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Mark Schlereth actually throwing the Silver and Black a bone?
I’m not sure what to think about that…
I agree with his rendition of how Jason Campbell brings someone to believe (In Bruce, I’ll always trust! but Jason does!) in—young, talented, and the victim of indecision, and the run game we have, that should only be better. I agree that SD’s window is all but closed. Now Merriman is pissed.
This division is ours for the taking. I still have line questions, but expect Campbell to make the whole offense better. Hue Jackson too.
"If your only ambition in life, is to be a better person; well, that's just the best ambition you can have..." Wayne "Rabbit" Bartholomew
I don't think JR's arrest is headline news just because it's off-season
There is something tragic about him, and Aristotle is right – we are sucked in by hamartia, i.e., missing the mark while shooting for the target.
What target was he shooting at? Could it be he hit his target and was unsatisfied with the result?
It never was about football, it was something about less that he could achieve without effort, just sliding (for a bit) on natural ability
S-O-B: ITS HOW I ROLL, DEAL WITH IT.
by Sons-of-Blanda on Jul 6, 2010 10:58 PM PDT up reply actions
He was the golden child. I believe he thought he could turn it on when he needed to
and when he couldn’t, in his mind it was other’s faults. His target was a football playing Dionysis. I don’t think he hates football. I just think he is lost and sinking.
I don't like superstitious people. They're bad luck.
by Rich Langford on Jul 6, 2010 11:02 PM PDT up reply actions
We have some really mature young people on this blog
and I’m sure they know what they are shooting for. On a second thought, I am not so sure. How many of you knew exactly where you were going when you were in your teens and twenties? I, for one, felt like a golden girl, until life spit me out in Japan. It was one beneficial hell.
by Spirals galore on Jul 6, 2010 11:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Which one did you feel like?
Point taken though. I think I am a better person after being humbled by life. It helps to have an open mind about things. I hope JaMarcus’s is open enough.
I don't like superstitious people. They're bad luck.
by Rich Langford on Jul 6, 2010 11:33 PM PDT up reply actions
to have the whole world in the palm of your hand ..
ESPN reports that rusell has just won the Roy Munson Lifetime achievement award
Waived on 5/6, arrested on 7/6 ... the 2-month investigation began when Ja@drank got back home
MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — The arrest of JaMarcus Russell (FSY) for alleged possession of codeine syrup resulted from a two-month undercover investigation that could result in more arrests.
Mobile County Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman Lori Myles said Tuesday that the investigation wasn’t targeting the former Oakland Raiders quarterback but that his name and home address had come up several times.
The 2007 No. 1 draft choice was arrested Monday at his home and charged with possession of a controlled substance. Myles says forensic tests to determine the amount of codeine syrup involved sometimes take 5-7 days
S-O-B: ITS HOW I ROLL, DEAL WITH IT.
Ha! You think Amy Trask tipped off the Mobile police??
by Spirals galore on Jul 9, 2010 9:29 PM PDT up reply actions
It seems someone put the tobacco chewers onto him from the moment he arrived
S-O-B: ITS HOW I ROLL, DEAL WITH IT.
by Sons-of-Blanda on Jul 9, 2010 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Silver And Black Pride
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Chad Ochocinco gets robbed, mourns loss of Starbucks gold card
- Robert Griffin III will be first NFL player with Roman numerals on his jersey
- Alex Smith joins the burgeoning ‘stats are for losers’ movement
- Roger Goodell wants Wi-Fi in every stadium
- Plaxico Burress wants to workout for the Dolphins; Dolphins don’t want Plaxico Burress
