Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38

Thread: If Adams doesn't fail the drug test...

  1. #21
    Hall of Famer Djfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,367
    Quote Originally Posted by Sugar View Post
    While I agree that it's a cool thing for employers to help their people with various issues, it isn't their responsibility to do so. Either way, I hope that Adams gets the counseling or treatment that he needs. Addicts will say and do anything to get what they want, so I hope that it hasn't come to that in his life.
    I completely agree with this. I'm tired of this culture where our needs are someone else's responsibility.
    Steel City Mafia
    So Cal Boss (Ret)
    http://www.anewsong.com


    My son's first Kansas Turkey!

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Djfan View Post
    I completely agree with this. I'm tired of this culture where our needs are someone else's responsibility.
    Let me try to understand your reasoning. If a diabetic has a diabetic complication, then the employer should be able to punish the employee? If a smoker comes down with lung cancer, a person should be able to be suspended or fired from their job? Fortunately, Americans are protected from bigotry by the Americans with disabilities act.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Sugar View Post
    While I agree that it's a cool thing for employers to help their people with various issues, it isn't their responsibility to do so. Either way, I hope that Adams gets the counseling or treatment that he needs. Addicts will say and do anything to get what they want, so I hope that it hasn't come to that in his life.
    Employers risk legal recourse when they begin discriminating based upon disease process. The reason so many have a difficult time with addiction is because they see it as a moral failing...a choice.

  4. #24
    Hall of Famer Dee Dub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,573
    Quote Originally Posted by Shawn View Post
    Employers risk legal recourse when they begin discriminating based upon disease process. The reason so many have a difficult time with addiction is because they see it as a moral failing...a choice.
    Spot on!! And I will add, that many who are addicted and have trouble beating the addiction, think they can do so by their own will. And as one who struggled with it and eventually overcame it, it was a power far greater than myself who was able to get me through it.

    God is good!
    Steelers 2014 Draft

    1-Darqueze Dennard CB Michigan State
    2-Jordan Matthews WR Vanderbilt
    3-Jordan Tripp ILB/OLB Montana
    4-Christian Jones ILB Florida State
    5-Brent Urban DE Virginia
    5-Michael Schofield OG/OT Michigan
    6-Kadeem Edwards OG Tennessee State
    6-Ben Gardner DE Stanford
    7-Aaron Colvin CB Oklahoma

  5. #25
    Hall of Famer Sugar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,087
    Quote Originally Posted by Shawn View Post
    Employers risk legal recourse when they begin discriminating based upon disease process. The reason so many have a difficult time with addiction is because they see it as a moral failing...a choice.
    That is exactly how I see it. An employer is not under obligation if an employee can't abide by legal company rules. Businesses exist to provide products or services, not provide people with jobs or healthcare or treatment, etc. As someone who has seen enough addicts fired, I don't think the NFL or the Steelers are going to be in any legal hot water.

  6. #26
    Legend
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, Australia
    Posts
    5,407

    Originally Posted by Djfan
    Why is it the NFL's responsibility? That's crazy.



    Most employers will work to help employees get help with addiction issues. If someone has eaten themselves into type II diabetes an employer will help that person due to medical consequences of that disease. How is drug or alcohol addiction any different? There should be consequences to drug use, but those consequences should involve treatment.
    The biggest difference, of course, between drug addiction & Type 2 diabetes is one is legal, the other is illegal.

    That might carry some weight in a person or company's decision to help- and to vilify them for NOT wanting to help is certainly not justified. Some people & company's may find it outside of their moral radar to jump in.
    Schiavone's Race Career:

    Starts- 9
    Wins- 1
    2nd- 4
    3rd- 0
    Other- 4

    Prizemoney- $28,050.00


  7. #27
    So if a player gets hooked on legal narcotics prescribed by a doctor, what then? And while there are many who are ignorant on the science of addiction which leads to bigotry and discrimination...there are indeed laws set up to protect these individuals. The way a person with a genetic predisposition towards addiction reacts to a mind altering substance is much like an allergy. When Chadman drinks a foster, he can choose whether he picks another one up. If I pick one up, I lose all ability to choose...the allergy kicks in...the obsession rules and I lose all ability to control when I stop. As long as I don't pick up, I have a choice. About 10 percent of the population reacts to chemicals in this fashion. Once the addiction switch is flipped, treatment just like with any other disease is needed. I have seen too many good people get caught up in addiction to attribute it to a moral failing.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Sugar View Post
    That is exactly how I see it. An employer is not under obligation if an employee can't abide by legal company rules. Businesses exist to provide products or services, not provide people with jobs or healthcare or treatment, etc. As someone who has seen enough addicts fired, I don't think the NFL or the Steelers are going to be in any legal hot water.
    It's against company rules to take a controlled substance prescribed by a doctor? Not in most companies. Or is it that you see all addicts as having a needle in their arm, or alcoholics as living under a bridge? What about myself, who never missed a day of work, but drank too much after work? How does that violate company rules? Why shouldnt an alcoholic be able to seek treatment, and be able to have a job to come home to? Why should they have less rights than the diabetic who ate themselves into insulin resistance?

  9. #29
    Hall of Famer Djfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,367
    Our culture has taken the kindness of many employers in helping their ailing or addicted employees, and made it into an obligation for the employers to help them. Not once did I enter into the addiction vs. ailment argument. It just isn't the employer's responsibility.
    Steel City Mafia
    So Cal Boss (Ret)
    http://www.anewsong.com


    My son's first Kansas Turkey!

  10. #30
    Pro Bowler skyhawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1,936
    Quote Originally Posted by Shawn View Post
    So if a player gets hooked on legal narcotics prescribed by a doctor, what then? And while there are many who are ignorant on the science of addiction which leads to bigotry and discrimination...there are indeed laws set up to protect these individuals. The way a person with a genetic predisposition towards addiction reacts to a mind altering substance is much like an allergy. When Chadman drinks a foster, he can choose whether he picks another one up. If I pick one up, I lose all ability to choose...the allergy kicks in...the obsession rules and I lose all ability to control when I stop. As long as I don't pick up, I have a choice. About 10 percent of the population reacts to chemicals in this fashion. Once the addiction switch is flipped, treatment just like with any other disease is needed. I have seen too many good people get caught up in addiction to attribute it to a moral failing.
    Excellent post.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •