Warfield's coming suspension vs. J Lewis' suspension
 

I had read where Warfield might be suspended next year for his DUI. If J Lewis only gets a 2 game suspension for his activities, what are they going to suspend Warfield?

Is Warfield going to do jail time?

I'd say Warfields crime was worse, so he deserves a bigger suspension.

That sounds odd at first, but I'd have to agree.

Yeah. Its a kneejerk reaction. You think "intent to sell cocaine" vs DUI, but then you actually sit there and think about it.

WTF? Drugs vs alcohol....I think it's clear Jamal's crime is worse.

Both are felonies, however Lewis was not even in the NFL when he committed his crime. I would not be surprised if Warfield gets a stiffer suspension. You have to be a total reerun to get a DUI, much less 3.

DT

I agree whole heartedly with this post. I think the team ought to hire a personal driver for Warfield and dock his pay accordingly.

I will have to keep an eye out here http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=100837 for any unemployed Planet member.

Yeah, that's why the recent study found that driving while talking on a cell phone is much more dangerous than driving at a .08.

I'm surprised that so many people buy into the jihad against drunk driving.

Hire a personal driver? Screw that. These are grown men. They should know how to behave.

If Warfield gets another DUI he can look for another team to play for.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=570222

When drivers were conversing on a cell-phone, they were involved in more rear-end collisions, their initial reaction to vehicles braking in front of them was slowed by 8.8%, and the variability in following distance increased by 24.5%, relative to baseline. In addition, compared to baseline it took participants who were talking on the cell phone 14.8% longer to recover the speed that was lost during braking.

By contrast, when participants were legally intoxicated, neither accident rates, nor reaction time to vehicles braking in front of the particpant, nor recovery of lost speed following braking differed significantly from baseline.

There's a novel idea!!!!
I'll volunteer to drive the "short bus" for Chiefs players, just to safely get the around and all!!!

I'm not -- same as the smoking nazi's.
Don't get me wrong, it is a responsibility thing (DWI etc), but I see a plea bargain to "felony cell phone usage" from intent to distribute cocaine as a lot worse than DWI/DUI/possession.

At any rate, the NFL's jurisdiction in Warfields and Lewis' case are different, in addition you have Warfield skirting the D/L system by getting a Nebraska license and surrendering his Kansas license (shows fraudulent intent).

About the only thing to happen to Lewis after all this is his endorsement universe will shrink (no childrens toys or books).

This is probably by far the stupidest argument i've heard.

Huh? Are you kidding? A cocaine deal < dui?

I live in the ATL. Word on the street is the boy is/was still involved in that type of activity.

Uh..think about it. He assisted in selling an illegal drug (by the US government standards) vs putting his own life and many other peoples lives in danger, not once, not twice, but 3 fuggin times.

depends on whether Lewis knew what he was introducing the 2 guys for.


if he was REALLY brokering a drug deal then i would say that Lewis had the more serious charge.


Warfield = dangerously stupid

Lewis = criminal endeavor

now that's just nuts...

eric is the only decent cb we have at this point...

i'd much rather have him find a way to deal more effectively with his drinking problem (or drinking and driving problem to be more accurate) than get rid him...

atl? atlanta? american timber lobby? :shrug:

while i'm opposed to criminal penalties for drug use, cocaine is a dangerous drug (speaking from experience)...

but if it were legal, together with all other street drugs, it would definitely reduce and/or remove the criminal element associated with drug trafficking and use...

and that would be a good thing, imo...

If murdur were legal, it would definitely eliminate the criminal element associated with bumping off someone that teed you off.

what? mudur is not legal???

The point was not that murder and snorting cocaine are equivalent.

The point was that if you make something legal, that by definition removes the criminal element. So I always find the arguement that by making something legal you could remove the criminal element weak.

nothing... personally in an ideal world i think all drugs should be legal as long as they are advertised correctly(ie people know what they do)


but as of right now, they aren't legal so jmo Jamal lewis is prolly the more severe crime.

Not to mention, you're allowed to kill. Murder is illegal killing. You're not allowed to murder.

You're not in any way shape or form allowed to have any cocaine. No matter what you do with it.

not really true...


the use and then the frequent addiction effects all the people around the user and also effect society financially and in general safety.



a similiar arguement to the seat belt law

i do too

So your arguement takes the following valid logical form:

My premise is that cocaine harms only the user.

Therefore my conclusion is that cocaine should be legal.

Your conclusion follows logically from your premise. I don't agree with the premise, but at least it is a logical argument.

Gobo argues:

If cocaine were legal, you wouldn't have criminal element involved. Well duh. My arguement about murder is an example to show that his form argument is unvalid and pointless.

That would be true if you were self insured.

But you not wearing a seat belt would hurt me because you might sustain more severe injuries in a crash, thereby raising my insurance rates. Not a victemless crime.

If talking on a cell phone imposes a higher expected cost than driving drunk, shouldn't the penalty be larger? This is just so basic...the fact that you are so confused about it......doesn't speak highly of your IQ.

So I suppose someone should be beheaded for talking on a cell phone when driving, since it is more dangerous.

Probably by far?

unvalid, huh?

whatever you say... ROFL ROFL ROFL

Alcohol IS a drug. One of the most addictive...

The only problem I see with this argument is that if legalized cocaine harms the consumer it opens the door for those greedy bastages called trial lawyers who want to sue every body from cigarrette companies to Gun manufacturers. Under a product liability case.


BTW I would like to see all kinds of stuff legalized and taxed. End the billions of dollars wasted on fighting it. Make a little revenue from it and spend that money on education and treatment programs There by creating more jobs.