If this was true he would have been released a while ago. Im not sure Ryan has ever written a positive story on the Jags, i try to avoid reading or listening to him.

 

Eh, I usually like his reporting. I didn't listen to his piece on the radio, but could he be referencing the Jags trying hard to trade him after he's reinstated as opposed to outright released? Releasing him makes zero sense since they're still hanging onto him, so I'd guess that's what he was implying.

---

I'm glad he has finally signed into a facility to get some help with his addictions. Regardless of if he ever touches a football again, I hope he recovers and has success in life.

---

I y'ams who I y'ams and thats all I y'ams...

They get the authority from the person agreeing with the terms of employment.

 

If you don't like the terms of employment, then don't work there.

 

It's a contract. Either you are willing to agree to it or you aren't. No one is forcing people to work for a company that forbids drug or alcohol use.

I've never worked for an employer who had the authority to say someone was abusing alcohol/drugs or using them...There is a huge difference between using alcohol and abusing it...Not every employer cares if someone gets a dui or two or three...The only ones who really care are ones who's employees drive company vehicles or use on the premises...Now again I ask who are the people who distinguish when a person crosses the line from use to abuse...The employer doesn't make that distinction, at least none I've ever heard of...Someone somewhere says " Ol Joe is a good ol boy, but he abuses alcohol" and then he is labled an abuser of alcohol? Nawwww I don't think so...It's probably some jerk face in the Prosecuting Attorney's office

---

I've never worked for an employer who had the authority to say someone was abusing alcohol/drugs or using them...There is a huge difference between using alcohol and abusing it...Not every employer cares if someone gets a dui or two or three...The only ones who really care are ones who's employees drive company vehicles or use on the premises...Now again I ask who are the people who distinguish when a person crosses the line from use to abuse...The employer doesn't make that distinction, at least none I've ever heard of...Someone somewhere says " Ol Joe is a good ol boy, but he abuses alcohol" and then he is labled an abuser of alcohol? Nawwww I don't think so...It's probably some jerk face in the Prosecuting Attorney's office

To some employers just the use of drugs or alcohol is considered abuse.

 

Literally thousands of employers subject their employees to random drug tests. Employers have the right to determine the conditions of employment. Employes have the right to seek employment elsewhere if they don't agree with those conditions.

 

I don't understand why it is so difficult for you to grasp the concept that there is a large segment of the population that frowns on drug and alcohol use. Good lord, they succeeded in establishing an amendment to the constitution that forbid any use or sale of alcohol.

 

Those people still exist. There are still blue laws in this country that restrict or even prevent the sale of alcohol in some places.

 

As long as they are not violating one of the protected factors of discrimination, employers can put whatever guidelines they want on the people they hire. It's a free country. If you don't like it, you are also perfectly free to decline the their terms of employment and walk down the street and seek employment from someone who has more favorable terms.

 

I don't understand why this concept is so hard for you to grasp. Like I said, it's a free country. Private businesses are free to choose who they employ and the conditions of employment as long as they don't violate the guidelines of discrimination, and drug or alcohol users aren't a protected segment of society.

---

IThere is a huge difference between using alcohol and abusing it...Not every employer cares if someone gets a dui or two or three...The only ones who really care are ones who's employees drive company vehicles or use on the premises...Now again I ask who are the people who distinguish when a person crosses the line from use to abuse...The employer doesn't make that distinction, at least none I've ever heard of...Someone somewhere says " Ol Joe is a good ol boy, but he abuses alcohol" and then he is labled an abuser of alcohol? Nawwww I don't think so...It's probably some jerk face in the Prosecuting Attorney's office

1 DUI = proof of an instance of alcohol abuse

2 DUI = proof of a second instance of alcohol abuse

3 DUI = proof of a third instance of alcohol abuse

 

If Ol Joe abuses alcohol, how is it inaccurate to label him as an abuser of alcohol?  

If a guy plays football in the NFL, wouldn't you call him a football player?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.