Just to clarify: He got TESTED on the 8th September. He didn't get the results that day to say he had failed. The sample is taken in front of a tester who then sends it away for analysis in a lab, where it is tested for a number of different drugs and the results sent to UKDA and then the RFL. Clearly this process took a matter of weeks. This is just like Adam Walker failing a test from the 14th July and not getting suspended until 4th August (3 exact weeks). He failed a test from that date because that's the date he was tested and the sample he was taken, not the date of failure. No club will suspend any player until they have written notification of the failed test, and no club will sack a player until they've been banned and both samples have come back positive to protect themselves legally. Rangi and Walker have not received any form of punishments yet. Also, Walker has not been sacked as of yet but he has been suspended as with Hardaker: www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/40834496. We're all in the same boat with these three. Until the situation is clear with a) both test results and b) the length of ban, they will remain suspended. There's every chance the B sample, no matter how small, may come back OK. By far the interesting thing in this case is that Walker and Rangi were stated as failing for coke, whereas Cas and the RFL have said 'banned substance'. I know other articles link coke to it but just seems weird that it hasn't been mentioned officially. Potential bone of contention?

Just to clarify: He got TESTED on the 8th September. He didn't get the results that day to say he had failed. The sample is taken in front of a tester who then sends it away for analysis in a lab, where it is tested for a number of different drugs and the results sent to UKDA and then the RFL. Clearly this process took a matter of weeks. This is just like Adam Walker failing a test from the 14th July and not getting suspended until 4th August (3 exact weeks). He failed a test from that date because that's the date he was tested and the sample he was taken, not the date of failure. No club will suspend any player until they have written notification of the failed test, and no club will sack a player until they've been banned and both samples have come back positive to protect themselves legally. Rangi and Walker have not received any form of punishments yet. Also, Walker has not been sacked as of yet but he has been suspended as with Hardaker: www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/40834496. We're all in the same boat with these three. Until the situation is clear with a) both test results and b) the length of ban, they will remain suspended. There's every chance the B sample, no matter how small, may come back OK. By far the interesting thing in this case is that Walker and Rangi were stated as failing for coke, whereas Cas and the RFL have said 'banned substance'. I know other articles link coke to it but just seems weird that it hasn't been mentioned officially. Potential bone of contention?

Surely these players knew that they would fail as they knew they taking the drug before the testing. Wouldn't it not be the right thing for the player to tell the club?

They could have been rolling the dice, like they might have done previously. If they hadn't had much, it would be out of their systen in 2-3 days. If they've been on a bender mind it could be in their systen a week or more.

May have thought he'd left enough of a gap between taking it and playing the game but got it wrong. Also no guarantee he'd be the player tested after the match, maybe he was picked out to be tested the previous game or so and thought he wouldn't be picked out this time.

He obviously didn't inform Cas before the game imo because they wouldn't have risked him in a game that was a dead runner for them having already wrapped up the LLS.

There's about 100 more interesting thing involving this. That wording is only interesting if you're a Cas fan who is completely delusional and desparately looking for something to cling on to.

See this is where I take issue with the outpourings of sympathy and demands for support - I'm willing to bet that Hardaker is not a hardcore drug user, constantly self-medicating to escape the joyless ennui of his miserable life; he is in fact, most likely, a young bloke who, like many other young (and many not so young) blokes, likes a bit of sniff to fuel a night of drinking, dancing and, with some luck, shagging. I have no fundamental issue with that - the vast majority of people who do so fund it themselves, and are no detriment to society other than by accident, because their drug of choice has been forced into the hands of crims, whose activity in producing and distributing it causes harm. That's a separate issue though, which could be deemed political, and is therefore prohibited on this forum and will cause Poptart to behave like a Spanish policeman at an illegal referendum.

So - like many other people, Hardaker decided to have a night on the disco sherbet; as a pro sportsman, he knows its on the banned list and he knows the consequences - he also knows he is subject to testing; that being the case, he should also know how to flush it from his system - or not to bother taking it on that particular occasion. The fact that he didn't do either of those things demonstrates that he's an idiot - and I'm not sure what support the RFL, RL itself, or Castleford Tigers, can offer for that affliction beyond what they've already done - and if you include Leeds in that list - he's had more support than most angry young men could ever hope to have.

If you have no issue with taking the white stuff if they are funding it themselves, then tell a young lady who I know with two young kids, who was knocked about by this type of person. No sympathy here for the low life’s

On BLM's point, I've got hatred for anyone that puts their hands on a woman full stop. But lets be honest, far far more people do that kind of stuff on alchohol and have been for generation after generation. in my experience it's very rare people get aggressive on recreational drugs, infact the opposite, unless they're addicted to say Coke and haven't got any money .
Both my cousin and Aunt have been on the end of unbelievably physically and mentally abusive relationships, because of drink. But just because there's people like that in the world, imo doesn't mean you have to tar everyone with the same brush whether it's either recreation drugs or drink, otherwise I'd literally hate every single drinker, including myself for that matter. I generally find that people who turn into cants when they have something, they're pratts to begin with anyway.

There’s scum who do these things without either,like you say shifty, that’s the thing they are. But coke is illegal full stop. I’ve seen the consequences close to home and every day at work, choices and consequences I think they call it. Sorry if I’ve gone off topic but no one will ever convince me otherwise. Rant over

I'm sorry for anyone who's been a victim of domestic abuse - including your friend - but your one example doesn't really stack up as an argument; I prefer the data from Portugal, where drugs were decriminalised in 2001, to much opprobrium; some years later, the public health benefits are unquestionable. They did other things too, before anyone feels the need to point that out, but the central plank of the policy was to decriminalise drugs and treat them as a health issue rather than a legal one - they now have the second lowest number of overdose deaths per million citizens in the world, HIV infections have plummeted, and there hasn't been the dramatic rise in drug use that was predicted.

It's a difficult thing to accept if you're very opposed to the drugs that we've decided are illegal - but our current approach is clearly not working; it keeps the production and supply underground and unregulated, and makes criminals of people who don't really deserve to be - and it has no appreciable impact on the availability or use of substances.

Like I’ve said Bren, I don’t care about them or what happens to them. I work in a prison 95% full of drug related crimes who keep coming back. People can’t get it into their heads that they still need money to acquire the drugs even if made legal and that’s where the crime starts.

So all people who use drugs are scum and thieves, glad we cleared that up, it's like the dark ages on here sometimes, what a load of tosh, I have 4 people that I know of in my close friends who have taken recreational drugs for years marijuana, speed, coke, ecstasy, acid and mushrooms, they are all in their 40's all successful in their chosen professions, not one of them has ever had the sack or been in any trouble whatsoever and lead normal life's but they chose drugs to be their escape on a weekend rather than alcohol. Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong. We will eventually catch up and decriminalise marijuana at the very least and rightly so, the health benefits that it brings will guarantee that I believe, the propaganda that drugs has suffered over the years is criminal in my mind.

A friend of mine is epileptic and until about 4 years ago probably averaged around 5/6 fits per year, constantly in and out of hospital every time he injured himself, since finding a potent concentrate of marijuana and smoking it he has had one fit in 4 years and that was just 2 weeks ago, could be a coincidence but as he lost his supply 2 months ago I doubt it very much. Why are people out their suffering chronic pain when there is an endless supply of a free natural drug which could halo millions around the world? Stinks to high heaven. Pun intended.

Always exceptions to a rule

Just on that, one of the most remarkable things I've seen, is a 20 year long Parkisnson's sufferer who couldn't control his shakes at all. He then had some marijuana oil, this was over in the US and wthin 5 minutes or so after he was told to just lay down and relax, it was like he had siuddenly got rid of the disease, unreal to see that. All at the fraction of the cost of the medicine he was taking and not doing anything.
Anyone interested in watching the video put in utube 'Man with Parkinson’s uses marijuana for the first time — and the results are amazing'. There's loads of similar videos on the subject as well.

That's all part of the wider problem though imo. plenty wouldn't come back if most drugs were decriminalised, that's not to make them completely legal. Just where people get caught with possession amounts, rather than supply amounts of drugs, you don't go straight to jail. I will say I agree there are those particularly with the Heroin and Crack problems, that are going to do almost anything to get the drug, that's where you're going to get constant offenders, due to burglaries and shoplifting. This is where for me Drug help, support & treatment isn't nowhere near as good as it could be in this Country. Ateotd what's cheaper, treament for a user for month, or sticking someone away again for being caugght with a gram of smack and doing a 1/2 year stretch. Obviously there's going to be those that don't want to get clean, or feel they're mentally not equipped to kick the drug.

Anyway each to their own.

You don't get to pick and choose the laws that suit you. It doesn't matter how morally superior you think your mates are.

They may be all the things you say they are but that's absolutely no excuse - who gives them the right.

I happen to agree as regards your point on Canabis as medication. It's a scam by drugs companies. So sort it through the ballot box if you feel that strongly, that's what it's for.

Sorry but what your calling the dark ages is actually the opposite. The law should be blind and implemented without regard to the perpetrators 'niceness' or 'popularity. The law must be above personality, when it's used selectively you end up with anarchy or worse.

Vasty, myself and most others on these forums care very little what you think. Have a great day you amazing person.

Correct - but thankfully, at least for now, it's perfectly acceptable to talk about those laws which you think are wrong.

Personally, after decades of the so-called war on drugs, which has patently and clearly had no positive impact on any of the things it purports to deal with, I think it's time for a new approach; other countries have tried it, with good results, and there's now enough empirical data to cherry pick the best ideas from around the world, to create a UK solution.

There are many reasons why that won't happen for the foreseeable future of course, not least the frothing, Daily Mail attitude that all drugs are bad; and since we're in an age where some people believe that their opinions trump facts, it's very hard to get past. I hope we do though. I like this, from Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance in the US:



Seems sensible to me.

Take from me Shifty, rehabilitating isn’t working and never will as the real figures out there will never come to light and that goes for all crimes. Everyone will have a view on how to clamp down on it and I’m sure legalising it won’t stop the hardened user, but again that’s my opinion.

Some sense

Drugs and some of the e peddled about them is ridiculous. Like any chemical substance will be abused and used inappropriately by a lot of people. I think sometimes people just think people take drugs and then the drugs ruin that person. Usually there are deep rooted problems in that person's mentality or life/lifestyle long before the drugs come into it. The drugs are the symptom and not the cause. Most addicts will tell you that.

Which no doubt applies to alcohol too, which is abused on a massive scale and causes enormous societal problems; that being the case, would you advocate banning it, because some people can't moderate their usage?

But that's only representative of a small minority of drug users overall. Millions of people take drugs every week/weekend without ending up robbing a granny's handbag to fund their habit or living in a filthy squat with teeth missing. Yes there are problem users of social drugs in the same way there are problem users of prescription drugs and alcohol and tobacco. Most people are perfectly able to fund their drug use through legitimate means (just like most drinkers) and will never commit any other crime to obtain or use drugs, other than the socially constructed and in my opinion arbitrary laws around drug possession and supply. The vast majority of drug users are able to moderate their use they are not junkies, which is often the depiction of drug use in the media and which is the image many people associate with it.

Couldn't agree more, it riles me when people have the image of "he's on drugs so he is just like something out of trainspotting" Just think of the revenue that can be raised from taxes on such a cheap crop, the health benefits, stoping people who just want a bit of weed from having to visit a dealer, the business's popping up to produce it all paying rates. It's an absolute no brainer for me, only the big pharma companies are stopping this happening.

Not to mention that legitimising the production and supply breaks the crims stranglehold, and stops much of the well publicised harm that occurs in the supply chain.

Also it would take away the bad stuff they put in it to make it go further, which in itself is a danger