By That is what it seems to be considering that in the past three years he has gotten divorced from his wife, seen hanging out with porn stars, goes on Dancing with the Stars, had police pull guns on him, and now a DUI:
Hines Ward(notes), star wide receiver for the Pittsburgh Steelers and widely regarded as one of the NFL’s finest citizens, spent part of his Saturday morning in handcuffs after being arrested in Georgia for driving under the influence.
Not a lot of details are available just yet, but Ward was booked into the jail at 3:41 a.m. and then released on $1,000 bond.
Owing to his often violent, physical style of play, Ward is a polarizing figure on the field. Off the field, though, Ward was beyond reproach. He’d done a lot of work to benefit mixed-race children in South Korea, where he was born. President Obama even appointed him to the President’s Advisory Commission on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. [Yahoo Sports]
I guess Ben Roethlisberger was unavailable for comment.
Oh by the way, Hines Ward says he wasn’t driving drunk and when the facts come out he will be exonerated.
6:58 pm on July 9th, 2011 1
What an idiot.
8:38 pm on July 9th, 2011 2
Let’s remember that a lot of folks who suddenly get fame, money, and other stuff forget they aren’t omnipotent…
And try to live our own lives in such a way that living under a microscope wouldn’t reveal serious flaws…
9:21 pm on July 9th, 2011 3
I know it’s a novel concept but I think I’ll go with “innocent until proven guilty.” I know it’s a bit passe and all. Call me old fashioned.
9:23 pm on July 9th, 2011 4
Of course, I have no idea about the circumstances surrounding this arrest. I will say this though – based on personal experience – Georgia cops will pull you over for just about ANYTHING. Their goal is to create an opportunity to search your vehicle. So they will pull you over because you were supposed to turn your turn signal on 150 feet from the turn, but you turned it on at the 140 foot mark – and then they will do an extensive search of your vehicle.
Hines has the financial resources to fight this…so you never know what the outcome will be.
9:40 pm on July 9th, 2011 5
4. Exactly. When it comes to traffic law, it’s really not about public safety, it’s about augmenting the tax base.
9:41 pm on July 9th, 2011 6
Too much Soju? His eyes are bleeding.
10:39 pm on July 9th, 2011 7
Guitard, Leon…
Cops don’t get recognition or promotion for sitting in their cars and watching traffic go by.
Cops get rewarded by making felony arrests, misdemeanor arrests, and giving tickets.
Traffic stops are a FANTASTIC way to pick the low-hanging fruit of crime… especially as so many people are too funking stupid to leave their drugs at home… and so many poor people have outstanding warrants for administrative/paperwork/procedural “crimes” which mostly revolve around unpaid fines or missed court dates… which mostly involved petty drug crime… and the circle completes.
Cops are masters of profiling… not non-productive racial profiling as the media would have you believe… but very productive behavioral profiling.
For the most part, if you get stopped and searched without real cause, it is something you brought upon yourself by being more noticeable than other drivers… be it the style of your car/clothes that tries to emulate popular criminal culture, the number of male passengers, a sudden change in behavior when spotting the cop, etc. There is a long list of behaviors cops instantly recognize… and it is good to know.
Even after getting stopped, correct speaking and action will show there is little likelihood of a crime, the officer is wasting his time and, if his reasons for pulling you over are too thin to write a ticket, he will let you go with a warning and go back to looking for more rewarding prey.
2:56 am on July 10th, 2011 8
“Cops don’t get recognition or promotion for sitting in their cars and watching traffic go by.”
In S. Korea cops get recognition(and by the public) for sleeping in their cars/on the job.
2:57 am on July 10th, 2011 9
“Recognition” by both their seniors and the public.
3:24 am on July 10th, 2011 10
#7,
If that sort of BS traffic stops/profiling ever happens to you in Canada, the cop is definitely not RCMP.
3:46 am on July 10th, 2011 11
That’s good, Teadrinker 10. The FBI doesn’t do traffic stops either.
1:12 pm on July 10th, 2011 12
who cares about this filifpino?
5:02 pm on July 10th, 2011 13
#11,
The RCMP is much more than the FBI. It’s more like the KNPA. The RCMP patrols roads in most places except for Ontario and Quebec (and to an extent, Newfoundland).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Canadian_Mounted_Police
5:26 pm on July 10th, 2011 14
Anyways, this shouldn’t have happened. The guy can afford to hire a designated driver (only 28$/h according to one website which offers this service).
If you’re going to drink, you make sure you don’t take any chances. Yes, you probably aren’t drunk a .08 (just two or three drinks for a guy his size) and you can probably still drive quite well, but it’s not worth the trouble if you get caught.
11:24 pm on July 10th, 2011 15
@7,
I agree with you on this. My older brother is/was (moved on to different career field) a LT in Oklahoma. He used to do drug stops all the time and profiling is how you figure out who to stop. Oklahoma is the main thoroughfare for getting drugs from Mexico to the Chicago / northern states, and thus you see lots of of traffic going up and down. He would catch the large cash shipments going down and the drug cars going up.
Ex. Cash
Unlike in the movies drug dealers don’t meet up at some shady spot in cheap suits with briefcase’s of cash. Instead they make all arrangements remotely and just send someone to the other state to drop off the cash. $40~50K or more is pretty common. You find a single white mother who needs the money and put her in an older used car. You then stash the money inside the seats or inside the lining in the roof. After pulling them over you ask them the question “would you have any large amounts of cash in the vehicle” and when asking them you follow their eyes, they will always quickly glace at where they got the money hidden. Remember this is some poor white single mom who needs the money but usually isn’t experienced with dealing with police search’s.
Next up, how they hide the MJ / other drugs from dogs / police search’s.
First you get a single white mother with a young adolescent kid who are both in poverty. Put them in some old nondescript hoopty with the drugs stashed inside. Being a hoopty it’s nearly impossible to tell if it’s been modified to conceal drugs. Now put a small “one hitter” of MJ on the kid, something small that is a misdemeanor in most states. You want this to be found, its the distraction. If the police pull over the car and bring the dogs for a drug search, the dogs will hit on the MJ in the kids pocket over the MJ / drugs hidden in the car. The cop finds the on-hiter and the mother goes ballistic yelling at her kid and crying about how her son can’t be doing this. It’s all an act to convince the police that he’s just some kid on a bad path, the police confiscate the one-hitter and let them off with a warning. They drive off and the kid pulls another one-hitter out of the hiding space in the car. This plan relies on the fact that states rarely share information on trivial stops like these, the state police will give the kid some sh!t but they’ve got bigger fish to fry and won’t take the time to arrest him. The amount is so small that it’s not worth their time.
Took them awhile to pick up on how they were moving it, prolly shifted to a different tactic now. The big lessons is that the drug gang’s like to use poor white single moms to do their work, its the social group most in need of monetary support but least likely to be suspected of anything. If their kid is in junior high or high school it’s even better, they can use him as a mule and he’ll just be charged as a minor should anything bad happen.
5:14 pm on July 11th, 2011 16
“The big lessons is that…”
by decriminalizing or legalizing a drug which has been proven time and time again to be less harmful than alcohol, you’re depriving criminal organizations of a huge source of revenue and allowing law enforcement to manage its resources in a much more effective manner.
6:43 am on July 12th, 2011 17
Well, he claims he had just two beers…and the cops said he tested over .120. Must have been some really big bottles.
8:13 am on July 12th, 2011 18
The test that showed a .128% blood-alcohol content was a portable breath test. Such tests are not admissible in court and only really prove that alcohol was present.
If Hines is willing to shell out some really big bucks on a team of top notch lawyers – he stands a reasonably good chance of beating this.
9:24 am on July 12th, 2011 19
someotherguy wrote:
So what you’re saying is that racial profiling needs to start focusing on White people?
Actually, Weeds taught me that.
9:35 am on July 12th, 2011 20
teadrinker wrote:
This moderate is sympathetic to what you just said, but I think the “less harmful than alcohol” argument falls flat.
For starters, it’s an apples and oranges comparison, since it is skewed by the fact that alcohol’s legal status means there are so many more potential drunk drivers than high drivers, and that increasing legalization of marijuana might actual reveal its true dangers. In fact, a recent LAT story suggests that very thing:
And your claim that pot “has been proven time and time again to be less harmful than alcohol” doesn’t hold water precisely because of the dearth of studies on marijuana (alone or in combination with alcohol) relative to alcohol alone.
9:50 pm on July 12th, 2011 21
“This moderate is sympathetic to what you just said, but I think the “less harmful than alcohol” argument falls flat. ”
Alcohol causes liver damage, cancer, etc. It’s responsible for thousands of deaths every year.
Pot…It’s responsible for the munchies.
“For starters, it’s an apples and oranges comparison, since it is skewed by the fact that alcohol’s legal status means there are so many more potential drunk drivers than high drivers, and that increasing legalization of marijuana might actual reveal its true dangers.”
Actually, a British study found that smoking pot does not increase the chances of accident. Although it impairs motor skills, this impairment manifests itself by the driver decreasing their driving speed. You see, people under the influence of cannabis, unlike alcohol, are aware of their impairment and take extra precautions as a consequence. Should they be driving? They probably shouldn’t because they might not be able to respond as quickly in an emergency situation. Nevertheless, there is no statistically significant increase in accidents occurring when someone is driving under the influence of marijuana.
9:54 pm on July 12th, 2011 22
As for the LAT story…It jumped because more people are using, and therefore a greater number of people who are in accidents will have been under the influence of marijuana. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
10:15 pm on July 12th, 2011 23
Teadrinker wrote (#21):
You made one of the points I was going to make about the British study, that reduced speed means little when quick reaction (say, to a pedestrian or an errant lane-changer) is required.
Also, I’m not so sure I agree that marijuana smokers are always so aware of their “impairment.” Nor do I agree that alcohol-impaired drivers are not; people I’ve known in law enforcement in Orange County are trained to keep an eye on “especially careful” drivers late at night, since they are often people impaired by alcohol who are trying to avoid getting noticed doing something stupid.
10:17 pm on July 12th, 2011 24
Teadrinker wrote:
Precisely, and that is the relevance to any discussion of legalization and public safety.
11:53 pm on July 12th, 2011 25
@19,
Single white mothers have the highest chance of getting out of a drug check, especially if they have a adolescent kid in the car. Drug distributors are business men, for them it’s about the money. They couldn’t care less about some liberal PC BS and if they have to discriminate then so be it.
Kushibo, we realize that you’ve never been around MJ and that your greatest source of learning material is Reefer Madness. This may come as a shock but the active ingredients in MJ are less toxic then the active ingredients in consumer alcohol. This is proven toxicology.
Ethyl hydroxide is a toxin to your body, it has the following effects
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol
“Ethanol is a central nervous system depressant and has significant psychoactive effects in sublethal doses; for specifics, see “Effects of alcohol on the body by dose”. Based on its abilities to change the human consciousness, ethanol is considered a psychoactive drug.[78] Death from ethyl alcohol consumption is possible when blood alcohol level reaches 0.4%. A blood level of 0.5% or more is commonly fatal. Levels of even less than 0.1% can cause intoxication, with unconsciousness often occurring at 0.3–0.4%”
“At higher dosages (BAC > 1 g/L), ethanol acts as a central nervous system depressant, producing at progressively higher dosages, impaired sensory and motor function, slowed cognition, stupefaction, unconsciousness, and possible death.
Ethanol acts in the central nervous system by binding to the GABA-A receptor, increasing the effects of the inhibitory neurotransmitter GABA (i.e., it is a positive allosteric modulator).[80]
Prolonged heavy consumption of alcohol can cause significant permanent damage to the brain and other organs”
Make no mistake, Ethyl hydroxide is very toxic to humans if ingested. Drinking alcoholic beverages is drinking poison, it’s simply a poison that’s addictive.
Now for MJ,
Cannabis is a plant with the active ingredient THC (tetrahydrocannabinol). Other the THC Cannabis functions similarly to tobacco minus the nicotine. Smoking it can cause lung cancer and bad breath.
THC itself has the following
toxicology.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THC
“There has never been a documented human fatality from overdosing on tetrahydrocannabinol or cannabis in its natural form.[18] However, the synthetic THC pill Marinol was cited by the FDA as being responsible for 4 of the 11,687 deaths from 17 different FDA approved drugs between January 1, 1997 to June 30, 2005.[19] Information about THC’s toxicity is derived from animal studies. The toxicity depends on the route of administration and the laboratory animal. Absorption is limited by serum lipids, which can become saturated with THC, mitigating toxicity.[20] According to the Merck Index, 12th edition, THC has an LD50 (dose killing half of the research subjects) value of 1270 mg/kg (male rats) and 730 mg/kg (female rats) administered orally dissolved in sesame oil.[21] The LD50 value for rats by inhalation of THC is 42 mg/kg of body weight.[21] One estimate of THC’s LD50 for humans indicates that about 1,500 pounds (680 kg) of cannabis would have to be smoked within 14 minutes.[22] This estimate is supported by studies which indicate that the effective dose of THC is at least 1000 times lower than the estimated lethal dose (a “therapeutic ratio” of 1000:1). This is much higher than alcohol (therapeutic ratio 10:1), cocaine (15:1), or heroin (6:1).”
“A 2008 German review reported that cannabis was a causal factor in some cases of schizophrenia and stressed the need for better education among the public due to increasingly relaxed access to cannabis.[55] Though cannabis use has increased dramatically in several countries over the past few decades, the rates of psychosis and schizophrenia have not generally increased, casting some doubt over whether the drug can cause cases that would not otherwise have occurred”
“The ratio of cannabis material required to produce a fatal overdose to the amount required to saturate cannabinoid receptors and cause intoxication is approximately 40,000:1;[17][18] It is extremely difficult to overdose by smoking marijuana; a typical marijuana “joint” contains less than 10 mg of THC, and one would have to smoke thousands of those in a short period of time to approach toxic levels. According to a 2006 United Kingdom government report, using cannabis is much less dangerous than tobacco, prescription drugs, and alcohol in social harms, physical harm, and addiction.[19] It was found in 2007 that while tobacco and cannabis smoke are quite similar, cannabis smoke contained higher amounts of ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, and nitrogen oxides, but lower levels of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).[20] This study found that directly inhaled cannabis smoke contained as much as 20 times as much ammonia and 5 times as much hydrogen cyanide as tobacco smoke and compared the properties of both mainstream and sidestream (smoke emitted from a smouldering ‘joint’ or ‘cone’) smoke.[20] Mainstream cannabis smoke was found to contain higher concentrations of selected polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) than sidestream tobacco smoke.[20] However, other studies have found much lower disparities in ammonia and hydrogen cyanide between cannabis and tobacco, and that some other constituents (such as polonium-210, lead, arsenic, nicotine, and tobacco-specific nitrosamines) are either lower or non-existent in cannabis smoke.”
So basically, the worst tetrahydrocannabinol can do is make crazy people crazier, something Ethyl hydroxide has been known to do for a few centuries. The lethal dose rate is such that it is impossible to OD through smoking, you would need to IV inject yourself with a few kg of oil that had THC dissolved in it. Tetrahydrocannabinol is a recreational drug, so is Ethyl hydroxide and Nicotine amongst others. We all how the national ban of Ethyl hydroxide turned out, does anyone seriously think the current national ban of Tetrahydrocannabinol will turn out any different considering it’s lower mortality rate?
How many people die each year dose’s to lethal dose’s of Ethyl hydroxide? How many more die due to irresponsible use of Ethyl hydroxide while operating vehicles? How many people die each year due to lethal dose’s of Tetrahydrocannabinol? How many people die each year due to irresponsible use of Tetrahydrocannabinol while operating vehicles?
3:57 am on July 13th, 2011 26
I love Korea. No having to listen to people debate legalization of MJ ad nauseam or talking about their drug experiences.
4:54 am on July 13th, 2011 27
“How many people die each year due to irresponsible use of Tetrahydrocannabinol while operating vehicles?”
The real question is, “How many people die through intentional over-use of large, pretentious, scientificy-sounding words?”
Why, upon dutiful and studious pondering over the torrid implications of this most informative lecture, I am forced to reconsider my predisposition concerning Ethyl hydroxide and Tetrahydrocannabinol and, perhaps, acquiesce to the most compelling yet inevitable of conclusions. Tut tut.
Now, what the funk was I saying?
3:51 pm on July 13th, 2011 28
Kangaji…
You need to hang out with more English teachers to hear all the rationalizations.
Though, for the record, I agree with Someotherguy and all the Canadian teachers.
It SHOULD be legal…at least in the States.
1. It turns a financial drain into a financial resource for the government. Even with a reduction in price, the government makes what Mexican drugo lords are making now.
2. Stoners cause fewer problems than drunks in many ways… especially violent crime.
3. Stoners are not as angry as non-stoners that they are filling the underpaid crap service jobs.
4. There is less chance of stoners making the big step into seriously evil drugs like meth.
5. Once they follow America’s lead and legalize it, Canada will be easier to occupy. That applies to the world.
4:13 pm on July 13th, 2011 29
ChickenHead 28, should we take all of Canada? I’m thinking, maybe leave Quebec alone. We’d have it surrounded, so it couldn’t case too much trouble.
4:59 pm on July 13th, 2011 30
Francocide.
5:32 pm on July 13th, 2011 31
I’ll suggest Center For Army Lessons Learned updates FM 3-24.2 with your suggestion CH.
12:39 am on July 14th, 2011 32
@27,
Not overly pretentious at all, those are the chemical names for the active ingredients. And ultimately drinking a can of beer is “using drugs”, over indulging in that beer is abusing Ethyl hydroxide. Over indulging in Ethyl hydroxide and operating a vehicle is irresponsible use of Ethyl hydroxide.
See the anti-drug people like to throw around the “Drugs are Evil” speech in an attempt to create an emotional response. Just like you like to throw around ridicule in order to detract from your own fallacious reasoning. Ultimately any chemical you put in your body is a “drug”, that Tylenol off the store counter is a drug, so is the cigaret your smoking, as is the beer your drinking and the joint your smoking.
If using the proper words for things when referring to their toxicology offends you, then maybe you should reevaluate your career trajectory.
9:03 am on July 14th, 2011 33
Someotherguy, someotherguy, someotherguy…
Reading anything you write is like watching the spaz kid lecture the cool kids on how to meet girls… irritating at first… but amusing once everyone gets into the spirit of things.
C’mon… you chose the most contrived name for ethanol you could find… and you did it intentionally to sound “smart”…
…but it doesn’t. It sounds the opposite of smart.
While I can’t say, “using the proper words for things when referring to their toxicology offends” me, I can say that those who use improper words make an easy target for ridicule.
Exhibit A:
‘toxicology ethanol’ has ‘About 1,980,000 results’ on Google
‘toxicology “ethyl hydroxide”‘ has ‘About 3,570 results’ on Google…
…and they are ALL from documents which list all possible names for ethanol… as ethyl hydroxide is possible to cobble together from legitimate nomenclature…
…but that doesn’t make it the “proper words for things when referring to their toxicology”.
You crack me up.
Also, your consistent capital E in “Ethyl hydroxide” was a nice touch of ignorance… probably a cut-and-paste as you looked down the list of alternate names for ethanol and tried to find the fanciest one.
I’m guessing that you have no idea what IUPAC is… and I would further guess that you have no idea what the “color books” are… and I would even further guess you have no idea which color will show what a shallow and pretentious little bore you are.
Protip: Two carbon atoms = eth-, single bond = -ane, an attached -OH group = “-ol”… ethanol.
But, regardless of how hard you bluff and how loud you accuse everyone else of using Wikipedia, your complete ignorance is clearly on display…
…as anyone with real knowledge of chemistry would likely write ethanol and THC (after giving the full name of the molecule once).
Anyway, you crack me up.
Take a dihydrogen oxide break and then continue the lecture… even if you are full of 3-methylindole…
…or would that be the more pretentious 4-Methyl-2,3-benzopyrrole?
10:08 am on July 14th, 2011 34
I have no dog in that fight, and I can’t even remember who said what, but if I’m recalling my organic chemistry class correctly, “ethyl hydroxide” would not at all be a normal nomenclature. It is the -ol aspect of the chemical, not the -hydroxyl aspect, that makes it what it is, in terms of chemical character and function.
2:50 pm on July 14th, 2011 35
‘Hydroxide’ suggests an ionic compound, a base like sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide, which are to be ingested in extremely dilute solutions if at all.
3:44 pm on July 14th, 2011 36
Grr… what I meant to say was:
-hydroxyl –> -hydroxide
6:53 pm on July 15th, 2011 37
“Drat! You got your tetrahydrocannabinol in my Ethyl hydroxide (sic).”
“No, you got your Ethyl hydroxide (sic) in my tetrahydrocannabinol, you goon.”
“Gentlemen, I daresay they are two great tastes that go together… especially when writing pretentious little posts that call Kushibo ignorant, Glans an a$$, and ChickenHead a peanut.”