michael irvin

whitetrashgriz · Post by **whitetrashgriz** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:29 am

what do you guys think? he's had his trouble in the past. but he claims he's clean. first he says it was a friends pipe. now it is his brothers! was he trying to protect family? or is he a liar? being a vikes fan, i am very good at giving people the benefit of the doubt! and i actually like irvin. from my standpoint, all i can say is that i hope he is telling the truth. i want him to be innocent! but it's tough. any thoghts on all this. i saw he wont be on nfl live this sunday. that's what triggered my questions. lets hear it!

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 9:28 am

I never have liked him but mainly because he was a Cowboy. This recent one and his past drug charge only give me fuel for the fire.

As far as a commentator he is much better the Boomer andShannon Sharpe but I still don't like him.

Post by **rtb** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:56 am

I never liked him when he was playing, but now on ESPN I have grown to like him. I don't know why, but I really believe that it wasn't his.

mquast53000 · Post by **mquast53000** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:01 am

If they really want to find out if it was his pipe or not they should give him a drug test. If the drug test proves that he has used drugs recently then the pipe is his if he is clean then his story is legitimate. Honestly, I think if it really wasn’t his pipe he would have told everyone that he would take a drug test to prove he doesn’t using drugs. Since his story is fishy and he hasn’t suggested taking a drug test I really think he is using drugs and the pipe is his…

go_catz! · Post by **go_catz!** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:06 am

His pipe. No question about it.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:07 am

I think they should have done a drug test to determine if he was driving under the influence. If he wasn't, who cares if he had done drugs recently?

I've always been confused as to how possessing "drug paraphenelia" is illegal and how that law stands on the books. So even if you don't possess drugs, you can still be arrested for having appliances that would allow you to do drugs if you had them. It's kind of like charging a kid with a crime for having a bottle opener (even if they had no alcohol in their possession of any kind), as a bottle opener is virtually exclusively used for opening beer bottles these days.

I'm like Pony, though. He was a Cowboy, so if anyone has to go down for something like this, it just as well be him.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:27 am

BAC wrote: I've always been confused as to how possessing "drug paraphenelia" is illegal and how that law stands on the books. So even if you don't possess drugs, you can still be arrested for having appliances that would allow you to do drugs if you had them. It's kind of like charging a kid with a crime for having a bottle opener (even if they had no alcohol in their possession of any kind), as a bottle opener is virtually exclusively used for opening beer bottles these days.

I use a bottle opener on my Stewart's Key Lime soda and Weinhart's Root Beer quite often. I think our hyperbole is a bit simplistic, BAC.

whitetrashgriz · Post by **whitetrashgriz** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:44 am

'93HonoluluCat wrote:
BAC wrote: I've always been confused as to how possessing "drug paraphenelia" is illegal and how that law stands on the books. So even if you don't possess drugs, you can still be arrested for having appliances that would allow you to do drugs if you had them. It's kind of like charging a kid with a crime for having a bottle opener (even if they had no alcohol in their possession of any kind), as a bottle opener is virtually exclusively used for opening beer bottles these days.
I use a bottle opener on my Stewart's Key Lime soda and Weinhart's Root Beer quite often. I think our hyperbole is a bit simplistic, BAC.

ya, and i use mine on my bottles of coca-cola and sometimes those pesky bottles of milk left on my doorstep every morning.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:58 am

'93HonoluluCat wrote:
BAC wrote: I've always been confused as to how possessing "drug paraphenelia" is illegal and how that law stands on the books. So even if you don't possess drugs, you can still be arrested for having appliances that would allow you to do drugs if you had them. It's kind of like charging a kid with a crime for having a bottle opener (even if they had no alcohol in their possession of any kind), as a bottle opener is virtually exclusively used for opening beer bottles these days.
I use a bottle opener on my Stewart's Key Lime soda and Weinhart's Root Beer quite often. I think our hyperbole is a bit simplistic, BAC.

And a pipe could be used to smoke anything ... so I think the analogy (vs. "hyperbole") is simplistic, but also perfectly logical. A vast majority (nearly every single one of them) of kids with bottle openers in their vehicles are using them for beer. Should they be charged with a crime when they are pulled over and found to possess a bottle opener? Would it strengthen the analogy if the bottle opener had a beer logo on it? Does it then become "alcohol paraphenelia?"

catatac · Post by **catatac** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:00 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:I think they should have done a drug test to determine if he was driving under the influence. If he wasn't, who cares if he had done drugs recently?

I've always been confused as to how possessing "drug paraphenelia" is illegal and how that law stands on the books. So even if you don't possess drugs, you can still be arrested for having appliances that would allow you to do drugs if you had them. It's kind of like charging a kid with a crime for having a bottle opener (even if they had no alcohol in their possession of any kind), as a bottle opener is virtually exclusively used for opening beer bottles these days.

I'm like Pony, though. He was a Cowboy, so if anyone has to go down for something like this, it just as well be him.

I think there are verying levels of paraphenelia. If there is residue in the pipe that can be used to get a person high then obviously it should be illegal assuming that whatever was smoked in the pipe was an illegal substance...

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:05 pm

catatac wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:I think they should have done a drug test to determine if he was driving under the influence. If he wasn't, who cares if he had done drugs recently?

I've always been confused as to how possessing "drug paraphenelia" is illegal and how that law stands on the books. So even if you don't possess drugs, you can still be arrested for having appliances that would allow you to do drugs if you had them. It's kind of like charging a kid with a crime for having a bottle opener (even if they had no alcohol in their possession of any kind), as a bottle opener is virtually exclusively used for opening beer bottles these days.

I'm like Pony, though. He was a Cowboy, so if anyone has to go down for something like this, it just as well be him.
I think there are verying levels of paraphenelia. If there is residue in the pipe that can be used to get a person high then obviously it should be illegal assuming that whatever was smoked in the pipe was an illegal substance...

I agree -- that means they actually do possess drugs, or the remains of drugs. That's different than simply having the tools necessary to do drugs, but zero proof that the person actually does have drugs.

I just don't like the idea of anybody being charged with a crime for appearing to be guilty of something, even when the person can't be proven guilty of anything (other than owning otherwise completely innocuous items).

Hello Kitty · Post by **Hello Kitty** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:20 pm

I think a better example than the bottle opener would be if police officer busted kids with keg cups with a small amount of alcohol inside. They obviously drank it, which is similar to the pipe residue example.
I was an intern for victim services in Bozeman and I would go to court for client’s affairs but while I waited I heard other cases.
There were several instances when people were there because they had been caught with drug paraphernalia or drugs in a pocket of a coat or pants. It was always the same excuse "I was wearing my friends - insert clothing item here-" Bottom line if you don’t use drugs don’t carry around drug paraphernalia.

catatac · Post by **catatac** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:21 pm

Yep, agree. An eight foot bong strapped to the top of a car should not be against the law unless it's been used to smoke an illegal substance.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:28 pm

Hello Kitty wrote:I think a better example than the bottle opener would be if police officer busted kids with keg cups with a small amount of alcohol inside. They obviously drank it, which is similar to the pipe residue example.
I was an intern for victim services in Bozeman and I would go to court for client’s affairs but while I waited I heard other cases.
There were several instances when people were there because they had been caught with drug paraphernalia or drugs in a pocket of a coat or pants. It was always the same excuse "I was wearing my friends - insert clothing item here-" Bottom line if you don’t use drugs don’t carry around drug paraphernalia.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:00 pm

Open question: Is it illegal to own a radar detector?

Post by **rtb** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:06 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:Open question: Is it illegal to own a radar detector?

In some states.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:46 pm

rtb wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:Open question: Is it illegal to own a radar detector?
In some states.

Thanks. I thought I heard it was in some areas long ago, but wasn't sure if that was still in effect. That would be a perfect analogy.

DriftCat · Post by **DriftCat** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:24 pm

I am a huge Cowboys fan and as much as I hate to say it.......either the pipe was his or it was his friends. Whichever way you look at it, he was smokin something solo or with a friend. You don't have a pipe in your car unless you are doing something with it. I think he later said that he was referring to his friend as his "brother" because he has known him for 17 years and they are as close as brothers.

mquast53000 · Post by **mquast53000** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:47 pm

MM7CAT wrote:I am a huge Cowboys fan and as much as I hate to say it.......either the pipe was his or it was his friends. Whichever way you look at it, he was smokin something solo or with a friend. You don't have a pipe in your car unless you are doing something with it. I think he later said that he was referring to his friend as his "brother" because he has known him for 17 years and they are as close as brothers.

So Mike was saying that the pipe belong to his brother of another mother... I see.

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:29 pm

For it to be paraphernalia there has to be some signe that it was used for drug use. A pipe from the Grateful shed is not illegal unless it has residue on it. Same with a light bulb. It's not illegal to own light bulbs but if there is a hole in it with burn marks and residue, it becomes parphernalia, which is usually only used for a plea agreement (it gets dropped if they plead guilty) because residue of Meth of Crack cocaine is a felony.

Of course this isn't always the case but there has to be proof the paraphernailia was used for drugs. IF there wasn't residue Mr. Irvin would not have been charge.