gillyh Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 well Im not going to judge him just because he had cocaine on him... just because he did doesn't mean he was taking it... and no one knows if he bought it or if it was given to him or what he was even going to friggen well do with it... I have a friend who is going through drug withdrawals but I'm not judging her just because she made a bad choice. oh and did anyone else notice that in that article it said Fellow Former home and away star Jodi Gordon? Does that mean she is also leaving the soap? It's probably just an error, we know Jodi's staying, as she was one of the photos from the tour Todd did around Summer Bay with Alf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DinerLandlord Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 To reiterate my original point in this thread (because I feel I'm starting to sound like I'm contradicting myself), I don't care that Todd was taking drugs. I have taken illegal drugs too, and I probably will again. I believe that that is a personal choice, as much as doing any legal drug, such as alcohol or nicotine or caffeine, is a personal choice, and I don't judge anyone too harshly for that. I do however judge those people who do drugs too excess, and who let drugs control or ruin their lives, and the lives of those around them. I've seen no evidence that Todd has done that, EXCEPT for the fact that he did this so publicly and at such an incredibly stupid time (during a blitz! WHY!?!?). THAT's what I'm angry about, not the fact that he happened to be taking an illegal substance. Illegality is such a tainted concept. I would not do anything illegal that I believed was going to harm someone else, like murder or rape or even petty theft. And yet, as I've already shown, I do so many LEGAL things that I KNOW are harming other people and animals. But my conscience allows me to get away with that because the law's on my side. Go figure. People cannot just pick and choose which laws they want to abide by and which laws they want to flout. If someone like Todd just decides to have cocaine in his possession (regardless of whether he was taking it or not), why should other people obey the law and not do so? For that matter why should anyone obey any law, if there are people who think they can live above the law? Even if someone thinks what they are doing is not harming anyone, if they are breaking the law they are showing total contempt for every law abiding citizen around them, and in my eyes that is really shameful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Ranger 1 Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 I have to say I'm not really bothered by this.Slightly disappointed maybe but I don't know Todd personally and, to be slightly self-centred, it won't affect the show because he's already finished filming. I guess if there are people that look up to him or admire him then it's a shame they feel let down but maybe there's a lesson to be learned there.Hopefully he'll get a judge and jury who will treat him the same way they would anyone else accused of a crime, whether that means he'll get a fine or whatever.Got to say though, if it's going to court then we're past slap-on-the-wrist territory:If he's found guilty or pleads guilty, he'll get a criminal record whatever the sentence. Really can't see them cutting Aden out of all the unaired episodes.That's a world away from cutting a couple of scenes of Aden and Martha, hardly one of the show's key relationships, because the episode's a bit long and they're the least important parts.(Off topic, cutting Aden talking to Martha about his father and why he can't support Belle was probably a good idea.Firstly, it's somewhat out of character for Aden to talk about something so personal with someone he hardly knows and won't talk to again for about three months and secondly, the letter he gave to Belle covered it perfectly adequately.)Last year Neighbours found it too much effort to rewrite 3 months' worth of episodes when an actress wasn't available to film them and recast the character instead so I can't see HA rewriting and reshooting a whole 3 months.By that logic, they'd be more likely to reshoot Aden's scenes with a different actor in the role and I can't see them doing that either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emmasi Posted December 18, 2009 Report Share Posted December 18, 2009 To reiterate my original point in this thread (because I feel I'm starting to sound like I'm contradicting myself), I don't care that Todd was taking drugs. I have taken illegal drugs too, and I probably will again. I believe that that is a personal choice, as much as doing any legal drug, such as alcohol or nicotine or caffeine, is a personal choice, and I don't judge anyone too harshly for that. I do however judge those people who do drugs too excess, and who let drugs control or ruin their lives, and the lives of those around them. I've seen no evidence that Todd has done that, EXCEPT for the fact that he did this so publicly and at such an incredibly stupid time (during a blitz! WHY!?!?). THAT's what I'm angry about, not the fact that he happened to be taking an illegal substance. Illegality is such a tainted concept. I would not do anything illegal that I believed was going to harm someone else, like murder or rape or even petty theft. And yet, as I've already shown, I do so many LEGAL things that I KNOW are harming other people and animals. But my conscience allows me to get away with that because the law's on my side. Go figure. People cannot just pick and choose which laws they want to abide by and which laws they want to flout. If someone like Todd just decides to have cocaine in his possession (regardless of whether he was taking it or not), why should other people obey the law and not do so? For that matter why should anyone obey any law, if there are people who think they can live above the law? Even if someone thinks what they are doing is not harming anyone, if they are breaking the law they are showing total contempt for every law abiding citizen around them, and in my eyes that is really shameful. But people do and I'm one of them. I think there's some rule about attacking people on the forum. You're choosing to ignore it by attacking me and other members for our beliefs about drug use and government hypocrisy regarding legalisation of some harmful substances and not others. Picking and choosing, if you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idris Posted December 18, 2009 Report Share Posted December 18, 2009 original quote emmasi: - But people do and I'm one of them. I think there's some rule about attacking people on the forum. You're choosing to ignore it by attacking me and other members for our beliefs about drug use and government hypocrisy regarding legalisation of some harmful substances and not others. Picking and choosing, if you like. I wasn't going to comment on this thread originally because speculating about a legal matter on a public forum is not usually a bright idea, and I intend sticking to that decision. But I would like to comment about the above post and some that preceded it. I'm sure DinerLandlord can look after his/her own corner, but I take strong exception to someone claiming that they are being attacked, as you have done emmasi, when anyone can read the postings and see that nothing of the sort has taken place. I don't happen to agree with your opinions on this matter, but I would agree that you have a right to express them. However that does not mean that your opinions are not contestable. It always amuses, but rarely amazes me, that people who claim freedom of action and speech are the first to try to curtail those rights for others who disagree with them. Most of your posts so far on this thread have contained exaggerations about the effects of legal pursuits in order to justify moral equivalence (in your own mind at least) with illegal ones. Fortunately, at the very least to prevent society degenerating into chaos, the courts ignore such foibles as an individual's beliefs about drug use, sticking instead to what the law says. I'll leave it to the mods to decide how to proceed from here regarding this matter, I've said what I needed to say about what I consider to be a false accusation against someone making points in a reasonable manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emmasi Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 Well, perhaps "attack" was too dramatic a term. But I do feel that DinerLandlord made things personal by directly challenging other posters about their opinions on Todd choosing to take drugs, and not just questioning their opinions, but using words like "shameful" to characterise them, and insinuating that anyone who takes drugs is consciously promoting sexual abuse and the like. I don't think that is necessary or fair, do you? Don't I have the right to say that I am not the "exaggerated" monster that DinerLandlord wants to characterise me as for having taken illegal drugs, or am I supposed to keep my mouth shut and nod along while me, my friends, and an actor I admire, are called the willing pimps of sexually abused children? (Kind of ironic too, given all the publicity that Todd has given to the problem of child sex abuse through his character, which, I might add, was a symptom of legal alcohol abuse, not illegal drugs). This thread took a turn for sure, but I'm not the one who took it there. I've just argued back against unfair accusations and assumptions and tried to make people see sense, and maybe understand that just because something is legal doesn't make it right, and just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong. Just a random example, but homosexuality was only made legal in Tasmania last year (I think). Tell me, was it evil and despicable for people of the same sex to love each other before that law was overturned? No? But it was illegal!!! VERY different situations, I know, but that's all I was trying to say. People have different beliefs regarding what is right and wrong, and the law is not always the be all and end all of where an individual chooses to draw that line. I have the greatest respect for people who choose not to do drugs - legal or illegal - because I do accept that drugs are dangerous and best to be avoided. I don't think anyone is disputing that. What I'm disputing is the assumption that doing something that may harm your own body, like taking drugs, immediately makes you responsible for all the evils of the world. I know it's not nice to have the finger of blame pointed at you for living your life the way you choose to live it, and I only wanted to say that we are ALL guilty of doing something that is negatively affecting someone else on this planet (none of the examples I gave were exaggerated, they have all happened and continue to happen, legally), so why should casual drug users be singled out as monsters? I think I've kept a pretty even temperament throughout this discussion, and it would be hard for the moderators to say that I've attacked anyone, and I don't really think that DinerLandlord has intentionally done that either - if I did, I'd have reported her. I do however think that she has harshly criticised other posters for their personal beliefs and values where it wasn't necessary, and people on both sides tend to get touchy when that happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idris Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 Glad to see things are cooling down a little, myself included. Just to clarify a few points - I would never totally equate legality with morality, doing that would lead to all law breaking being declared immoral (Spanish Inquisition anyone ?) Even in our democracies there were recently, and still are, iniquitous laws - as you highlighted with the previous status of homosexuality in Tasmania. This happens in our liberal democracies, no surprise given the quality of politicians we've got, let alone in the kind of undemocratic regimes that the majority of the world's population still have to suffer under. L.D.'s are the best system we've got; - one of the original intentions was to achieve the aligning of legality with enlightened morality; that's still work in progress (and enough of the sub - Clive James stuff.) One point I don't think we will agree on, but I hope can can agree to disagree, is that I would differentiate between society's right to enforce legislation regarding the choices people make regarding their lifestyles (e.g. drug use), and who they are (e.g their sexual orientation.) But that still doesn't mean that I would equate all illegal drug use with immorality (nor would it mean the opposite either - it's varying shades of grey depending on.....) Now remind me which forum I'm on..... H&A ! A sunny Ozzie soap, an attempted escape from Britain's downcast, drizzly-dark dampness. I know, it's my fault, no one else's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emmasi Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 Good luck with that, it's been raining in "Summer Bay" for days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DinerLandlord Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 Emmasi I apologise if I have offended you, I just feel quite strongly about this issue. On a lighter note, I'm not a girl, I'm a man. A big hairy man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Kevin- Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 Emmasi I apologise if I have offended you, I just feel quite strongly about this issue. On a lighter note, I'm not a girl, I'm a man. A big hairy man! I thought you were a girl!! I don't know why though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.