Posted on 02/05/2009 5:44:13 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY
I'm sorry, I just don't think people that want to smoke pot pay much attention to our pot laws. The chance that you'll get caught with pot is minuscule, and the punishments if you do get caught are pretty minor. Had Phelps not been famous no one would have ever known about him pulling bong hits at that party.
Phelps is already suffering the consequences of his actions in a big way. This sends far more of a message than a piddly little fine.
Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if Phelps was charged. Maybe it will help drive home how stupid our marijuana laws are and hasten the inevitable legalization and regulation of the substance. It's going to happen someday, and you won't smoke pot, I won't smoke it, your daughter probably won't smoke unless she already does, people in general who don't smoke it now won't smoke it because there are plenty of good reasons not to smoke pot. The ever so slight possibility of getting caught and getting a slap on the wrist is stopping precious few from smoking marijuana. It's everywhere. It's easy to find from a plethora of sources. It's already cheaper than beer on a per use basis for the most part. It's widely used. Americans consume more marijuana than all other illegal drugs combined. We're stopping nothing with the marijuana ban. We're just blowing a lot of money and manpower and enriching organized crime to the tune of many billions of dollars every year. We're causing a lot more harm than good in so many ways. It is past time for us to just regulate the marijuana industry and cases like this are just going to help in some small way to get us to the point that we finally realize that.
In America, we don't consider our stars to be in general "owned" by the country. It could be said that NASA astronauts are, but movie stars and athletes are not.
End the failed war on pot.
You just need to explain that to the people in my local paper who are being corrected for the same offense.
If Phelps had have been caught in the act with pot on his person then I think by all means they should prosecute him like they would prosecute anyone else. But for a several month old photo of him doing a bong hit? That's just silly and pointless. He's suffering enough consequences as it is and if they charge him it will be a media circus and they will end up spending way more money on the case than they will make from it.
Do you think that every time police find out about someone committing a crime they file charges? They use their discretion all the time and opt for not charging people, even in many cases when the people are caught with drugs. You wouldn't believe how much pot just gets dumped out on the side of the road. If an officer has something more important he needs to deal with and he's got someone with a small amount of pot who has no serious record and isn't causing problems, he might very well take the pot and let the person off with a warning. That happens all the time and I bet it happens in Sheriff Lott's county too. I know it happens a lot in my county even though we'll see lots of people in court charged with marijuana possession. Law enforcement are very tough on drugs in my area but that doesn’t mean they go to all the trouble of an arrest every time they catch someone with a tiny amount of pot.
They didn't even catch Phelps with pot. They just have a picture of him from last year taking a bong hit. He doesn't even live there. He doesn't even live in that state. Charging him for this would be extraordinary, not common practice at all.
I've handled thousands of pounds worth of drug cases as an attorney. I've both prosecuted and defended in drug cases. I've seen every kind of drug case. I've never seen a case where they charged someone under circumstances like this. Quit saying they need to charge him like they would anybody else because they wouldn't charge anybody else under these circumstances.
He seems to be taking punishment for his bad judgment well, I hope he goes on to be great man.
Michael Phelps Handed a 3 Month Suspension from USA Swimming
"Michael has voluntarily accepted this reprimand and has committed to earn back our trust".
I do see your point too. I just think this is one of those cases where it really doesn’t make a lot of sense to file charges. Thanks.
> In America, we don’t consider our stars to be in general “owned” by the country. It could be said that NASA astronauts are, but movie stars and athletes are not.
In NZ our movie and TV stars generally aren’t public property — tho’ if they make their living from public funds their lives are subject to more scrutiny than would otherwise be the case.
Our athletes are a different matter.
Sports is something that we take very, very seriously in New Zealand. You do, too, in the US: now imagine that turned up an order-or-two of magnitude. Sports is almost a State Religion here. I am not exaggerating.
Perhaps we do this by way of over-compensation, for being a tiny country. When we send our athletes to an international competition wearing our black jersey (black is our color) we expect them to win and we expect them to never disgrace us.
That is why we don’t send large teams of athletes to the Olympics: we definitely play all of the Olympic sports here, and we definitely have athletes who would qualify at Olympic level for most of them, but we only send our athletes who have a decent chance of winning a medal: preferably gold.
This isn’t because we are greedy: it is because we have limited resources, so we pour what resources we have into those athletes with the best chance of being able to do something with the investment.
They get heavily invested in by their communities and by Volunteers long, long before any major sponsors ever get to meet them. So by time they get to International level they are very much Public Property: they got there with the help of four million of their fellow Kiwis.
That is why we look to them to be role models: they did not get there on their own.
And as for pot smokers graduating onto cocaine, that would happen a lot less if pot and cocaine weren't coming through the same channels. There isn't anything special about pot that makes people want to snort cocaine or stick needles in their arms. People that drink and smoke are several times more likely to use cocaine than straight kids who do neither. Is it because these drugs they start with make them want to do cocaine, or is it because people who like to use one intoxicant are more likely to be the types who would use other intoxicants than straight kids who won't even drink or smoke?
Marijuana wouldn't be anymore of a gateway drug than alcohol if it wasn't illegal. If it was legal people wouldn't buy their pot from drug dealers who sell other drugs. They wouldn't be part of the illegal drug using community that opens the door for people to offer them other far more dangerous drugs. If you already use one illegal drug you aren't likely to report someone for breaking out a different illegal drug in front of you because you're guilty too.
If we would allow marijuana to be sold through licensed shops similar to liquor stores people who smoke marijuana would have far less exposure to illegal drugs like cocaine and they'd be less likely to use those drugs. People under 21 would still in many cases get marijuana, just like they get alcohol even though that's not legal for them, but they'd be getting their marijuana the same way they get their beer today and not from drug dealers who often sell drugs like meth or cocaine or ecstasy or LSD.
Are marijuana, alcohol and tobacco gateway drugs? You betcha. A higher percentage of people who use any of these drugs or any combination of them will use drugs like cocaine or meth or the other hard stuff than kids who never use any tobacco, alcohol or marijuana. Is there any proof that using one drug causes you to want to use another? Nope. What we have is correlation, not causation. Is there anything special about these three drugs that makes people want to use other drugs? That's doubtful. It looks like use of these drugs is an indicator that people are the types who would use even more powerful and dangerous drugs. Is the correlation between marijuana use and drugs like cocaine higher than the correlation between tobacco or alcohol and the use of these drugs? Yes. People will usually try cigarettes and/or alcohol first because those tend to be the first ones available to them and the perceived risk of trying them is lower than it is with any of the illegal drugs. Marijuana is likewise perceived as less dangerous than drugs like cocaine and meth and it is much more easily available than these other illegal drug because it is so widely used. The normal progression tends to be alcohol and tobacco first, then pot, then the other stuff.
Is there anything we could do to make it less likely that people will proceed to the “other stuff?” Yes, we could legalize and regulate marijuana. That would dramatically reduce the exposure of marijuana smokers to the “other stuff,” both because they wouldn't be buying it from people who sell the other stuff, and because they won't be illegal drug users and those who do use illegal drugs will be less likely to break these drugs out in front of them. If we legalized marijuana and sold it only to adults through licensed shops would it still be a gateway drug? Yes, like alcohol and tobacco marijuana will always be a gateway drug in that people who use any of these drugs will be more likely than those who do not to use these substances to use other far more dangerous drugs, both because people who use these gateway drugs are more likely to be the types of people inclined to use other intoxicants, and because kids who hang around with kids who do bad stuff are going to have more opportunities to do bad stuff themselves and are just more likely to be the type of people inclined to do bad stuff. Compounding all this is the fact that kids who hang around kids who do bad stuff are likely to be subjected to peer pressure to do bad stuff themselves. So, yes it will always be a gateway drug like alcohol and tobacco, but it would be much less of one if we legalized and regulated it.
You do have a point there. In the country where I grew up, alcohol was served to minors. Most people started drinking wine at home, at the dinner table. First a little bit of it, mixed with a glass of water. Then, the amount of wine is increased until eventually, by the time a kid is in high school, most likely he drinks straight wine with his meals. At home! But guess what, I had not seen over there a drinking problem like there is in the USA. Is it because alcohol was legal and therefore no big deal to drink? Some people claim that the climate, namely the number of hours of sunlight, by affecting the amount of melatonin produced, decrease “risky” behaviors. I don’t know. Personally I am against alcohol, tobacco and illegal drugs. I don’t like their effects on the human body. And that’s what I have taught to my children, and to my college biology students!
Oh gee thanks. Remember this is a jock we are talking about here. The same guys who gave you wedgies and paid you to do their homework for you in school, and now you expect them to be your role models. Get real people.
Maybe the first time, but the second time for possession and on it gets worse. Jail time and probation. No SC is definitely a drug nazi state to the nth degree. Oh yeah, and there are a butt load of drunks here along with domestic violence through the roof, if you were wondering.
Well, duh! What did you expect? Frequent "smoker" miles? And, considering our large migrant population and the proliferation of meth labs, I don't have a problem with living in a "drug nazi state". We don't hold anybody here by force, you can always move to another state with laws more to your liking. I do agree with you, though, when you mention domestic violence. That is a shame, and I have let our legislators know what I think about giving priority to dog fighting over domestic abuse!
My guess, very few.
I don’t have a problem living in a drug nazi state either, so what? But to think that the drug laws are stopping anything is just naive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.