Posted on 02/03/2009 1:45:19 PM PST by King of Card Games
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — Olympic superstar Michael Phelps could face criminal charges as part of the fallout from a photo that surfaced showing the swimmer smoking from a marijuana pipe at a University of South Carolina house party.
A spokesman for Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott, who is known for his tough stance on drugs, said Tuesday the department was investigating.
"Our narcotics division is reviewing the information that we have, and they're investigating what charges, if any, will be filed," said Lt. Chris Cowan, a spokesman for agency.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
Sounds like he’s a high profile case for whatever agenda is working here. He’s a great swimmer/athlete. He’s not a role model for moral or legal behavior.
LOL!
Sad, but seems like he’s being “made an example” by the press reporting on this nonsense, some reading it, and the department making it an issue.
I think he was stupid to get caught. The adult and parent part of me thinks he was stupid to do this (as well as his previous DUI).
He will probably get more lenient treatment because he’s advertising to a different consumer. I read that his Speedo sponsor has no problem with this “scandal.”
What’s sad and pathetic is that anyone is gung ho on making an example of this guy.
What a dick head! Everyone at the party will have to be interrogated and charged along with Phelps. What is the taxpayer cost for this 15 minutes of fame for Sheriff Leon Lott???????
A misdemeanor drug charge does not call for a jury. That is why this sheriff is so over the limit in order to get his stupid face on the news..........
I haven’t smoked pot since I was in high school, and that was 2 times, way way way back about 25 yrs ago.
OK, please explain to me how the people of the county are going to be improved by it? Especially when the sheriff could just as easily hand out the same ticket to probably hundreds of people tonight. Instead, their money will be wasted by the sheriff trying to get his 15 minutes of fame.
Maybe they will have problems in the future, but I doubt the risk is any higher from that than any number of legal substances.
I’m not anti-police. If anything, I’m pro-police since I come from a family of them, generations of them. There are bad cops, just like there are bad people in every other profession/job. The majority of cops are good. They’re good, decent people just trying to do their job to the best of their ability and in the worst of circumstances. They’re fighting the administration and public opinion and the bad cops in their departments. They’re very rarely given the benefit of doubt, here or anywhere else.
To compare the anti-police faction here with those of us who think pot should be legal is ignoring the bigger issue, imo. Again, I don’t smoke pot but I’d like to see it taken out of the WOD. Actually, I’d like to see the WOD taken out of the loop. It’s been a failure at all levels. Much like the War on Poverty. Neither are conservative ideals.
Prohibition.
No, your argument is working against you.
Phelps’ life is disrupted only because someone decided to publicize it, someone else in power decided to make an issue of it, and others decided to use him as an example.
Do believe the New Deal view of the Commerce Clause, upon which the WOD is based, is in keeping with the original understanding?
You wrote:
“OK, please explain to me how the people of the county are going to be improved by it?”
How would people actually suffer from it? It might be good for Phelps in the long run. Drunk driving conviction didn’t smarten him up maybe this will.
“Especially when the sheriff could just as easily hand out the same ticket to probably hundreds of people tonight.”
Are they posting pictures of each other on the internet?
“Instead, their money will be wasted by the sheriff trying to get his 15 minutes of fame.”
Or their money will be spent punishing a dope smoker like Phelps.
“Maybe they will have problems in the future, but I doubt the risk is any higher from that than any number of legal substances.”
Perhaps. Will Phelps be doing cocaine next?
You wrote:
“Phelps’ life is disrupted only because someone decided to publicize it, someone else in power decided to make an issue of it, and others decided to use him as an example.”
No. None of this could ever have happened if Phelps didn’t smoke pot. That’s key. Period.
You wrote:
“Do believe the New Deal view of the Commerce Clause, upon which the WOD is based, is in keeping with the original understanding?”
When you show me WHERE I ever mentioned the War on Drugs, the New Deal or the Commerce Clause, your question will become pertinent. Until then it makes no sense.
Show me.
I just heward on AM radio that Kellogs is cancelling his endorsement contract.
Also the business in South Carolina where the pot smoking took place wants him prosecuted if possible.
In post #96 you wrote:
I think that many Freepers are conservative about money issues such as taxes, or national security, but become flaming leftists about pot, cops, pornography, and sex.
Since you lump the pot issue in with taxes and national security, I take that as a possible endorsement of the federal war on pot.
Now, if I'm wrong and you think it should be up to the states to decide the legality of pot, then I withdraw the question.
If you do support the federal war on pot, then I would appreciate an answer.
Alcohol affects you even before you're "drunk." You know that, I know that, everyone knows that. So, yes, your dichotomy is false.
Is it to excuse your own?
I'm quite comfortable with my drug use. I can even acknowledge that I enjoy the warm pleasant feeling I feel after a glass of Laphroaig or a couple bottles of Ara Bier from De Dolle.
Funny that you can't.
And it wouldn’t have happened if pot were legal or if the person who took the picture didn’t try to make money off another person’s celebrity or if there wasn’t a market for rejoicing in other people’s mistakes/lives.
He’s an olympic athlete and I admire his athleticism and as long as he’s not taking performance enhancing drugs I’ll continue to admire his swimming. He’s not an elected or appointed official in my government or church. What he does in his personal life is none of my business.
You wrote:
“Since you lump the pot issue in with taxes and national security, I take that as a possible endorsement of the federal war on pot.”
I didn’t lump them together. I juxtaposed them. Hence the word “but”.
“Now, if I’m wrong and you think it should be up to the states to decide the legality of pot, then I withdraw the question.”
You’re withdrawal of the questions has nothing to do with my position on your rabbit trail inquiry. Withdrawal it, don’t withdrawal it, I see no reason to deal with it since it doesn’t apply in any since to what is at hand.
“If you do support the federal war on pot, then I would appreciate an answer.”
Your appreciation is completely unimportant to me.
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.