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 ...
You wrote:
“So, yes, your dichotomy is false.”
Nothing I said was false.
“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.”
Thanks for admitting you’re a drug user. That goes a good deal to proving my earlier point.
What business is that? Didn’t this take place at some god awful frat house?
You wrote:
“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.”
Smoking pot is a mistake now? Interesting choice of words. How can he have made a mistake if it’s okay to smoke pot?
“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.”
Why is it okay for him to get wasted but not your congressmen or pastor? Seriously, why should it matter to you if they are sober but he isn’t?
“Why is it okay for him to get wasted but not your congressmen or pastor? Seriously, why should it matter to you if they are sober but he isn’t?”
Do you really want to know? Do you want to have a discussion or just play with semantics, pick apart a post?
I’d like to have a discussion but won’t waste my time if you’re just trying to play word games. Let me know.
No problem. Apparently you lack the same sort of courage.
That goes a good deal to proving my earlier point.
You made a point?
He's playing silly word games.
Thanks.
You did say "many Freepers were flaming leftists on pot".
You should at least explain what constitutes a "flaming leftie position" on pot. Please read and respond to the following:
Let's say someone argues that the decision to legalize mj constitutionally belongs to the states, rather than to the federal government.
Is that a leftie position, or is that a conservative position, in your opinion?
edit - meant to remove "quote marks" from "flaming leftie position"
You wrote:
“You did say “many Freepers were flaming leftists on pot”.”
Yes, I did.
“You should at least explain what constitutes a “flaming leftie position” on pot.”
No, I don’t believe it is necessary. Those who get it, get it. Those who don’t, won’t.
“Please read and respond to the following:
Let’s say someone argues that the decision to legalize mj constitutionally belongs to the states, rather than to the federal government. Is that a leftie position, or is that a conservative position, in your opinion?”
Irrelevant. It is Phelps action that is important. His action violated the law and violated traditional conservative values.
If you can’t understand that, then you probably won’t no matter how much I explain.
you wrote:
“No problem. Apparently you lack the same sort of courage.”
I have nothing to admit.
“You made a point?”
Yes, but you were too busy passing the doobi to notice apparently.
You’re the one playing games. If you’re going to say it is okay for one man to get wasted but not another - and yet neither one has a job where that would particularly matter - then you’re playing games.
Why would you say it is meaningless that Phelps gets wasted, but some how it matters if a pastor gets wasted in his free time?
Don’t bother responding. You can’t make a logical response. All you can do is claim that there is a difference because of their jobs, but you already shot yourself in the foot by using the idea of this being done in their free time. And that doesn’t even take into account how many kids look at Phelps as a hero!
Toke up dude. You’ll probably forget about this by the time your munchies settle in.
vladimir998: No, I don't believe it is necessary. Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, won't.
So you make a claim and run away when challenged to explain what it means. What a weasel.
_______________________________
Irrelevant. It is Phelps action that is important. His action violated the law and violated traditional conservative values.
Do your traditional conservative values include an LBJ/FDR view of the Commerce Clause? Oh, I forgot...it's a SECRET!
If you can't understand that, then you probably won't no matter how much I explain.
Explain the conservative view of the Commerce Clause and its use for federal control of health care, welfare, education, the environment, and the WOD. Am I right that you are on the side of LBJ and FDR when it comes to the Commerce Clause?
Smoking a little pot has exactly the same effect on me as having a glass or two of wine has for you. So, creating some artifical distinction between the two makes me think you have something to hide.
I'll pray for you.
You cannot charge someone for smoking marijuana because of a picture of him smoking a bong. There is no way to prove what was in the bong.
It would be like charging Obama for admitting that he smoked marijuana in college.
any law that infringes the pursuit of happiness (as long as it harms no others) is immoral and unlawful
Or are you one of these pro-Nanny State pseudo-conservatives?
You wrote:
” Alcohol’s a drug, Sparky.”
Liberals deemed alcohol a drug, Sparky. I deem alcohol to be alcohol.
“You might want to get some help; denial of one’s drug habits is often sign of a problem.”
I have no drug habit. I don’t even have an alcohol habit.
“I’ll pray for you.”
Prayers are good. Pot isn’t.
You wrote:
“any law that infringes the pursuit of happiness (as long as it harms no others) is immoral and unlawful”
Drugs harm the self.
“Or are you one of these pro-Nanny State pseudo-conservatives?”
individual responsibility has nothing to do with the Nanny state. Confusing the two does. Deeming things to be what they aren’t leads to what you believe now.
You wrote:
Well, actually it doesn’t matter what you wrote now does it. I never brought up FDR, the Commerce clause, etc.
If you can’t talk about the issues actually being discussed, then why bother?
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.