Michael Phelps suspended three months

[CougTek]

I came accross a short article saying that Michael Phelps has been suspended three months for being caught smoking weed. Kellogg also terminated their contract with him because of the incident.

I'm sorry, but WHAT A BUNCH OF RETARDS YOU ARE!

He's a 23 years old man who has spent most of his childhood and teen age training and showing a discipline very few are able to maintain and now that he is caught doing something the majority of people have done at least once, he's suspended. Screw yourselves with your status and public image whining. He's a young man doing his experiences in life and trying to be normal for once. What a way to thank a man who made you collectively pride like few have done before.

What a land of morons America have become.

 

[LunarMist]

This dope will self-destruct in five seconds. :mrgrn:

 

[jtr1962]

I don't get it either. Smoking weed isn't any worse than smoking cigarettes. It shouldn't even be illegal. Granted, I don't condone it, but then I don't condone smoking either. The only reason he is being chastised for this is because weed is against the law. Maybe if there's enough outrage our legislators will finally get their heads out of their behinds and legalize marijuana (and most of the other currently banned substances). Like I said, I don't condone using any of these things, but if someone wants to screw up their body, it's not my business to tell them they can't. BTW, I never touched pot myself. I go out of my way to avoid air pollution. No way would I intentionally inhale smoke.

 

[ddrueding]

I agree with all the comments above, but I have to add a couple things.

1. This is really friggin' far from a performance enhancing drug; it actually damages your lungs (kind of important for a swimmer).

2. How dumb do you have to be being caught smoking weed? I mean, even for a famous person, there must be plenty of private opportunities.

 

[timwhit]

Everyone will forget about this in a few years, just like his previous DUI arrest. After he wins a whole bunch more medals in London he will get a bunch more promotions.

I wonder if a picture of me smoking a bong got passed around at work how long I would keep my job? Probably not very long.

 

[LunarMist]

He's a complete fool to give up the advertising $$$. I mean, what is the future after a few years of swimming fame?

 

[ddrueding]

I wonder if a picture of me smoking a bong got passed around at work how long I would keep my job? Probably not very long.

Then you don't have enough job security. Quick, make a bunch of changes and don't document them anywhere

 

[LunarMist]

Then you don't have enough job security. Quick, make a bunch of changes and don't document them anywhere

No. It is an illusion. People that try to make themselves indispensible are the first people I would eliminate. It's better to spend some money/effort sooner to clean up their messes than deal with it later. That is why it is important to have good systems, SOPs and audits to keep organizations and employees under control. Of course systems can be circumvented by crooked Presidents, CEOs, etc.

 

[Striker]

I don't get it either. Smoking weed isn't any worse than smoking cigarettes. It shouldn't even be illegal. Granted, I don't condone it, but then I don't condone smoking either. The only reason he is being chastised for this is because weed is against the law. Maybe if there's enough outrage our legislators will finally get their heads out of their behinds and legalize marijuana (and most of the other currently banned substances). Like I said, I don't condone using any of these things, but if someone wants to screw up their body, it's not my business to tell them they can't. BTW, I never touched pot myself. I go out of my way to avoid air pollution. No way would I intentionally inhale smoke.

I'm not really sure how I feel about this. I can understand both sides of the argument and honestly if we're going to allow alcohol and cigarettes why not some other stuff.
The only part that bothers me about your statement is who is going to pay for the medical bills when these people screw their bodies up? I certainly don't want to be responsible for it.

 

[Handruin]

Phelps is a well known celebrity, and celebrities are in the public spotlight. Weed is illegal regardless of what people think it should be and I'm fine that it is illegal. Phelps made a stupid move given the nature of his status. The fact that he spent the better part of his life dedicated to swimming and being ultra-disciplined has obviously made him lack in coping with the real world, and/or handling the responsibility of his status. This same thing happens to other celebrities who become famous and then crash and burn. They followed a path into stardom and when they screw it up we're supposed to have sympathy because why? In the grand scheme of things, being a record breaking swimmer isn't all that important. I commend his physical talents and admit he can do one hell of a job, but when it comes down to it I feel sorry for him that the better part of his youth was spent training and missing out on his adolescence.

I'm like jtr1962 in that I don't want to have to breath that pollution when other people are using it. Lets say it was a legal drug, If someone was high and operates a motor vehicle and then kills someone are we now going to have to have some legal limit to weed intake like we do for alcohol? Will there need to be new DUI tests?

 

[udaman]

Phelps is a well known celebrity, and celebrities are in the public spotlight. The fact that he spent the better part of his life dedicated to swimming and being ultra-disciplined has obviously made him lack in coping with the real world, and/or handling the responsibility of his status. This same thing happens to other celebrities who become famous and then crash and burn. They followed a path into stardom and when they screw it up we're supposed to have sympathy because why?

If someone was high and operates a motor vehicle and then kills someone are we now going to have to have some legal limit to weed intake like we do for alcohol? Will there need to be new DUI tests?

Awful judgmental there, aren't you Handy? Shows your ignorance & bias at the same time . *Bush* twins, need I say more? As opposed to Lindsay Lohan...get the difference? Bong Clinton, Obama? Get the difference...or similarity?

Do you ever drive a vehicle on less than optimum sleep? Well then, you are technically breaking the law, same as someone as you're anti- "high" bias is against. DUI...acronym for what again? There are tests for DUI, not just alcohol, suppose you did not know that?

You don't want to breath the 'pollution' from weed smokers, then you leave the party...simple. Umm, what, you're not a hypocrite are you? Do you leave any area where there are smokers? Do you breath the air around motor vehicles, you do know that is far, far, far more dangerous to your health as a 'pollution'. Got any loved ones who died from complications of chemo therapy Handy, know anyone who got AIDS from tainted blood transfusions...just curious?

You will be fine then, same with jtr; to be around alcohol drinkers those puke reeling on hard liquor, cause you don't drink their 'poison'...heh, it's "legal", so you should be fine with that? Then you should be fine with anyone using a vaporizer to ingest MJ...other than it's "illegal" (just don't get into a vehicle they are driving ), correct?

 

[Handruin]

Awful judgmental there, aren't you Handy? Shows your ignorance & bias at the same time . *Bush* twins, need I say more? As opposed to Lindsay Lohan...get the difference? Bong Clinton, Obama? Get the difference...or similarity?

It's not unreasonable judgement and no I don't get your reasoning, it makes no sense. If we were discussing the Bush family, Lindsay, or Clinton in this thread (which we clearly are not) then appropriate thoughts would be met. My comments towards Phelps does not excuse or support other celebrities actions. Your logic is flawed.

Do you ever drive a vehicle on less than optimum sleep? Well then, you are technically breaking the law, same as someone as you're anti- "high" bias is against. DUI...acronym for what again? There are tests for DUI, not just alcohol, suppose you did not know that?

No I do not. Nice try with your false assumption. Even if I was, it is not the same as someone under the influence of weed. No I don't know the specifics of alternate DUI tests other than alcohol, I've never needed them or been subject to them. If you read my post, I asked "Will there need to be new DUI tests?"...I didn't make false assumption that we would.

You don't want to breath the 'pollution' from weed smokers, then you leave the party...simple. Umm, what, you're not a hypocrite are you? Do you leave any area where there are smokers? Do you breath the air around motor vehicles, you do know that is far, far, far more dangerous to your health as a 'pollution'. Got any loved ones who died from complications of chemo therapy Handy, know anyone who got AIDS from tainted blood transfusions...just curious?

No I do not. You assume I go to parties where people use weed; you are therefore ignorant to assume. If it were legal, people would use it anywhere they want, much like smoking. I should not have to leave public areas because of someone else's choice to pollute the air.
Motor vehicles aren't illegal, nor are cigarettes.
What the hell are you talking about with chemo and AIDS and what is your point?

You will be fine then, same with jtr; to be around alcohol drinkers those puke reeling on hard liquor, cause you don't drink their 'poison'...heh, it's "legal", so you should be fine with that? Then you should be fine with anyone using a vaporizer to ingest MJ...other than it's "illegal" (just don't get into a vehicle they are driving ), correct?

You implied I'm awfully judgmental? None of what you wrote makes any sense.

I'm going to make a guess that based on your strong reaction that you're a supporter of marijuana and possibly a user?

 

[Howell]

I don't really have a problem with pot per se but it is illegal.

It is a difficult place to be in to put up your image for sale. Ideas are hard enough to sell as it is much less the image of an unflawed character. He is not used to dealing with celebrity because he has never had to worry about it. This may be a costly mistake but he will recover.

I DO have a problem with someone looking down on Phelps who has dedicated his life to a goal and actually succeeded. There are few enough people in the world willing to dedicate their lives to making the most of the gifts they have been given and developing their skills to match. He willingly made sacrifices to work to obtain his goals.

Handy, you feel sorry for him that he has wasted so much of his time doing something unimportant. How generous of you. <roll-eyes>

uda, LEARN TO FUCKING WRITE!

 

[Handruin]

I have one more opinion just like the next guy. There is nothing wrong with having goals and achieving them, those are good traits and I meant not to degrade that. I can still feel sorry for him missing out on other large aspects of his youth which he'll now have to cope with as an adult. I never said he wasted his time achieving his goal.

 

[jtr1962]

1. This is really friggin' far from a performance enhancing drug; it actually damages your lungs (kind of important for a swimmer).

Now that's the really puzzling part. I totally don't understand why an elite athlete like Phelps would take anything which might affect his performance or health. I won't touch cigarettes or weed for those reasons, and I'm not even an athlete. I just can't see shortening your life by a decade or two or three, and being in ill health the last 10 years of your shortened life, just for a momentary high or whatever else marijuana is supposed to give you. I'm puzzled by Phelps but then again I'm even more puzzled when I see nurses puffing away in front of hospitals. They see the ill effects of smoking in cancer wards every day. Either they're really stupid or just don't think the same will happen to them.

2. How dumb do you have to be being caught smoking weed? I mean, even for a famous person, there must be plenty of private opportunities.

I think in many cases they want to be caught. I'm serious. The public puts so many famous people on a pedestal as if they're gods. I think celebrities crashing and burning is intentional, at least on a subconscious level. It's their way of showing the world that they're just one of the crowd. They long to fit in but can't due to their celebrity status. Doing things ordinary people do makes them think they fit in. Of course, they still don't. That's the real downside to being famous. Once you are, it never really goes away. Even 50 years from now, Phelps will still be followed by people interested in him for one reason or another. I would never want to be famous. It's a curse.

 

[P5-133XL]

At a public policy level, I have absolutely no problem with government outlawing pot: society does not need another problem on the order of tobacco, or alcohol. I also see no problem with governments using some social engineering, in their attempt at convincing people, or society, that it is far worse than it really is.

It would be wrong, if they tried using excessive unwarranted force in their attempts. But, the penalties are just plain not that bad...

 

[Howell]

But, the penalties are just plain not that bad...

Penalties for being caught UI?

 

[P5-133XL]

I assume you want details because I really don't know wuat UI? stands for.

US marijuna laws

For example in Oregon, posession of less than 1 Oz is a misdemeanor with a $500-$1000 fine.

Now selling it or growing it, has significantly greater penalties ...

 

[Howell]

I have one more opinion just like the next guy. There is nothing wrong with having goals and achieving them, those are good traits and I meant not to degrade that. I can still feel sorry for him missing out on other large aspects of his youth which he'll now have to cope with as an adult. I never said he wasted his time achieving his goal.

I like people with opinions. Life is about choices. By choosing some things you will necessarily miss out on other things.

You say he has pursued something that is unimportant in the grand scheme of things. What do you think he should have pursued instead?

 

[Handruin]

I'm not to say what he should have pursued. I realize swimming was important to him and I'm inflicting my own personal view and values about it. I equated the grand scheme to the normal survival and progression of the human race. When I think of swimming and how it fits into that, I don't see much value. His dedication and commitment could be applied differently, and those have significant value. However, that was up to him to decide what he wanted to do.

What results do you think Phelps brought to himself for dedicating his life towards swimming? I saw him come into celebrity status very quickly and he achieved numerous Olympic medals but almost as soon as it began, it was over. In 50 years I would be surprised if many people remember his name for what he achieved.

 

[Howell]

I assume you want details because I really don't know wuat UI? stands for.

UI= under the influence (eg DUI)

I just wanted clarification for what you meant. It sounds like you are saying that the penalties for drug use are too low to be a deterrent but you would not support "excessive unwarranted force". How would you define excessive unwarranted force?

 

[Howell]

I'm not to say what he should have pursued. I realize swimming was important to him and I'm inflicting my own personal view and values about it. I equated the grand scheme to the normal survival and progression of the human race. When I think of swimming and how it fits into that, I don't see much value. His dedication and commitment could be applied differently, and those have significant value. However, that was up to him to decide what he wanted to do.

Progression of the human race? Like world records? Individual efforts are still connected to community. We should let his example inspire us to be the best versions of ourselves instead of dismissing what he pursues as unimportant. By your definition, it would appear that 90% of us are wasting our time.

 

[ddrueding]

By your definition, it would appear that 90% of us are wasting our time.

Sounds about right to me...

 

[Handruin]

By your definition, it would appear that 90% of us are wasting our time.

Yup, sounds about right to me too.

 

[Handruin]

Progression of the human race? Like world records? Individual efforts are still connected to community. We should let his example inspire us to be the best versions of ourselves instead of dismissing what he pursues as unimportant. By your definition, it would appear that 90% of us are wasting our time.

His example doesn't inspire me, but I'm not saying that to suggest I dislike him. I'm not a user of an illegal drug who is lashing out because of an unbalance in my life. That isn't inspiring to me at all. I'm happy with the environment and ways in which I grew up, even if it means I'm not insanely great at any one thing in life. How does his example inspire you?

 

[jtr1962]

At a public policy level, I have absolutely no problem with government outlawing pot: society does not need another problem on the order of tobacco, or alcohol.

One thing to remember is that alcoholism was at an all-time high during prohibition. Outlawing something doesn't make it go away. In fact, it makes it more attractive to some segments of the population. I dare say if we legalized all hard core drugs, not just marijuana, then drug abuse would drop dramatically. At the very least the government would be getting taxes from the sales of these drugs. IMO we have nothing to lose by legalizing pot and all the other stuff. If it makes things worse instead of better, we can always reinstate the old laws.

The only part that bothers me about your statement is who is going to pay for the medical bills when these people screw their bodies up? I certainly don't want to be responsible for it.

Nor do I. Hospitals as a matter of policy should refuse to treat drug-related illnesses.

 

[P5-133XL]

UI= under the influence (eg DUI)

I just wanted clarification for what you meant. It sounds like you are saying that the penalties for drug use are too low to be a deterrent but you would not support "excessive unwarranted force". How would you define excessive unwarranted force?

No, I'm not saying that penalties are too low. I'm saying that there should be some penalties, but they should be scaled appropiately so as not to be unduly harsh. On the scale of penalties UI shouldn't rate worse treatment than burglery, for example. A fine of some kind works; taking away a license to drive if you are UI while driving makes sense; I have no problem with a fine for limited posession and harsher penalties for the growing, and distribution. Perhaps, making drug use an addon to the penalty to any crime committed while under the influence would be good.

On a socal engineering front, there is a lot of social good with having a resonable penalty, along with some negative stigma to discourage a large scale societal problem from developing. Problems are much easier to deal with, if they can be stopped before developing. There is benefit even to delaying to onset of the problem. If a problem is likely to happen, regardless of what is done, then limiting the scale is still highly benefitial.

So I think making marijana illegal is just plain a good thing and arguing that it is no worse than alcohol or tobacco is a poor arguement. Just because society already has two significant legal-drug problems, does not mean we shouldn't attempt to prevent, or limit the potential scale, of a third from being added to the mix.

 

[P5-133XL]

One thing to remember is that alcoholism was at an all-time high during prohibition. Outlawing something doesn't make it go away. In fact, it makes it more attractive to some segments of the population. I dare say if we legalized all hard core drugs, not just marijuana, then drug abuse would drop dramatically. At the very least the government would be getting taxes from the sales of these drugs. IMO we have nothing to lose by legalizing pot and all the other stuff. If it makes things worse instead of better, we can always reinstate the old laws.


Nor do I. Hospitals as a matter of policy should refuse to treat drug-related illnesses.

I strongly disagree with this. Marijana is a relatively new problem and not nearly at the scale of alcohol or tobacco. My goal is to keep it small by discouraging it. If you leagized it, it would almost immediatly become a similar scale problem and would then be totally uncontrolable. Thereby, restablishing the laws would totally fail as we would then be in a prohibition situation.

There is only insanity in leagilizing hard drug use. You would end up with a society of totally disfunctional people. Meth, heroin, cocaine, or other opiates drasticly damage the people that use over time (and it isn't that much time).

 

[LunarMist]

he is caught doing something the majority of people have done at least once...

More than half the population are druggies? I doubt that and sure hope not.

 

[ddrueding]

I don't think doing something once in your life makes you a druggie. And I suspect that way more than half the population has tried marijuana at some point.

 

[jtr1962]

More than half the population are druggies? I doubt that and sure hope not.

If you count the legal drugs, yes. And many legal drugs have long-term side-effects as bad or worse than illegal ones. Lipitor was responsible in large part for my father's death. IMO it's the legal drug problem we should go after first. I see far too many people stoned or otherwise out of it these days. It can't be that they're all hooked on pot or meth or crack. Medicine long ago stopped stressing lifestyle changes in favor of drugs to treat common ailments. Easier for the doctor, easier for the patient, but of course the downside is potential addiction plus both short and long term side effects.

There is only insanity in leagilizing hard drug use. You would end up with a society of totally disfunctional people.

We're already getting there thanks to the legal drugs. Oddly enough, thanks to strong anti-smoking campaigns cigarette use is dropping. I doubt we would suddenly have any major problem if we legalized hard drug use. For starters, a lot of people nowadays are more health conscious. They wouldn't touch these drugs legal or not. A lot of casual users have only taken the drugs precisely because they were illegal, and hence more attractive. Legalizing decreases this demographic. A small percentage of these casual users become hard-core users. Legalizing won't create more hard core users. Rather, it would reduce this pool from which hard-core users come from. Short term there would be no change in hard-core users. Long term the trend would be down.

Another important thing to add is that employee drug testing won't go away just because hard core drugs are legalized. Indeed, drug testing might even increase as a result of legalization. Most people need to stay employed. That alone will keep the number of users way down. There are all kinds of things society can do to make hard drug use unacceptable without making it illegal, and I fully agree hard drugs should remain stigmatized. We're already doing this with cigarettes. But as I said in my response to LM, I really think decreasing legal drug use should take precedence. Basically we need to end prescription drugs for any condition which is amenable to treatment with lifestyle changes only. And we need to stop inventing "imaginary" illnesses like "social anxiety disorder" just so we can sell a magic pill.

The benefit of legalizing hard drugs really isn't the decrease in drug abuse (assuming it works as I believe it would). That's a secondary goal. Rather, the real benefit would be the billions of dollars saved annually on law enforcement, as well as the spared lives of law enforcement personnel. We've spent how many trillions over the last 50 years going at this problem via legislation/enforcement? What has it accomplished? Demand for hard drugs remains more or less fixed. Same with cigarettes. Antismoking campaigns have helped, but there will probably be some percentage (5% is my guess) of the population who will smoke anyway. Same with hard drugs. Some small amount well under 1% will always be addicted to them no matter what, and this number won't change much whether they're legal or illegal. I can't see wasting lives and resources to save this small percentage from themselves.

 

[Stereodude]

Oddly enough, thanks to strong anti-smoking campaigns cigarette use is dropping. ... For starters, a lot of people nowadays are more health conscious. They wouldn't touch these drugs legal or not.

You're nuts! The primary reason why cigarette use is dropping is because of all the taxes on them making them so expensive. This of course is a big quandary because the gov't relies on the funding from cigarette taxes. If they were really so bad, the gov't would make them illegal.

Legalizing drug use would not cause their use to go down. It would cause the price to plummet and usage to spike. Because they're addictive you've now got a huge problem because people just trying them out are now addicted. Your argument is akin to say if we toss speed limits everyone will stop speeding because the thrill of breaking the law is gone.

 

[Striker]

I'm going to make a guess that based on your strong reaction that you're a supporter of marijuana and possibly a user?

Him being on a mind altering substance might actually explain most of his posts.

 

[Stereodude]

Him being on a mind altering substance might actually explain most of his posts.

And his fond love of all things Apple.

 

[Handruin]

The benefit of legalizing hard drugs really isn't the decrease in drug abuse (assuming it works as I believe it would). That's a secondary goal. Rather, the real benefit would be the billions of dollars saved annually on law enforcement, as well as the spared lives of law enforcement personnel. We've spent how many trillions over the last 50 years going at this problem via legislation/enforcement? What has it accomplished?

I can't agree with this. If you legalize hard drugs you're shifting the problem. Giving someone free access to a highly addictive drug that causes serious mind altering effects is not going to reduce crime, it'll cause it in other places and in other ways.

Not to mention the serious damage done to the body that would then have to be treated (likely by the state because they'll be too poor from spending all their money on legal drugs). A kid I went to high school with was caught up in cocaine usage among other things (he started with weed) and he screwed himself all up eventually to the point requiring open heart surgery. How would situations like that be saving money if cocaine and other toxic drugs are legal?

 

[Handruin]

Him being on a mind altering substance might actually explain most of his posts.

 

[Tannin]

I was going to post saying "Michael who?" but in scrolling to the bottom I saw (somewhere) the words "celebrity" and "athelete" and by the time I got to the bottom I'd remembered that he is a swimmer. The suspension, of course, is stupid, the "logic" behind it absurd, the social implications nasty, but in the end, he's just a swimmer. I don't even follow what Australian swimmers do, never mind foreign ones. Most boring sport on the planet, except for a few others that equal it.

Now, what was that magnificent quote from Norman May again?

(Norman May: doyen of Australian swimming commentators, about 1000 years old now and still comes out of retirement every time there are Olympic or Commonwealth games to appear on radio and television, and show these jumped-up youngsters with a mere 50 years or so experience how well a real swimming commentator knows his stuff. Usually succeeds too. Ask Norman May who came 5th in the 2nd semi-final of the 100m backstroke at the Helsinki Olympics and he'll not only know the answer, he'll also tell you why she came fifth when lot of people expected her to wash out in the heats. Amazing man.)

Oh, you want the quote? Well, impressive though Norman May's knowledge and understanding of the sport has always been, no-one ever said he wasn't dead-set keen to see the Australian swimmer go well. Indeed, his parocialism is legendary. The quote (moments after an Australian swimmer finished 2nd in a very, very close Olympic final):

And the Australian swimmer would have won it! Except that the other swimmer got to the end first.

 

[jtr1962]

I can't agree with this. If you legalize hard drugs you're shifting the problem. Giving someone free access to a highly addictive drug that causes serious mind altering effects is not going to reduce crime, it'll cause it in other places and in other ways.

Not to mention the serious damage done to the body that would then have to be treated (likely by the state because they'll be too poor from spending all their money on legal drugs). A kid I went to high school with was caught up in cocaine usage among other things (he started with weed) and he screwed himself all up eventually to the point requiring open heart surgery. How would situations like that be saving money if cocaine and other toxic drugs are legal?

The thing is we're going at it from the wrong angle. We've tried laws and enforcement. It doesn't work. If it did, then why do so many people try drugs, and why do they sometimes get hooked? To continue to do things the same way but expect a different result is the very definition of insanity. It's like trying to outlaw obesity by making junk food illegal. It plain old won't work.

Maybe what we need to do is figure out what it is about our society that makes people want to try drugs in the first place. Offhand, I'd say a lot of it is boredom. A lot of people weren't taught by their parents or their schools how to think freely and be creative. As a result, when they don't have anything programmed they search for other ways to pass the time. Drugs are one way. The hallucinations also help with the boredom. And a lot of people live in areas which are frankly boring without many external things to do short of looking at trees. Even my 16-year old niece admitted that the Long Island suburbs are boring. She'd much rather live in the city.

Another reason might be the general coldness of our society. We don't even make an effort to help younger people get a start in life. That's especially true of far too many of today's self-absorbed parents. Nobody cares, and the resulting low self-esteem makes many turn to drugs to escape.

In the end punitive laws do nothing if the underlying reasons for taking drugs in the first place exist. Get rid of the reasons, and it won't matter if drugs are legal or not. Few will even want to try them. I can attest to this from personal experience with myself and most of my high school friends. Most had good or at least OK parents who took an interest in them. The concept of trying drugs was alien to us. My first thoughts were why would anyone want to do that to themselves? Our lives, while not perfect, were full enough that there was no need to get high. Maybe that's the reason Phelps took pot. His life has basically been one dimensional. As much as I like cycling I wouldn't want to do it as much as elite athletes like Lance Armstrong have. You just miss out on too much in life when you only pursue one path.

Of course, I realize what I'm suggesting requires a major society change. Remember however that illegal drugs only started becoming a problem when people thought that small amounts of "quality time" were a substitute for full-time parenting. Maybe the old ways were better even if only one parent working meant fewer material things. In short, what caused the drug problem we're facing today is the 1960s.

 

[CougTek]

The suspension, of course, is stupid, the "logic" behind it absurd, the social implications nasty, ...

My point.

It was a private party from what I read. And he's not showing off in front of the camera making a "V" sign with his fingers. He probably wasn't even aware he had been photographied. You can't expect all-time good behaviors from someone, not even your president, much less a twenty-year-old who had no youth. This is institutional invasion of privacy and it disgusts me.

For the record, I have never, ever, smoked weed or any other illegal substance, although I did smoke a few cigarettes (less than a 20-pack in my entire lifetime). However, I know a lot of people (often related to the artistic community) who wouldn't be able to go on in life without drugs. Famous people who generate far more revenues than almost anyone posting here (including Ddrueding/Fushigi). I don't say it's a good thing, just that it is a reality that you cannot deny.

And Mark, mister perfect, mister politically correct, mister "our collective conscience" : while I do respect the high goals you've set in your life and I like idealists, I can tell you for sure, having known both small towns and cities, that you cannot apply the same rules of a remote s**t hole in Oregon to other, more populated places in America. It doesn't scale well, doesn't cope with reality, doesn't work, period. What is the problem of one folk in your aglomeration becomes the problem of an entire, non-negligeable portion of the population in a big city. It's not something you can hide, marginalize, or ignore. You have to find ways to life with it so that these particular people can interact with the rest of the population in a non-disruptive way. Fining them and putting them to jail will make your criminality level explode.

 

[P5-133XL]

Just as an incidental, how does fining people make the criminal level explode? Or do parking fines, speeding tickets, or even taxes cause the same effect? The point is to discourage an activity, to the point that it is better for the individual to actually follow the law than to resist: Self interest is a good thing? Putting people in jail == very expensive while fines generally pay for the costs of enforcement. Stigmatizing may actually cause people to avoid a particular path that is generally harmful to society (isn't that a good thing). Once people have chosen a discouraged path, I have to problem giving them a way out: Quit using, and the fines will disappear and the negative stigma can too.

As to dealers, manufacturers, smugglers, and growers, the discouragement must be far greater to sucessfully discourage. To them it is a business, and fines just get passed on the the end user, thereby not accomplishing the end goal of discouraging. Thus jail time becomes necessary. I have absolutely no problem filling the jails with dealers, and thereby protecting society from the likes. If you can figure out a better way of discouraging dealers, I'm all ears.

I really think that the population density doesn't matter: Drugs are everywhere now days. The point of discouraging drugs is to make the world a better place. Accepting drug use, legitimizing it, does not accomplish the primary goal and is a step backwards towards a worse place.

As to the specifics of Mr. Phelps, I don't care if it was private and he didn't know he was being photographed. People that do crimes, generally strive for privacy. Should it matter, if for example a rape (or any other crime) occured privately or in public? He did what he did, and should accept responsability for his actions: To hide behind excuses, does not show him in a good light.

Being what he is, he is held up as an example to others. He, and others that are in the public eye, should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. To allow the privledged to live to a lower standard than the average person send a very bad messege to people that use these people as their heros. Being powerful, rich, famous, should not produce a get-out-of-jail-free card but rather being under a microsocope should emphasize the concept that if they do something wrong and get caught, they too will be punished just like marginalized getto person will be.