Posted February 6th, 2009 at 3:54PMMichael Phelps: Puppy torturer! by Joe Conason
So why do we still need to feign outrage over Michael Phelps? Why must he humble himself before the cameras as if he had tortured a puppy? Why should the law treat cannabis as a damaging addiction, when in fact nearly anyone who has accomplished anything worthwhile seems to have taken at least a toke or two? Those are among the mysteries of modern prohibition, which is unlikely to end anytime soon. For now, however, the president who once smoked pot (in fact, many more times than once) ought to fulfill his campaign promise to end the cruel federal raids on medical marijuana clubs. Surely he knows better, and so do the rest of us.
Has anyone else been bothered by the recent manufactured hysteria over Phelps sucking on a bong? There’s no excuse for the media blitz over the photo because nobody ought to care. It has no bearing on his athletic feats and it shouldn’t diminish him in the eyes of fans, old and young (especially) alike. An editorial on thehill.com: “Sure, there will be some who will say that this latest chapter in Phelp’s life is deserving of criticism because the 14-time gold medalist is sending a poor message to young children. And what message would that be? That you can occasionally smoke marijuana and still be successful in life. Well sorry if the truth hurts.”
The post continues, citing a recent study by the University of Alberta, which finds most people who use marijuana do so to… Unwind.
Researchers concluded: “[M]ost adult marijuana users regulate use to their recreational time and do not use compulsively. Rather, their use is purposively intended to enhance their leisure activities and manage the challenges and demands of living in contemporary modern society.”
Willie Nelson, paraphrasing:
It ain’t nobody’s business if I do, Lord no.
Well, it ain’t nobody’s business if I do
Phelps’ 2004 DUI was a mistake. The only mistake this time around was being in the same room as a paparazzo with a camera.
And lest you believe the myth that people aren’t busted for pot these days, just check the facts. Nearly a million each year are convicted on pot-related offenses, and the vast majority are non-violent offenders, on possession charges. State law has softened, but the DEA, under federal jurisdiction, still raids medical marijuana facilities in California and other states where medical use has been legalized. A collective WTF?
So despite the sorry fixation on Phelps, it’s not all about humiliating unassuming celebrities. And convictions mean penalties, jail time, parole, and a record that cock-blocks student aid eligibility and employment chances.
Joe Conason again:
“None of this rampant toking seems to have impaired athletic performance – unless we assume that Phelps, for instance, would somehow have won more than eight gold medals at last summer’s Olympic Games. So much for the argument that marijuana damages motivation, or prowess, or leads inevitably to more dangerous narcotics.”
We need to put this charade to rest. Change to America’s drug laws might be the perfect litmus test for our new fearless leaders in Washington.
loading...
Tags: 
His “mistake” was being photographed using a bong (healthier method) and not just toking a blunt which would look like tobacco. Smokers still have to be crafty like that, which is counter-intuitive to “relaxing with a blunt”.
I heard all his associates in the room were booked by police. 10 years into the 21st century the “War on Weed” reaches yet a new low.
As i posted elsewhere; had he had been photographed drinking from a yard-glass of Budweiser, he could have earned himself 10 million dollars in sponsership, rather than losing 10 million in sponsership.
loading...
ps. the google ad on this story is “Addicted to Marijauna? …www.stopsmokingcannabis.org”
loading...
I’m seeing “treat marijuana abuse”…… But also http://www.GetPhelpsed.com.
loading...
The article i read pointed out how every now and then a case like this brings marijuana back into the limelight, and typically for the wrong reasons. While it seems absurd, it highlights an extremism in the law, and the far-ranging views of the public about the need for those laws. It went on to suggest that there 4 main groups that these views could be divided into;
–
Group 1; emphasizes that most adults who smoke marijuana do so occasionally and “without really any harm,” Roffman said, “and that’s a very hard thing for us to publicly acknowledge.”
Group 2; stresses that “a substantial number of marijuana smokers get into real trouble” and “derail” from functionality.
Group 3; considers marijuana central to life on Earth and tends to live alternatively both culturally and politically, yet manages to function.
Group 4; entails medical users, whose approval in various states — California in 1996 — has helped soften the stigma over time.
–
Considering just these groups, we see Group 1 comprises the vast majority view (perhaps 80% or 90%) and can be summed up by the words “mostly harmless”. This generally trails off into comparisons with “legal” drugs, without passing emphasis on it’s benefits to society.
Group 2 is the minority counter-argument to Group 1.
Group 3 (perhaps a users perspective, than an outsiders perspective) is essentially that marijuana could save the planet. (Global Warming, an antidote to selfish consumerism, etc)
Group 4 is perhaps the odd one out here, cos you don’t usually get a doctor’s recommendation to “smoke cigarettes” or “drink beer” to relieve pain, nausia, insomnia, etc.
Basically speaking, the views of Group 2 are presented in what can only be described as an “out-of-all-proportion” way. We are after all only talking of 1 or 2 percent of users, who are more frequently derailed by the law’s mis-treatment than by the direct effects of smoking.
Interesting grouping in any case.
loading...