Michael Phelps may have a bit more to worry about than losing some of us promotional contracts, he could lose his freedom. The 14-time gold medalist was shown smoking marijuana from a pipe. In both real estate and criminal law, the key is always location, location, location. This was not a good location to go for the Acapulco gold. South Carolina prosecutors are looking into charges and in Richland County, Phelps could get as much as 30 days — though jail is rare in such cases.
Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott said he is trying to prove that the picture came from his county and involved pot. This makes some of Phelps public comments problematic for his defense counsel. The incident appears to have occurred during a visit at the University of South Carolina. His sponsors — Speedo and Swiss watchmaker Omega — have already said that they are not troubled by the incident, but might change their minds if he is criminally charged. He has also apologized to the International Olympic Committee.
This falls under the category of “one day on the cover of Time, the next day doing Time.” With the picture, the apology, and back story, prosecutors are likely to jump on the case.
Such cases of incriminating video do occur in the age of YouTube, including the case of billionaire Henry T. Nicholas III . Obviously, you have to prove the content of the pipe, but a denial by Phelps after all of his apologies would seem a bit strange. He also does not want to get into a fight with prosecutors, who might give him a misdemeanor fine and be done with it.
For the full story, click here.
Buddha,
We do not disagree to the extent you think. Sans addiction, explain to me why pot smoke in someone’s lungs is not harmful and why you are not concerned about the deleterious effects of the absorbed chemicals that course through the blood of a pot smoker’s body.
Hey, do not worry about typos, especially within a long post. We all know you are a good writer.
Between 1999 and 2003 I created and ran a housing program in NYC for people with dual diagnosis. This meant that they had been diagnosed with a major psychological disorder (AXIS I in DSM) and with drug addictions of various types. Typically, I took people into my program directly from month long stays in psychiatric wards. Although by 1999 I had been in social services for 32 years I found that this experience destroyed some of my understanding of addiction and was also humbling to an old pro who thought he knew it all.
Contrary to most people’s beliefs addiction in all its’ forms is a major mental illness. We need to be clear though that addiction is very different from recreational use. This is what often gets overlooked in the discussion. Someone with an addictive personality can and does get addicted to almost everything, including as we now know to binge eating and/or purging. It has little to do with lack of will and much to do with serious mental disturbance. Sadly, with the best candidates, in the best circumstances, perhaps a third are able to throw off its effect. The rest are caught in a vicious cycle that has them being clean at times, but without lasting sobriety.
Given this in my opinion the entire War on Drugs concept, in tandem with idea’s like “just say no” are farces perpetrated on the American public, by phony politico’s, some of whom get money and support from large scale dealers. Others use the “War On Drugs” as a campaign theme, because it sells. Decriminalization in some form is the way to go, providing it is backed up by sponsorship of programs that can help those with a will to quit.
Addicts should be treated like those with disabilities, because in truth they are.
Now as far as marijuana goes, contrary to popular wisdom it is far more benign in its’ effects than alcohol and cigarettes. There are also proven physical benefits to it. While it is true that the addictive personality can be addicted to anything, think glue sniffers for instance, marijuana addiction is almost non-existent.
As a child of the 60’s my drug experimentation was wide ranged and at times prolific. I was never addicted to any legal, or illegal drug save one. Since the age of 17 until my retirement, I had only once been out of work for two months at age 59. For many years I also practiced psychotherapy as a second job and had earned Masters and post Master degrees. That was with smoking grass every day between the ages of 17 and 37. With the arrival of my first child I stopped smoking pot because my responsibility as a parent came first and I didn’t want it affecting my parenting.
Nevertheless, since the age of 14 until the age of 61 I was an addict to a perfectly legal drug, cigarettes. While there were two points during this time when I gave up cigarettes for 3 years at a time resuming my addiction was as easy as taking my first puff, an addict by definition. Interestingly, while I gave up smoking pot and using other drugs at 37, I also had my first heart attack at that age. I continued to smoke through two other attacks and only gave it up when I developed congestive heart failure. That is what addiction is about and there was my craziness. I was a 2 pack per day smoker.
This is the point of all my self confession. We are allowing the most addictive and probably lethal drugs to be sold over the counter. Alcohol addiction too is just as bad physically and socially as heroin addiction, we’ve got a lot less Heroin addicts and yet it remains legal because we have found Prohibition to be a failure. It is high time to take the example of our discovery in the early 20th century and bring it up to date. I believe that we will actually save lives in the process and reduce the rates of addiction.
And that, THAT is the last time I type something that long on the Crackberry. I can’t feel my thumbs.
“far less harmful”
FFLEO,
It is axiomatic that the temptation of the organized criminal element to dominate an illegal enterprise is the same as in any business: profit. You want the bad players removed? Remove the excess profit motive. A profit inflated by illegality as illegality is a direct impact to supply. You remove the motive, the criminals will move on to find something else to behead people for. Is that not the lesson of Prohibition? Alcohol became legal and the same criminal element responsible for bootlegging moved in to drugs (and other rackets) for the profit. It is well established that this was met with resistance, especially in the Sicilian families, for reasons which seem almost like ethics. It was only after it became apparent that huge profits were to be made that they finally moved to selling not just the innocuous marijuana, but the more socially damaging and physiologically addicting drugs like heroin and cocaine. Marijuana has no physically addictive properties. It can be psychologically addictive, but so can football. In fact, for many years before it was criminalized it was widely used as medicine and continues to be used so today. Lumping it in with substances like heroin or cocaine is disingenuous and inaccurate – especially considering industries role in keeping it illegal. DuPont can’t sell nylon if you can make rope out of hemp and it was DuPont pushing the criminalization in the first place. Depriving people of medicine, as well as a chemical recreation that results in less violence than alcohol (on a per capita basis), jailing thousands and thousands for a victimless crime all to make profit is simply wrong minded especially in light of what Prohibition showed is a futile effort. A certain percentage of people just want to get “high” even if it means spinning around in the yard until they pass out. And if you make spinning illegal, someone will set up “Spin Dens”. It’s human nature.
Coca plants won’t grow here. If you grew enough opium poppies to run production, it’d be pretty easy to spot. Both of these drugs bases deserve far more attention, attention that is currently misdirected to a far less harmless drug, a drug that is demonstrably less damaging and more social than alcohol. I’ve never been punched by a stoner. Ever. I’ve had drunks break pool cues over my back though. And let’s be adults: booze and smokes ARE drugs and probably worse if not as “bad” as marijuana physically. Socially there is no comparison: pot’s the better drug. Yes, driving under the influence of ANY drug, including many prescription drugs, should be kept illegal. It’s a common sense safety issue. And yes, drug enforcement overall is an important issue not just legally but sociologically as well. But if you’re swinging at the wrong ball, you’ll never hit one out of the park.
Make marijuana legal and tax it just like smokes and beer. Tax the Hell out of it. People would pay $25 bucks a pack for joints that costs even less than tobacco to manufacture and $22 per pack could be tax revenue. Even the tobacco companies get by on that. Why do you think every single one of them has packaging and advertising designed and sitting in a cabinet waiting for legalization/decriminalization? The plants are weeds, they will grow in places you can’t grow much anything else and they grow faster than tobacco plants. They’ll make a fortune. A fortune which in turn can be taxed, something that can’t be said of criminal gains.
Make importing either cocaine or opiates a capitol offense or punishable by life w/o chance of parole. Make penalties for distribution domestically nearly as harsh. Being an addict though is not a criminal issue, it’s a health issue and should be treated as such. If we were to adopt this model, we’ll increase our tax base while offsetting the losses to “the prison industry” (revolting concept) and ensure the right criminals are removed from play so they CAN’T move on to the “next big thing”. At the same time we remove the stigma of what is an increasingly acceptable drug. A drug our sitting President admits to having used. And despite what anyone reading this thinks, I promise you know a pot smoker and probably several. ALL OF YOU. And it’s not the obvious stoner wastoids I’m talking about either. Odds are that they are just as productive and peaceful a citizen as the next guy sitting at the bar next to you and maybe more so. They are people you probably like, trust and respect. You just don’t know they smoke pot. Part of this acceptance comes from experience. People who have smoked pot and tried other substances KNOW the government is lying about the “danger” of marijuana. Honestly, if it were legal, I’d never smoke a cigarette again.
I suspect we’ll disagree on this. 😀
FFLeo,
Perhaps the best answer is to let people obtain the drugs through more reputable sources. I’m sure we’re all aware enough of history to have learned our lessons from Prohibition.
I think Mr. Phelps should receive a misdemeanor fine (as Professor Turley stated as a possible punishment) and community service at a municipal pool in a disadvantaged community. I live near the Mexico/U.S. border, drug-related murders are increasing in Mexico (abundant beheadings, torture before death), and the violence and murders are spilling over into the U.S.
By using illegal drugs, U.S. citizens are perpetuating the impetus for these crimes. Mr. Phelps has the opportunity to become an exceptional hero for our youth—sorely needed nowadays—and heroes should be as upstanding as possible; not perfect, although not affected by illegal drugs. Mr. Phelps possibly recognized this by his admission of guilt and sincere apology. A small misdemeanor fine and community service—for the public record and as a deterrent—are both appropriate.
7:
Is crime non-existent in Richland County?
********
No, but high profile crime is!
Is crime non-existent in Richland County? Are there no cold cases Sheriff Lott could look into? I only ask because the amount of money and resources that the county would have to lay out to prove their case seems to pretty high.
FFLeo:
Right you are. Bron98 et als are why children are never to be invited to attend adult dinner parties. After the precociousness wears off, you have nothing left but irritating, mindless chatter interrupting intelligent conversation along with interminable breaks while the adults take time to correct the kids’ antics. Folks like Bron98 have their place, but I would limit them to interacting on X-box 360’s or some other mindless contraption.
BronNineAte,
Debating and endeavoring to consider all of the contrary evidence is the way I conducted my collateral careers. Any professional scientist, critical thinker, logician, or anyone else who treasures unbiased reasoning, and who has a sense of humor and wit, would enjoy this blawg. This forum is especially interesting because several attorneys take time to deliberate legal issues. A good lawyer is similar to a competent scientist in that both professionals give as much weight to their adversaries’ arguments as to their own. That way they learn the weaknesses of their own—perhaps biased and flawed—arguments, amend the logic, remove the logical fallacies, and then use that knowledge to bolster their positions to garner a favorable ruling or resolve a scientific incongruity.
People such as you ruin the continuity of thought and add nothing but illogical noise to every thread. Even before I read your comment about me, I thought of a caricature of you as an intellectually underdeveloped streaker running around the lecterns during a learned debate. There would be no laughter from the deliberators, only disgust and contempt for your disruptive display of low self-esteem and mental inadequacies.
Relevant, logical refutations are always welcome; illogical, irrelevant nonsense is most unwelcome.
Von Bron Troll
Your development is stagnating here.
Cultivate your hemorrhoidal magic where it’s appreciated.
Like Kos said, anyone who has a problem with what Phelps did here is a complete fuc#ing moron
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/cartoonsandvideos/toles_main.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
It’s funny.
Pet troll, eh? snicker. I’ll let the man himself set you straight on that one, but I suspect you just stepped in another pile you’ll be unable to extract yourself from. Again an exercise in poor target selection.
An analysis of your “style”, such as it is, tends to support Patty’s theory as to your identity. Methinks thou doth protest too much. And too poorly.
PattyC:
I am not Parsnips, nor Rumplestilskin, or Bartlebe, I am simply me.
I have used a couple of other names such as We98 and WeeWenYu98 but I figured even you all would figure that out.
Basically this site is one sided except for FFLEO and he is just your pet Troll. It is actually getting pretty boring the analysis is all the same, from the left and as much as I hate to say it if it wasnt for Buddha and MikeS (and MikeA once in awhile), this would be a dead zone or a bozone.
Oh come on, you guys – ‘Rumplestilskin’ doesn’t get paid for tantrums.
His plan from the start was to launch a ‘debate’ site with selected ‘turlees’ as ‘judges’.
Instead, he keeps managing to get himself booed off the blog over his infuriating nitpicking, which he, alone, characterizes as ‘debate’, only to return a few weeks later under a new alias.
It would be sad, if it wasn’t so funny.
So nanny nanny boo boo?
“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.” Sir Isaac Newton, letter to Robert Hooke, February 5, 1675.
bron98:
“If you are going to be a whore….” I appreciate the honesty. Very refreshing.
oh and one other thing at least when I post something that is not my original thought at least I acknoledge where it came from. Not saying that you do that but some of the “original” thinking on this site is anything but.