posted
He wasn't smoking during competition, or at anytime even vaguely near competition. Cannibinoids and their breakdown products stay in the system for a L...O...N...G... time. And it is a banned substance, that'll getcha kicked outta competition I very much doubt that Phelps smoked from the time he became eyed as a potential international-class athlete through the time he won his last medals.
As an aside, that is probably the reason why Britney shaved her head shortly after entering rehab. Told about the long-lasting detectability -- most especially within*hair -- and decided that being bald was the preferable alternative to testing positive for drugs then losing her kids in the custody battle.
* The hair is washed to remove any possibility of a false positive from surface contamination due to being around smokers, then tested for residues that grew out with the hair.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me stray off on a diversion to make a point.
I frequently read in UK tabloids about the exploits of Prince Harry. Though they try to blow them up into impossible big and important scandals, in essence every story can be boiled down to this headline -
"Normal Boy Does Normal Thing!... News at 11"
The UK government spend something like a Million Pounds ranting and raving over how horrible it was that Prince Harry wore a Nazi Uniform to a costume party. Well, it WAS a costume party and he did rent the costume at a local costume shop. Anyone could have rented that same costume and wore it.
And second, it wasn't a Nazi uniform; it was a khaki shirt with a Swastika arm band. That actually sounds like a good costume. Instead of running around London in a Fuzzy Bear suit; arm band off, you look normal, get to the party, arm band on, you're in costume. Seems real convenient to me.
So, again "Normal Kid Does Normal Thing".
Harry kissed a girl, big scandal, but really it is just normal boy does normal thing. Boys like girls; who knew (he said sarcastically)?
But, really the whole 'scandal' is that Prince Harry is not a Normal Boy, no matter how much he tries to be. He is in the glaring spotlight that never goes out. He can never have a moments privacy or a moments peace in his entire life.
And I don't think Phelps has realized this yet. I think he still sees himself as a normal boy doing normal things. In fact, he may be making an effort to be as normal and ordinary as possible. To not let fame change his life.
But he is neither normal or ordinary, and the sooner he realizes that, the sooner we will stop seeing his youthful indiscretions in the papers.
Whether he likes it or not, the glaring spot light of fame in on him, and it will never go out. Every thing he does and says will become fodder for tabloid and headline news. Never mind that there were a few hundred other people at that party, only this one inconclusive picture of him matters to the celebrity obsessed public.
In a world full of cell phone cameras, he has no privacy ever. Even if he is 5 miles off shore on a yacht. Someone can still get a picture of him.
I think this is what he needs to realize; fame comes with a price, a terrible price. But it also come with rewards, like, $100 million in lifetime earnings.
Now Phelps needs to ask himself which is more important, being impossibly and unlikely normal, or earning $100 million dollars?
Since Phelps seems to be a nice guy, I think we can cut him some slack. But only just so much slack. As it stands now, he has two strikes against him. One for a previous indiscretion involving drinking, and now one for holding a bong to his lips and being photographed. The public and his fans can be forgiving, but there is a limit to our forgiveness.
And while we are on the subject, we only have the flimsiest of evidence as to what he did or didn't do. We have a photo of him holding a bong to his lips, but that is all we have. We don't know with any legal certainty that he actually smoked pot or anything else.
Next, let's look at this photo. How does a photo taken in Arizona (I think) end up being published in the UK press? Easy, the person who took it shopped it around and sold it to the highest bidder.
Well, being the not-normal celebrity he is, any photo of Phelps is worth money. Any vaguely or implied scandalous photo of him is worth BIG money. Context doesn't matter. If it looks scandalous, it is.
Phelps needs to realize this. He can't be normal, he can't do normal things, because there is alway someone waiting to twist everything he does into a money making scandal.
Right now there are huge 'scandalous' rumor in Australia that Ian Thorpe (the Olympic swimmer, the human torpedo) might be gay. Why? Because he has a male roommate. Of course, he and his 'male roommate' both go to the same university, and nearly all the other male students at Australian universities also have male roommates. So, I guess we can only conclude that an entire generation of Australian men are gay because they have male roommates.
Again, once you get past the scandal-mongering, the headline here can be summed up as 'Normal Guy Does Normal Thing'.
In Phelps case, he is riding on the good graces of his fans, but their good graces are not infinite. He needs to decide between being normal, and being rich and respected. He can't have both. That is the price of fame.
quote:Whether he likes it or not, the glaring spot light of fame in on him, and it will never go out. Every thing he does and says will become fodder for tabloid and headline news. Never mind that there were a few hundred other people at that party, only this one inconclusive picture of him matters to the celebrity obsessed public.
I doubt this. Olympic athletes rarely stay in the public spotlight for more than a year or two. When was the last time you read about Mark Spitz? How about Eric Hayden, Oksana Baiul, Nancy Carrigan, Picabo Street, Jesse Owen, or Bruce Jenner? Every one of them was in the media spot light, many of them made the tabloids. But Olympic fame really doesn't last that long.
In 10 years very few people will know what Phelps is doing or care. In 20 years, very few people will remember his name.
[ February 05, 2009, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If taking any substance illegally is regarded as abuse, the term loses almost all utility. And calling it abuse will, much like the lies told children about how much damage drugs can do, only make them ridicule those who label it as such.
I'd think children would understand the dangers of drug abuse much more clearly if we did include legal and social effects in the discussion, particularly for drugs like marijuana where the physical/medical dangers are less clear than for things like cigarettes. Teenagers can see peers who use marijuana or alcohol and don't show any obvious health problems, so its not hard for them to justify that what's going on is not abuse under that thinking. They may not see the long term health impact or the more subtle impact it has on the lives and minds of the people doing it. A common line for smoking weed is to argue that it isn't chemically addictive and isn't unhealthy. In contrast, kids DO typically understand things like going to jail, being expelled from school, being shunned by other people, or losing millions of dollars in ad revenue. Saying "drug abuse is using drugs in a way that's could cause major problems for you or people around you" brings those other more clear cut consequences into the discussion. I'd think that conception of it has more utility.
Either way, though, "discussion" is the key word. Just telling kids "smoking weed is illegal, therefore it's drug abuse, so don't do it!" isn't going to convince them of anything. Similarly, just telling kids "smoking weed is unhealthy, therefore it's drug abuse, so don't do it!" won't convince them either. Broadly labeling things as bad, unhealthy, or abuse without an open truthful discussion about why is what leads those labels to be mocked. I'd think any effective effort to stop kids from drug use would entail both giving them information about the physical, mental, social, and legal consequences and getting them to think about and discuss it.
quote:
quote: Similarly, the way other people in society are going to react to your choices needs to be factored in too.
This is an entirely different debate. If i'm going to harm a significant portion of society by engaging in premarital sex or choosing to be an atheist, should I not engage in those activities so as to minimize the harm caused to those people? I mean, i'm being a horrible influence on society right? Children may follow in my footsteps.
Yes, that IS an entirely different debate. That is actually the previous debate that I think Jhai was referring to - I think that you do need to factor the impact of your decisions on other people into your decisions, but several people disagreed. I'd rather not get into that here though, since it is a big tangent that I've done before.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:REMEMBER KIDS: DON'T SMOKE WEED OR YOU MIGHT BE UNIMAGINABLY COOL
Again, the coolness came before the weed, from the swimming victories. It would be closer to say "Smoking weed can take even the unimaginably cool and make them uncool."
Golly gosh it sure does!
"Hey pop! All the cool kids in school are smoking pot, think I should too?"
"No, son, because you see those kids who do drugs to be cool aren't really cool at all. I'll tell you what is cool; studying hard, devoting yourself to a legal and healthy life, and never ever getting into trouble."
"Wow pop, you mean I can be a total nerd and be cool!"
"Well no, but it makes it easier on me if you think you can."
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, listen katharina, I know that hanging around with adults who are as equally uncool as you has given you the impression that successful adults don't drink alcohol or do drugs or have fun, but that just ain't true, m'kay?
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What Jebus is describing is not even high school. It's fiction - you'll find it on TV or in movies, and perhaps in the imaginations of teenagers and some adults, but not anywhere in reality.
Coolness is an idea that's pretty hard to pin down. But I think that if you took a poll it's pretty likely that, except for a fairly small minority that advocates rebellion, and perhaps except for consistent pot users, Phelps' coolness is down pretty far in the eyes of most folks.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Whether he likes it or not, the glaring spot light of fame in on him, and it will never go out. Every thing he does and says will become fodder for tabloid and headline news. ...
I doubt this. Olympic athletes rarely stay in the public spotlight for more than a year or two. ...
In 10 years very few people will know what Phelps is doing or care. In 20 years, very few people will remember his name.
Actually, I don't disagree with you. It is true, Phelps will cease being big news in a while, but that is legitimate News we speak of.
If there was a photo available of Mark Spitz with a Bong to his lips, trust me, it would be tabloid fodder.
So, I agree the brightness of the spotlight of fame will eventually dim substantially, but for someone like Phelps, who has set a record that is not likely to be broken for many many years, at best, the spotlight will only dim.
My central point was that, having achieved at the level he has, Phelps can never be truly normal again, and he needs to realize that, especially now when his actions can have a tremendous effect on his reputation and his future.
My second point is, that Phelps seems like a nice guy, and as such, we can extend him some forgiveness and understanding. But those attributes of forgiveness are not unlimited. He only gets to screw up just so many times before I, and the public, change our perception of him. He has two strikes already, and I don't know if he has enough 'good guy' credit to survive a third strike.
posted
Nonsense, Jebus - failures who think they are clever are not attractive once they become adults.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Similarly, the way other people in society are going to react to your choices needs to be factored in too.
This is an entirely different debate. If i'm going to harm a significant portion of society by engaging in premarital sex or choosing to be an atheist, should I not engage in those activities so as to minimize the harm caused to those people? I mean, i'm being a horrible influence on society right? Children may follow in my footsteps.
Yes, that IS an entirely different debate. That is actually the previous debate that I think Jhai was referring to - I think that you do need to factor the impact of your decisions on other people into your decisions, but several people disagreed. I'd rather not get into that here though, since it is a big tangent that I've done before.
Look, I do agree with you. I do think we need to take into account how are actions will affect others. And there are many times I change my behavior because of how my actions will affect those around me, even if those actions done by someone else wouldn't affect me in any negative way. But there's a limit to the extent of your responsibility for how others view and will react to your actions.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Nonsense, Jebus - failures who think they are clever are not attractive once they become adults.
Katharina, I think your particular experiences and acquaintances have led you to an assumption not really grounded in reality. A lot of my friends are on the more "nerdy" side. They read a lot of books, enjoy talking about topics in science for fun(for instance we all watch TED talks together and discuss them). Many volunteer their time with various organizations in the area. They span the range of professions from scientists, engineers, and programmers, to people working in accounting and finance, to teachers and social workers. Some have started very successful businesses on their own. A lot of these people WERE the nerds in high school. Many are starting to settle down with wives and families and their own homes. And almost all of them drink and do drugs*. I'm sorry that you seem to think they're all failures and uncool.
*by drugs i pretty much mean smoke pot.
edit - btw, just want to point out that I don't think drinking and doing drugs MAKES you cool. I'm saying that coolness is not defined by these things and has no relation to them. I have other friends who don't smoke pot. and some who don't drink. And we all hang out together and get along wonderfully.
edit 2 - also worth noting is the highly subjective nature of all of this. I too don't enjoy hanging out with people who regularly drink to excess, whose entire idea of fun is getting trashed at the bar, or those who sit around and get so stoned day in and day out that they do nothing else. The people I know(or at least choose to hang out with) engage in these activities in moderation. I have a friend that doesn't drink or do drugs anymore. But he's addicted to mountain dew. I think that's silly. Does it make him uncool or a failure? What is it about smoking pot Katharina that makes someone a failure? is it the addiction? the legality? the social stigma?
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: What Jebus is describing is not even high school. It's fiction - you'll find it on TV or in movies, and perhaps in the imaginations of teenagers and some adults, but not anywhere in reality.
Coolness is an idea that's pretty hard to pin down. But I think that if you took a poll it's pretty likely that, except for a fairly small minority that advocates rebellion, and perhaps except for consistent pot users, Phelps' coolness is down pretty far in the eyes of most folks.
And the idea that the awesomeness of Phelps achievement, that all those days and months and years he put into swimming, giving it his heart and soul and everything, can be undone by enoying something that when smoked casually has no real negative effects is utterly ridiculous.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Nonsense, Jebus - failures who think they are clever are not attractive once they become adults.
Wasn't talking about failures, but what with all your brainwashing it's probably hard for you to seperate drugs from failures. Poor katharina.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Weed has pretty significant negative effects when smoked casually - if done regularly, at least. (Not saying that Phelps does it regularly, though.)
And no, the awesomeness of his achievement is not undone. But coolness can be fickle. It only took one event to destroy O.J. Simpson's coolness, for instance.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:can be undone by enoying something that when smoked casually has no real negative effects is utterly ridiculous.
I think Phelps is seeing some real negative effects of his smoking weed right now.
To say those effects will be consistent for all users of weed is incorrect, as not everyone shares the public eye the way Phelps does.
Jebus, I'm not sure what you're beef is with kat, but she's largely right. It is vastly more cool to get a good job that you're passionate about, live healthy, and stay out of jail than it is to do the opposite.
As far as I can tell, her criticism of your post didn't have anything to do with recreational drug use, but the idea that being a nerd (your term) was somehow not desireable. The terminology you chose to use in order to describe a nerd's attributes ("studying hard, devoting yourself to a legal and healthy life, and never ever getting into trouble.") are the hallmarks of being a responsible adult.
Why don't you explain why you think that point of view is wrong rather than pointlessly insulting other posters?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strider, I am not saying what you apparently think I am saying.
I do think that if your profession now is your image (and Phelps's is), then risking that profession in order to smoke pot IS stupid. It is monumentally stupid. It wouldn't be if he were at home and worked as a programmer during the day, but it is for him because he did it in public and makes money off his healthy, clean image. If the answer is that he's just another guy, then he wouldn't be paid so much. He's paid so much precisely because he isn't just another guy, and he's willing to take other people's money to capitalize on that.
To be willing to throw it away for a joint is incredibly stupid.
And the DUI is unconscionable. Driving under the influence is so dangerous and selfish that it makes someone a loser automatically if they do it, no matter what their profession.
---
ScottR is right. Jebus mixed up my defense of doing well at a job you love and being healthy enough to enjoy with whatever he thought I was saying instead.
The insults that followed were lame.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strider, I never said smoking pot makes someone a failure. I did say that being a failure and underachiever isn't cool once you are out of high school. Which is true.
Don't listen to Jebus's interpretations of my posts. He's wrong.
---
As a side note, the title of this thread is completely illogical. Phelps did not win 8 gold medals because he smoked pot six months later.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since you were the firsgt person to relate drug use to being a failure, and since Strider posted before me and drew the same conclusion from your post it seems you're just back-pedalling now, katharina.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Baloney, jebus. I just selected one sentence out of your post and expanded on it. That you thought I meant ALL of the post is regrettable, but it should have been obvious to you what I intended.
Other people managed to figure it out. I don't know what is wrong with you.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Jebus, I'm not sure what you're beef is with kat, but she's largely right. It is vastly more cool to get a good job that you're passionate about, live healthy, and stay out of jail than it is to do the opposite.
No, it's vastly more sensible and logical. You can't distort coolness into something that it isn't to feel better about not being cool. Duh.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying Katharina. This is the interchange I was responding too:
quote:Hey, listen katharina, I know that hanging around with adults who are as equally uncool as you has given you the impression that successful adults don't drink alcohol or do drugs or have fun, but that just ain't true, m'kay?
quote:Nonsense, Jebus - failures who think they are clever are not attractive once they become adults.
Your reply seems to imply that people who engage in drinking and drugs as adults think they're cool, but are really failures. You may have just been responding more harshly as a reaction to jebus's insult, which is understandable, but you could see how i would take your statement as a direct attack on anyone who does drugs rather than a statement about how doing drugs relates to your professional image.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did leave out a jump there, which is that doing something to a ruin an image when you make money off your clean image tends to lead to that profession - making money off your clean image - no longer being an option. That is a kind of failure.
I think Phelps will be forgiven this one, but I doubt if it happened again and soon, it would go so smoothly.
But you're right that it was mostly Jebus-insult rather than general pronouncement.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's quite a jump you left off! Now it all makes sense though. my apologies for assuming otherwise.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Whether he likes it or not, the glaring spot light of fame in on him, and it will never go out. Every thing he does and says will become fodder for tabloid and headline news. ...
I doubt this. Olympic athletes rarely stay in the public spotlight for more than a year or two. ...
In 10 years very few people will know what Phelps is doing or care. In 20 years, very few people will remember his name.
Actually, I don't disagree with you. It is true, Phelps will cease being big news in a while, but that is legitimate News we speak of.
If there was a photo available of Mark Spitz with a Bong to his lips, trust me, it would be tabloid fodder.
So, I agree the brightness of the spotlight of fame will eventually dim substantially, but for someone like Phelps, who has set a record that is not likely to be broken for many many years, at best, the spotlight will only dim.
My central point was that, having achieved at the level he has, Phelps can never be truly normal again, and he needs to realize that, especially now when his actions can have a tremendous effect on his reputation and his future.
My second point is, that Phelps seems like a nice guy, and as such, we can extend him some forgiveness and understanding. But those attributes of forgiveness are not unlimited. He only gets to screw up just so many times before I, and the public, change our perception of him. He has two strikes already, and I don't know if he has enough 'good guy' credit to survive a third strike.
Steve/bluewizard
I think historic examples prove the opposite. Mark Spitz won 7 gold medals in swimming in the 1972 Olympic games, a record that stood for 36 years. When I was a kid, he was a household name. Elementary school kids told jokes with his name in them, he was in commercials and had spots on TV shows. But he did not remain in the media spot light for more than a couple years. Today, few people under 40 even recognize his name. I don't view his accomplishments as any less impressive than Phelps so I don't see why Phelps will be any different.
Similar story for Eric Heiden who won 5 gold medals in speed skating in the 1980 winter games. I did recently read an article about him in a a Utah bicycling newspaper. After he retired from speed skating he had a short career in professional cycling and since he is now a sports medicine doctor living in Utah they interviewed him. He said that every now and then one of his patients asks "Didn't there used to be an Olympic athlete with your name?" and he just smiles and says yes never bothering to say that was him.
Now I suppose its possible that none of these former Athletes has done anything stupid near a camera for the past 30 years, but I just don't think that's likely. I suspect that Phelps won't be much different. For the next couple years he will be in the media spotlight but 10 years from now he'll be able to go back to being just a regular guy like all the other great Olympians who came before him.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Phelps was dumped by Kellogg, but Omega Watches and Speedo say thus far that they are sticking by him.
He's also been suspended for three months by USA Swimming, which means he can't compete until May, and he will lose the living stipend (shy of $2K a month) during the suspension as well. I suppose that's chump change for a guy who was rumored to have made $5 million last year in endorsements alone, but still, all together that stings.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kellog didn't exactly 'dump' him. His contract with them is set to expire, and they declined to renew that contract, though they did cite the 'Bong' photo as the reason.
At any rate, Phelps obligation to Kellog was at its natural end. Though, he certainly lost money in the deal from the contract not being renewed.
I actually think this is a good thing. I think he needs to suffer some consequences to remind him exactly what is at stake here.
While I think he needs to suffer some consequences, I don't think this is quite the time for us, his fans, or his sponsor to abandon him completely.
None the less, he has already screwed up a couple of times. If it happens again, then it seems he has made his choice. He has chosen to prematurely be an insignificant ordinary guy, as opposed to being a wealthy respected Olympic athlete. It really is his choice to make, I just hope he choses more wisely in the future.
posted
The public fallout is a much better punishment than any lost endorsement monies. He's got plenty of money, and any sponsors he loses will probably be almost or completely made up for by new sponsors who now like him because he's edgier.
He's definitely not choosing to be an 'insignificant ordinary guy' (completely false dichotomy there, btw) -- nor could. He's one of the most famous athletes in the world right now (top 5, I'd argue). 'Insignificant' isn't really an option right now. More accurate would be to say he's chosen to be a famous, wealthy Olympic athlete who occasionally acts like the college-age kid he is. Meaning -- stupid.
And I can't imagine he gives a damn if an old man in the twin cities is shaking his finger at him. I know I wouldn't.
Will people eventually reach a point where they no longer consider him a role model? Most certainly.
Are we near that point? Not even close, for the majority of people.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Weed has pretty significant negative effects when smoked casually - if done regularly, at least. (Not saying that Phelps does it regularly, though.)
Clearly we have different understandings of the words casually and regularly.
quote:And no, the awesomeness of his achievement is not undone. But coolness can be fickle. It only took one event to destroy O.J. Simpson's coolness, for instance.
Haha, are you serious? Yes, coolness is so fickle, all it takes is murdering your wife to lose it.
posted
That NIDA report read like a throwback to the DARE-era 'toss out as many negative correlations as possible' strategy. You could make an even more damning report about casual alcohol use using that strategy. Yet, alcohol maintains none of the legal and social stigmas imposed disproportionately upon weed.
posted
Yup. He'd be prolly in less trouble if he had gotten a DUI and in all ways, shapes, and forms, a DUI is a worse thing to do than to get caught smoking pot. I could care less if someone has a casual toke, but DUI's? Bad.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
DUI is almost universally denounced in public but is still incredibly pervasive. I think for every drunk driver caught there are probably hundreds who are legally drunk but don't get caught.
I wonder if the steady ratcheting up of anti drunk driving rhetoric is actually accomplishing anything.
(Whispers: I also wonder if it's justified. At a certain level of impairment, it really is an act of gross recklessness and callousness [in effect, if not in intent due to impaired judgment]. But .08? The risk has been demonstrated to be greater than that of a sober driver, but I do question whether the disparity between stone cold sober and .08 is as great as the range of ability, reflex speed, and caution that is present in sober, licensed, legal drivers. In other words I think there are some distracted slow sober drivers who are more dangerous than .08 drivers, but we leave it up to them to decide when and how much to drive, without condemnation. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel it doesn't really matter, since it is a demonstrated impairment and it is not something that should be treated with complicity, given that drinkers who are likely to drive drunk often do not have an internal sense of their own inebriation and convince themselves that they can safely drive home at progressively higher and higher levels of inebriation!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I pretty much agree with DUI laws as they stand. I don't really grok the level of societal condemnation for violations at the soberer end of the legally drunk spectrum, though.
I should probably quit before I make someone mad. Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also wonder if it's justified. At a certain level of impairment, it really is an act of gross recklessness and callousness [in effect, if not in intent due to impaired judgment]. But .08? The risk has been demonstrated to be greater than that of a sober driver, but I do question whether the disparity between stone cold sober and .08 is as great as the range of ability, reflex speed, and caution that is present in sober, licensed, legal drivers. In other words I think there are some distracted slow sober drivers who are more dangerous than .08 drivers, but we leave it up to them to decide when and how much to drive, without condemnation. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
I think your argument might make sense if the police were pulling people over at random and doing blood alcohol tests but that isn't the way it works.
Just as stone cold sober people have a range of driving abilities, there is also a wide range of how affected people are by blood alcohol. But the system seems to have a built in control for that. The police are highly unlikely to pull you over unless you are violating traffic laws or driving erratically. Even when they pull you over, they are unlikely to do a blood alcohol test unless you appear to be impaired. Those two things work together to make it highly probably that anyone cited for DUI was actually noticeably impaired even if their blood alcohol level was only 0.081. People who aren't impaired at that level as simply highly unlikely to ever be tested.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:That NIDA report read like a throwback to the DARE-era 'toss out as many negative correlations as possible' strategy. You could make an even more damning report about casual alcohol use using that strategy. Yet, alcohol maintains none of the legal and social stigmas imposed disproportionately upon weed.
conclusion: legalize
That conclusion doesn't follow from what you've just said. The fact that alcohol is dangerous doesn't imply marijuana should be legal. Rather, it might imply alcohol should also be illegal.
If we are talking about binge use, drinking is clearly more dangerous than weed though - because of the behavior that drunkness promotes and the addiction it can cause. Having said that, I'm not convinced that drinking a small amount of alcohol consistently is dangerous in the same way that consistently using a small amount of weed is. Drinking just one glass of wine each day, as an adult, seems to be very safe anecdotally - and I'm not aware of much scientific research to the contrary.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its interesting to see the delta in support between the two countries.
quote: Many adults in Canada believe the consumption of cannabis should be permitted by law, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 55 per cent of respondents think marijuana should be legalized in the country, but less than 10 per cent agree with authorizing the consumption of five other illegal drugs.
quote: Since the late 1960s, Gallup has periodically asked Americans whether the use of marijuana should be made legal in the United States. Although a majority of Americans have consistently opposed the idea of legalizing marijuana, public support has slowly increased over the years. In 1969, just 12% of Americans supported making marijuana legal, but by 1977, roughly one in four endorsed it. Support edged up to 31% in 2000, and now, about a third of Americans say marijuana should be legal.
Using an extremely rough extrapolation, that means the the US should catch up to Canada in about 2041 if we stay static Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tresopax, what's dangerous about moderate marijuana use that's not dangerous about alcohol? (Let's say you don't smoke it.)
Even moderate alcohol use is dangerous in the sense that an addiction-prone person can become addicted even from moderate exposure. In other words for some individuals moving from moderate intake to abuse is pretty much inevitable. I think the same is true for marijuana, but I don't see what's worse about marijuana (again, let's not smoke it to avoid the effects of smoke).
Really the only reason alcohol is legal and marijuana isn't is that alcohol has a longer and more widespread cultural acceptance. It has nothing to do with which substance is less dangerous.
I don't think making alcohol illegal is an option. It didn't work the first time, and it isn't working for marijuana. It's taking a horrific toll on the United States. There's no justice in breaking up families and incarcerating people for years to ineffectually try to prevent drug abuse.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marijuana isn't a performance enhancing drug, so I don't give a damn if he uses it as long as he doesn't drive or operate other heavy machinery while under the effect. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't detract at all from his accomplishments. I can see why his sponsors whose products target kids (like Kellogg) would want to disassociate themselves with him, but I think it would be a very poor decision for the other ones to. He's still got plenty of shine on him to sell watches. I think the majority of the adults in the western world consider the marijuana laws basically a joke. And I say this as someone who has never used it myself.
Now, I do think it would be remarkably stupid of him to let himself be photographed using again, but in truth the person I think the worst of in this situation is whoever snapped the picture and sold it to the tabloids. It's not a performance enhancing drug and he's not currently competing. He's not putting anyone in danger except a possible mild effect on his own health. Let the man live. And yeah, it's illegal, but I figure I don't have anything to say about that until I stop speeding, and unless the person who took the picture doesn't break any laws at all themselves, s/he's an opportunistic scumbag, as far as I'm concerned.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: That conclusion doesn't follow from what you've just said.
Fraid I tossed an in-joke at you. I have some friends and associates so obsessed with tying every argument they can to the conclusion that marijuana should be legalized. Nothing will shut them up until marijuana is legalized.
posted
Here's why I think smoking pot is a really bad idea, quite aside from its legality or illegality.
1. It alters your consciousness. You can't perform everyday tasks with precision and reason under the influence of marijuana. I wouldn't want someone driving on the highway with me, looking after my kids, operating heavy machinery or nuclear reactors, or even parking my car under the influence of pot. Any of a thousand tasks that we in society depend on each other to perform safely and well, stoned people perform much less well.
2. Its sources are totally unknown and beyond the law. You don't know what they laced that stuff with. It could be strychnine, PCP, lighter fluid, anything at all. Even at its best, it's unfiltered and at least as bad as smoking an unfiltered cigarette, which most people would find sickening and disgusting. There's a reason why you cough deeply despite trying to hold your breath. Your body is rejecting that horrible stuff. People go to the hospital for smoke inhalation when burning wood or trash, or from a burning building. Why would you DO that to yourself?
3. It makes your thinking fuzzy even a week or two after you last smoked. And if you smoke a lot over a long period of time, you become a fuzzy thinker. Think back to the real stoners you've known in your life. "Wow, man, like .... (giggles) ... what are you doing?" Is this who you want to be?
4. Example: The smartest guy in my sister's high school class made perfect scores on college entrance tests. Got into smoking dope a lot. 20 years later we meet him again and he works in the parking lot in her office building. He takes the money from people and he smokes a lot of dope and he's content. Whatever floats your tractor, but please don't park MY car.
5. Being stoned isn't even fun. How many times have you wished you could come down? How many times have you done really stupid things when stoned? Discuss.
6. Another hs friend was smoking so much pot that he couldn't afford it on his construction job pay. So he started buying it by the kilo from a higher up person in the chain, and selling the majority of it to friends just to pay for his habit. So he gets arrested, and the cops confiscate the kilo he had at his house when they arrived. After his jail term, his former bosses (who know exactly what happened and should by all rights have borne the risk) insist he still owes them for that kilo. The only way he can afford to pay them back is to continue dealing. If he gets behind on what he owes, they'll come and kill him and everyone in the house at the time, including his wife and baby child. He knows this. So he's trapped. Said wife told him she was leaving him if he didn't stop dealing after the prison term. He was stuck, though, so he lost his wife and child but kept his unprofitable drug business.
So realize this. When you stop by your friendly neighborhood dealer's house to buy a bag and light up a fat blunt to enjoy together, his bosses are the type of people who kill kids too stupid to know better than to get mixed up with them. If you happen to be there when they hit, they'll kill you too. You do not want to be mixed up with the sort of people who sell drugs to the people you're buying drugs from.
Smoking marijuana is a bad idea on many different levels, in many different ways. Think how much more you could accomplish, how many better ways there are to spend that money, how much better your health could be, how much safer and happier you could be without it. I urge anyone considering smoking dope to think again. I urge anyone who currently smokes to just pass it along next time one comes around at a party. Just be the one person there who still has sense by the end of the night. You'll be surprised what a different view it can give you.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never thought Michael Phelps had that clean of an image. :shrug:
P.S. A lot of people would argue that a couple of those points are consequences of marijuana being illegal. While I understand that we have legal drugs worse than pot and there are terrible consequences of it being illegal, I don't think that is reason to legalize it. If the law isn't against wrong things, there really isn't much point in there being a law, and I feel pot should be illegal.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
So does alcohol, caffeine, food, ambient temperature, and being well rested!
quote: Any of a thousand tasks that we in society depend on each other to perform safely and well, stoned people perform much less well.
Being a pot user does not entail being stoned 100% of the time. It is in fact, much like it is with alcohol, quite possible for individuals to smoke pot on their own time!
quote:Its sources are totally unknown and beyond the law. You don't know what they laced that stuff with. It could be strychnine, PCP, lighter fluid, anything at all.
Talking about pot laced with lighter fluid is lightning-strike scareology, the sort of 'it could happen TO YOU!' technique which in the end actually reduces the credibility of anti-pot arguments.
quote:It makes your thinking fuzzy even a week or two after you last smoked. And if you smoke a lot over a long period of time, you become a fuzzy thinker.
Not to dismiss the credibility of this concept outright, I think this sort of assertion needs both scientific backing and a more reliable definition of terms, like what 'fuzzy thinker' means.
quote:Being stoned isn't even fun.
lies! I don't even smoke pot and I realize how untenable that statement is.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. That's the point. It's an enjoyable thing to do, and as long as you do it in a responsible manner, I don't see why it's any worse than drinking a beer, having sex, taking pain medication for pain, or any other numerous things we do that alters brain chemistry.
2. Only in some cases, and only because of the illegal nature of it in the US. Obviously, you shouldn't be an idiot what you accept from whoever.
3. "Fuzziness" lasting a week is certainly not the case for everyone. And moderation matters, just like in everything else.
4. Moderation matters. And you should know better than to suggest that one example can be generalized to all people who smoke pot.
5. For some people. If you don't enjoy it, why would you do it? And if you do enjoy it, someone telling you it isn't fun isn't going to change your beliefs about yourself.
6. See 4.
7. You're an idiot if you think any of these reasons prove your thesis that "smoking marijuana is a bad idea on many different levels, in many different ways."
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
