posted
He didn't ask to be in the public spotlight. He has just as much 'right' to smoke marijuana as anyone else.
Posts: 930 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought the same thing when I read about this. How exactly can we continue the war on drugs in the manner we have? How do you tell a kid they'll never amount to anything if they smoke pot when they can come back at you and say, "well, I can be president of the United States, leader of the free world, or I can be the most dominating Olympic athlete ever."
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um... he didn't smoke the marijuana until AFTER he won the gold medals. It's a banned substance for Olympic swimmers - it would have cost him the medals if he had been doing it during the Olympics. Instead, it cost him his reputation and possibly a chunk of $100 million in endorsement deals. It's pretty tough to spin that as a good decision on his part - unless you think a temporary pleasurable experience one night is worth sacrificing all that.
The good news is he admitted his mistake - and hopefully won't be doing any drug abuse again. If he means that, then I'd guess he should be fine in the long run.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why did phelps smoke weed? It's not like he has a particularly stressful or demanding daily routine or anything. Sheesh, he's the last person in the world to want to wind down occasionally.
But that's irrelevant. He smoked weed. Now the world has to be uptight about it because weed is horrible and we wouldn't want to send the wrong message. About smoking weed. Which is something that is so ghastly that we should forever hope that none of our children ever smoke weed. If we hope long enough, none of them will.
We should make an ad campaign. "If you smoke weed, you'll be as awkward as Michael Phelps in his SNL appearances"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Um... he didn't smoke the marijuana until AFTER he won the gold medals. It's a banned substance for Olympic swimmers - it would have cost him the medals if he had been doing it during the Olympics. Instead, it cost him his reputation and possibly a chunk of $100 million in endorsement deals.
posted
From what I've heard from people who know him, it's not at all a surprise.
Generally I'd say big deal, because maybe he didn't ask for any fame or a role model position just from his Olympic success, he DID take on that role when he signed a bajillion dollars in endorsement deals.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe he realized that being rich and famous can be a real drag, but hanging out with some friends and kicking back with a little chemical relaxation is where it's at.
I think he should get to smoke a joint while sitting on the back of an unconscious prostitute in the middle of Times Square if he wants to. That man's a national hero.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think if celebrities tell us anything it's that substance abuse goes hand in hand with fame, fortune, fun, and beautiful people. It's pretty hard to argue with that.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally am a lot more grossed out by the DUI. I think he's making some really bad choices.
Posts: 1676 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because, Lisa, when it comes to drugs, America is Wonderland, where no position is too stupid or contradictory.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
For marijuana, yes - at least for recreation. It IS illegal after all. And it is dangerous... this case demonstrates that it can be costly even if done one time, given the degree to which Phelps has hurt his reputation, the possible financial costs, and the fact that he may now be facing criminal charges.
Then again, that's not to deny that developing a habit is far more determinental in the long term than any single instance of use.
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."
For marijuana, yes - at least for recreation. It IS illegal after all. And it is dangerous... this case demonstrates that it can be costly even if done one time, given the degree to which Phelps has hurt his reputation, the possible financial costs, and the fact that he may now be facing criminal charges.
So... it is abuse because it is illegal, and it is dangerous because it is illegal, and it is damaging to the reputation because it is illegal, and it is costly because it is illegal, and he's facing criminal charges because it is illegal.
And it is illegal because its use is abuse, it's dangerous, it damages the reputation, it's costly, and you face criminal charges.
Who can argue with that?
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Why is it that Phelps is taking more flak for a little pot than Obama took for cocaine?
Why is it that Phelps is getting more flak for a little pot than George W. Bush got for being an alcoholic and a coke junkie?
I think most people believe that people in their 40s and 50s (whether it's Bush or Obama) should not be judged based on mistakes they made in their teens and tweens. The primary exceptions to that are those who have a vendetta against a particular individual and are clinging to any reason to impune that persons character.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's abuse because it's harmful. It damages lives.
Part of that damage stems from the fact that it's illegal and considered wrong by society. Part of that damage stems from the fact that it tends to promote unhealthy behavior, lifestyles, and priorities. Part of the damage stems from the purely physical health effects.
I'm not making a case for or against weed being illegal. But it IS illegal - and using something in an illegal way typically constitutes abuse.
quote:Did drinking a beer constitute drug abuse during the prohibition era, in your opinion?
Yes. Just like drinking beer underage still constitutes abuse. As does legally drinking beer excessively as an adult.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Did drinking a beer constitute drug abuse during the prohibition era, in your opinion?
Yes. Just like drinking beer underage still constitutes abuse. As does legally drinking beer excessively as an adult.
Interesting. I take it, then, that you'd also consider a US citizen who was smoking a Cuban cigar to be abusing tobacco in a way that a US citizen smoking a cigar produced in the US wouldn't be?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd consider any smoking of cigars to be abusive, because it seems to be pretty clearly harmful in a significant way even if not illegal.
But no, I wouldn't consider smoking a Cuban cigar to be drug abuse more than smoking other cigars - because the illegal aspect of it stems from it coming from Cuba, not from it containing tobacco.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I understand you correctly, you would not consider it abuse for an 18 year old to have a been in Germany where it is legal, but you would consider it abuse if that same 18 year old had a beer in the US?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That depends on how harmful it is for 18 year olds in Germany to be drinking.
But to answer the question I think you are really getting at, yes, I think that using a drug in a way that is otherwise safe can become abuse simply if it is made illegal. Drug abuse amounts more or less to using a drug in a way you shouldn't - and you shouldn't in most cases be violating the laws, if only because it could land you in court, jail, etc.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that twists the meaning of the word "abuse" to the point that the word loses any utility it might have had.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: How do you tell a kid they'll never amount to anything if they smoke pot?
The better question is: Why would you tell a kid anything so monumentally stupid as that?
those words have never escaped my mouth.
I think you missed the point of that. Telling a kid they'll never amount to anything if they smoke pot is making a totally unreasonable statement. And you can't expect your kids to reasonable if YOU don't talk reasonably to them.
Posts: 930 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I'd consider any smoking of cigars to be abusive, because it seems to be pretty clearly harmful in a significant way even if not illegal.
But no, I wouldn't consider smoking a Cuban cigar to be drug abuse more than smoking other cigars - because the illegal aspect of it stems from it coming from Cuba, not from it containing tobacco.
Okay, that's interesting. It isn't just illegality for any reason that makes it abuse in your book; it's abuse only if the substance is made illegal for itself, so to speak.
Does this perception of abuse extend out to a relatively harmless substances that might be made illegal? Imagine a situation in which a pharmaceutical lobbying group was able to pursuade the government to outlaw aspirin (in this hypothetical, their motive for doing so is entirely one of profit). Would the taking of 650 mg of contraband aspirin constitute abuse in your eyes?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that twists the meaning of the word "abuse" to the point that the word loses any utility it might have had.
How else would you use it?
Here is a diagram from wikipedia that might help me explain the utility. The right two categories on the spectrum are what I'd consider drug abuse. The left two categories I'd consider to not be drug abuse. The defining difference is that the left side has positive or neglible effects, whereas the right side has "negative consequences for individual, friends/family, or society". I'd consider this very useful for decision making because an individual wants to avoid doing things that have the negative consequences, but can do things that only have neglible or positive effects.
But we should definitely recognize that one factor that influences the consequences of drug use is the degree to which society punishes people who use that drug.
quote:Does this perception of abuse extend out to a relatively harmless substances that might be made illegal? Imagine a situation in which a pharmaceutical lobbying group was able to pursuade the government to outlaw aspirin (in this hypothetical, their motive for doing so is entirely one of profit). Would the taking of 650 mg of contraband aspirin constitute abuse in your eyes?
Yes, if aspirin were made illegal then that'd be a huge potential negative consequence associated with taking it, so I'd consider it abuse at that point. (Unless the benefits of taking it were so great that they outweighed the risk - such as when someone had an emergency need for aspririn and there was no alternative available that would do the job. It's a fuzzy line because I'm basing this on a cost-benefit judgement call.)
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But we should definitely recognize that one factor that influences the consequences of drug use is the degree to which society punishes people who use that drug."
Yep, so the question about arbitrary decisions about what's legal and what's not are pertinent. Do you think defining abuse in terms of legality is really that useful, or is it just a code-word for "not OK"?
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, if aspirin were made illegal then that'd be a huge potential negative consequence associated with taking it
Not necessarily. There are a lot of things that are illegal which typically have no negative consequences or sporadic minor consequences. I frequently drive over the speed limit and occasionaly jaywalk and once I download a movie before I purchased it (though I did purchase it later).
Pot smoking is frequently ignored by authorities or given a slap on the wrist punishment.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not defining it just in terms of legality. I'm defining it in terms of harm, but I'm recognizing that doing something illegal is often harmful (since you can get punished for it). I think that is useful for individual decision making.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Haven't we all had this argument with Tres on illegal substances before? Does it need to be done again? I'd rather have some "I'd hit that" jokes.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can believe that the conversation's been had before, but I haven't read or participated in it before, that I can recall. I'm finding it interesting.
Tres, I think that I understand the way in which you're using the word now. It's a valid and internally consistent way of conceiving of abuse, but I don't think it's a common one. If you use the word in that way without taking a moment to define terms, it's likely that you're going to misunderstood. If you want to be misunderstood that's your call, of course, but I thought that I'd say something in case you weren't aware of it.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Also, what Noemon said. "Drug abuse" or "substance abuse" has connotations that don't tend to address legality. One assumes that someone who "abuses alcohol" is someone that drinks way too much. Saying that "he abused alchohol when it was 18" *sounds* like you're talking about drunkedness or binge drinking, not the fact that this 18-year-old was drinking alcohol *at all* in a jurisdiction with a higher drinking age.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not defining it just in terms of legality. I'm defining it in terms of harm, but I'm recognizing that doing something illegal is often harmful (since you can get punished for it). I think that is useful for individual decision making.
I agree with you that for individuals it's useful to look at the legality of an activity, and the legal consequences of that activity, in deciding whether to engage. It's the main reason I don't use marijuana or any other illegal drugs, and will be advising my kids not to use them either. If they were legal I would most likely try weed at least once or twice just out of curiosity (I'm much less likely to try methamphetamine because I think it actually is a scary drug unlike pot).
However, I believe the harm done by making marijuana illegal and punishing people for its use and distribution is enormously greater than any harm use of the drug could ever have done otherwise.
As MattP said, drug abuse connotes behavioral problems and negative health effects. Illegal drug use might involve neither, but still be a bad idea because of our arbitrary restrictions on those drugs.
Phelps is an interesting example, because he evidently avoided pot before and during the Olympics, but also evidently doesn't have a strict personal rule against using it (press release culpspeak notwithstanding). In a way - which I will qualify - he's the very picture of responsible use of marijuana: avoid it when it will interfere with something that you want, or need. This doesn't necessitate avoiding it at all costs, or demonizing it.
Now, the qualification: Phelps MIGHT see some consequences from this. Lost endorsements, etc. However, he will probably shrug it off to a large extent, and might even gain enough cred with other audiences to make up for what he loses in the ultraconservative. I think publications like Maxim and shows like SNL will be happy to pay Phelps to explore this issue in good humor. In the popular media marijuana is already winked at. Mainstream entertainers like Jay Leno joke about it openly - in Jay's case, openly suggesting his band leader uses it frequently. It doesn't seem to cost NBC enough advertising revenue to concern them.
Parents often express concern about how their children look up to celebrity figures, and disappointment when those figures turn out not to be perfect...or not satisfactorily close enough to perfect. Hannah Montana exposes her back in a suggestive photograph; Phelps tokes; the Olsen twins turn into the undead. It's only a matter of time before the Jonas Brothers turn out to be transsexual terrorists made out of heroin. It's nearly as inevitable as the pretense is annoying before the downfall.
I think the real message is, teach your children what's really important to you, don't rely on famous people to set an example, and quit, for the sake of all that is righteous, giving Disney pop stars your attention and money. And legalize drugs.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: How do you tell a kid they'll never amount to anything if they smoke pot?
The better question is: Why would you tell a kid anything so monumentally stupid as that?
those words have never escaped my mouth.
I think you missed the point of that. Telling a kid they'll never amount to anything if they smoke pot is making a totally unreasonable statement. And you can't expect your kids to reasonable if YOU don't talk reasonably to them.
I think you missed my my point. I asked that question rhetorically in an attempt to point out the ridiculousness of taking that sort of tactic.
posted
I don't think it's worthwhile -- or, for that matter, legitimate -- to lump legal consequences associated with taking an illegal drug along with health consequences associated with abusing an illegal drug, and call them all consequences of drug abuse. Legal consequences are not necessary consequences of drug abuse; while not all drugs affect all people in the same ways, all drugs do have direct effects on the person taking them.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that it isn't the most common way of conceiving substance abuse. The reason I threw that term in my post post was to make a point that I think Phelps' actions should be considered abuse, contrary to what people might casually assume.
It is frustrating that some people often take an attitude of "Well I think it should be legal, so I'll act as if it is." That seemed to be an especially common attitude in high school and college. That attitude leads to bad decisions, because whether or not something should be legal, if it isn't legal then that changes the cost-benefit equation a lot. Legality needs to be factored in to decision making. Similarly, the way other people in society are going to react to your choices needs to be factored in too.
That's why I see it as important to stop and consider a broader conception of substance abuse.
Edit: I suppose I should add that in the case of marijuana, I do think the harm caused to a person's life by the drug itself is much greater than the legal threat, if we are talking about long term use. So, there's really two questions: First, is it a bad idea to smoke marijuana one time? Yes, because of legal and social consequences, even if doing it once will cause no health problem. And second, is it a bad idea to smoke marijuana regularly over a long period of time? In that case, yes, not just because of legal and social consequences, but more because of health consequences and the impact it will have upon your life.
posted
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 see no good reason to redefine.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do agree that legality should factor into making a decision because it carries possible consequences.
I think, though, it is dangerous to conflate entirely the concepts of "bad" and "illegal". Often the two match up, but not always and it is important to keep that in mind. Lumping "because it is illegal" in with other wrongs is treacherous.
ETA: Generally, the statement,"we shouldn't do that because it is illegal" should not be the end of the conversation. More exploration is required.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:because whether or not something should be legal, if it isn't legal then that changes the cost-benefit equation a lot. Legality needs to be factored in to decision making.
Of course legality should be factored into the equation. And somebody might take legality into consideration and still decide to use based on whatever factors they used to make their decision, be it an intellectual weighing of the pros and cons, or an addiction to the substance that clouds their judgment. How this relates to your concept of abuse I'm not exactly sure.
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.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree with your use of the term "abuse" as well. I'm pretty sure abuse indicates excessive use of a substance to levels which are physically/psychologically destructive (aka they cause an addiction or inhibit your ability to function.) While it's true that the social repercussions of things like drug use are damaging to one's productivity I think it is a misuse of the term substance abuse, if only from a medical standpoint.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
