Yeah. Spin this one, soccer mom.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
He didn't ask to be in the public spotlight. He has just as much 'right' to smoke marijuana as anyone else.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
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."
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
yes, and i'm sure this was his first time smoking and he didn't inhale.
I agree that the biggest thing this will cost him is possible endorsement deals.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: and hopefully won't be doing any drug abuse again
Are you defining abuse as any use at all?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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"
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
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.
Pretty much.
--j_k
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:The good news is he admitted his mistake - and hopefully won't be doing any drug abuse again.
Drug abuse? Using that term for smoking some pot seems a bit much to me.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
You're right!
I definately do not want to be that awkward. Thanks for the warning.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
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.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
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.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
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?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
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.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
REMEMBER KIDS: DON'T SMOKE WEED OR YOU MIGHT BE UNIMAGINABLY COOL
Posted by ladyday (Member # 1069) on :
I personally am a lot more grossed out by the DUI. I think he's making some really bad choices.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
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.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Why is it that Phelps is taking more flak for a little pot than Obama took for cocaine?
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Because, Lisa, when it comes to drugs, America is Wonderland, where no position is too stupid or contradictory.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Because athletes depend on the idolization of physicality and as such the substances they use or misuse are more important one way or another.
Plus, you know, the issue of Now vs 30 years ago.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Are you defining abuse as any use at all?
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."
[ February 04, 2009, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tara: He didn't ask to be in the public spotlight.
Bull.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Are you defining abuse as any use at all?
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?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
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.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Are you defining abuse as any use at all?
For marijuana, yes - at least for recreation. It IS illegal after all. And it is dangerous...
Did drinking a beer constitute drug abuse during the prohibition era, in your opinion?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I personally am a lot more grossed out by the DUI. I think he's making some really bad choices.
I agree, ladyday. He is not handling celebrity well at all.
Smoking pot in public when he makes money off his clean image is just stupid.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
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?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
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?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think that twists the meaning of the word "abuse" to the point that the word loses any utility it might have had.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
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.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
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?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.)
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
Thanks for the link, Tres. I'd not seen that before.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"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"?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
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.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
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.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
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.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I missed it last time too.
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.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
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.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tara:
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
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.
apparently I failed! Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
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.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
[ February 04, 2009, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
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.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
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.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
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.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
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.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
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.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
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.
Steve/bluewizard
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
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 ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
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."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What Jebus is describing is high school.
One of the marvelous things about being an adult is that the things that are nerdy in high school really are quite cool when you're an adult.
Life in general is Revenge of the Nerds. It's wonderful.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
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?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
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
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Nonsense, Jebus - failures who think they are clever are not attractive once they become adults.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
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.
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?
[ February 05, 2009, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Strider ]
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
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.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
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.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Strider, my experience is similar to yours.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
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?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: [QB]
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.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
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.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:You can't distort coolness into something that it isn't to feel better about not being cool. Duh.
Yes-huh.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
That's quite a jump you left off! Now it all makes sense though. my apologies for assuming otherwise.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
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.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
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.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
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.
Steve/bluewizard
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
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.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Oh, I missed this post:
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.
How f*cking fickle.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
oh hey, jebus is back! *wave*
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Heya Kama, I hear you have a boyfriend now. Did you do that just to make me jealous?
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
yes, of course.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Well if you can't be with the one you love...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Alcohol is so much more dangerous than weed, I agree that the DUI was much worse.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
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.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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!
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
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. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
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.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
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 Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
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.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
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.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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.
conclusion: legalize
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
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.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
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.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:1. It alters your consciousness.
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.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
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."
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: A bunch of sanctimonous cr*p
Hey Tatiana, I'm not even gonna bother with your phenomenally stupid list, but pointing to marijuana addicts and drug dealers as reasons not to smoke the stuff is like pointing to alcoholics as a reason not to enjoy a drink now and then. You understand why that's a stupid argument to make, right?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Gee you're rather aggressive, aren't you!
I will be the first to say that the list is stupid and anecdote-heavy, but it deserves to be treated like something which is offered (or re-offered) in good faith by a person who is willing to discuss the points made!
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Tatiana, I don't think you've made much of a case there. I've never used pot so I can't comment on the fun aspect, but I think a lot of people enjoy it.
If we focus on the worst case studies we could make a similar case against legality of Bic Macs, or microwave popcorn. Definitely alcohol.
The sad part is that huge numbers of people are in jail so we can prevent some marginal number of people from feeling fuzzy headed.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana:
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?
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.
Both of these points are arguments for legalizing it: in 2) if it were legal, it would be regulated and so it would be no more likely than peanut butter to have dangerous impurities. The dangerous cycles as in 6) are often started because of the high cost of drugs, whose price reflects the risks involved for their transport and sale. These cycles are further exacerbated by the fact that their is a reluctance to seek official help due to the illegality. Furthermore, the illegality makes the trade lucrative so you have some very unpleasant people becoming very rich.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Another fun fact:
quote: Nearly two pounds of still-green plant material found in a 2,700-year-old grave in the Gobi Desert has just been identified as the world's oldest marijuana stash, according to a paper in the latest issue of the Journal of Experimental Botany.
A barrage of tests proves the marijuana possessed potent psychoactive properties and casts doubt on the theory that the ancients only grew the plant for hemp in order to make clothing, rope and other objects.
They apparently were getting high too.
...
It was found lightly pounded in a wooden bowl in a leather basket near the head of a blue-eyed Caucasian man who died when he was about 45.
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: ... 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.
If your mental model of the world is based on the presumption that all people that do marijuana don't actually enjoy it, then why does anyone do it anyways?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Hey Tatiana, I'm not even gonna bother with your phenomenally stupid list, but pointing to marijuana addicts and drug dealers as reasons not to smoke the stuff is like pointing to alcoholics as a reason not to enjoy a drink now and then.
Yes, the existence of so many alcoholics is probably one of the better reasons not to enjoy a drink now and then. That's the primary reason I don't drink - because even though I'm fairly certain I could control myself and use it safely in moderation, there's really no good reason to participate in something that destroys so many lives of people who lack the same self-control. Not when there's plenty of non-alcoholic drinks in existence that serve the same function and taste just as good.
....
In response to the suggestions that marijuana use isn't dangerous, all I can add to the scientific data is the fact that all of the people I've know who used the drug on a consistent basis suffered in ways rather obviously connected to the marijuana use. In some cases, that meant destroying their lives (including one friend who ended up dying); in other cases it just made things more difficult for them, but they ended up fine in the long run. In almost every case there were points where the person in question claimed there was nothing wrong with what they were doing, and that it wasn't really that dangerous. Sometimes they blamed the law for being unfair, or society for being unfair. Frequently they had all sorts of arguments to rationalize around what seemed obvious to the rest of us: that if they weren't smoking weed, their lives would be better.
But that is all anecdotal. Those who enthusiasticly support marijuana use, I'm sure, aren't much interested in what happened to my friends and probably won't even accept that my interpretation of things is in any way accurate. That's how it goes. Nevertheless, let that be a window into what society is thinking when it comes down so hard on marijuana. There exist many people who seem to find it quite clear that marijuana use is messing up lives. Most folks don't want to see lives messed up, especially the lives of children, so it should make sense that such folks get upset, sometimes to an irrational level, at pot smoking by the heroes of our children.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I know I can't find nearly the same range of flavor outside of alcoholic drinks that I can find among them.
And your reasoning is specious. Do you avoid driving because there are people who get road rage (and not to avoid those people, but to stand in solidarity with them)?
Especially as alcoholism is not a matter of the presence or absence of self-control. While it can take a large amount of self-control to avoid alcohol if one is an alcoholic, alcoholism happens regardless of a person's self control. It is a disease, a genetic disease. Do you avoid peanuts because there are so many people who are allergic to them?
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
I'll add one more iron to the fire, as Micheal Phelps himself pointed out when caught by a TMZ reporter, as Phelps was on his way to training.
Phelps as a world class competitive athlete is drug tested all the time, and the results of those tests are a matter of record.
He is still eligible for competition, minus a three month suspension for the photograph, so he can't be toking up too much or it would show in his drug tests.
Even those who issued the suspension said they didn't really have just cause for it, but Phelps was willing to accept it. So, again, his drug tests must be turning out OK.
So far, we don't actually know he smoke pot, and judging from the photo I saw, all we have is a photo of what might be him holding a bong to his mouth. But, that is all we have.
As to the suggestion that Phelps is not making a choice because he is already rich. He is not that rich yet. If he screws up too much, which implies one more time, then many millions of dollars go down the drain. Rich as he may be now, it is nothing compared to what he can make.
If he keeps his image clean, and keeps the sponsors coming, they say he can make $100 million in lifetime earnings. Which in turn means all he will ever have to do for a job is be Micheal Phelps. However, if he fails a drug test, or gets caught smoking pot, the he will certainly be out there selling used cars or insurance in a few years.
How clean he keeps his image now while he is 'hot', means tens of millions of dollars in his pocket.
So, these are his choices - used car salesman or independently wealthy?
Steve/bluewizard
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: 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?
Since most of the rest of that ridiculous post has been thoroughly dealt with, I thought I'd just give a counter anecdote to this point.
I was a heavy pot smoker for more than two years (getting high at least ONCE every day -- typically more than once) and an occasional user for three years after that. Permanently fuzzy thinker? Um, not quite (with all due humility). I put my thinking up against most anyone's. Fuzzy thinking is what you need to come up with the moral relativity and I-knew-a-guy-in-high-school-who-smoked-pot-and-DIED anecdotes that populate that post.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: As to the suggestion that Phelps is not making a choice because he is already rich. He is not that rich yet. If he screws up too much, which implies one more time, then many millions of dollars go down the drain. Rich as he may be now, it is nothing compared to what he can make.
If he keeps his image clean, and keeps the sponsors coming, they say he can make $100 million in lifetime earnings. Which in turn means all he will ever have to do for a job is be Micheal Phelps. However, if he fails a drug test, or gets caught smoking pot, the he will certainly be out there selling used cars or insurance in a few years.
How clean he keeps his image now while he is 'hot', means tens of millions of dollars in his pocket.
So, these are his choices - used car salesman or independently wealthy?
For simplicity's sake, I've just bolded the parts of this post that are laughably stupid.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Hey Tatiana, I'm not even gonna bother with your phenomenally stupid list, but pointing to marijuana addicts and drug dealers as reasons not to smoke the stuff is like pointing to alcoholics as a reason not to enjoy a drink now and then.
Yes, the existence of so many alcoholics is probably one of the better reasons not to enjoy a drink now and then. That's the primary reason I don't drink - because even though I'm fairly certain I could control myself and use it safely in moderation, there's really no good reason to participate in something that destroys so many lives of people who lack the same self-control. Not when there's plenty of non-alcoholic drinks in existence that serve the same function and taste just as good.
I hope you don't drive Tres, because I should let you know that there are people out there who drive dangerously and end up killing people! It's true.
Also I hope you don't believe in God, because some people use religion as an excuse to spread hate and violence!
And boy, I sure hope you're not alive, because some people who are alive go around hurting and murdering people!
Ah, using the extreme to denounce the moderate is fun, isn't it?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't have much invested in the idea of keeping marijuana illegal.
But the idea that it's harmless is laughable.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I don't have much invested in the idea of keeping marijuana illegal.
But the idea that it's harmless is laughable.
Not harmless, nobody is making that point. I think the argument is that legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol are as dangerous, if not more. (<< alcohol not tobacco)
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: What Jebus is describing is high school.
One of the marvelous things about being an adult is that the things that are nerdy in high school really are quite cool when you're an adult.
Life in general is Revenge of the Nerds. It's wonderful.
Amen! Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:And your reasoning is specious. Do you avoid driving because there are people who get road rage (and not to avoid those people, but to stand in solidarity with them)?
If the only purpose of driving was to have a bit of fun, and it still caused all the accidents and rage it causes in our society, then I would avoid driving. But driving has an important use - it gets people to places. If alcohol or weed could get folks to work in the morning, the situation might be different. Sort of like, I wouldn't be opposed to using marijuana or alcohol in a medicinal way, if it were declared necessary by a doctor - because that serves a use.
But as it is, alcohol and weed usually belong in the category of things that are dangerous and don't really have a lot of use other than as a way to spend time enjoyably - along with things like backyard wrestling, cliff jumping, the "choking game", etc.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Most sports, jumping on a trampoline, eating chocolate? You don't do any of those, do you Tres? They're all 'dangerous' (injury and death, choking, unsuspected allergic ingredient, et cetera).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Not when there's plenty of non-alcoholic drinks in existence that serve the same function and taste just as good.
I dunno. I can't get buzzed off of non-alcoholic drinks. Can you?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Not when there's plenty of non-alcoholic drinks in existence that serve the same function and taste just as good.
I dunno. I can't get buzzed off of non-alcoholic drinks. Can you?
I also can't do karaoke on non-alcoholic drinks so in that sense there is that argument in favor of abstaining
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Most sports, jumping on a trampoline, eating chocolate? You don't do any of those, do you Tres? They're all 'dangerous' (injury and death, choking, unsuspected allergic ingredient, et cetera).
Sure. If I thought chocolate was causing anywhere near the degree of problems that marijuana or binge drinking is, I'd probably not eat chocolate either.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
People get addicted to junk food and they die early from it. It's probably more widespread than addiction to marijuana. Haven't you heard? Pepsi kills.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Most sports, jumping on a trampoline, eating chocolate? You don't do any of those, do you Tres? They're all 'dangerous' (injury and death, choking, unsuspected allergic ingredient, et cetera).
Sure. If I thought chocolate was causing anywhere near the degree of problems that marijuana or binge drinking is, I'd probably not eat chocolate either.
The degree of health problems caused by marijuana may be said to be roughly equivalent to the degree of health problems caused by soda.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
How do I convey I lifetime of observation of pot smokers without giving you examples? I just picked a couple which illustrate general principles which I've observed over about 35 years. These are my experiences which I offer to people much younger than me in a spirit of helpfulness. Seriously. It's your life. You're going to do what you think best with it. I just hope not every single one of you has to learn every last thing the hard way. I think some of you are wise enough not to, so that's why I post.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The degree of health problems caused by marijuana may be said to be roughly equivalent to the degree of health problems caused by soda.
That depends on if you consider things like "failure to achieve one's goals in life" to be health problems.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:How do I convey I lifetime of observation of pot smokers without giving you examples?
I think what they want you to understand is that your anecdotal observations may well not be representative.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I would venture that you've met far more pot smokers than you know about, but they're smart enough to keep it at home and not tell you about it.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
If I were faced with that attitude, I sure would.
Haven't roughly half of Americans smoked pot at least once?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't smoke pot and I have failed to achieve my goals in life.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Haven't roughly half of Americans smoked pot at least once?
Republicans or Democrats? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yes.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
About 40% of Americans (over 12) have smoked pot at least once in their lives. But doing it once and then quitting is not really the concern - although as Phelps demonstrated, you could face social and legal problems just from doing it once.
A more meaningful figure is the 5-10% who have smoked pot in the last month.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: I would venture that you've met far more pot smokers than you know about, but they're smart enough to keep it at home and not tell you about it.
Quite possibly true. In fact, even the self-admitted rate of pot smokers in the US is higher than places you'd expect to be higher such as the Netherlands where it is legalised.
quote: The UN report concluded Canada's cannabis consumption rate was significantly higher than those of other industrialized countries. In fact, no other Western nation comes anywhere near Canadians' proclivity for pot. The U.S., which came closest with 12.6 per cent of users, would need to boost its ranks by one-third just to keep pace with the number of Canadian tokers. England, France, the Netherlands (where public consumption of cannabis has been legal since 1976) and Germany don't even crack the 10 per cent mark. And Mexico, a long-time source of marijuana in certain parts of the U.S., falls well behind at 3.1 per cent.
But consider the source: UNODC relies on self-reported data from member countries, meaning users have to fess up to their (often private) vice in order to be counted among their glassy-eyed peers. In a previous interview with Maclean's, Neil Boyd, the associate director of the School of Criminology at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, suggested Canadians may simply be more open about their marijuana consumption because it's not as stigmatized here as it might be elsewhere. "I would be highly skeptical of the methods used to collect data across the full range of countries," he says. "You're asking people if they've committed a criminal offence, so you're always going to get something of an underestimate.
I know that there have been quite a few responses to this already, but a number of them have been unhatrackian in their hostility, so I thought that I'd take a moment to respond. A lot of these points have already been made, some civilly and some not, but even the civil responses haven't really been structured in such a way as to foster conversation, so I feel like there's a reason to write this. I'm interested in having a discussion about this, but manifestly uninterested in fighting about it, or trying to score points.
To reveal my biases, I've never smoked pot habitually, but I have tried it. Throughout high school and college, virtually all of my friends smoked at least a little pot, and most of them used it on a weekly basis. A few of them used it on a daily basis. Toward the end of my undergraduate years I decided to give it a try, and smoked it a handful of times--probably no more than six. It was pleasurable, and much more pleasurable than intoxication from alcohol has ever been, but it wasn't something that I wanted to make a habit of. I felt like my mind was functioning slightly more slowly than usual for several days after I used the stuff, and that just wasn't worth it to me. Plus, I didn't want to spend the money.
And so:
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Here's why I think smoking pot is a really bad idea...
1. It alters your consciousness.
Why is this necessarily a problem?
quote:You can't perform everyday tasks with precision and reason under the influence of marijuana.
As long as the person using the marijuana ensures ahead of time that they won't have to perform those everyday tasks for the duration of the period of intoxication, I don't think that this is a problem.
quote: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.
Agreed. This is why smoking shortly before working or while working shouldn't be allowed, any more than drinking when working should be.
quote:2. Its sources are totally unknown and beyond the law.
As has been noted, this is a good argument for legalization. However, when my friends were smoking a lot of pot, there were several of them who grew it themselves and sold it to their friends until they were caught and arrested. Until they were caught, the source of the marijuana and its degree of purity were known to the people buying it. I realize, though, that my friends' situation was somewhat unusual. That just takes us back to the importance of legalization, though. During the prohibition era, most alcohol sales profited organized crime. Legalizing alcohol put a stop to this.
quote: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.
This is true. It's also true that even someone who smokes marijuana several times a day smokes far less than someone who smokes tobacco, but nonetheless, there is a health risk there. If I were to use pot, I'd cook with it instead for this reason.
quote:3. It makes your thinking fuzzy even a week or two after you last smoked.
True. Or at least, I felt like that was true for me (though it was only for a few days, that was still too long for me. I didn't like feeling as though my mind had been blunted). I don't believe that reaction times and whathaveyou are slowed during this period, though. Anybody have any concerete data on this?
quote: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?"
I've never known habitual pot smokers to spontaneously giggle when they weren't stoned. Or at least, not any more than anybody else. Minus the giggle, I've known precisely one person who ended up like that, and he did enough other drugs in the 60s and 70s that I don't think it likely that it's the pot that caused it. He's actually a remarkably happy person, and is an amazing Aikido practitioner (and teacher; he has a dojo), but it always takes him ages to get to his points when he's talking. I've often wondered whether he'd be as fundamentally happy of a person if he hadn't done all of those drugs. He's kind of a puzzling person.
quote: Example: The smartest guy in my sister's high school class made perfect scores on college entrance tests....
I could counter that with dozens of contrary examples--people who, when I was close to them, were habitual pot smokers who are now successful engineers, accountants, graphic artists, programmers, woodworkers, photographers, professors, small business owners, and brewmasters--but neither of us would be proving anything. Anecdote does not equal data. You know that, Tatiana.
quote:5. Being stoned isn't even fun.
That wasn't my experience. I enjoyed it quite a bit. It wasn't worth it for me, but it certainly felt good, and was quite a bit of fun.
quote:How many times have you wished you could come down?
I usually felt "done" and wished that I could take a pill to immediately sober up before I'd stopped being high. I've also often felt done and wanted to no longer be engaging in a multitude of other experiences before they were over--long hikes, concerts, vacations, holiday dinners, meetings, and any number of other things. Heck, I wish that my workday were over right now. My way of dealing with that is to just suck it up and wait whatever it is out. Everything passes.
quote:How many times have you done really stupid things when stoned? Discuss.
Never. Pot isn't really a drug that encourages you to go out and do stupid stuff, in my experience.
quote:6. Another hs friend was smoking so much pot that he couldn't afford it on his construction job pay....
That's tragic, but (as was pointed out by someone previously) this is precisely the sort of problem that would be solved by the legalization of the drug.
[Edited to remove the annoying use of the phrase "a number" every time you turned around there at the beginning of the post, and then further edited to clarify exactly why it was that I was posting this]
[ February 09, 2009, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Excellent post.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
A very balanced and measured response. Thanks, Noemon.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: How do I convey I lifetime of observation of pot smokers without giving you examples
The issue with the anecdotes are
1. they're anecdotal. 2. there's observational bias; what about the people you know who don't wear their marijuana habit on their sleeve? they aren't factored in. 3. there's assumptions made that are likely correlational at best but are instead used as an argument against pot as though it were, essentially, the causative factor. 4. 'anecdote disproves anecdote;' there's no point to me listing off the several pot smokers I know and talking about how awesome their lives are now (because I can't use them soundly as a pro-pot argument!), but I could theoretically use them, argumentatively, the way you have used your anecdotes.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Achilles: A very balanced and measured response. Thanks, Noemon.
Indeed. I don't agree with all of it, but an excellent post.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
But what sort of proof do you want then? I already linked to the results of actual studies earlier in this thread, and the studies were waved off because they "sounded like a throwback to DARE".
Studies show a strong correlation between problems of varying sorts and marijuana use. What studies can't show completely is that it is the marijuana use that directly causes those problems. That's where personal observations of individuals who actually smoke pot, a.k.a. anecdotal evidence, comes into play. Imperfect as it may be, our final conclusion is going to rely in part on anecdotal evidence.
quote:I could counter that with dozens of contrary examples--people who, when I was close to them, were habitual pot smokers who are now successful engineers, accountants, graphic artists, programmers, woodworkers, photographers, professors, small business owners, and brewmasters--but neither of us would be proving anything.
The question is: Did the marijuana use have a net positive effect or net negative effect on their lives? It's clear that people can make mistakes in life, sometimes horrendous mistakes, and yet still go on to live very successful lives. That doesn't mean the mistakes they made weren't mistakes, or that they weren't costly.
I can't speak for the people you know, but in the situations I've observed, the effect of marijuana use overwhelmingly tended to be a net negative effect. The data I've seen does not contradict that observation, and it is a conclusion that is shared by the medical, government, and religious authorities I trust the most, so I see no good reason to reject it.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
That was a great anecdote antidote, Samp.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Noemon, it seems to me that you essentially agreed to a number of my points. I do appreciate the spirit of conversation on the issue. As for the number of people who smoke pot and go on to lead successful lives, I feel happy that not everyone is dragged down by it. I do still believe it's a drag, it exerts a downward pull, and not all escape that pull.
I know it's unpopular to come on and speak out powerfully against drugs and alcohol. I know that many people don't agree. I'm doing it because it's what I believe in with my whole being, after having seen so many friends and family lose their whole lives to drugs and alcohol. I'm hoping people don't have to find out the hard way, after decades of family sorrow and ruined lives, and especially from their own ruined life. I want to give them the chance, at least, to live wiser than that and find out ahead of time and stay clean.
The way it often seems to work is that people hear a warning and they dismiss it. Then they live the experience and see some of the damage firsthand, then they think back to the warning and think possibly it might have been wiser than they realized at the time. Without the warning, though, they may not connect the dots and see that the bad outcome was connected to the bad decision they made up front. So I feel it's my unpopular task to issue the warning, though perhaps only a few will be wise enough to heed it at first. Hopefully after seeing firsthand some of the fallout, some more will heed it later on. In any event, I feel a responsibility to try.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike: That was a great anecdote antidote, Samp.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)