Video: Noted pothead dutifully pretends he did something terrible
posted at 1:10 pm on February 6, 2009 by Allahpundit
Fun stuff as he tries to keep a straight face while the reporter ratchets up the guilt trip. The question about having let down the people of Baltimore, who think of him as their own son, is a faux-tragic masterpiece.
Legalization advocates have been begging him to take the “who cares?” position, but one endorsement’s already gone and he’s just been slapped with a three-month suspension. Even with eight golds, he simply doesn’t have enough mojo to fight that battle publicly; frankly, only one athlete in the world does. But look on the bright side. He’s now the holder of the “world’s most famous” title in two separate categories: Swimmer and dope-smoker. Or rather, second-most famous.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
We need to play golf sometime. I make it athletic. : )
Anna on February 6, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Playing Devil’s Advocate. Scott Peterson may be off mark, but I personally think it is a valid point.
There are people out there who truly think it’s ok to kill other people bcs they’re irritating etc.Scott Peterson, if he’d admit to the murder, may have indeed been able to come up with a reason as to why Laci & her son deserved killing.
So no, I don’t BLINDLY follow the law-but I still gotta follow it.
That’s why our Constitution is so great bcs it’s theoretically supposed to stop people trampling upon other’s right.
That includes the passing of any laws that would do that.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t always work.
I hardly think smoking pot is really a right.
I agree. But role models have to be held to a lot higher standard.
That is why sports figures & politicians make such poor role models.
BTW-I had many opportunities to do drugs & I never did ANY except for alcohol & tobacco. Those no more & never really abused the stuff in the 1st place.
Badger40 on February 6, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Dude, you just called me a chick. I’ll be shunned by the feminists now, oh wait, I forgot, they don’t consider me a woman anyway.
Oh, I don’t mean spoilers that haven’t aired already. If you’re watching the episode tonight, then you’ve already seen what I would reference. I just don’t want to spoil it for anyone who hasn’t seen the last couple.
Esthier on February 6, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Now I don’t know where I am, what my name is, or which way is up.
I enjoy reading Thoreau also :)
LimeyGeek on February 6, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Seems that we’re having a group confessional here. Okay, I’m game. Here goes.
Good to know that I’m not a singularity. I’m gonna’ be 53 soon. Never smoked a joint in my life — or used any other kind of illegal substance — ever.
That explains why I’m the CyberCipher (internet non-entity).
My collie says:
Well. I DID get a ticket once for turning right on red –and I got LOTS of parking tickets when I was in college.
My collie says:
Okay, so I spell pathetic old geezer (Pog) with a capital P — but I drank domestic beer and cheap wine for 30 years.
My collie says:
I have a talking dog.
My collie says:
Okay, but my existence STILL isn’t as pathetic as AllahPundit’s — after all, I don’t blog in the buff or pine after Japanese fembots.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on February 6, 2009 at 3:33 PM
how many people miss the point.
Your opinion of him doesn’t matter.
Your kid’s opinion of him doesn’t matter.
Other athletes opinions of him doesn’t matter.
What matter is the image that a business wants to project. Health? Wholesomeness? Classic Americana?
Why do you think athletes appear on the cover of Corn Flakes boxes.
A company risks big money on a personality in hopes that that person will help project the image of the product that the company wants.
They gambled on him and he let them down. bigtime.
WHAT A PUTZ, DUDE! YOU HAD IT FREAKEN MADE!
I hope the dizzyness and raspy throat was worth the MILLIONS you just pissed away.
kurtzz3 on February 6, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Don’t sweat it, babe.
MadisonConservative on February 6, 2009 at 3:34 PM
Yeah, it’s like they’re addicted to commenting and just can’t stop until someone intervenes.
We need to make it illegal; posting comments one day, joining Al-Qaeda the next.
darclon on February 6, 2009 at 3:34 PM
Gotcha. And yeah, I’d like to know what the frak some of them are thinking. Both characters and writers.
Anna on February 6, 2009 at 3:35 PM
3 points.
1)I don’t really believe that its any of the Man’s business what I do in my private life. Sure, when I’m behind the wheel thats a different story, but in my house or my dorm room…And Yes, there are limits to this path (specifically neurotoxic substances such as meth), and I use abuse/addiction potential to draw that line myself. But cannabis is fairly benign and so I believe really isn’t the G’s business. So, yes Phelps should have obey’ed the law but on the other hand its one of the stupider laws.
2) If you’re around someone smoking pot you do NOT get high, unless your in that VW van at the Phish concert.
3) I agree with an earlier poster who mentioned they disliked people calling Phelps a pothead. I swim some and there is no way you’re smoking Anything if you’re training at all. Lungs are just too important.
unrealcitizen on February 6, 2009 at 3:38 PM
That’s harsh, dude.
Me – I underage drank. A lot. It was the only way I made it through language school without wanting to kill somebody. Now, I hardly ever drink, unless I’m out to dinner for a special occasion – or I’m cooking with alcohol. Never wanted to smoke pot, but I had asthma growing up, I was afraid it’d kill me.
Anna on February 6, 2009 at 3:38 PM
Of course I do, but sometimes a point is best made by exaggeration.
That being said, almost all pot smokers who smoke even somewhat regularly are dealers. The same logic I used in my exaggerated example applies in reverse. Whether one sells drugs on a regular basis for profit or not has little to do with the fact that one is selling drugs and that is part of the whole dynamic.
If you’re a casual smoker and you want to buy 1/4 oz. for X$, but 1/4 lb. is much cheaper, and your friend will go in on it because then they get it cheaper, you get what you want for free and/or even make a few bucks to cover the trouble of it all. Thats still selling drugs. Scale has little to do with it. The idea that it is not is simply rationalizing for mental convenience.
Its like saying you cheat on your spouse..you’re not really cheating on your spouse if you just do it a little bit…I mean it not like you’re out screwing around every weekend.
Every one I know that is a casual smoker does this at one time or another. It just makes sense.
My exaggerated example was more in reference to your comment, that I read to imply, that no crime is connected to just buying pot because its so cheap. $2000.- $3000.+ a pound is not cheap.
Itchee Dryback on February 6, 2009 at 3:40 PM
It doesn’t ‘stop’ anything, it merely defines legitimate and illegitimate aspects of government. The only people it theoretically ‘stops’ are those that form the corps of government. It doesn’t constrain you or me in any way – that was tried, once, with the alcohol prohibition amendment…an aberration and a failure.
Incidentally, this is one reason why I object to “gay marriage amendments” – as they fundamentally warp the systematic intent of constitutional documents – constraining the people, rather than constraining only the government.
Per the 9th amendment, there’s no reason to object to calling it a ‘right’…it’s a manifestation of our individual right of liberty – liberty to puff away on a weed if we so choose.
LimeyGeek on February 6, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Oh man…I could go down the list.
Got drunk one month before my 21st birthday. *choke*
Lost my virginity at 17…hot dog down a hallway. *sob*
And…got an A in Style Acting V – Advanced training in Shakespeare and Moliere. *bawls uncontrollably*
WHERE DID IT ALL GO WRONG???
MadisonConservative on February 6, 2009 at 3:43 PM
What the hell?
Educate this limey
LimeyGeek on February 6, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Ah…so you know about the ‘socks’… ;)
LimeyGeek on February 6, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Probably something like a pencil down a mine shaft…
darclon on February 6, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Oh…she had a mary like a wizard’s sleeve….that kinda thing? Like a welly-top?
Strap a plank across your arse so you don’t fall in….etc…
LimeyGeek on February 6, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Dude, I was so into theatre, back in the day. Love Shakespeare, but was/am big into Chekov. More of a behind-the-scenes person, though – I directed, did lights/sound/props. I was such a geek… no wonder I went wrong.
Sounds like you went wrong with the hot dog. There are things to help with that, you know. Or maybe not, being beta and all.
Anna on February 6, 2009 at 3:52 PM
That’s my favorite one. The visual on that is stunning.
Anna on February 6, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Lack of friction.
Parking a sedan in the middle of a four-car garage.
Ringer in a bell.
MadisonConservative on February 6, 2009 at 3:54 PM
There’s only so much a guy can do…when you can park it in a lass sideways, it ain’t the dude that’s got the problem.
LimeyGeek on February 6, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Last year I was in a production of Uncle Vanya. Ummm…was that play meant to make people want to commit suicide, or what? Good lord.
I got help. It was called moving to a girlfriend who hadn’t been with an entire zip code before she met me.
MadisonConservative on February 6, 2009 at 3:56 PM
ALso add:
liberty to screw barnyard chickens (there was a guy who did that-cut off the feet bcs they scratched him)
liberty to have octuplets as a single woman
liberty to drive naked
liberty to smoke a bowl & then attend parties for other’s amusement
liberty to drink yourself stupid & then dive off the patio 2 stories up
liberty to….
Can someone help me please?
I know there are more fun things to do!
Badger40 on February 6, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Been there buddy. I literally shouted “WHAT THE F!”, got up and left…
LimeyGeek on February 6, 2009 at 3:57 PM
DOH!
Badger40 on February 6, 2009 at 3:57 PM
I sat there for a good 30 seconds, trying to figure out what the hell that meant.
I’m wishing I gave up at second 29.
Anna on February 6, 2009 at 3:58 PM
Animal abuse. Already a crime.
…pretty sure giving birth is entirely legal. We’re not China. Yet.
Done it.
People already do both with alcohol. Everyone has the right to be stupid.
MadisonConservative on February 6, 2009 at 3:59 PM
Where do you personally draw the line on ‘rights of liberty’?
Just curious.
Itchee Dryback on February 6, 2009 at 4:00 PM
At least it wasn’t an area code. Which for where I’m from, was the entire state.
I love Uncle Vanya. Happy things make me sad.
Anna on February 6, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Yes. You are at liberty to do many things. You may well experience severe consequences for those that injure others, however…your fallacious (and hackneyed) ad absurdum retort still fails to understand the underlying truth of our right to such liberty, however recklessly that liberty is used.
LimeyGeek on February 6, 2009 at 4:02 PM
I draw it at this line:
The general rule is that as long as your pursuit doesn’t interfere with other people’s pursuits, you’re good.
Please tell me how a guy at a party taking a hit off a bong, or smoking a joint in his house or car, or whatever, is interfering with anyone else’s pursuit.
MadisonConservative on February 6, 2009 at 4:02 PM
Goth chick?
Hot.
Pictures. Now.
MadisonConservative on February 6, 2009 at 4:03 PM
I gave up around second 15 ;)
LimeyGeek on February 6, 2009 at 4:03 PM
I once almost got a ticket for driving barefoot. Fast forward a few years later, I always drove in shoes, even if they were impossible heels. One horrible car crash later, where my shoes were tangled in the clutch and brake, and I drive barefoot again. Or in flip-flops.
It’s probably still against the law, though.
Anna on February 6, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Much ado about nix.
Let the brother have his bong.
Tzetzes on February 6, 2009 at 4:04 PM
No, just cynical. I was pretty goth back in the day, though… but that was 10 years ago (good frak, I’m old).
Anna on February 6, 2009 at 4:05 PM
I don’t. I guess I’m in MC’s camp regarding liberty – his reply summed it up.
What is important is what people do with their liberty.
LimeyGeek on February 6, 2009 at 4:07 PM
You’re not the only one.
It’s hard not to. The man was brilliant.
Exactly. It just seems counter to all survival instincts.
In fact, I watched the episode on abortion and couldn’t believe the subject of the small population wasn’t brought up until the episode was nearly over. I get the pro-choice argument, but when humanity’s extinction is on the line, I’d think very few would even want an abortion.
I disagree. I think it makes most arguments weaker.
Supply and demand makes that impossible. If all the regular smokers are dealing, then who area they dealing to?
No more so than asking your friend to pony up his share of the keg you bought.
Assuming the casual smokers have enough other casual smoker friends. But anecdotes do not make facts. I know people who smoke and don’t do that, and I’m sure I’m not alone here.
First, the price is a bit exaggerated. For another, when you break it down, it actually is very cheap. To get drunk, most need at least four drinks (and more to stay drunk). Calculating beer at a dollar per bottle, and you’re looking at, at least four or five dollars for a night.
Even assuming someone bought a $3000 pound of pot, you’re still looking at six bucks a gram, which is still more than what you’d put in a joint, and a joint is more than what most can handle alone, meaning it’s more like 2 or 3 dollars for very expensive pot, compared to four or five dollars of cheapish beer.
The alcoholic is still spending more money than the pot head.
Esthier on February 6, 2009 at 4:09 PM
I admit, I would prosecute that under the concept of reckless endangerment, just like alcohol. Intoxication and vehicles is not a wise combo.
LimeyGeek on February 6, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Hot.
Pictures. Now.
MadisonConservative on February 6, 2009 at 4:10 PM
I actually was referring to a stationary car. DUI is still a crime. My emphasis was on a person, in their own area, choosing to smoke weed the way someone would smoke a cigarette or drink a beer.
MadisonConservative on February 6, 2009 at 4:12 PM
And pot grows like a weed…hey…that’s a catchy name…reducing costs to near zero (OK, initial setup & investment)
LimeyGeek on February 6, 2009 at 4:12 PM
I don’t think we speak the same language.
Esthier on February 6, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Even then, you have to be careful. If the keys are in the ignition (unless you’re on your own private property, I think) it can still be a DUI.
30 bucks max, plus water and electricity.
Esthier on February 6, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Give me a few days, I’ll put them on my site. I’m going to mope about how old I’ve gotten.
Anna on February 6, 2009 at 4:15 PM
I get ya. I almost agree, except that this is one rare area that I accept the legitimacy of prior restraint.
You’re sitting in your car getting high….then what? Drive off home? In the UK, the standard was this – if you’re in your car, keys in the ignition (engine off), and are intoxicated, you’re getting busted for being in control of a vehicle while intoxicated, no need to be actually driving it. Simply removing the keys would keep you out of trouble….like if you went to a party, had too much to drink, and slept it off in your car.
But other than that quibble, I agree with your broader point.
LimeyGeek on February 6, 2009 at 4:16 PM
I dont blame the dude for being a weed merchant.
Where I fault him is in not being aware enuff to think that allowing himself to be photographed, Bong in hand, is not so much a good idea for a global celebrity with a multi-million dollar marketable brand.
Mike D. on February 6, 2009 at 4:18 PM
My personal favourite is the ‘wizards sleeve’. I have no idea why a vagina was nicknamed “mary” though.
“Welly” refers to a wellington boot…big clompy rubber boots…the “welly top” being the large floppy opening you shove your foot in…I’m sure I need go no further.
You should see some of the looks I get when I use limey-isms around here….it’s like I’ve grown a penis out my right ear.
LimeyGeek on February 6, 2009 at 4:19 PM
I live in Madison. There’s a street here where many people still live in their VW buses.
MadisonConservative on February 6, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Apologies for my limey ignorance, but what state is your hometown of Madison in? It seems like every state has one ;)
Anyway, those VW buses (they were called ‘camper vans’ in the UK) are a lot of fun to bum around in, but I wouldn’t want to live in one permanently. Are they filled with hippy leftovers?
LimeyGeek on February 6, 2009 at 4:44 PM
A lot of people think of Mike Phelps as their son or brother? What a fu***ng nitwit.
Leave this guy alone, fer Pete’s sake; he smokes pot, big deal. It doesn’t seem to have adversely affected his cognitive abilities or lung capacity. The guy can swim across an olympic-sized pool without a breath.
Sod off, tossers.
Jaibones on February 6, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Well at least the dope part. Leaving aside the discussion of whether pot should be illegal or not, it is and all the dopers at HA can rally around Ron Paul next time he runs, the fact of the matter is that Phelps is an idiot. His brain must be waterlogged to think that somebody with his profile can go to a college party filled with strangers, smoke pot so blatantly that somebody was able to take a photo, and not have it all over the tabloids/internet.
highhopes on February 6, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Whoo hoo! That swim club is right down the hill from my house.
tikvah on February 6, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Leaving aside it’s a crime, are you honestly saying that performance in a swimming pool is the only thing that matters?
highhopes on February 6, 2009 at 4:50 PM
LOL
Jaibones on February 6, 2009 at 4:51 PM
When did you first hear of Michael Phelps, and why? When he won the Olympic swimming medals, right? So, why do you care if he smokes pot? Do you know how many people smoke pot?
Jaibones on February 6, 2009 at 4:52 PM
This guy is a bad example for our children. Get him off TV and out of the news. At least corporate america is taking away his endorsement income.
Geraldo Rivera thinks the guy is a great role model. That alone should tell you something.
kanda on February 6, 2009 at 4:54 PM
That’s okay. I’m sure when has to start laying off the people that are running his branding for him, Congress will be their with a bailout package for celebs who self-destruct. Brittney, Lindsey, etc. the Bush administration never cared about taking care of these people to the point that Brittney was actually seen driving herself around in a VW a couple weeks ago. Simply shameful. :-0
highhopes on February 6, 2009 at 4:54 PM
The true Madison, my friend: Madison, Wisconsin. Home to the best college football team, and also known as the San Francisco of the Midwest. Living here is fun. The dirty looks and cries I hear from other drivers when they see my Reagan-Bush ’84 sticker is wonderful, as is seeing cars covered in left-wing stickers and shouting “I VOTED FOR BUSH…TWICE!” at them. It’s like being constantly in an obstacle course. However, I am planning, within a few years, to start detaching the cars and causing a little mayhem on the tracks, by giving voters a Republican choice on the ticket.
MadisonConservative on February 6, 2009 at 4:57 PM
So did Gregor leave us voluntarily then? Didn’t wait around for a ban-hammer or what?
Anna on February 6, 2009 at 4:57 PM
With all due respect – I don’t hold up mumbling, stoned nitwit swimmers as role models to my daughters. Or basketball, baseball, football, soccer players, etc. They are just athletes; my daughters can pick out the athletes they like all by themselves.
This guy is just a freak-of-nature swimmer. I’m not bothered that he likes to get high. I like Pinot Noir. To each his own.
Jaibones on February 6, 2009 at 4:58 PM
Actually, I first heard of him as an up-and-comer Olympic hopeful from the Suburban Maryland a couple of years before he went to his first Olympics but that really is beside the point.
Between his DUI and this incident, it is clear that Phelps lacks character. He won’t ever be anything more than a guy who won a lot of medals unless he stops running across morons like you that only see the swimmer and not the human being. Even now, he’s got plenty of your type making excuses instead of trying to figure out why a guy with so much potential is self-destructing his career.
highhopes on February 6, 2009 at 4:59 PM
Except that, assuming you are over 21, you can legally be a sot so long as you don’t get behind the wheel of a vehicle or boat. Nobody is going to be taking your picture getting drunk on a glass of wine.
Pot is illegal. If anything you should be working to change the laws since you clearly wouldn’t have any problem with your kids to become pot-heads.
highhopes on February 6, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Even before the Olympics I pegged him as one of these types. It’s a shame, but I knew it was just a matter of time. I’m 18, and have never smoked weed, or consumed alcohol without my parent’s consent.
YoungAmerican on February 6, 2009 at 5:06 PM
I don’t believe that Phelp’s mother is posting on this thread. He’s also an adult. What he does is his business. I don’t condone his behaviour, but it’s not the end of the world. I don’t want my kids smoking pot either, but that’s between me and my children. If they were adults and did it, well, they’d be adults, and capable of making their own decisions.
Anna on February 6, 2009 at 5:06 PM
The Declaration of Independence has no specific legal power.
The idea that what is legal or not is up to the people to decide and work through the legislature.
Through this process, The People determine what are reasonable restrictions on behavior and ways of enforcing those decisions along with penalties for violations. It also decides what may “interfere with others pursuits” . It is not up to the individual to pick and choose which of these to comply with…one is free to act as though a particular law does not apply to them..this is your right..your expression of free will. However, if that decision violates an existing restriction, you have no authority to claim it doesn’t apply to you.
The reasons for this should be obvious.
Thats irrelevent to reality. reasonings like that could be made concerning a whole laundry list of behaviors.
Why should you have to get a drivers license? Who says you must have insurance? How can anyone have the nerve to dictate how fast you can drive, or if you should even be sober when driving? You’re not interfering with anyone elses pursuits. How about all those environmental hoops they make everyone jump through, I’ll dump whatever I want into the river, thank you very much. I can wire my own house that I’m building to sell to someone else, don’t tell me I have to be up to code…fascist!
There has to be rules in order for a society to work, and sometime it may seem like those rules are imposing on vague and changing ideas of “free will”.
Itchee Dryback on February 6, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Haha! I love your inappropriate metaphor.
I watched the original “The Office” when it’s on PBS, and I swear those guys need translators for us.
I don’t have an uncle named Bob.
Esthier on February 6, 2009 at 5:12 PM
HOW DO THOSE ENDORSEMENTS TASTE NOW, corn flake?
seejanemom on February 6, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Uh, all these things that you list put OTHER PEOPLE at risk. If you drive one hundred and thirty on the freeway, you are endangering the lives of others. Driving when you don’t know what you are doing puts other people at risk. Dumping in the river puts other people at risk. Explain how lighting up in your home at the end of your workday puts any one else at risk any more than drinking a beer does.
justfinethanks on February 6, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Name a few, and be sure to name ones that don’t interfere with anyone else’s liberty, life, or pursuit of happiness. Good luck.
Because you’re operating a two-ton piece of steel at high-speeds on the road with other drivers who could be killed by your ignorance. Next?
If you cripple someone with your horrible or negligent driving, you should be able to make available to them funds to recover. Otherwise, your negligence leads to their pursuit of happiness and liberty being impeded.
See previous answers. This isn’t brain surgery. So far, your examples are discussing behavior that puts others at risk. Smoking pot in the privacy of your home does not. Again, provide examples.
MadisonConservative on February 6, 2009 at 5:17 PM
You’re still young. It’s a good thing you aren’t doing those things, but until you’re actually living on your own, it’s not the kind of experience you really understand just yet.
Other than a sip of my mother’s campaign, I didn’t have my first drink until I was 18. As cliche as it sounds, it was prom night, but that’s what I get for dating an atheist.
Esthier on February 6, 2009 at 5:18 PM
I’m sure all the others taste just fine, mom.
And technically you don’t need insurance, just the ability to prove you can pay for any damage you cause. I don’t know if this is nationwide or just by each state, but other things besides proof of insurance are considered proof of ability to pay.
Esthier on February 6, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Pinot IS the ring in the bottom of the cheap wine urinal….so I see your point… ;)
/////sarc
seejanemom on February 6, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Must be by state. Wisconsin requires it.
MadisonConservative on February 6, 2009 at 5:23 PM
I would grow my own dope if I thought I could>>>Hell, I might even smoke it,,,,,don’t get me wrong…(I AM AYN RAND reborn)…..but if you are going to hold yourself up and PROFIT FROM YOUR OWN WORSHIP, then don’t expect that will happen when you have your head in a bong.
“ENDORSEMENT” means ENDORSEment of his drug habit….
Maybe we can find a soda company who will bottle BONG WATER AS A SPORTS DRINK!!!
seejanemom on February 6, 2009 at 5:26 PM
My point was not that it makes it stronger or weaker..it was that exaggeration of a point at times make it clearer and easier to understand what the person is getting at.
Why is that? Its not like your buying a refrigerator. Everything goes up in smoke in short order…in fact the smaller the amount, the sooner you’re purchasing more, making buying a relative quantity all the more reasonable.
Thats still selling drugs.
Alcohol is legal…and buying a keg would be like buying quite a bit of substance.
Every one I know that is a casual smoker does this at one time or another. It just makes sense.
Not really. 2 or 3 people buying a 1/4 lb. is really small time. This is simply a fact, whether or not you choose to believe it.
$2000.- $3000.+ a pound is not cheap.
Itchee Dryback on February 6, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Actually its not at all an exaggeration…unless you’re buying a quanity, and then you’re back to that “dealer” thing.
On the street, run of the mill pot is about $50. 1/4 oz….which is rarely an actual 1/4 oz. X 64 = $3200. lb.
Thats for “just weed”. High quality hydroponic can be quite a bit more.
It seems the rest of your point went off topic to the comparative cost of pot vs. beer.
Itchee Dryback on February 6, 2009 at 5:33 PM
That’s partially what I mean by weaker as well though. You get a point across that way, but not one that necessarily helps your argument at all.
Yes, but if all the smokers are selling, who are they selling to? Dealers have regulars too.
Doesn’t change my argument. It is still a drug, and you do need a license to sell it normally, so selling it without one is illegal.
Right, which is what we were talking about, buying a lot of substance. Otherwise I would have written “six pack” or “24 pack”.
Never said I don’t believe it happens, just that it doesn’t happen with all smokers. Whether you choose to believe that or not is irrelevant to it being true.
Your friends are getting ripped off. Unless they’re buying good stuff, it should be $50 for a half. Years ago it was 25, and dime bags were 10 bucks, hence “dime”, but even pot adjusts to inflation.
Side note, I decided to look it up and see if a suitable source could be found. Apparently my state is the cheapest, so the above stats aren’t necessarily accurate wherever you live. Still, it lists a pound of cheap stuff at $1200.
http://www.e-stoned.com/rec/44-Marijuana-Prices-in-the-USA/
Yes, that can be 20 a gram, sometimes more. But then for that, you only need a tenth of it to get high, making the high 2 bucks, which still makes it very cheap.
It didn’t go “off” to that. That was my entire point, that pot is cheap, cheaper than beer, that if anyone was going to be hard up for cash, it’s the alcoholics, not the pot heads. I thought I was clear on that.
Esthier on February 6, 2009 at 5:56 PM
Not really. How so? I never said anything about driving 130. Thats your claim.
Driving when “you don’t know what you’re doing”? Well, hell, who has the right to determine that?
Dumping what in the river?, and whos to say its dangerous…what I personally put in the river is so small an amount, that you have no right to say its dangerous. If the amount that I put in the river is obviously diluted beyond Avogadro’s Number, then you’re punishing me for erroneous reasons, and you have no right to do that.
If I wired my house wrong and it burns down after I sold it..or maybe it never burns down..I’m pretty good, then its none of your business to force me to comply with your laws, cuz I’m pretty sure I did it O.K.
Itchee Dryback on February 6, 2009 at 6:03 PM
I think it is pathetic and absurd that the county sherrif is investigating Phelps and intends to charge him if they have any evidence. What a waste of time. I don’t smoke it anymore but the prohibition must end. The war on drugs is a waste of money, makes criminals rich, and results in more deaths than smoking pot ever will.
lexhamfox on February 6, 2009 at 6:12 PM
You mentioned speed limits.
We have tests that can determine basic driving competence. Driving regulation helps keep the roads from being less deadly than they already are.
Oh, I agree with that. I was assuming that you were using an extreme example, like dumping barrels of oil in a body of water used for fishing or drinking water.
Uh, not really. If you do something that puts other people at risk, then it goes beyond a mere pesonal liberty issue.
But really, you are obscuring the issue. It’s two questions.
1)Does the state have the right to prevent self harm? In particular minor self harm that might take years or decades to manifest itself? (Suntanning, eating fatty foods, smoking, etc.)
2) Does the state have the right to arrest someone for their thoughts, attitude or disposition?
That’s it, the alpha and the omega, all she wrote. It’s really not a complex issue. Answer these two questions, and I’ll tell you where you stand on pot legalization.
justfinethanks on February 6, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Not when the river is a water source, and most are. Who is to say? Chemists who know what the crap is that you are putting in there. If you put it in there, and change the toxicity levels of a source of water that is used by other people, then you are endangering them, and therefore affecting their rights to life, liberty, or pursuit.
Again, come up with a cogent example of something that doesn’t affect anyone else, in the way that smoking grass in the privacy of your own area doesn’t affect anyone else.
MadisonConservative on February 6, 2009 at 6:17 PM
That’s partially what I mean by weaker as well though. You get a point across that way, but not one that necessarily helps your argument at all.
We’re getting off topic here imo.
I think that clarity of a point speaks for itself and is always a benefit to understanding.
Yes, but if all the smokers are selling, who are they selling to? Dealers have regulars too.
I didn’t say all smoker are selling. I stated that all the casual smokers that I know have done this at one time or another. I don’t actually know all the smokers. I’m just relating what I have actually observed.
Alcohol is legal…
Then we’re having a different argument. My point revolve around Pot..which is illegal.
Right, which is what we were talking about, buying a lot of substance. Otherwise I would have written “six pack” or “24 pack”.
How much is “a lot” of substance to buy for an average smoker?
Never said I don’t believe it happens, just that it doesn’t happen with all smokers. Whether you choose to believe that or not is irrelevant to it being true.
Again…I’m not talking about ALL smokers.
Whether I choose to believe WHAT?..We seem to be making the same point at times.
Your friends are getting ripped off. Unless they’re buying good stuff, it should be $50 for a half. Years ago it was 25, and dime bags were 10 bucks, hence “dime”, but even pot adjusts to inflation.
Side note, I decided to look it up and see if a suitable source could be found. Apparently my state is the cheapest, so the above stats aren’t necessarily accurate wherever you live. Still, it lists a pound of cheap stuff at $1200.
http://www.e-stoned.com/rec/44-Marijuana-Prices-in-the-USA/
I’ve seem those type of polls before, and are not often representative of the real world prices any more than similar type surveys of the average wage represent the actual wage a person can demand for a particular job.
Do you have any current real life experience with the drug culture? If you know a few friends who are able to buy weed from another friend for a good price, that is not really the circumstance on the street..with street drug culture in general, which is what I’m talking about.
Yes, that can be 20 a gram, sometimes more. But then for that, you only need a tenth of it to get high, making the high 2 bucks, which still makes it very cheap.
Are you just making these numbers up or do you have experience with the issue?
Again… My points have nothing to do with comparative costs of pot vs. alcohol.
It didn’t go “off” to that. That was my entire point, that pot is cheap, cheaper than beer, that if anyone was going to be hard up for cash, it’s the alcoholics, not the pot heads. I thought I was clear on that.
Esthier on February 6, 2009 at 5:56 PM
Being hard up for cash has little to do with it, and seems to be another topic.
This is getting too complicated and time consuming. If I don’t respond to every single point, it not that I can’t or don’t think I have a legitimate point to make, its that it’s taking too much time.
Itchee Dryback on February 6, 2009 at 6:35 PM
Phelps smokes pot and his endorsements dry up.
Obama smoked pot and snorted cocaine, and he is elected President.
Hmmm.
Disturb the Universe on February 6, 2009 at 6:44 PM
Well..according to your reasoning..or a variant of them,..I have the right to make that decision.
If its the chemists who have a right to dictate my behavior based on what is toxic, then let them show me the toxins that I put in the water, and prove to me that my contribution is at a toxic level. Don’t make me pay for what larger dealers of toxic substances contribute. I’m just minding my own business, and no one has a right to force me to comply with their up tight assumptions. Its my right.
Has the topic changed?
Are we now discussing two different sets of compliance’s?
Pot outside of the home would still be illegal, but strictly staying in one’s home would be O.K. as long as the person never left their property while intoxicated.
It would seem that is what you’re getting at. As soon as you leave your home, you’re potentially involving other people.
Sounds complicated. This is way sometimes laws and statutes have to be written in such a way as to find a common ground of public acceptance of the potential restraints on behavior.
Itchee Dryback on February 6, 2009 at 6:49 PM
You consumed two of the deadliest drugs known to man. The total number of deaths every year is in the hundred thousands between those two drugs you saw fit to consume. What a load of crap.
You’re also looking at a serious time commitment. The idea that pot grows like a weed is a bit dated. Certainly textile grade hemp grows that way. But if you plan to smoke it, you need to tend to it. Tomatoes grow like a weed if left on their own, but if you have heirlooms or organics, you have to baby them…love them. If it grows, love makes it grow better.
That is ridiculous. You have no evidence to back up what you’re saying. I doubt you even have anecdotal support. I’ve known a lot of potheads. Very few of them were dealers. But, IMHO dealers are the biggest potheads of all and they typically go into business to offset there costs.
One can go to hundreds of dispensaries in California to legally buy medicinal marijuana to be smoked, eaten, licked or taken in droplets. That negates the need to sit and watch Iron Chef with your pot Dealer.
CNBC had an hour long special a couple of nights ago on California pot market…perhaps in honor of Mr. Phelps. The only reason pot is not legal is because alcohol companies subsidize the costs of keeping it legal. If pot were legal, without the need for medical examination, alcohol sales would nosedive.
The Race Card on February 6, 2009 at 6:57 PM
Well, Powell v. Texas did rule that public intoxication laws were constitutional, and that wouldn’t change if pot was legalized.
Well, if pot was legalized, there wouldn’t be any need for “common ground.” Individual states would rule whether or not you would be allowed to wander public streets baked, but everyone would be allowed to light up on private property.
justfinethanks on February 6, 2009 at 6:58 PM
Give Phelps another 20 years of non-stop publicity and he will probably have a good shot at the White House.
The Race Card on February 6, 2009 at 6:58 PM
Phelps will be O.K and be a rich man at a kids age.
If there was a picture of Obama smoking a bong during the election cycle, I’m guessing he wouldn’t be Prez.
Itchee Dryback on February 6, 2009 at 6:59 PM
He’s not without sponsors. Your arguments are more dried up than his endorsement contracts. This is so short lived.
Paul McCartney got caught with POUNDS of pot. He’s doing alright.
The Race Card on February 6, 2009 at 7:01 PM
Actually, your argument was that it makes people steal because of the cost. I’m pointing out that it’s cheap, cheaper than alcohol. The legality is irrelevant here.
I don’t know. What’s an average smoker?
So your anecdotes are worth more than my anecdotes and the link I provided? Guess I’m at a disadvantage then.
Doesn’t seem to matter.
Esthier on February 6, 2009 at 7:01 PM
Sorry, didn’t mean to hit submit.
Your whole point was about stealing. I’m simply explaining that pot heads are no more likely to steal than alcoholics as neither is an expensive habit.
I understand and won’t hold it against you.
Esthier on February 6, 2009 at 7:02 PM
Imagine the number of bongs with Obama stickers though.
The Race Card on February 6, 2009 at 7:02 PM
Maybe, but I doubt it’d be as bad as you think. Most people would still want to go out in bars, and unless you’re eating brownies and getting a drive home, your actions with pot will affect those around you whereas alcohol won’t unless you consume to excess.
Liquor stores would probably be hardest hit.
Esthier on February 6, 2009 at 7:07 PM
Yeah, I’m not much of a drinker, so I’m a bad gauge.
The Race Card on February 6, 2009 at 7:21 PM
Went to a book sale at my granddaughter’s middle school last night. There were 2 books with Phelps on the cover for sale… One was about him the other about the audacity of working hard to become the best (I think). They were displayed top shelf and second shelf.
-
I had to call my daughter over to where she could see how the one Obama title was
placedhidden so we could have a good chuckle… Bottom shelf-floor level, near the checkout – like who knows what is at floor level in the supermarket checkout isle. You could only see it from across the room… lol-
We got caught laughing at the One’s placement by 2 seniors who did not seem amused. That made it even better.
RalphyBoy on February 6, 2009 at 7:26 PM
Not really.
My point was concerning criminal active of a wide range. Need for a particular criminal activity is sometimes the reason..and sometimes not. It becomes a lifestyle. Marijuana is not the greatest motivator to better the circumstances of your life….unless you can make 4-5 hundred dollars a day selling to “just users”.
Thanks. The time flys..but then, its gone.
Itchee Dryback on February 6, 2009 at 7:32 PM
And the vast majority of those death happen to people in the very later years of their lives from cancer or liver/stomach problems etc..
A much different profile for illegal drug deaths. The wasted lives of the young and the loss of their potential is just a greater loss imo. Obviously the loss of an elderly loved one is crushing, and I don’t mean to diminish the loss.
That being said, almost all pot smokers who smoke even somewhat regularly are dealers.
Well maybe I should have said “dealers at some point, however incidental and temporary. The statement is none the less true, And I have the proof of experience. You just may not be thinking of it as being a “dealer”..have you ever split a couple ozs. or 1/4 lb…keep your 1/4 oz, and let the rest go where it may?
Whats your point?
Your comment that alcohol sales would nosedive if pot were legal is based on what? Do you have even anecdotal evidence? Are you saying that the laws in fact DO keep the number of users way down? What would that vast increase in demand do to the price and complications of supply?
Itchee Dryback on February 6, 2009 at 7:59 PM
Again, NO. You don’t seem to get this.
You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, provided your pursuit does not impede or endanger the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of others. You keep coming up with examples that negatively impact others, so none of those count. I’ve given you a crystal clear example: A person in their home or private area smoking weed. There is no conceivable impediment or danger being brought on anyone else by this action. Find a similar example to challenge the standard I’m presenting you with.
There would be no problem in leaving the home while intoxicated. Public buildings and areas already have no smoking policies that would prevent people having to breathe in the smoke. Restaurants and private establishments make their own rules on whether to allow you in while you are smoking. If you’re not committing a crime, such as assault, disturbing the peace, etc…then no there would be no problem being intoxicated outside. Again, we’re going by a standard of your L, L, and PoH not interfering with that of others.
MadisonConservative on February 6, 2009 at 8:10 PM
We’re not communicating on a level of actual impacts to society vs. hypothetical ideology and how things should be. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
I suggest that like minded people work to change the statutes to something more to your liking. Until that becomes reality, your community would be best served by following the laws…or do what you will, not not whine about it when violations are noticed and processed.
But thats just common sense.
Itchee Dryback on February 6, 2009 at 9:07 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »