Buzz harshed: Sheriff arrests eight in Phelps pot probe
posted at 8:55 pm on February 10, 2009 by Allahpundit
Via JWF, it’s the modern equivalent of a Prohibition speakeasy raid. What a joy to know that it’s not just the economy in 1930s mode nowadays.
I’m not sure if I want him fired or put in charge of ICE.
Lott says the picture indicated a law was being broken in his jurisdiction. He said he couldn’t ignore the violation just because Phelps is rich and famous…
We’ve also learned that the department has located and confiscated that bong.
Sources say the owner of the bong was trying to sell it on eBay for as much as $100,000.
The owner, who wasn’t even at the party, is one of the eight now charged.
Phelps is not one of those charged at this point, but the sheriff’s department has strong evidence that matches the photo to the house on Blossom Street.
Not until this very moment did I know that merely owning a bong was illegal. Thanks, Wikipedia! Exit question: Given Phelps’s fame and the fact that marijuana advocates are spoiling for a fight on his behalf, would putting him on trial — preferably on TV — be the best thing that ever happened to the legalization movement? And, follow-up question: Whom do we contact to urge him not to plea bargain?
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 Next »
We’re not talking about morality. We’re talking about the law. Please don’t confuse the two. I would never say the law is any decider on morality.
And Obama and Bush and Clinton…
Certainly, but it will never happen.
We just disagree on that part. He’s guilty as sin, but there’s simply no proof, none that should hold up in a fair court, so long as bongs can be used for legal purposes.
Esthier on February 10, 2009 at 10:42 PM
I don’t think ‘conservatives’ are necessarily arguing that. I think ‘conservatives who smoke weed like a freight train and want it legalized’ are arguing that. Personally, I don’t like anything that makes people even more stupid and annoying than they are already. Phelps is paying the price with his endorsements; if the Sheriff has a case, let him make it. If not, who gives a cr*p? Maybe Phelps can get an endorsement contract from a hemp clothing manufacturer.
austinnelly on February 10, 2009 at 10:44 PM
So spelling out my position on the issue hasn’t cleared it up? Hardly surprising considering you’ve misjudged me from the start, but if you can’t understand me, then obviously we’re stuck here.
Possibly, but for many they’re just going by the law. No more no less.
See, “everyone” knows OJ killed two people, but legally he got off, so legally no one could arrest him after the trial because of double jeopardy.
Well, in this case, it’s just a lack of evidence.
Esthier on February 10, 2009 at 10:46 PM
I don’t think your example is as clear-cut as O.J. Simpson didn’t go so far to regret his behaviour in public, but that is close-ish in a way.
I do not believe in double jeopardy. It is overrated.
The Scottish justice system, uniquely, has three verdicts:
1. Guilty
2. Not guilty
3. Not proven
The O.J. trial was a clear case of “Not proven”.
aengus on February 10, 2009 at 10:55 PM
Well, there was that book…
What would have been the difference?
Esthier on February 10, 2009 at 10:58 PM
Exit question: If they legalize marijuana where the hell are they going to smoke it?
Tom
marinetbryant on February 10, 2009 at 11:00 PM
Not at all..you’ve completely spelled out your position and I have never been confused one bit about anything you’ve said.
AUINSC on February 10, 2009 at 11:01 PM
Back in the day, there was a ‘head shop’ here in GR that sold pipes, bongs, etc to anyone. Purple East (have no idea what that means) has a website now and a new location… but I haven’t ever been in the new store.
I was a frequent visitor to the original place decades ago.
I think pot is a gateway drug (I gave up pot long ago) the same way drinking alcohol is a gateway fluid.
Ugly on February 10, 2009 at 11:03 PM
The difference would be that he would not protected by immunity from further prosecutions under the double jeopardy law.
He could be tried again on the same charges if new evidence came to light, providing the original jury were not sufficiently convinced of his innocence in the initial trial.
aengus on February 10, 2009 at 11:06 PM
Just to be fair here, in case I missed something you wrote, what is your position about Phelps? 1) do you believe those pictures are evidence that he smoked and 2) do you think there is anything wrong with it and 3) If your argument is about the technical issue of proof, before a jury, then what is your point? He hasn’t even been arrested, or convicted or lost any of his civil liberties…so, what exactly is your complaint here?
AUINSC on February 10, 2009 at 11:07 PM
And yet you don’t know where I stand. Those two statements are contradictory.
Ah, that would be better.
What is your complaint here? That a 14-gold medal winner may have tried pot once?
1. No, I don’t, not legal evidence anyway.
2. Yes, as much as alcohol abuse.
3. 8 other people have been arrested on this, and the sheriff is planning on using the photo as evidence to arrest Phelps.
Does that help any?
Esthier on February 10, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Well now that they know exactly where the photo took place and are in possession of the bong, that’s not so true anymore.
jimmy the notable on February 10, 2009 at 9:57 PM
The chain of evidence could be challenged. There was a long period of time between when Phelps handled it and and when police acquired it.
dedalus on February 10, 2009 at 10:01 PM
——
Zero proof the bong contained any weed when the photo was taken.
Between the time of the photo and the time it was confiscated, it most certainly could have been used.
All the owner has to say is he didn’t know where the bong was at all times and that friends often borrowed it.
End of story, case goes bye bye.
Yet so much time and energy will have been wasted by the jackass sheriff on this stupid, pointless, impossible to prove case.
Dave Rywall on February 10, 2009 at 11:12 PM
Can’t fault your logic, Dave. Personally, I never understood why this Barney Fife would do such a thing.
But then, I think the pot laws in this country need a serious overhaul.
john1schn on February 10, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Those cops better give that dude his bong back. If he doesn’t, he’ll make it a martyr and the new ‘holy grail’ of legalization movements! REMEMBER THE PHELPS BONG!
ThackerAgency on February 10, 2009 at 11:16 PM
If this goes to trial and eventually leads to the legalization of MJ I’ll be a loyal Phelps brand customer for life!
FloatingRock on February 10, 2009 at 11:21 PM
The OJ verdict was a clear case of the jury playing don’t ask, don’t tell (and stick it to the man while they’re at it).
viking01 on February 10, 2009 at 11:21 PM
The bong, if used for pot, certainly is illegal.
Esthier on February 10, 2009 at 11:23 PM
And yet you don’t know where I stand. Those wo statements are contradictory.
1) No, you just simply went right to the the legal definition of proof…but, I didn’t ask you that question. I asked you if you thought the pictures indicated to you that he did.
2) “Yes, as much as alcohol abuse.” How do you define ‘alcohol abuse’? Alcohol isn’t illegal and pot is. Is drinking any alcohol bad? Do you think there is any difference between having 1 beer and smoking 1 joint?
3) “8 other people have been arrested on this, and the sheriff is planning on using the photo as evidence to arrest Phelps.” Where did it say he was planning on arresting Phelps? Did you read a different article than I did?
AUINSC on February 10, 2009 at 11:29 PM
How can we be sure the police didn’t use it (as a test, of course)?
platypus on February 10, 2009 at 11:30 PM
This clearly has to be the stupidist story evah. Ok fine, perhaps, although I do not smoke pot personally, I do not care if others do. I think that this country is going to hell in a hand-basket and we are worried about a world class athlete (who did not smoke dope in order to win the Olympics) hitting a bong with some friends. Seriously, if we stopped worrying about the small stuff, maybe we could focus on the big stuff. If everything is important, then nothing rises above that.
HawaiiLwyr on February 10, 2009 at 11:40 PM
I answered. I said legally, no. As to my own speculation, probably, but that’s not worth anything.
I wasn’t aware that this was a complicated term. Abuse means you’re abusing it. That definition is different depending on the person.
So? It’s also legal to cheat on your spouse. Is that supposed to make it OK?
In moderation, no, it can actually be good for you.
Of course. One beer won’t get you drunk, but one joint will get you stoned.
Though I realize you’re actually asking about the difference between pot and beer. For that, yes, it is slightly worse for being illegal, but only marginally so.
What do you think that last sentence means?
We don’t unless the cops were smart enough to get evidence of what was in the bong as soon as they got it, keeping with the chain of custody.
Esthier on February 10, 2009 at 11:41 PM
It doesn’t have to be Madison. Mass arrests on evidence that is less corroborating than hearsay? It’s gonna come back right at him.
MadisonConservative on February 10, 2009 at 11:42 PM
The Obambi Master Scheme. How did you know? /sarc
platypus on February 10, 2009 at 11:42 PM
Oreos, baby carrots, dried figs, cookies other than Oreos, etc., in a word, snacks.
Am I really the only person who’s enough of a square to use them for snacks?
Al in St. Lou on February 11, 2009 at 12:22 AM
Smoking MJ isn’t in any way similar to cheating on your spouse, whether it’s legal or not. If smoking MJ is a moral issue at all, it’s far less so than drinking alcohol—falling about halfway between caffeine and alcohol.
FloatingRock on February 11, 2009 at 12:29 AM
First off, like Esthier has been pointing out, Phelps has not admitted, nor apologized for, “smoking marijuana”. Only his “regrettable actions”. Which, for all we know, could be smoking tobacco.
It’s the wrong path to follow, this “we just know he did it” scenario.
Ask a guy named Richard Jewell about that…a guy whom the FBI, the media, and the nation was absolutely sure was the Atlanta Olympic bomber. And he wasn’t.
JetBoy on February 11, 2009 at 12:32 AM
I think you can infer from the case of Jules v. Vincent:
It’s legal, but it ain’t 100% legal. I mean, you can’t walk into a restaurant, load up a bowl, and start puffin away. You’re only supposed to smoke tobacco or certain designated substances.
RightOFLeft on February 11, 2009 at 12:36 AM
Sure.
a capella on February 11, 2009 at 12:39 AM
I didn’t read the Wiki article or anything, but I believe in some locations paraphernalia, even if unused or used only for legal substances, is still illegal. I think Tommy Chong, (or whatever his name is), was busted for selling unused paraphernalia, for example.
FloatingRock on February 11, 2009 at 12:40 AM
What, are you apposed to capitalism all of a sudden?
FloatingRock on February 11, 2009 at 12:41 AM
Witch Hunt
It’s a shame. Why not ruin a few more young people’s lives.
Aren’t there more important crimes to prosecute?
I’m not for legalizing drugs, but there’s more medical evidence there’s value to this plant. Besides the point, I know.
There’s a drug on our border with Mexico that is spilling into our country. Prohibition, didn’t work then, it’s not working now and we could use the tax revenue it would bring in.
Just saying….. ~_~
Kini on February 11, 2009 at 12:48 AM
I’m really disappointed in Tommy Chong. Unused?
Yeah, you’re probably right. I think it depends on the state. The years when I would have known for sure are thankfully long past.
RightOFLeft on February 11, 2009 at 12:53 AM
I’m always curious about this one. Given that the term civil disobedience refers to consciously breaking a law, and willingly suffering the conssequences–important detail, that–and then using those consequences as a graphic demonstration of how ridiculous the law is in the first place, by what conservative or libertarian principle are some of you invoking in order to say that a lawbreaker should not be charged? Phelps himself isn’t crusading to change the law, and the fact is that the law is in place, and in place under the legal and constitutional procedure under which we create laws, and, by his own admission, he broke it. So tell me again what libertarian or conservative principle is in play here when we demand that law enforcement simply ignore the breaking of laws that are, rightly or wrongly, on the books.
mikeinamman on February 11, 2009 at 12:56 AM
As in new or clean… no residue.
In recent years people have been prosecuted for selling sex toys in some counties or states. America still has it’s backwaters.
FloatingRock on February 11, 2009 at 12:59 AM
Has “pursuit of happiness” been overturned by the SCOTUS? I’m not sure that “Constitutional” is precisely the correct term because the phrase is actually in the Declaration of Independence, but it’s still a founding principle that I believe should have bearing with respect to “intent”.
FloatingRock on February 11, 2009 at 1:06 AM
I do hope they busted the guy who snapped (and sold) the photo.
Oh, sweet irony.
YYZ on February 11, 2009 at 1:31 AM
well now, there’s no actual PROOF that Phelps was high WHILE he was breaking the world records. We only have video evidence of when he was ACTUALLY COMPETING to KNOW for sure that he wasn’t smoking at that time.
But I’ll bet that he was high during all his interviews this week. He probably sparked all up international style in the olympic village.
There shouldn’t be anything wrong with it. It shouldn’t be against the law. It’s not like he’s A-Rod with his multi million dollar contract earned by taking steroids WHILE COMPETING (ie cheating). This guy was relaxing. The government is not set up to protect people from themselves.
ThackerAgency on February 11, 2009 at 1:54 AM
Michelle, fire this idiot and do whatever it takes to get Bryan back.
Jim708 on February 11, 2009 at 4:59 AM
Hah rough justice. Some idiot took that picture and posted of Phelps with the bong. They later told a press reporter.
An unsued bong is not illegal, but the residue of pot will prove that it was used for smoking pot.
The local sherriff did indicate he was going to investigate since it happened in his jurisdiction. he may indeed arrest Phelps based on the eb=vidence.
It just shows the wisdom, don’t take picture of illegal stuff and post them for the world to see.
RAH on February 11, 2009 at 6:16 AM
If the seizure of the bong was legally handled and if the bong contains any residue of dope, I would be surprised if the owner gets it back. Can we consider his $100,000.00 up in smoke?
SKYFOX on February 11, 2009 at 6:23 AM
I’m assuming – I’m praying – you don’t have a law degree.
Newsflash: there is a veritable and proverbial mountain of evidence, by the legal definition of the term.
The photograph, witness statements, Phelps’ own statements, all evidence. Rather compelling evidence, actually. Let me give you a hint: a statement does not have to be explicit to be evidence. The weight given to a statement, and its interpretation, is up to the jury.
Although I’d suggest that the “maybe he meant tobacco! Yeah, that’s the ticket!” defense is so silly it would insult a jury into a conviction. They are permitted to reach a verdict based on the totality of circumstances, even when all evidence is circumstantial. And you don’t get much stronger circumstantial evidence than a picture of a guy smoking a bong who later apologizes for smoking whatever was in that bong.
Whether the evidence will – or should – lead to a conviction, whether prosecutors should pursue the case, whether we should actually punish this behavior … all open for reasonable debate.
But to argue “there is no evidence?” That’s simply factually inaccurate, by both the legal standard and any common sense standard.
Professor Blather on February 11, 2009 at 6:34 AM
Someone forcing ya to read and comment on certain blogs or certain threads?
JetBoy on February 11, 2009 at 6:39 AM
Totally agree that yeah, Phelps smoked a bong hit. But ya just can’t arrest someone, days or weeks later, because of one picture like that taken at a party.
Same as if I had a picture of you with a shotgun in one hand, and holding a dead duck upside-down by it’s feet in the other. That picture doesn’t prove beyond a shadow of doubt that you killed that duck…or even that it’s dead at all.
JetBoy on February 11, 2009 at 6:47 AM
Okay, since some of you apparently are more interested in doing drugs than understanding what you’re offering an opinion on–”proof” and “prosecution” are the jobs of courts. Lawyers have to prove beyond reasonable doubt in order to convict.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with law enforcement. Law enforcement has to do with probably cause and, in some cases, reasonable suspicion.
While having your picture taken in a pose suggesting that you’re breaking the law doesn’t prove that you have, it does constitute a reasonable suspicion that you have–and probable cause for search and arrest.
q2600 on February 11, 2009 at 7:37 AM
Nope. You?
Moron
Jim708 on February 11, 2009 at 7:45 AM
The conservative principles of good judgment and discretion. The kid took a couple hits off a bong. He did not kill anyone. The evidence is scurrilous at best and I doubt admissible. Do you really thing police officers and prosecutors pursue every violation of the law? They don’t.
Blake on February 11, 2009 at 8:01 AM
Arrest them all, prosecute them all, put them all in jail if convicted. Very simple. We have current drug laws, if broken, then prosecution is warrented. If you disagree with the laws, change them, but until then we must enforce them and make as many pay as possible.
If we refuse to enforce the law in this case or other pot cases, then why enforce the laws on bank robbery or illegal immigration? We can not, nor should we be, selective in enforcing our laws. Throw them all in jail, send a message, then go round up all the frickin wetbacks and ship thier sorry asses back.
Mark Garnett on February 11, 2009 at 8:27 AM
Stay classy.
And smile…Life’s really too short to go through it as a bitter troll.
JetBoy on February 11, 2009 at 8:36 AM
You’re nuts.
Blake on February 11, 2009 at 8:40 AM
Exactly what is your gripe with Allahpundit over this article?
Blake on February 11, 2009 at 8:46 AM
I see your point, and I have nothing at all against pot smokers. But I’m pretty sure that he can prosecute this if he wants, and I have no reason to believe, as JetBoy does somehow, that Phelps is suddenly going to declare that his “regrettable action” was appearing in public with the lamest beard evah.
That was regrettable. But he was smoking a bong, too.
Jaibones on February 11, 2009 at 8:49 AM
True. But it would appear that this sheriff is going to prosecute this one.
Jaibones on February 11, 2009 at 8:50 AM
If you disagree with the CURRENT LAWS, change them… Make pot useage legal, fight for what you believe. I will be fighting AGAINST you and your kind. Break the law, go to jail, IF CONVICTED IN COURT! We have drug laws, they were broken… end of story…
Your the nut, probably too much dope.
Mark Garnett on February 11, 2009 at 8:51 AM
I still can’t figure out how he can have a case tho. It would be different if the police raided the party and caught people, and Phelps, smoking dope.
But how can you arrest someone for smoking days or weeks prior, based on a single photo?
JetBoy on February 11, 2009 at 8:56 AM
legalize mary jane and tax the hell out of her just like ciggybutts.
Phelps could be the first spokeserson for Camel Locos or Winston Wired.
After all won’t this produce jobs and add to the tax base /sarc
Burgher on February 11, 2009 at 9:04 AM
Ridiculous.
Disturb the Universe on February 11, 2009 at 9:06 AM
Weed should be legal. But it is not. It is illegal. When you do something illegal and get caught you pay the price.
watson007 on February 11, 2009 at 9:10 AM
When you consider the scenario of a policeman catching a speeder, and writing him a warning rather than a ticket, do you get pissed thinking that that police officer has been given the legal authority to use his own discretion about whether to write the speeder a ticket or not? It’s clear that the speeder was breaking the law, correct? In your opinion, is it right that any speeder could ever not receive a speeding ticket when caught speeding?
Do you believe that every speeder should be given a ticket, not a warning, when pulled over? Would you argue that every officer who at times gives speeders warnings instead of tickets doesn’t care about speeding at all? If not, why not?
Bizarro No. 1 on February 11, 2009 at 9:13 AM
Subscribe to Reason! The latest issue had an article about the war on marijuana paraphernalia. Tommy Chong spend a good bit in prison for that.
Mark Jaquith on February 11, 2009 at 9:17 AM
I have a strong suspicion that the people arguing along these lines are the same people who argued that Bush shouldn’t be prosecuted for violating surveillance laws while president. Maybe there were terrorists in Phelps’ bong! He was just smoking them out of their glass cave!
Mark Jaquith on February 11, 2009 at 9:20 AM
The difference? No one kept our country safe smoking a bong. In fact just the opposite. The mexican cartels that this stuff comes from are brutal quasi terrorist organizations.
Mr. Bush has been vindicated.
Burgher on February 11, 2009 at 9:30 AM
Personally, I think Phelps deserves an incredibly harsh criminal penalty because he hasn’t only harmed himself by letting himself get pictured with that bong, he has forced the police to spend all these hours doing an investigation that they could productively have been spending at one of the Columbia Dunkin’ Donuts instead, and he has set a horrible example for all the children who have looked up to him as a role model. Shame, shame, shame on you, Michael Phelps!!!
‘Intoxication is bad and wrong and intolerable, unless the gov’t approves the intoxicant!’ Honestly, there isn’t a single, worthwhile difference between the Prohibitionists of the 20′s, and the legalistic anti-marijuana crowd of today. The same kind of arguments, the same kind of prejudices, the same self-righteous moralistic streak.
No self-respecting Conservative can live with such BS for long.
Bizarro No. 1 on February 11, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Sorry, whackjob. I don’t do drugs. Apparently, you do. I have no need to change the laws because I think for the most part they are being enforced just fine. Once again, no prosecutor or police officer pursues all crimes. It’s called discretion. And they definitely should not file charges that they can not prove in court. The fact that you insist that you do tells us you have no logical argument and are bit of a fascist.
Blake on February 11, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Now watch it blow up in his face.
Blake on February 11, 2009 at 9:55 AM
I can… and I’m HARD CORE! Look, as I have said… CHANGE THE FREAKIN LAWS if you don’t like them… Elect people that will do away with our current drug laws… I’m not a prude… I have, in my past, BURNED ONE or two or twenty. I’m talking from a law point… Should we allow bank robery because we could ALL use some cash atm, and hell, it’s OUR TAX MONEY in the bank anyway… We are just getting it back.
Mark Garnett on February 11, 2009 at 9:58 AM
He doesn’t. Wouldn’t be the first time a case went to pieces before it got out of the starting gate.
Blake on February 11, 2009 at 9:58 AM
A bit of… Nope, full blown! Love America, hate crime and crimanls fascist… Hate gang bangers, illegals, most Politicians and unions… So, your point was?
Mark Garnett on February 11, 2009 at 10:00 AM
We can tell! Because of your BIZARRE use of CAPITALIZATION and overuse of EXCLAMATION marks and your improper use of the ELLIPSIS!!!
Blake on February 11, 2009 at 10:02 AM
That you’re a whackjob.
Blake on February 11, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Allah, ban this idiot and do whatever it takes to get ManlyRash back.
MadisonConservative on February 11, 2009 at 10:11 AM
I notice you didn’t answer my previous post to you about speeding tickets and warnings. After reading this response here, I would be surprised only if you had! You are not self-respecting, in my book. You are too irrational to know what it means to be.
“HARD CORE”? Ha!!! “HARD CORE” what? Anyone who believes it’s ok to be in the business of deciding for other adults what they can and cannot ingest into their own bodies is a fascistic control freak who doesn’t understand what “freedom” means.
Bizarro No. 1 on February 11, 2009 at 10:15 AM
I support our drug laws. But how they are enforced I will leave up to the police and DAs. However, all this nonsense over a photo of some kids taking a hit off the bong that can’t be proven in a court of law is insane.
Blake on February 11, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Steroids = ok ?
Cocaine = ok ?
Meth = ok ?
Mark Garnett on February 11, 2009 at 10:31 AM
He’s hardcore like this.
He’s an internet warrior. Not kidding, he likes the idea.
MadisonConservative on February 11, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Saying “I support our drug laws” doesn’t convey much by itself. If you had said you support their legal right of existence but find some, if not all, of them immoral, that would be more descriptive, if that is your actual position. I can tell you that that’s my position.
On one hand, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for Michael because he used poor judgment. On the other, I say that his use of poor judgment in this case shouldn’t result in criminal prosecution. What good would be accomplished? Oh, to remind everyone that marijuana is a bad substance, worse than alcohol, and that everyone must be persecuted for every criminal violation s/he commits, no if, and, or buts! I get it!!! Whew!!!
Our country is far too hysterical when it comes to sex and drugs, and for the sake of Civilization, and Conservative government, it should stop. NOW. It is a bad joke that people labeling themselves Conservative support the idea that gov’t should regulate what adults do with their own bodies, as long as these adults are not directly affecting someone else physically. It morally isn’t the gov’t's business to tell people they unequivocally can’t smoke crack. Of course, many self-described Conservatives confuse “self-righteousness” with “morality”, and use power in various forms to enforce their ‘moral’ POV onto everyone. It rises to an unacceptable level of badness when ‘Conservatives’ start using the law to coerce their own personal moralities onto people’s private lives.
If more on the Right understood what I am saying here and stopped acting like big government Lefties, we wouldn’t have to be so concerned with people like Pelosi being SotH, Reid being SML, and Obamessiah being PotUS.
Bizarro No. 1 on February 11, 2009 at 11:23 AM
I tend to come down on the law and order side, when the rules are followed by law enforcement and prosecutors. I don’t have a problem with drug offenders going to jail. I watched two of my brothers go to prison for that and I only felt sorry for their wives and kids. Of course the self-interested side of me is happy to have received two warnings when I could easily have been ticketed for speeding. I don’t think that makes me a hypocrite, just situationally lucky. Whatever happens to Michael Phelps, my life won’t change, so his fate is way down the list of things I care about. Like was said before, if you don’t like the drug laws, work to change them. The incessant whining about it is starting to wear thin.
SKYFOX on February 11, 2009 at 11:27 AM
Your whole line of reasoning seems to be based on a false premise, and that is the claim that the laws are based on forcing one groups “morality” on another group.
How did you arrive at that conclusion? I know it makes for an easy black/white argument, but how accurate is it? I’m guessing that the same idea applies to all drug consumption?
Itchee Dryback on February 11, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Steroids, cocaine, and methamphetamine are already ‘ok’ as in they can be used legally under certain circumstances, but I get your real point.
Yes, I think they should be legal, but not without some restriction at this point in time. We could look to alcohol, a potentionally, but not necessarily, dangerous substance to others when ingested, for an example of how to handle other similarly dangerous intoxicants/drugs.
We have plenty of overwhelming evidence from Prohibition and elsewhere that outright bans are counterproductive. Hearing people say that the Drug War hasn’t been a miserable failure and thus should continue while being tweaked reminds me of Commies who say that real Communism hasn’t been implented anywhere yet and thus should be given more chances before the idea is allowed to die!!!
Bizarro No. 1 on February 11, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Sir, as usual you are correct. I do like it, because I’m right on with my rants and my projections. When you hit it out of the park, most of the time, you can strike out on occasion.
Mark Garnett on February 11, 2009 at 12:07 PM
haha! :)
You know how it goes, but I do have to judge him for myself. I bet he is not as bad as you believe – I think he’ll be fine once he gets his emotions out!
Bizarro No. 1 on February 11, 2009 at 12:18 PM
How would that work? Sketch it out.
Apples and oranges.
The people who are saying the drug war is “a miserable failure” are most likely not the ones who call for it to continue with a few tweaks, so it doesn’t seem like an accurate point to try and make.
Actually, it seems that you’re making the case for “tweaking” failed policies of the past. Drugs used to be legal and the problems that evolved lead to the drug laws..you seem to be implying that we should try that again…only “tweak” some restrictions on their use this time and see how that goes. The laws that allow “real freedom” haven’t been implimented yet, and should thus be given one more chance before the idea is allowed to die.
Itchee Dryback on February 11, 2009 at 12:20 PM
“law and order” side? I find what you are saying here to be more apt than you appear to realize.
Would you consider it an injustice, a violation of law and order, that you didn’t get the speeding tickets you ‘deserved’ instead of the warnings you did receive? If not, why not?
Bizarro No. 1 on February 11, 2009 at 12:29 PM
It’s style that MadisonFauxConservative hates, not substance… He can’t argue that my rantings have been dead nut on correct. I have warned about being to wussified, warned that we would be fighting terrorist in our own streets, warned about the comming of Socialism. He, as you, hate my “caps”, my spelling and my passion for America. He hates that I preach to any and all that will listen, as did ManlyRash and as does Bishop, about our need for real Conservativce values. My fights against unions, welfare, illegal immigration and cuts in our military. I’m a huge Rush fan, love Mark Levin, not a fan of Hannity. I’m a proud Conservative that does not ever again want a big tent. So if my “caps” and bolds and style outweights my correctness and substance, then BITE ME! And go over and join the Messiah and get the hell out of my, and other real Conservatives, way as we take back America. I’ll take substance over style anyday… I’ll take freedom over oppresion and oneness and “rules” of blog etiqute…
The Internet Warrior
Mark Garnett on February 11, 2009 at 12:30 PM
What always confuses me on this matter is the relative societal treatment of tobacco smokers compared to other intoxicants.
It just seems obvious to me the marijuana and alcohol are much more dangerous, and therefor subject to possible government regulation than tobacco is. My suspicion is that the ability to extort large amounts of money from the tobacco companies is part of the answer. (Not that I have a lot of sympathy for the tobacco companies).
My thoughts on the drug war is that I don’t like either of the two extreme positions. I think it is important to keep certain substances illegal, but that enforcement and punishment should be proportionate to the crime.
1: Recreational use of Alcohol should be illegal
2: Alcohol and Marijuana use/distribution/production should be punished by requiring offenders to go around picking up trash and so forth. (Not “community service” which is a little to nebulous for me.) They should not receive jail time (beyond the drunk tank that is). This is misdemeanor stuff, not felonies. Criminal organizations that are making this a part of their business should get the RICO act involved and all go to jail. (The difference between the Mob and a bunch of amateur moonshiners should be clear).
3: Harder drugs: Cocaine, Heroin, Speed, ect. Should be punished similar as outlined in #2, but with the addition of corporal punishment for users along with mandatory participation in drug treatment programs. Illegal production of these harder drugs should be a felony. Again criminal organizations like gangs should have the law crush them (although I don’t even see why we need to use drug laws to go after these groups- the way I see it freedom of assembly does not protect belonging to a criminal organization that regularly conspires to break laws).
4: All drugs should have permitted use for medical reasons- as proscribed by doctors.
5: All the current violations of the Constitution done in the name of the drug war needs to stop (particularly the confiscation of property without conviction of the owner).
The goal of making drugs illegal and contraband is not so much to eliminate it, but to make it uncomfortable and unacceptable behavior, and so reduce it’s occurrence.
Drugs are dangerous to liberty. That’s why I think it makes sense to make many of them illegal (outside of medicinal use). However, most of it is misdemeanor behavior- not felony. That I think was the mistake, is this escalation of the Drug War.
Of course, alcohol will not be made illegal again, but really, for consistencies sake it ought to be.
Sackett on February 11, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Actually, no.
He had a pound of packaged weed in his house and a couple other things. I believe they were his sons and he took the hit. It made him some decent money in the long run.
The paraphernalia was a lesser charge. Just sayin’
Itchee Dryback on February 11, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Funny how you laud my posts and points, agree regularly, and then call me a “faux” conservative. That would make you a “faux” conservative as well. I am a conservative. So are you. However, you can be a conservative and still be a dick, as you prove.
I don’t hate your passion for America, nor does posting in an obnoxious, screaming, ranting manner equal passion. You seem to be confused on that point.
Yup, especially since you’re preaching to the choir. The problem is that instead of discussing the manner with your fellow believers, you shout at us like you are some sort of authority on conservatism, which you’re not.
In other words, you’re a diehard isolationist who is not looking to ever win an election again. Ronald Reagan is the most admired president in history because the majority of Americans are conservative in more ways than they are liberal. Your elitist attitude turns them off.
So unless we’re willing to put up with your obnoxious, boorish, spittle-spewing, lunatic raving, we should be liberal? Get the hell over yourself.
The fact that you equate blog etiquette (and apparently, spelling) with oppression is very telling that you’re just a dick.
Yes. Yes, you are. Be proud of that title.
MadisonConservative on February 11, 2009 at 1:01 PM
He’s done that numerous times, and returned to his old ways time and time again. He arrived, spamming across posts with copy/pasted comments, never turning off caps lock or bold, and has managed to scale that back about 20%.
MadisonConservative on February 11, 2009 at 1:03 PM
LMAO
Jaibones on February 11, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Let me rephrase that slightly so it’s more precise and accurate: Your whole line of reasoning seems to me to be based on what I consider to be a false premise, and that is the claim that the laws are based on forcing one groups “morality” on another group.
My stance is that laws are supposed to be implementations of genuine morality, but most often aren’t because too many politicians and their supporters confuse self-righteousness with morality. That is one reason we have so damn many of them!
This is a rather simple exercise!
You in no doubt understand that legality does not necessarily reflect morality. Laws should be moral, but they often aren’t. I give you slavery laws in the US at 1800 as an easy example.
Since it’s clear that all laws are not moral ones, I’ll point out that a law cannot be truly moral if it’s applying a personal preference instead of an objective principle, or if it is applying an objective principle inconsistently. From that, I’ll say that drug laws are not based on any particular principle of concern for harm, because if they were, alcohol would presently be being demonized at least as much by the same people who demonize marijuana and other illicit intoxicants. Funnily enough, during Prohibition alcohol was more demonized than marijuana! How do you like them apples!!!
So, since concern for harm isn’t truly the underlying issue of drug laws like many of their proponents claim, what exactly is the real issue? I’ll argue that popularity i.e. personal taste is the real issue. The legal enforcement of personal tastes upon others is not an example of genuine morality, so I further say that drug laws which don’t also apply to alcohol are not moral.
Would you like to try to contradict any of my points and argue differently?
Bizarro No. 1 on February 11, 2009 at 1:14 PM
I love you too…
:)
Mark Garnett on February 11, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Yes, your right I do agree with a great many of your posts. The FauxConservative tag came after the Internet Warrior tag if you’ll recall… It was my attempt to be funny as was your poke at my “screeming” caps, ect. So I can stop using that, it didn’t fit your actual stance on most subjects. But trust me, I’ll find one… rofl!
Good point, agreed and thanks. But I’ll take being a dick (loud and proud) over a wuss anytime. I think it does show passions when you post rational thoughts in a PASSIONATE way. ROFL, I just had to do it…
Agree to strongly disagree, your watered down, Dem lite version of Conservatisam is the reason we’ve lost ground, not because we’ve been too strong on Conservatisam. Rush is dead on right with this, so am I…
Your insistance that everyone type in a style that you like or find correct seems to be a bit overbearing, but yet I’m the dick. Just simply pass over my posts. And btw, I’m on ManlyRash’s site too and have had two posts singled out for ManlyPraise, but I have yet to see you post anywhere on his site. So why would you want him back? He’s more of a hard core dick about non-big-tent Conservatisam then I am…
Yes I really want to thank you for it… I use it with pride and will continue to, maybe you could get royalties as it becomes more and more popular as the revolution gears up…
Mark Garnett on February 11, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Of course what I was saying was just my opinion of the crux of your comment.
You, on the other hand seem to be stating what you believe is a fact, i.e. that laws are based on morality, and in your opinion, they are not being consistent with that belief. Thats your belief.
I think that is a false premise. If you could provide some evidence to support your premise I’d probably find it interesting.
What is that stance based on?
I agree that enforcement of laws don’t necessarily seem to reflect “morality” at times. It’s usually more complicated than that though.
For the rest, I’m not sure the entire country would agree with your definition …or anyones definition of what constitutes “moral”. Thats why balances are struck that society as a whole can agree with.
Again, the whole world view you paint is one of your own making, so its no surprise that you find it convincing.
My argument would revolve around believing that your interpretation of what constitutes “moral” is not the gold standard determining the writing of statutes, or that comparing the past to the present should be a factor in making blanket statements regarding unlike substances and their associated problems and the effects on society.
At this point it seems like the cost/benefit ratio is not there to jump through the complications that would be necessary to legalize pot for no other reason than a certain % of the population could get a “pot buzz” and not be fined. Just not worth it imo.
Itchee Dryback on February 11, 2009 at 1:46 PM
It’s not a style I like. It’s standard text. It’s like going into a bar and talking to people. What you are doing is equivalent to banging open the door of a bar, getting in everyone’s face, and screaming at the top of your lungs. Then, when a person like me points you out as obnoxious and a dick, you act like my proposal that you communicate in a normal manner is “overbearing”.
Great. You go ahead and live in your own world. You’re the sane one, everyone else is crazy. On a site like Kos or DU, that might be true. Here? No. You’re the loon.
MadisonConservative on February 11, 2009 at 2:28 PM
I am only going to give a rough sketch here, because my main point of concern is the immorality of drug criminalization itself. How rough? I don’t have much more to say now other than the gov’t regulates the manufacturing of alcohol, and its sale. Do the same for other drugs. Maybe some should be available via prescription only?
I admittedly haven’t given this much thought, nor have I cared to, because it isn’t all that important of an issue to me. Not yet at least.
Saying that shows that you have greatly misread and/or misunderstood me there – I didn’t come close to making the point you believed I was.
Allowing all drugs to be legal was not a ‘failed’ policy – it was the embodiment of real freedom, which existed in this country, drugs-wise, before too many busybody control freaks got the legal power to interfere with the people’s pursuit of happiness.
I condemn the thoughts and perceptions of those who in regards to the Drug War believe that it hasn’t been a miserable failure. The Alcohol Prohibitionists were overthrown when enough people understood the price being paid for Prohibition was too high. Now, it’s the Neo-Prohibitionists turn!!! It’s just going to take more work – the Neo-Prohibitionists are more obstinant, for various reasons.
The issue isn’t complex – either a person has authority over her/his own body, or someone else/others do. Freedom isn’t about others having control over others’ bodies; that’s the antithesis of freedom. Freedom is the power to do whatever you want with your own body as long as it doesn’t directly affect anyone else’s in an unwelcome manner. If you refuse to understand and accept this, you are a Leftist, intellectually at least.
Bizarro No. 1 on February 11, 2009 at 2:49 PM
That would be an incredibly complicated and expensive thing to try to implement and enforce.
For what?..so a % of the population can get a ‘pot buzz’?
Thats false.
What are you basing that on?
Condemn what you like, its a free country.
That doesn’t make it factually accurate imo, in fact you’re making a claim that has no definition, and without that, it could go around in circles endlessly.
How do you define “miserable failure”? In relation to society in general, and it would be better for the majority of non-drug users to put up with a bunch of mentally and emotionally dented zombies screwing up their daily lives and imposing their dysfunction on their pursuit of happiness?
Whats the point? Some fundamental, religious like, bitter clinging to a philosophical ideal that runs contrary to the majority of people in the society…the same majority that basically funds the running of that same society?
Bullshiit!
Different time..different circumstances..different society.
If you’re really going to make that case, then you seem to be arguing that any and all drugs be legal.
The closest you’ll get is decriminalization, and good luck with that. Even though drug supporters are more vocal with more types of media to awash people in, for the most part drug use is declining in most places.
You’re just bitter and clinging to anachronistic beliefs, gathering in groups in places where you feel comfortable, and feeling an antipathy to those who are different. You’re a member of a minority.
s/
Stating the position is not complex, but trying to implement it into the real world would be a cartoon reality.
That borders on a fundamentalists religious perspective in its absolute claims. At least that the way it seems to me…real black/white. A false dichotomy.
Itchee Dryback on February 11, 2009 at 3:49 PM
If your 20% figure is accurate, that does show improvement, doesn’t it? :)
My thought is that even if a self-proclaimed Rightie is being irrational on the outside, her/his heart is where it should be underneath it all, and that should be where the rest of us focus. From my experience, it produces positive results to do so.
I like Reagan’s 11th Commandment as a good rule to follow in general, and believe that it should apply to Conservatives as well as Republicans (heck, I think it should extend to everyone who shows a willingness to be civil).
Bizarro No. 1 on February 11, 2009 at 4:29 PM
I read what you said here, and it’s clear to me that you are having a hard time understanding the difference between objective and subjective morality. Drug laws are based upon subjective morality, as in they are based not upon any objective, consistent, rational standard of what is right, but rather what drug prohibitionists feel is right.
People who willfully push their own feelings of what they believe is right onto others aren’t expressing freedom, but fascism. It doesn’t matter if they accept that premise or not – truth speaks for itself on the matter
Bizarro No. 1 on February 11, 2009 at 4:40 PM
You seem to be having a problem understanding that I see no evidence that the drug laws are based on “morality”, either subjective or objective.
What don’t you understand about this?
Ummmm…yeah..Thats kinda my point.
Itchee Dryback on February 11, 2009 at 4:52 PM
“false dichotomy”, eh? LOL
If I already hadn’t seen that you didn’t understand that freedom is like non-pregnancy, this would have done it for me. If you believe a person can be free while someone else/others has authority over her/him, you should ask yourself why Thomas Jefferson struggled with slavery as he did.
You should take the time to learn the difference between “codependence” and “independence”. It’ll be good for you (and others around you) in the long run.
Bizarro No. 1 on February 11, 2009 at 5:12 PM
You are one of the most confused people I have ever seen on a message board!!! It’s so bad I feel like I am trying to have a rational discussion with Joy Behar!!! :)
Bizarro No. 1 on February 11, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »