NOTW
The glass pipes are generally used to smoke cannabis.
And after sporting chiefs announced laws which mean four-year bans for drug-taking, Phelps’ dreams of adding to his overall 14 gold medal tally at the 2012 games in London could already be OVER…
Spokesman Clifford Bloxham offered us an extraordinary deal not to publish our story, saying Phelps would become our columnist for three years, host events and get his sponsors to advertise with us.
In return, he asked that we kill Phelps’ bong picture. Bloxham said: “It’s seeing if something potentially very negative for Michael could turn into something very positive for the News of the World.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. 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
Apparently money and fame are the most corruptive drug.
Whattatool he’s turned out to be.
anniekc on January 31, 2009 at 6:25 PM
Apparently money and fame are the most corruptive drug.
Whattatool he’s turned out to be.
anniekc on January 31, 2009 at 6:25 PM
What a dope!
“When the bear has it too good, he goes dancing on the ice” ~ ~ grandma
Entelechy on January 31, 2009 at 6:26 PM
In this age of camera phones you would be a fool to do anything illegal whether you are famous or not. But especially if you are famous.
Sounds like the guy has really been cutting loose after years of training. I kind of feel bad for him.
mrsmwp on January 31, 2009 at 6:27 PM
what’s so wrong about this?
the article makes it sound like he killed someone.
Xolom on January 31, 2009 at 6:30 PM
Doesn’t even look like him.
Still, yawn. A guy his age getting high? Real stunner.
JammieWearingFool on January 31, 2009 at 6:33 PM
I think the guy deserves to relax and toke up at this point. Does anybody really believe that he didn’t ever smoke before he won 8 gold medals? What does this prove other than that pot isn’t really all that big of a deal? Legalize and lets move on.
libertytexan on January 31, 2009 at 6:33 PM
When I think of what you would have caught me doing at 23 if I had his money and fame…
trubble on January 31, 2009 at 6:34 PM
Oh my god. One of the greatest athletes in the world uses a drug that produces pretty much the same high that alcohol does. Let’s crucify him.
Please. That’s his vice? Put your pitiful little stones away, folks.
MadisonConservative on January 31, 2009 at 6:35 PM
I can only imagine his awesome lung capacity. Dude could probably drop a monster hit.
JammieWearingFool on January 31, 2009 at 6:37 PM
All this proves is that he is human.
dglenn on January 31, 2009 at 6:40 PM
Well, he sure as hell ain’t no hero.
misslizzi on January 31, 2009 at 6:42 PM
You can always tell the loser libs when a story like this breaks out: They have no morals or integrity, so they just don’t care.
The guy is a role model and represents America, and he is not supposed to use drugs. Period.
Gabe on January 31, 2009 at 6:42 PM
We sure haven’t come very far from the old “Reefer Madness” hysteria days. Obviously if so many “potheads” can function so spectacularly in this world, it’s not much of a problem at all.
Legalize it. Stop the madness.
califcon on January 31, 2009 at 6:42 PM
My first thought.
I’ll hold my comments like I usually do on things like this.
Although this time around I’m not going to defend him or jump on those that do hammer him. I’m tired of getting burned.
That being said, it ain’t just the stoners down the street growing the pot. A lot of it is imported. And usually transported by the same illegals that people here get freeked out about. I hope the ones defending pot aren’t the same ones supporting Ted Nugent. He’d have a few choice things to say to you.
- The Cat
MirCat on January 31, 2009 at 6:44 PM
LOL, post of the day. Nicely done.
nickj116 on January 31, 2009 at 6:45 PM
We knew he was human, this proves he is a dope smoking human.
tlynch001 on January 31, 2009 at 6:46 PM
You’ve hit the real reason this story broke.
- The Cat
MirCat on January 31, 2009 at 6:46 PM
So honestly, what are the pros/cons of legalizing it?
nickj116 on January 31, 2009 at 6:46 PM
Maybe he can hook up with Obama’s brother and they can compare bong notes.
Oldnuke on January 31, 2009 at 6:47 PM
A twenty year study has shown that if you smoke dope your children are born naked.
tlynch001 on January 31, 2009 at 6:48 PM
Off the top of my head, it seems like it would create lots of jobs and the taxation potential has to be significant. Plus take away the profit motive behind some of the Central & South American crime syndicates operating in our country.
califcon on January 31, 2009 at 6:49 PM
Honest question here:
In what sense, exactly, is marijuana a performance enhancing drug?
anybody?
anybody?
really?
Scribbler on January 31, 2009 at 6:50 PM
That is too funny!
mrsmwp on January 31, 2009 at 6:51 PM
He’s a pothead?
The role model angle is valid. This guy has let his fame go to his head. Young people need practically zero reason to rationalize potentially life changing behaviors. Maybe he drove himself to the next event…no big deal, he’s just kickin’ back. He may claim he didn’t ask to be a role model, but sorry, it comes with the territory.
The guys a dipshit.
I thought they put him back in his tank at Sea World.
Itchee Dryback on January 31, 2009 at 6:52 PM
He’s supposed to be an American Hero, the least he could do is follow our laws, even the stupid ones. Instead he goes around dating strippers and smoking dope.
A pretty good metaphor for the state of this country if I ever saw one.
jimmy the notable on January 31, 2009 at 6:52 PM
We don’t really want to legalize pot just because it’s popular with kids, or that some people can function well on it. I know alot of people who pretty much dropped out of the whole world when they got “into” getting high in the 70’s. They’re still getting high, but moved up from the basement when their parents died and left them the house.
One works for a supermarket chasing carts, another “sweeps up” at a machine shop, another drives a taxi…not a good showing for pot smokers who at one point were able to get into a good university.
stonemeister on January 31, 2009 at 6:54 PM
I think the sports orgs ought to get back to concentrating on PERFORMANCE-ENHANCING DRUGS, of which pot is not one. This is ridiculous.
It’s interesting how we can have a coke snorter for our new Precedent but go into a tizzy over the greatest swimmer ever having a hit off a bong. Priorities.
progressoverpeace on January 31, 2009 at 6:55 PM
It would be best to “have” neither of these on the top of any heroes list.
misslizzi on January 31, 2009 at 7:03 PM
While I am in favor of legalizing dope, this is still a crime until it is. But more to the point, it reveals that athletes are not heroes or role models or any of that garbage the media grinds out.
keep the change on January 31, 2009 at 7:05 PM
It’s against the law to date strippers! Damn!
Oldnuke on January 31, 2009 at 7:05 PM
Next thing you know, he’ll be running for President of the United States…oh, wait.
PappaMac on January 31, 2009 at 7:08 PM
It’s amazing how these phony, so-called conservatives don’t get it and are making excuses for the dope Phelps.
He is a role model and he represents America, and drugs are illegal. This story will definitely be in Iran and throughout the Middle East: Look how weak and stoned Americans are. His sponsors need to drop him. He is embarrassment and a loser.
Gabe on January 31, 2009 at 7:10 PM
25 years ago, I’m pretty sure it helped with my sex life…but then again, who knows. I might have been under the influence.
PappaMac on January 31, 2009 at 7:11 PM
I’m sorry, but I’m not convinced that the guy with the bong is actually Phelps.
JannyMae on January 31, 2009 at 7:11 PM
But Americans DO use drugs, lots of them. Very few Americans don’t drink alcohol which is one of our more highly addictive substances. Want to see how addictive? Try and never have another drink again, exactly. Lots of Americans also smoke cigarettes which contains a drug called nicotine, do I have to tell you how addictive and potentially destructive to ones health that drug is? Americans also happen to love caffeine a stimulative drug. And yes, lots and lots of Americans, including this one, enjoy marijuana on occasion. And while I’ve seen people act silly stoned, and laugh alot stoned, and possibly make love with their partners stoned, I’ve never seen anyone raped/beaten up/get into an angry fight while stoned. I think we all know the role alcohol can play in those three things. Our society’s hypocrasy is ridiculous.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 31, 2009 at 7:13 PM
ummm…I doubt it.
Itchee Dryback on January 31, 2009 at 7:14 PM
I’ve done both. Didn’t do any irreparable damage.
Am I missing something here? How can anyone be shocked the guy may like to party? I’ve spent enough time around athletes, including world class swimmers. News flash: A lot of them like to party.
Sure as hell hasn’t hurt his performance.
JammieWearingFool on January 31, 2009 at 7:15 PM
What part of “role model” don’t you understand? Do you even know what that means? Sheesh, you are dense.
jimmy the notable on January 31, 2009 at 7:15 PM
Too funny. And what are you, a phony, so-called liberal?
I would think that if this was really Phelps, “breaking Olympic rules,” that we would have heard something about it in our media by now.
This story could be totally false and it would still be all over “Iran and the middle east.” The Muslim world is a gigantic propaganda machine that doesn’t need this kind of fuel to condemn us Western infidels.
You’re a tool.
JannyMae on January 31, 2009 at 7:17 PM
How many billions a year do state governments throw away prosecuting drug offenders that could be used seeking out methlabs? How many billions a year do state governments throw away housing non-violent pot heads in prison? How many billions a year does our government waste trying to stop the black market for drugs to no avail? We’ve had minimum sentences, and other draconian Rockefeller laws on the books for nearly 4 decades and drug use has continued 100% unabated. Conservatives are usually good at hunting down waste in government spending pointing out that money spent on poverty programs (which pales in comparison to money spent on drug prosecution/interdiction) have not alleviated poverty. The war on drugs is even less succesful in eliminating drug use and drug addiction, but that’s not considered government “pork”? Explain please?
DeathToMediaHacks on January 31, 2009 at 7:17 PM
He’s not just some “athlete.” He’s supposed to represent America on the world stage. There was a time when Olympians were held to a higher standard. I guess that time has passed. That’s what I meant when I said this display is a sad metaphor for the state of America.
No, I’m not surprised by anything anyone does anymore, because the symbol of America doesn’t mean sh!t even for the man who holds the most Olympic medals in her name.
jimmy the notable on January 31, 2009 at 7:18 PM
I’m all for legalizing pot. It’s second only to corn as America’s largest cash crop. Imagine the taxes!
So, Phelps decides to blow a couple bingers at a party. Whoopy! If it were anything else like snorting or injection drugs, that’s a different matter.
Nothing wrong with some bong hits. I do it often myself…and look at me? Sharp as a tack!
JetBoy on January 31, 2009 at 7:19 PM
NOT. THE. POINT. Do you see anyone in here saying that smoking drugs is explicitly a bad thing to do? Olmypians should be held to a higher standard than just your average moron.
jimmy the notable on January 31, 2009 at 7:19 PM
What part of “can’t parents do the work on their own” don’t YOU understand. Michael Phelps didn’t ask to be a role model, like most amazing athletes he has a combination of rare genetic gifts and a desire to win. None of those, apparently, effected by getting drunk/stoned with his friends in his 20s. You’re telling me a kid who wasn’t going to try weed because of Phelps is now going to? I say….so what? It’s a hell of a lot less dangerous than alcohol.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 31, 2009 at 7:19 PM
Not true in the least. Drug use has dropped significantly. Its still very prevalent, but less people use.
jimmy the notable on January 31, 2009 at 7:20 PM
This is more serious then you know. Look at the enlarged picture. Whats that in the bottom of the bong?
It’s the piss Chr!st isn’t it?
BL@KBIRD on January 31, 2009 at 7:21 PM
If it’s not a bad thing, then how can it be part of a “higher standard”. Clearly you are arguing that it IS bad. Why is this drug worse than alcohol. I’m using your hierarchy here.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 31, 2009 at 7:22 PM
Numbers please.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 31, 2009 at 7:22 PM
Roll model.
exception on January 31, 2009 at 7:23 PM
Very true, though I have the idiot messiah at the top of my traitors list, and his coke snorting was the least of his very serious problems.
My point about Phelps and pot smoking is that the sports organizations have no business in dealing with pot-smoking, since it is not a performance enhancing drug. Regular drug laws are supposed to be enforced by the government and the sports orgs’ drug arms ought to keep their noses out of it.
Now, if they want to file pot smoking under the same clause that they would use against anyone who committed a crime (in order to ban them) then that is fine. But to have pot be in the same category as HGH is just insane and makes no sense whatsoever. If anything pot is perfomance suppressing.
progressoverpeace on January 31, 2009 at 7:23 PM
If he’s getting drunk on a regular basis as well, then I have a problem with that, too. I’m not saying pot is any worse than alcohol. It isn’t.
Higher standard means that you are supposed to be able to ignore all of the petty vices of life because you have dedicated yourself to something more important, namely, your country.
When did this guy ask to be a role model? When he decided to join the UNITED STATES Olympic Team. There is a certain level of responsibility that comes with that that doesn’t come with just being an average Joe Shmo citizen.
jimmy the notable on January 31, 2009 at 7:25 PM
Too funny. Uh oh, here come the pleasure police…
Dr. Manhattan on January 31, 2009 at 7:25 PM
So, because he worked hard and excelled as an athlete and won a fistful of gold Olympic medals, he should be punished by having his freedoms curtailed? What a load of crap that is.
califcon on January 31, 2009 at 7:26 PM
Jimmy the Notable,
Obviously a lot of so-called conservatives don’t get it because they evidently don’t know what high standards are and what role models are supposed to be. Therefore, since they have no standards, they excuse the dope Phelps’ behavior.
I guess it turns out that Phelps is just another Bode Miller, except with a few medals: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/2006-11-15-ski-team-rules-notes_x.htm
This excuse of Phelps behavior is just another sign of America’s decline as it copies the lack of morals of weak, liberal Western European countries.
Gabe on January 31, 2009 at 7:29 PM
<a href=”http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/03/20080301.html“>National Drug Control Study
jimmy the notable on January 31, 2009 at 7:30 PM
This has nothing to do with “morals,” Gabe.
califcon on January 31, 2009 at 7:30 PM
Thank you for supporting me. Its sad that a lot of people here don’t get it.
jimmy the notable on January 31, 2009 at 7:31 PM
That link is bad, btw, go here:
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/ndcs08/index.html
jimmy the notable on January 31, 2009 at 7:32 PM
The postings on this thread explain so much-
anniekc on January 31, 2009 at 7:32 PM
The pleasure police? Did you read the article? According to the article, if Phelps was actually partaking of an illegal ddrug, then he is ineligible for the Olympics for four years. Do you honestly think that Phelps would take that kind of risk? I don’t believe he would, but if he did, then he deserves whatever comes to pass in that regard.
JannyMae on January 31, 2009 at 7:32 PM
Bingo!
misslizzi on January 31, 2009 at 7:33 PM
So, because he worked hard and excelled as an athlete and won a fistful of gold Olympic medals, he should be punished by having his freedoms curtailed? What a load of crap that is.
califcon on January 31, 2009 at 7:26 PM
Hey dumbsh*t- If you take the endorsement money, and you present yourself as America’s hero, you better walk the line. It doesn’t help that the guys’s a sleezeball.
anniekc on January 31, 2009 at 7:34 PM
Here are some deeply conservative clean living American youth and how they will be watching the Super Bowl.
Now what do you want, Phelps types or these types.
BL@KBIRD on January 31, 2009 at 7:34 PM
Heh. Guess we’d better forget about fielding a snowboard team next time, too.
califcon on January 31, 2009 at 7:35 PM
I am. Smoking drugs is a bad thing to do, whether you are Phelps or anyone. So I guess I’m the pleasure police, huh?
Chalk me up as having lost respect for Phelps if he actually was stupid enough to smoke dope, but I’m not ready to trust that “photo” and the “anonymous” source of a scandal sheet as gospel.
You may resume your, “all college kids smoke dope,” justifications now. I’ll wait until this questionable story is confirmed before engage in any more conjecture.
JannyMae on January 31, 2009 at 7:36 PM
Babe Ruth was a notorious drunk, even played drunk and hung over. I guess nobody told him about this “hero morality” bs, eh?
califcon on January 31, 2009 at 7:37 PM
Well he can kiss the Speedo and Wheaties money good-bye.
sherry on January 31, 2009 at 7:37 PM
Thats a valid point.
Itchee Dryback on January 31, 2009 at 7:38 PM
The Olympic Committee has rules. If he broke them, then that’s his responsibility. His freedoms curtailed? What a load of crap THAT notion is.
JannyMae on January 31, 2009 at 7:38 PM
I give up…how many?
Bullcrap.
Itchee Dryback on January 31, 2009 at 7:43 PM
I would argue that if he had drunk less, he would have been an even better role model. He would have lived longer and would have gotten the opportunity to teach even more young people about the great game of baseball. He also probably would have played longer and wouldn’t have had as many of his records broken by Barry Bonds. But he, on the other hand, never asked to be a role model. He just happened to be really good at baseball. He was never a member of an organization that represented our country. If his employers didn’t have a problem with his drinking, then so be it.
jimmy the notable on January 31, 2009 at 7:43 PM
So, because he worked hard and excelled as an athlete and won a fistful of gold Olympic medals, he should be punished by having his freedoms curtailed? What a load of crap that is.
califcon on January 31, 2009 at 7:26 PM
His freedoms? You asshole. If you want, I can post story after story of teenage kids who ram their cars into telephone poles after they’ve been out having “freedoms”. Do NOT lecture us on what is right- It is illegal. It (currently) is not a freedom. You idiotic asswipe.
anniekc on January 31, 2009 at 7:44 PM
Whats your point? That things were different in the past? You’ll find few arguments on that.
Itchee Dryback on January 31, 2009 at 7:45 PM
Amen.
Ha! “Stops Phelpsing my weed, bro.”
Tzetzes on January 31, 2009 at 7:47 PM
I just don’t happen to think that being an outstanding athlete or musician or author creates a moral obligation for a person to suddenly be a “role model” and have to live up to anyone else’s expectations. If this is, in fact, a picture of him, then he will deal with the repercussions vis a vis his sponsorships. But that’s money, not morals.
califcon on January 31, 2009 at 7:47 PM
Are you arguing against yourself? It seems to be.
Itchee Dryback on January 31, 2009 at 7:47 PM
Am I the only person in the world who wants proof this is actually Phelps?
Speakup on January 31, 2009 at 7:49 PM
Back when Craig Kilbourne did the Daily Show, he used a one-liner that has stuck with me through the years:
Some snowboarder had his medals yanked after he tested positive for mary jane, but they were restored shortly thereafter; The IOC decided that pot is not a performance-enhancing drug, unless you play the bass.
hicsuget on January 31, 2009 at 7:50 PM
Even if you don’t agree with the war on drugs (I can’t say that I do agree with it), read through the .pdf file on the page that I linked, its fascinating how much documentation they have on this stuff. They’ve got cocaine prices vs cocaine purity, # of meth labs. Its not just one long “Bush says drugs are bad without any numbers to back it up” article.
jimmy the notable on January 31, 2009 at 7:52 PM
Stop druglords. Cut expenses. Raise taxes on the biggest cash crop in the US.
Legalize it.
justfinethanks on January 31, 2009 at 7:53 PM
Whether this will hurt his career depends on whether he is a democrat or a republican.
katy on January 31, 2009 at 7:55 PM
Phelps also was arrested with a DWI back in 2004. Sounds like this kid has some issues.
Enoxo on January 31, 2009 at 7:56 PM
That’s what the bong is for, dear!
He was just a few years too late…in another (recent) time, he could have bought his weed from Osama Obama. And maybe shared it with him, too….
I’m not going to condemn anyone for taking a few bong riffs. Over the next few years, such escapes from reality are going to spread through the populace.
MrScribbler on January 31, 2009 at 7:59 PM
Fallacy.
Itchee Dryback on January 31, 2009 at 8:03 PM
Where exactly? I’d rather have pot money going to American farmers than international drug lords. Plus we are needlessly spending tons of money that could go to national defense, or even better, cutting income taxes.
And this is besides the fact that drugs laws are thought laws in the most literal sense. They are illegal because they alter your thinking, not because they are destructive. It’s perfectly legal to eat bacon and doughnuts every day. Every freedom loving person should oppose drug laws with the same fervor they would oppose laws against thinking bad things about the president.
justfinethanks on January 31, 2009 at 8:10 PM
You’re comparing an athlete to a friggin’ musician or a writer?
Come on. Olympians are in fact in a class of their own, and its a class that requires excellence and respect of their bodies.
Musicians and writers…not so much. The excellence of music or print, for the most part, blows hither and yon with the subjective whims of the culture or the effectiveness of marketing.
Itchee Dryback on January 31, 2009 at 8:11 PM
I’m just glad there weren’t camera phones when I was in college. . .
rbj on January 31, 2009 at 8:12 PM
Pot absolutely can enhance performance. So, Phelps has sacrificed his future as competitive athlete in sanctioned events.
My bet is that he eventually clocks times, while under the influence of weed, that beat his Olympic times. Then what? People will be clamoring to know whether he was smoking the Purple or the Hawaiin Kush.
The Race Card on January 31, 2009 at 8:13 PM
The Race Card on January 31, 2009 at 8:14 PM
Dickweed, drunk driving is no joke. What’s your problem?
The Race Card on January 31, 2009 at 8:15 PM
Dickweed? Is that an Indica or Sativa strain?
The Race Card on January 31, 2009 at 8:16 PM
While the face doesnt’ look like him, the watch sure looks expensive (and like a girls)…
PresidenToor on January 31, 2009 at 8:22 PM
It depends.
If the suggestion is that growing would be strictly prohibited in all but government sanction operations, you have a hugely expensive process and a petri dish for corruption and at the very least a ridiculous amount of bureaucracy.
Even though that way has some protective frameworks, the end result is still a failure, as they’re finding in Holland. Even though drugs were never legal in Holland, and strictly regulated, they are finding that organized crime and the accompanying violence took over and they are now in the process of drastically cutting back on the number of shops that can sell cannabis. Mushrooms are being made illegal altogether.
If you’re suggesting zero regulation and anyone can grow, then organized crime has an even easier time.
The idea that drug laws are “thought laws” is silly in my opinion.
Itchee Dryback on January 31, 2009 at 8:26 PM
Hey, he’s just doing what our President
doesdid, emulating a great Americanherozero.J.J. Sefton on January 31, 2009 at 8:28 PM
That line is hysterical.
Dork B. on January 31, 2009 at 8:31 PM
Doing drugs is stupid. The War on (Some) Drugs is even more stupid.
It’s been a complete waste of time and money, and has only enriched the drug lords, expanded the criminal class, and undermined our liberties.
The GOP needs to get on the right side of this issue and call for and end to Prohibition 2.0.
It’s the conservative thing to do.
Besides …
Things forbidden have a secret charm.
–Tacitus
Rae on January 31, 2009 at 8:32 PM
You know what’s amazing?
That the kid apparently indulges in one of the most low-potency drugs (maybe once, maybe more), and yet somehow still managed to become a hero.
Maybe we should take a lesson, focus more on their accomplishments and achievements, and less on their personal habits.
MadisonConservative on January 31, 2009 at 8:34 PM
Drugs were too strictly regulated in Holland. It drove up the price and made gave organized crime an incentive to get involved.
Do they not teach history in school any more? When was the heyday of Organized crime in America? Before, During, or After the prohibition of alcohol? The less regulated something is, the cheaper it is. And the cheaper it is, the less incentive there is to risk engaging in illegal activity to produce and distribute it.
Then you haven’t really thought it through. If the government made it illegal to smoke cigarettes, you’d cry fascism. If the government made it illegal to think wacky thoughts, you’d cry fascism. But when the government makes it illegal to smoke something that gives you wacky thoughts, you call it “good policy.” It’s nonsense. If you think that it should be legal to have wacky thoughts without weed, there’s no reason you think it should be illegal to have wacky thoughts with weed.
justfinethanks on January 31, 2009 at 8:37 PM
By the way, I wonder how many here would take a look at one guy who lies around all day, doesn’t get a job, and lives off his parents…then look at a successful businessman who does a joint once in a while…and probably see the former as less of a “loser”.
I notice there are no articles about how much alcohol he drinks. Why isn’t anyone concerned about this guy being a drunk? If we get a picture of him with Rolling Rock in hand, will he get the same treatment?
MadisonConservative on January 31, 2009 at 8:37 PM
Wait, wait, a kid his age getting high!!!????/ Oh, noes!!!
What a shocker!!@!!!!! Oh, wait…..
mjk on January 31, 2009 at 8:42 PM
I guess his insane diet during the Olympics can be attributed to the munchies.
Grafted on January 31, 2009 at 8:44 PM
What were you confused about…or wondering about?
Itchee Dryback on January 31, 2009 at 9:06 PM
How on Earth did this story get 100+ comments in the Headlines?
Let me guess: Phelps is a douche nozzle who ought to be a better role model vs. we shouldn’t be judgmental cuz he’s so young and why are you so uptight, anyway?
Did I get it right? If not, somebody toss up the Cliff Note version.
Professor Blather on January 31, 2009 at 9:15 PM
Only in the drugged mind.
Itchee Dryback on January 31, 2009 at 9:16 PM
That was a hilarious article! It read like something out of the Onion. It’s totally believable, but at the same time, it’s like the writer is trying too hard.
And of course he smokes pot. He’d have to, to work up the appetite to sit down and eat 15,000 calories a day!
Sign of the Dollar on January 31, 2009 at 9:19 PM
He forgot to add weed, alcohol, and a DUI. Lucky for him he has the genetics of a fish, abnormally high metabolism, and did great in spite of doing the wrong things. He seems to be taking for granted all that he was lucky to be born with.
He just had to hold it together and “make due” till 2012! He had all the women/sex he wanted, freebies, fame, alcohol, parties, and obviously could eat all he wanted of whatever he wanted…….but just HAD to take an illegal drug?
Only an unhinged idiot would think hitting a bong would be worth losing all the other good stuff. Most of us regular Joes know that we can’t have that $hit in our system in the business world, so we don’t take the chance. What’s wrong with this guy?
The tired ole’ debate about whether pot should be legal has no relevance to this article whatsoever. Only a pothead is dumb enough attempts that debate with their employer to avoid a random drug test at the office.
nottakingsides on January 31, 2009 at 9:22 PM
This I can agree with to a certain degree, depending on the circumstances. It depends on what those personal habits are though.
It would be a sliding scale in the real world.
Unfortunately, imo, an Olympian is kinda on the wrong end of that scale for applying the basic “anything goes as long as you show up for your job and accomplish the task” fudge factor.
Itchee Dryback on January 31, 2009 at 9:22 PM
It’s illegal to date strippers now? Are they subhuman or something?
Sign of the Dollar on January 31, 2009 at 9:25 PM
If your premise is that drugs aren’t a problem the government should be concerned with, why can’t you get out of one sentence before suggesting they increase their persecution of meth producers? You can’t have your hash brownie and eat it too.
Sign of the Dollar on January 31, 2009 at 9:29 PM
I’d take the opposite stance. Athletes perform great physical feats, but writers and artists can accomplish far more through the achievement produced by their minds. They don’t merely perform, but create.
Sign of the Dollar on January 31, 2009 at 9:40 PM
Drugs were too strictly regulated in Holland. It drove up the price and made gave organized crime an incentive to get involved.
Bullshit
Do they not teach history in school any more? When was the heyday of Organized crime in America? Before, During, or After the prohibition of alcohol? The less regulated something is, the cheaper it is. And the cheaper it is, the less incentive there is to risk engaging in illegal activity to produce and distribute it.
History?..do they teach it? Yeah some form of it, whether its always accurate or not is another topic. That being said, I think you’re living in the past and laboring under some misconceptions…possibly the product of a history class you’ve taken or someones interpretation of history.
The heyday of organized crime is now. The influence of traditional concepts of organized crime coupled with the addition of very organized gangs and their influence in all aspects of criminal activities from the traditional business crimes and extortion and protection rackets, have now spread into previously unheard of areas and levels of involvement in everything from copyright infringement and intellectual property theft to human slavery and child prostitution.
Then you haven’t really thought it through. If the government made it illegal to smoke cigarettes, you’d cry fascism. If the government made it illegal to think wacky thoughts, you’d cry fascism. But when the government makes it illegal to smoke something that gives you wacky thoughts, you call it “good policy.” It’s nonsense. If you think that it should be legal to have wacky thoughts without weed, there’s no reason you think it should be illegal to have wacky thoughts with weed.
You’re possibly thinking about it too much…or possibly isolating individual activities and making them seem to have basically innocuous effects on a society. Drugs have more of an effect than “giving wacky thoughts”. If you are not thinking it through any farther than that, that may be part of the confusion.
No I wouldn’t cry fascism in either of those examples. Actually only one makes any sense imo.
justfinethanks on January 31, 2009 at 8:37 PM
Itchee Dryback on January 31, 2009 at 9:47 PM
But shouldn’t that be the standard? Apart from doing drugs that give you some sort of edge over others, like sports people doing steroids, what difference does it make? If people rise to excellence, and continue to stay at excellence, and become a role model in terms of achievement, but they happen to drink or do drugs or whatever, then obviously those activities did nothing to hinder them or hold them back from accomplishing great things.
Should the message be that you should indulge in these habits in order to emulate his success? Of course not. However, the picture in question was taken of him in his private life, not what he endorsed. He endorsed Wheaties, for Christ’s sake. Now, if he were using his stardom and fame to start publicly arguing for drug legalization, I could see people getting upset. He’s not, though. If anything, his biggest endorsement has been eating like a horse. Sadly, lots of Americans have taken that advice, but haven’t gotten around to the exercise yet.
MadisonConservative on January 31, 2009 at 9:55 PM
lol. You just outlined the basic parameters of any philosophical/ideological discussion.
Itchee Dryback on January 31, 2009 at 9:56 PM
Of course. Sex is dirty, and going out with strippers reminds America that sex exists. Therefore, it must be outlawed, along with porn and video games and rock music and all the other temptations dropped on the earth by mmmmmmmmmmmmSATAN???
MadisonConservative on January 31, 2009 at 9:58 PM
I understand what you’re getting at, but the accomplishments of creativity that musicians or writers achieve are subjective. Not so much with a physical feat and a clock.
Itchee Dryback on January 31, 2009 at 9:58 PM
It’s basic economics. You don’t see anyone making illegal bathtub Gin anymore, because legalization has made gin much easier and cheaper to get in your local store.
That certainly would be surprising to Al Capone. Prohibiton made him a very wealthy, very powerful man, along with a ton of other mob bosses. Today, pot prohibition makes Mexican drug lords extremely powerful and wealthy.
What affects are talking about? It’s not a crime to be lazy, it’s not a crime to harm your body, and it’s not a crime to hallucinate. But when people think pot does these things, they think that it’s somehow OK to ban it. It’s total nonsense. There is simply not a single logical reason to ban dope.
If you wouldn’t cry fascism if the government started regulating certain kinds of thoughts, then you just don’t believe in fundamental freedom to begin with.
justfinethanks on January 31, 2009 at 10:00 PM
Plus: Anyone who ever smokes marijuana is a pothead vs. If you haven’t smoked it you don’t know what you’re talking about duuude.
Both sides suck, but the former sucks more. Well, okay, technically the latter sucks on bongs more. Well..whatever. Shut up.
MadisonConservative on January 31, 2009 at 10:00 PM
When was the last time you watched Jesse Owens win the gold medal at the 1936 games? And when is the last time you listened to a song or read a news article?
It’s fallacious to think that subjectivity renders anything less valuable or meaningful.
justfinethanks on January 31, 2009 at 10:03 PM
First an agnostic and now this? You know, you don’t HAVE to sit on the fence on every issue.
justfinethanks on January 31, 2009 at 10:04 PM
At least, no more so than the all of the other winners of eight or more Olympic gold metals.
FloatingRock on January 31, 2009 at 10:05 PM
I know what you mean., and in a completely sane world that may be the case, but not only is the world not completely sane, its really really nuts.
When inspiring someone..most often the young..I believe its best to er on the side of stressing the basics, not only of the basics of the skill of the task, but the basics of the character needed to excel.
If a priest is reeally good at priestin’…but has this little peccadillo about diddlin’ the choir….well, then it might be a good idea to pass on to the young, the idea that maybe diddlin’ and priestin’ don’t mix all that well.
Just that role model thing and personal responsibility exceeding personal desires.
Itchee Dryback on January 31, 2009 at 10:12 PM
I never meant to imply that. Don’t know how you arrived at that conclusion.
I just pointed out that the creative worth of endevors like music and writing are subjective.
Itchee Dryback on January 31, 2009 at 10:18 PM
You’re right. I should just take a side on every single issue out there, even if I don’t fully agree with it. Conviction and passion should be based on belligerence rather than a solid argument and knowledge to back it up.
If it annoys you, don’t read.
Is it really fair to compare pedophilia to smoking some weed? You seem sensible about this, so the question is rhetorical. If the guy were touching kids, I’d be outraged. If a priest were taking a hit, I’d have about as much outrage as I do about this. Does the Bible even cover the smoking of herbs? I know the Muslims are real sticklers about it.
MadisonConservative on January 31, 2009 at 10:20 PM
By the way, you seem confused, because I was basically saying that the position you’re against sucks more.
MadisonConservative on January 31, 2009 at 10:22 PM
This is true. Its a completely different topic.
Itchee Dryback on January 31, 2009 at 10:26 PM
I wasn’t comparing the two. Not by any stretch.
It just seemed to strike the most direct line of reasoning that I was trying to express without over complicating things.
Itchee Dryback on January 31, 2009 at 10:33 PM
Define drugged. Caffeinated? Sugar-addled? Backed up with toxic hormones from mad cows? Buzzed on Red Bull?
Energy drinks are very interesting in this discussion. Red Bull, Monster, Rock Star sponsor many sporting events. Soda, Gatorade and other sugared substances are consumed regularly, but no consideration is given to their effects. What effect do Wheaties have on you? Is that with or without added sugar?
Your average person is going to perform worse under the impairment of any illegal drug and/or alcohol. But you’re basically relying on anti-drug propaganda to believe that a bong hit, muscle relaxer or even a swig of beer is going to impair every person’s performance. Some people’s nerves are their barrier.
You can’t make such a sweeping determination without consideration for the length of an event, the specific effects of the drug and the proximity in between consumption and performance.
The Race Card on January 31, 2009 at 10:36 PM
Get real. Many athletic events require the ability to innovate and create while performing.
I’ve been blessed with a circle of friends and family that contains world class athletes and performers. You’d be surprised how much overlap there can be between the two worlds.
You also ignore the inherently creative athleticism of dance, board sports, various martial arts, gymnastics, etc.
Finally, all artists do not create, some in fact do perform. Some simply perform works created by others. A studio musician just plays what they’re told and they play it the way their client wants them to. There’s often little creativity and it’s as rote an act as you tying your shoes. Same goes for portrait painters and other artists hired because of their skill, not their creativity.
The Race Card on January 31, 2009 at 10:48 PM
Just checking, that’s what I figured anyway. I do understand your point, I just think it’s an injustice in this world. I haven’t done pot, I don’t plan to do pot, but I know enough about it to know that the thing has been wayyy too demonized, and the hardcore opponents of it usually are working off of 80 year old yellow journalism that is the same stuff that we get today about cigarettes, about video games, and about all these other vices that neo-temperance groups just lap up.
MadisonConservative on January 31, 2009 at 10:48 PM
The bullshit comment was in reference to your claim of the problems in Holland being the result of over regulation.
It’s basic economics. You don’t see anyone making illegal bathtub Gin anymore, because legalization has made gin much easier and cheaper to get in your local store.
It not so easy to make market quality booze. (And though its legal, it very controlled by regulations. Laws made it much much more expensive, and not cheaper.) Maybe back in the day people would drink it, but not anymore.
That certainly would be surprising to Al Capone. Prohibiton made him a very wealthy, very powerful man, along with a ton of other mob bosses. Today, pot prohibition makes Mexican drug lords extremely powerful and wealthy.
That really doesn’t address the point I was trying to make, which was about your claim that the heyday of organized crime was in the past. That is wrong. It is now.
Mexican drug lords, or anyone else for that matter involved with organized crime gangs would not suffer any less wealth or power if marijuana was legal. They would simply change their avenue of crime for a while. They would not vanish from the marijuana trade.
Effects from various levels of drug use vary with the individual, but you’re talking about two different things.
“Crimes” are not “Effects”
I think you’re just being abstract. Not that theres anything wrong with that.
Now I know you’re just being abstract.
Itchee Dryback on January 31, 2009 at 10:57 PM
RE: the picture there’s no proof from that photo that he’s smoking anything. It’s the classic pre-spark posture. But, I don’t see any smoke. I don’t see any exhalation.
On the other hand, he could be smoking tobacco, hash or crack.
Pretty dopey.
The Race Card on January 31, 2009 at 10:59 PM
I’d define drugged as a condition that exists when your body chemistry causes a change in various chemical make ups that affect your physical systems and mental perceptions, and your thought patterns and reasoning ability, whether perceived by the individual or not, and this change is caused by a substance introduced into your body by any means either intentional or accidental.
Two completely different groups.
Drinks like Red Bull, Monster etc, have stimulants in them that are very different than just sugared drinks, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to compare. Simply because they may be sponsored at sporting events is really neither here nor there as far as the topic goes.
Well..no, thats not true at all.
You seem to be moving the goal posts of the discussion to now include anyone and everyone and a random laundry list of substances.
Ideas like “Some peoples nerves are their barriers” really makes no sense…do you mean high strung people need to mellow out?…or low struung people need a bit of a “wake up”…….and barriers to what?
What sweeping determination is that?…and what event are we suddenly talking about?
Itchee Dryback on January 31, 2009 at 11:22 PM
This is totally false. The main source of income for the mafia was booze, and only during prohibition. Ending prohibition didn’t make them go away, but it crippled them and hurt their income stream. The same is true with pot. Prohibtion doesn’t work with booze or with pot. People still use it, except the money goes to shady criminals instead of American workers.
I have yet to hear you offer one single good reason why pot should be illegal. Why should it be a crime in the first place? All anyone offers is a big, nanny state “it’s bad for society,” which is one stupid slippery slope.
I’m not. Drug laws are thought laws. They tell you that you aren’t allowed to have the kind of thoughts that a certain drug gives you. It’s shameful and immoral.
justfinethanks on January 31, 2009 at 11:27 PM
Well we agree on that.
Itchee Dryback on January 31, 2009 at 11:27 PM
+1
exlibris on January 31, 2009 at 11:27 PM
Itchee Dryback on January 31, 2009 at 11:39 PM
This is totally false. The main source of income for the mafia was booze, and only during prohibition. Ending prohibition didn’t make them go away, but it crippled them and hurt their income stream.
That statement doesn’t address the point I was trying to make, which was about the heyday of organized crime, and your claim that it peaked in the prohibition era…..not sure what the problem is.
Seeing that pot is illegal, your claim is just a guess. Pot is not alcohol.
How would “the money” go to American workers? You mean like the rules and regs and oversight agencies that control the pharmaceutical companies? I assume you mean there would be licenesed distribution outlets etc.?
Here’s one. Its a powerful mind altering drug who’s effects are almost impossible to regulate. 1 toke of a fresh Skunk and you’re f’ed up in a matter of seconds. This is completely different than having a glass of beer. I don’t want to make it even easier for someone in that condition to be driving down the road in a 18 wheeler..or wiring my house, or dispensing my families medications. I also don’t want them working on my property and trying to sue me when their drug encrusted synapes cause them to fall off my roof.
Maybe you’re not being intentionally abstract, but that doesn’t mean the ideas you’re trying to express are not an abstraction. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one. I can’t wrap my mind around the idea that someone nodding out while trying to find a vein is a “thought crime”
Itchee Dryback on February 1, 2009 at 12:02 AM
It is a guess, but it is a reasonable guess based upon sound economic theory and historical precedent.
Someone would have to grow it, distribute it, sell it. Countless jobs would be created in the farming, manufacturing, marketing, and retail fields.
You can go down to your local pharmacy and get tons of “mind altering” drugs over the counter. This is a terrible reason. There is nothing illegal about having an “altered mind,” nor should there be.
DUI is already illegal, as it should be.
All employers should maintain the right to conduct drug tests before doing any hiring, just like they can now with drugs and booze, and I am of course in favor of tort reform.
It sounds like you’ve got nothin’. You have absolutely no rights over the bodies of your fellow citizen, and therefore have no rights to tell them what they can and can not put inside that body.
You just admitted that your biggest beef with drugs is that they are “mind altering.” In other words, they change their thoughts a little TOO much for you with the help of drugs. If you oppose other people altering their mind, you are in favor of persecuting thought crimes. It’s terribly simple.
justfinethanks on February 1, 2009 at 12:17 AM
You forgot the jobs in regulating, policing, and licensing, testing for adulterants, disposal of old product, buyers lists and identification, records of amounts purchased to comply with laws governing sales, inspection and monitoring of licensed growing facilities etc.etc.
Man with that kind of overhead a guy could almost black market the stuff and make some real money with no hassle.
Me?? This has nothing to do with me. The laws are made with the consent of the governed, through the due process and the legislature. That process has been followed and the laws enacted. Thats how it works.
Don’t know what you’re getting at there.
Irrelevant to this topic, and no more factual than your opinion..or anyone elses opinion.
Well..actually no.
You seem to be generalizing badly.
Your definition of “mind altering” is just that..your definition. Its not mine.
I’m concerned with one’s perceptions being altered…and then trying to function among people who’s perceptions are not altered, and then engaging in activities that can endanger the lives of others.
This has nothing whatsoever in common with a “thought crime”..whatever that is.
What is that? Is someone driving down the road with their lights off at night just a thought crime when they run someone over?…does it matter if they “thought” it was O.K?
Anywho…I’m out for the night. Thanks for the discussion, its been fun.
Itchee Dryback on February 1, 2009 at 1:05 AM
You know what screw the UK and their news media.
sonnyspats1 on February 1, 2009 at 1:09 AM
They still make moonshine illegally too. When was the last time you bought that instead of going to your local retalier to buy beer or wine? When markets are left free, they push the black market crap to the side.
But when laws infringe upon personal liberties, they are immoral and need to be repealed.
My definition of “mind altering” is anything that “alters” your “mind.” What’s yours?
How on earth do you equate getting stoned alone in your home with running someone over? It’s a thought crime because it changes your thoughts and harms no one else. When you do actions that endanger the lives of others, that is another matter entirely whether or not drugs are involved. It’s totally fallacious to equate drug use with endangering the lives of others.
justfinethanks on February 1, 2009 at 1:14 AM
I don’t think much of Michael Phelps’s swimming ability. I know he’s the fastest, but someone has to be the fastest. If he could dive into the water, catch a tuna, drag it to the boat, bring it home, and cook it, I’d admire him. If he could swim up to a battleship, attach an explosive device to its hull, then swim away before it was detonated, I’d admire him. However, all he can do is swim laps in a pool, really, really fast. I don’t care very much.
Kralizec on February 1, 2009 at 4:42 AM
By the way, I wonder how many here would take a look at one guy who lies around all day, doesn’t get a job, and lives off his parents…then look at a successful businessman who does a joint once in a while…and probably see the former as less of a “loser”.
MadisonConservative on January 31, 2009 at 8:37 PM
I knew a law student at an Ivy League law school, who was editor of its Law Review, who enjoyed his toking habit and I thought he was a loser for it.
He’s a successful intellectual property lawyer now with a very beautiful family. Not sure if he’s still smoking, but I still think he’s a loser.
misslizzi on February 1, 2009 at 6:10 AM
Stop with the “pot is harmless” crap! It’s not! Talk to any drug counselor! Don’t talk to people who do drugs to find out if they are harmless! Good grief!
sabbott on February 1, 2009 at 6:12 AM
In my dream world…he’s catch alot of shit for it then comes out and says…”Hey, the “president” said he’s done this and coke, what’s your problem”
LtE126 on February 1, 2009 at 7:40 AM
I don’t know, probably as much as spent prosecuting drunk drivers.
Wade on February 1, 2009 at 7:54 AM
It might give you an advantage in a competitive eating contest? But then again, it might slow you down enough to lose that edge.
The outrage is ridiculous. I bet many of the people who huff and snort about how horrible pot is don’t feel the same way about alcohol. From what I hear, it’s pretty accessible – legally – in California these days, so I bet it won’t be long till it’s legal everywhere.
Ann NY on February 1, 2009 at 8:41 AM
Apples and oranges. Being drunk in itself is not a crime. It’s not until you get behind the wheel (which by the way DUI or DWI isn’t exclusive to alcohol) that you are breaking the law.
Ann NY on February 1, 2009 at 8:43 AM
No, it’s not harmless, but neither is alcohol and smoking. It’s how harmful is it, is the debate. The gateway drug argument has never been proven because by the standard used alcohol and cigarettes qualify as gateway drugs as well. There is no reason to treat pot any differently than you treat alcohol.
Ann NY on February 1, 2009 at 8:47 AM
I’m not convinced it’s even him (he has that crazy lantern-like jaw, and you’d think it would be more obvious), but secondarily — and I’m not an expert, here — there doesn’t seem to be any smoke in the bong…
Isn’t that required? For smoking?
Tanya on February 1, 2009 at 8:54 AM
Proving that every clock does indeed tell the right time twice a day, I have to agree with Media Huckster on this one.
Prosecuting people for possession of small amounts of pot is ridiculous. Not to mention a colossal waste of money.
angryed on February 1, 2009 at 9:05 AM