Phelps, guns, marijuana and beer

[molendijk]

Michael Phelps, winner of eight gold medals at 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, got a three-month suspension from the American Swimming Federation to participate in any official competition after the publication of some pictures of him smoking marijuana.
Comment:
In all American states, you can buy a gun (although, generally speaking, you have to meet certain requirements). In certain American states, the sole requirement for buying a gun is that you be able to stand on your hind legs. So any Swimming Federation having the moral right to punish Phelps is a non-American Federation. By the way, what would have happened if there had been a picture of Phelps drinking lots of beer?
===
Arie

[magicyte]

i bet it's a fake ('course, you probably already knew that...)

[molendijk]

i bet it's a fake
You're sure? He made his apologies.
===
Arie.

[magicyte]

wow. uh, on second thought.... :D

[magicyte]

Saw this: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977586350

changed my mind...

[Schmoopy]

It's ridiculous how people get so pent up about recreational drugs, like with Prince Harry when he smoked cannabis, why is it considered so bad? All evidence and experimentation suggests that weed has more advantages than disadvantages, the fact it's still not legal is just ridiculous. The media just focus on bad reports about people going crazy after they smoke it and becoming schizophrenic, what they don't mention is that people who develop mental illness actually have a disposition to it anyway, it's in their genes, and it's also very uncommon although the media makes it look like a regular occurence.

Then you look at alcohol, then you compare it to weed and it's just like, what the hell?! Weed -> Relaxes, makes people mellow out. Alcohol -> Can encourage anger, and makes people more confrontational, although they also lose inhibitions, which has good and bad points.

This story should just be reported on a back page, saying "Phelps, smokes..." : Yea he smokes, now you know. The end.

Not make a big thing about it, god damn I hate the Daily Mail >.<

[mburt]

Schmoopy has a very convincing argument.

[molendijk]

Schmoopy, I couldn't agree more.
===
Arie.

[Medyman]

I don't buy Schmoopy's argument. Maybe the "media" overreacts to cases of marijuana usage. But people who tout it's benefit use the same reactionary language. Just because it has limited therapeutic usage does not mean that it's beneficial.

The points about alcohol are also one-sided. Alcohol can cause some to become belligerent and angry. But it just as often (I don't know the exact relative stats) can have the complete opposite effects.

[Schmoopy]

The fact that is has some therapeutic usage at all is incredible in itself, it helps people with certain illnesses, like anorexia. There are others but that's all I can think of off the top of my head. Then we come to alcohol, oh, no benefits at all (relative to effects that cannabis has).

I mean you look at Amsterdam, where it's legal, there's no problems there - just a lot of scaremongering before hand but then when it was legalised nothing changed, it had no bad effects on society, if anything it improved it. No more illegal drug activity for smuggling weed into Amsterdam was necessary, sure there're other drugs that they'll smuggle in instead, but it cuts down any dealers that were present before. It can be taxed, the government can earn more money selling it and the public can be assured of sanitized weed that won't have foreign parts in it (plastic to fill it out).

In my mind, it's just banned because it's banned, so things carry on how they are, the government in the UK is too afraid to legalise it, and with the Daily Mail bashing it nearly every day they've brought about a stereotype for cannabis, meaning people will just dismiss is as a harmful drug because they see it every day as "Cannabis, how it ruined my life..." without stopping for a second to compare it to legal drugs such as alcohol and then realise it's really not all that bad.

[djr33]

Realistically, alcohol and cigarettes (and other tobacco) would be banned, except that they are legal at the moment and to change that would take a very serious pressure on the administration-- nothing that is possible at the moment. The lobbyists for those industries are powerful and the users of those drugs (yes, they are both drugs) are defensive about them. Marijuana isn't much more harmful, no, but it doesn't have the big (legal) following or advantage of being legal already and thus needing to be made illegal, rather than made legal-- change is hard, and keeping things the way they are, especially in a bureaucracy is easy. Also, during the prohibition it was proven more difficult to ban alcohol than to just let it be legal and at least have some control over the market that way.

I firmly believe cigarettes should be banned, at least anywhere where I can smell them. They're annoying and I don't think anyone has a right to smoke anywhere more than I have a right not to smell them.

Marijuana annoys me less because I encounter it less frequently; I suppose if it were legal and just as present (and annoying) I'd have about the same problem with it.

I don't have much of an issue with alcohol, I guess because it's not something that I must experience when others choose to use it, but I don't have any interest in it myself. Banning alcohol is low on my list, but I find its use to be pretty stupid, as with all recreational drugs-- if you need that to get through the week, then it's probably time to reevaluate your life; furthermore, I doubt that your life is at that point going very well or that said use will be a benefit to anyone in it. I actually wish that cigarettes were more deadly. That would be great. Anyone stupid enough to smoke them would either die or stop after about 3 times, and I'd no longer need to smell any of it.

Overall, the occasional use, as long as it doesn't get in my way, is just fine with me-- and I don't really care what it is. But people tend to abuse drugs too much, even if some don't, so on the whole it seems like banning them makes sense. There is really no benefit aside from momentary enjoyment, but just like roller coasters, the government would ban them if every 10th person fell out and died-- and so should be done here.

Any argument that cites the legality of alcohol and tobacco is a valid one-- but not for legalization of other drugs, rather the illegalization of those two.

But would I prefer to have people do whatever they want in their own homes and have me not need to deal with it? Sure. That's just fine... do cocaine for all I care, just don't get in my way because of it.


On the specific subject of Phelps, though, I think that's idiotic. With the amount of stress/pressure he's under, I'm not at all surprised he did something stupid... they don't need to take swimming away from him. Plus, it's not like smoking marijuana will help him swim better... that's a funny image... he's practically falling asleep sloshing his way through the water in an Olympic race.


EDIT: just something for thought-- I was pondering the other day as to whether smoking is a form of child abuse. In a household entirely filled with smoke, with children too young (or too subordinate) to do something about it, is that toxic smoke enough to be considered child abuse? Clearly the law is that it is not, but I don't see why not. If the floor had puddles of alcohol the children were crawling it, I think the government would not take that well... I'm not sure why the cigarette smoke is different.

[jscheuer1]

Just like during prohibition with alcohol, the government is now fighting a losing battle in the criminalization of marijuana and other drugs. I'm not sure how all of these drugs should be treated, many are very serious. But marijuana is on a par with booze (actually less of a problem, probably), so should be legal and taxed. Other more serious drugs should be evaluated on a case by case basis. A good model would be how these are dealt with in other countries where they are legal with restrictions. Like, if you are hooked on heroin, you can go to the government and get your weekly (or whatever) allotment of safe heroin and clean needles (not heroin cut with poison injected with dirty needles, as happens on the street). Most people who participate in such programs where they are established are productive members of society.

The thing that many people forget when contemplating the regulation of drugs is that each person is an individual. What would be devastating to one person is just what someone else needs. That is that these drugs alter the biochemical makeup of the body-mind thing. Some folks' body-mind thing is so far out of whack that being on a drug is good for them. In an atmosphere where true tolerance (not permissiveness) prevails, most individuals will find what works for them and in turn make a positive contribution to that society. There will be less crime, and authorities can turn their attention to truly serious offenses.

[molendijk]

I firmly believe cigarettes should be banned, at least anywhere where I can smell them. They're annoying and I don't think anyone has a right to smoke anywhere more than I have a right not to smell them.The smell is not the reason why smoking cigarettes in certain places is (being) banned in many countries. If it just were for the smell, I could equally well say:
I firmly believe certain perfumes should be banned, at least anywhere where I can smell them. They're annoying and I don't think anyone has a right to have perfume on their skins anywhere more than I have a right not to smell them.
The thing that many people forget when contemplating the regulation of drugs is that each person is an individual. What would be devastating to one person is just what someone else needs....In an atmosphere where true tolerance (not permissiveness) prevails, most individuals will find what works for them and in turn make a positive contribution to that society. There will be less crime, and authorities can turn their attention to truly serious offenses.Perfectly right.
===
Arie.

[djr33]

Perfume is different: it is meant to smell nice (even if it doesn't), and it is not toxic. "Smell" in my usage encompasses that it smells terrible and is dangerous as well. However, to me personally, the smell is actually more of a problem than the side effects, as I make an effort to avoid being anywhere near it, so the odds of me being affected by second hand smoke are low-- but I should not have to make that effort.
However, I think that certain habits with perfume should be banned as well-- nothing like going to a theater or some other public event and having to sit next to a cloud of "bubblegum makes me smell pretty" or whatever the current "pleasant" odor is.

I see no difference here than with someone playing music too loud-- it's invasive and they have no right to do it. Much as really loud music could potentially hurt your ears, odors can potentially hurt your nose, or, more realistically, give people with existing health problems other issues, like someone who has asthma.

[molendijk]

Perfume is different: it is meant to smell nice (even if it doesn't), and it is not toxic. "Smell" in my usage encompasses that it smells terrible and is dangerous as well.
That's not the inter-subjective meaning of 'smell'. Smell is just smell, and has nothing to do with danger. So condamning smoking by saying that cigarettes smell terribly is just saying that things having a terrible smell should be condamned. And that's precisely what I'm questioning here (things shouldn't be banned for that reason, in my humble opinion).

I think that certain habits with perfume should be banned as well-- nothing like going to a theater or some other public event and having to sit next to a cloud of "bubblegum makes me smell pretty" or whatever the current "pleasant" odor is.
See above.

I see no difference here than with someone playing music too loud-- it's invasive and they have no right to do it. Much as really loud music could potentially hurt your ears, odors can potentially hurt your nose, or, more realistically, give people with existing health problems other issues, like someone who has asthma.
You have to differentiate between what bothers you as an INDIVIDUAL (some people don't mind having a neighbor playing his music very loud; in fact, they might love his music) and what can be dangerous IN GENERAL.
===
Arie.

[djr33]

Yeah, but I've got a right to complain to the police if their music is too loud and invading my space. I don't see a difference.
Furthermore, this ISN'T just about smell-- that's just my main reason for it. It's also a health issue, and regardless of my individual reasons, that's a big general one.

And no one has a response about smoking as child abuse?

[jscheuer1]

How about children as adult abuse? My one child is grown and thankfully doing well. Must I be subjected to other people's children?

[djr33]

Haha, what? Don't have kids if you don't want 'em, and don't go where kids are-- that is-- public places, etc. Should screaming babies be kicked out of movie theaters? Yes, of course... forcefully if needed. But in general, use common sense-- stay away from playgrounds and the like.

[jscheuer1]

Stay away from perfumed ladies.

[djr33]

I completely agree.

(I like how this thread has now turned into something almost completely nonsensical.)

[molendijk]

... Furthermore, this ISN'T just about smell-- that's just my main reason for it. It's also a health issue...
I agree, but you mentioned the smell yourself, as something that should be taken into consideration. You said:
I firmly believe cigarettes should be banned, at least anywhere where I can smell them.

(On a side note: I like the ladies, perfumed or not, smoking or not).
===
Arie.

[jscheuer1]

djr33,

Lock your windows, bolt the door. If you go out, there is no telling who or what you may encounter.

[djr33]

But as much as I can legally protest someone rubbing him/herself against me in public, I think that the smoke is a violation of my space. It's beyond just annoyance as well, for aforementioned health issues.

Molendijk, what I said, "at least anywhere I can smell them," defines not the act of smelling but rather the locations in which the smoke reaches my nostrils. Those are also exactly the same locations where they should be banned for health reasons. If I smell cigarettes, it's a bad thing, either because of the terrible odor or for health reasons, but they are connected. I do believe as well that the smell is reason alone to put an end to smoking where it is bothersome to others, but the health argument is a stronger one (and one I believe in as well), so both or either, whatever, as long as it means both problems are solved. Much like Al Capone being finally charged due to tax evasion, that's good enough, as long as it gets the job done. By odor or by health risk, I'll be content....

[molendijk]

But as much as I can legally protest someone rubbing him/herself against me in public...
But what if that person is a beautiful 'she'?


Molendijk, what I said, "at least anywhere I can smell them," defines not the act of smelling but rather the locations in which the smoke reaches my nostrils. Those are also exactly the same locations where they should be banned for health reasons.
Then the smell is only an indicator of danger, not the danger itself. But, of course, if you could prove that tobacco-smell = danger (which I doubt), then you're right.


I do believe as well that the smell is reason alone to put an end to smoking where it is bothersome to others
DJR,
No, non, nein, nee, njet! I could use that argument to put an end to the presence of dogs where they are bothersome, to the presence of perfumed ladies where their perfume is bothersome, to the presence of certain old folks where the clothes they wear are bothersome (sometimes, old folks have a certain smell around them) etc.
===
Arie.

[djr33]

But what if that person is a beautiful 'she'?Of course, but as my choice-- certainly even if I generally wanted that, there are occasions when I would choose to not have that: when I am out with my parents, or my girlfriend...


Then the smell is only an indicator of danger, not the danger itself. But, of course, if you could prove that tobacco-smell = danger (which I doubt), then you're right.Yes, that's the point-- if I'm smelling it, it's entering my lungs, and that's a health problem. If I'm not smelling it, it likely isn't entering my lungs, at least not to a great degree.


DJR,
No, non, nein, nee, njet! I could use that argument to put an end to the presence of dogs where they are bothersome, to the presence of perfumed ladies where their perfume is bothersome, to the presence of certain old folks where the clothes they wear are bothersome (sometimes, old folks have a certain smell around them) etc.
Well, exactly-- you can file a report, at least in the US, to have a dog killed because it attacked you-- the same should apply to cigarettes. There are dog parks and non-dog parks-- let's do the same for cigarettes. Additionally, it is not my choice as to whether I smell the odor surrounding me (like when it comes in my window that I leave open to get fresh air, not smokefilled air), whereas looking at a certain strange-looking individual is my choice and not really in my way-- nor does it pose any HEALTH risk, which is why I have said it's a stronger argument to discuss health. And as for people smelling funny, that's not really something in their control and certainly not because of something they are actively doing, like smoking-- that's also terrible, someone's breath after they have been smoking-- I want people to stay away from me if that's the case, and I think I should have the right to make that happen. And if they just have terrible BO, I think it reasonable to ask them to shower more, though it isn't the same, because that's not a health risk. But if the stench of someone's BO were as strong as that is of smoke oh so often, then they would surely be removed, if by force of the crowd, from a building, etc.

[molendijk]

When I was talking about bothersome dogs with respect to:
I do believe as well that the smell is reason alone to put an end to smoking where it is bothersome to others
I was not referring to dogs that attack, but to dogs that smell. I cannot imagine a situation in which dogs would be banned just because of their smell. For the same reason, I cannot imagine a situation in which smoking would be prohibited just because cigarettes smell.
So in short: I'm not against a ban on smoking if the argument is that the habit may cause health problems TO OTHERS. But I do oppose to a ban on smoking on the sole basis of smell-considerations.
And just for clarification: I am completely against prohibiting things on the basis of what others (the government, for instance) think may be harmful to MYSELF. If I want to kill myself, I have the right to do it. Not that I want to, of course. But that's another discussion.
===
Arie.

[djr33]

If you want to do something and it isn't invasive for me, that's just fine-- kill yourself, do cocaine or have a pet dog. But if any of those things start being a specific and direct problem for me, I believe I have the right to do something about it. I don't believe I have the right to sleep on the roof of your house, for example, and based on what you said, I do. (Based on that, furthermore, you would then have the right to shoot me for doing it.)

[jscheuer1]

Dogs?

[molendijk]

Dogs?
I didn't sleep well last night: a dog barked me out of my sleep from 24:00 to 5:00. At 5:01, I shot the dog. I believe I had the right, since the dog was behaving invasive towards me.

A perfumed female police officer arrested me. I told her I liked her smell. She shot me, because I didn't have the right to be invasive towards her. The American Swimming Federation said she was right. (Should be 'said she had been right', but English is sloppy). A person has the right to use his gun when people start to be invasive.

At 5:10, I went to heaven. I didn't mind, because I was tired of life anyhow. If the beautiful female officer wouldn't have shot me, I would have shot myself, because I have the right.

In heaven, I met the dog. He was smoking a water pipe. I asked him: 'Why the hell are you smoking a water pipe? It's bad for your health and it's bothering me'. He said: 'What Phelps can do, I can do; besides, in these celestial spheres, there are no American Swimming Federations. There will never be, since God doesn't allow people to enter here who don't say anything about guns, but everything about water pipes'.

We shook hands, although dogs don't have them. I liked the dog. He never mentioned the fact that I shot him. He was a good dog. With a little bit of smell around him, though, but I didn't pay attention to that. God, I like dogs!! And perfumed female officers. I wonder where she is.
===
Arie.

[jscheuer1]

Woof!

[molendijk]

Woof!
I like my own poetic moods. That's why I will never be a victim of 'psycho-depression'. And I like perfumed female officers too. But I hate the American Swimming Federation, and Dr. Phill, and lady Oprah. They talk too much. I rather have a simple 'Woof'.
===
Arie.

[jscheuer1]

In the states here, perhaps other places, "Woof!" is the sound of a dog barking.

Keep up with the poetic moods.

[molendijk]

I guessed so. So I prefer 'Woof' to the nonsense of Phill/Oprah (they don't have a clue about anything) and of the American Swimming Federation (the only thing they care about is 'correctness').
===
Arie, angry old man.

[djr33]

Your argument is reaching the point of ad absurdum-- the ideas I'm discussing aren't that you have a finite right to forcibly stop someone from smoking, but rather should have a legal right to do so (through the legal system, and it should be enforced). If that dog kept you up all night, at least here, you CAN call the police and file a noise violation report. It's exactly the same thing. If you, however, shot the dog, then you have done something worse legally. Parallel to that, I don't see why I can't file a smell violation if my neighbors (as happens far too often) are smoking and the smell keeps drifting in my windows. Plus, as I've said is a stronger argument, there's the fact that the smoke is actually detrimental to my health, either merely as smoke (which causes allergic reactions for some, problems for those with asthma, etc.) or as a toxic substance that causes cancer.
That is-- my neighbors should be able to smoke, fine by me; however, they need to close their windows, so I don't smell it, not the other way around. There should be fresh air outside, not a toxic cloud. And if they are bothered by smoking inside with the windows closed, then I believe that is right there a firm reason they must do it, or not do it at all-- certainly it's not my problem to deal with the smoke because they don't want it in their apartment. Frequently they will stand at the railing, just outside their door... hmm... why not smoke inside? (And the answer is one of the following three possibilities: 1. they want fresh air-- well I do too and they are contaminating it; 2. their family doesn't want the smoke inside (as I don't); 3. they don't want the smoke inside (so again, why must I have it inside?))

[molendijk]

DJR, the difference between our points of view may be related to our (inconscient?) view on the world. I believe that nothing can ever be perfect and that, as a consequence, people will always be bothered by something internal (their character) or external (actions of other people, disasters etc.). To deal with all the imperfection inside and outside us, we can adopt a 'laisser-aller' attitude, implying that we understand and accept imperfection (inside ourselves and others), and will only try to 'ban' it in extreme situations. So when my neighbors smoke, and I don't like it, I'll nevertheless accept it: they have their shortcomings, I have mine.
===
Arie.