Absurd waste of time and money

[hifigator]

I know we don't all agree on the use of marijuana and whether it should be legal or not, but I think we will all find this pretty much ridiculous:


www.thestate.com/local/story/682695.html

[jgalt]

yes i agree.

[EasyEd]

String 'em up.

[strummer8526]

I usually think the whole "athletes are role models" thing is WAY overblown. But with the all the over-the-top attention that he received and the pedestal he was put on (14 times), there are far far too many aspiring athletes who can look at him and think, "Well, if he can do it and be successful, so can I." Meanwhile, I'm fairly certain that Phelps is functionally illiterate and one of the downright dumbest "heroes" this country has ever had. If throwing the book at him will prevent the next generation of Olympic hopefuls from following in his path, then I'm all for it. And anything that they need to do in prosecuting him is fine by me. If he weren't an Olympic swimmer, I think he would be hard pressed to find employment in any field that requires human interaction. Taking him down a peg or two sounds about right.

One funny part of that article:
“My kid wasn’t at the Michael Phelps party,” he said. “My kid never met Michael Phelps. My kid was spending the night at his friend’s house.”

Yeah, none of us have ever used THAT one before.

I'm sure we're going to end up chalking this one up to the "agree to disagree" category.

[jgalt]

The problem is stummer, im fairly certain that a picture like the one of Phelps is not enough "evidence" to be used to start an investigation like they have (but i am neither a lawyer nor a cop). the picture only shows him using a bong, which is not illegal to own or use. The picture doesnt show him using drugs or even what appear to be drugs.

im not for the use of drugs or their legalization, but it is pretty BS that all these people are calling for phelps to be "treated as anyone else would." if that had been picture of anyone else not famous nothing would have been done about it. so in reality, because there is an investigation he is being treated differently than the general public.

i do agree, though, that phelps is (or at least looks like) a complete moron.

[Filo]

Feb 15, 2009 14:04:06 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

I usually think the whole "athletes are role models" thing is WAY overblown. But with the all the over-the-top attention that he received and the pedestal he was put on (14 times), there are far far too many aspiring athletes who can look at him and think, "Well, if he can do it and be successful, so can I."

Meanwhile, I'm fairly certain that Phelps is functionally illiterate and one of the downright dumbest "heroes" this country has ever had. If throwing the book at him will prevent the next generation of Olympic hopefuls from following in his path, then I'm all for it. And anything that they need to do in prosecuting him is fine by me. If he weren't an Olympic swimmer, I think he would be hard pressed to find employment in any field that requires human interaction. Taking him down a peg or two sounds about right.

I can't tell whether some of this is tongue-in-cheek, so I am going to assume it is not.

So Phelps is "dumb" but we really need to protect all of these aspiring athletes who can look at him and think, 'Well, if he can do it and be successful, so can I.' These theoretical aspiring Olympians of yours really sound like geniuses.

And what us this dreaded "path" that Phelps took? The most successful swimmer in history who happens to smoke pot on occasion (and we are not even certain if he is an occasional smoker or this was one a rare event for him)? Oh no! Run for your lives. What a horrible human being. He really needs to be taught a lesson.

[hifigator]

well said Filo. I just think it's ridiculous. How many man-hours are being consumed with the apparent goal of a handful of misemeanor possession charges? Is there anyone here who honestly believes that is a good use of our resources ... regardless of your particular views on weed?

[rosslynhoya]

You can all sleep safely tonight. There will be no criminal charges for Phelps ... this time.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/16/AR2009021600980_pf.html

[hifigator]

rossly, I'm not sure if that was a slip of the tongue or intentional wording. If we are sleeping "better" tonight, knowing that Phelps is no longer the subject of some witch hunt, then right you are. But if you actually intended to use the phrase "sleep safely" then I would ask are we really? The authorities didn't say that the investigation was a mistake. Rather they defended the investigation. They said (unfortunately), "we don't have enough physical evidence." That sounds to me that if a similar incident happens in the future, then thorough investigations of this sort will follow. Once again, does anyone actually defend this type of investigation with no more reason and evidence than we had? There was a tabloid photo of a celebrety smoking from what is routinely used for marijuana but which is 100% legal. Other than that, we have Phelps say that he made a mistake. That's it. Again, I just can't fathom such a waste of tax dollars at a time where the budget crunches are causing layoffs every single day.

No, I, for one, am not sleeping safer.

[Boz]

Oh, get over yourself.

This is personal with you and you know it. There is nothing wrong with an investigation into someone because a picture surfaced of them smoking what appears to be an illegal substance.

We have the results of that investigation now, which are, there is not enough evidence to pursue it. Fine, great, let's drop it, but that doesn't mean that there was no cause for an initial investigation.

Decry the law if you want. And I'm sure you will. And I'm not entirely unsympathetic to that....as they are rapidly making smoking tobacco something that will someday soon be cause for a criminal investigation as well. As you well know my opinions about that, you can rest assured that I'm not oblivious to the merits of a case for legalization.

But, it is not legal right now. And I think the authorities have every right to investigate something like this, whether it's a celebrity or some yutz down in Florida. You could say, "if this wasn't Michael Phelps, they wouldn't have done anything." Maybe not. Maybe they felt more of an obligation to investigate so that they wouldn't be accused of going soft just because he's a celebrity.

And stop with the "man-hours wasted" argument. That holds no water at all. Either illegal activities should be investigated or they shouldn't. Seems to me that they spent a fair amount of time investigating this, they didn't pull in a whole lot of superfluous resources, and they came to a conclusion that they could not pursue an investigation any further. Case closed and they can move on to investigating other matters.

[thebin]

1. There is no reason that Marijuana should be illegal while scotch isn't. None. You can offer some silly ones if you like, but they are empty as last week's bag of chips. Let's not lose sight of the big picture; It's a DISGRACE that this photo has garnered more attention than his DUI of a few years ago did...which is a real crime. This reminds me of the parallel disgusting American hypocrisy of showing massive amounts of gun violence on tv but not a single female breast. We really have some backwards priorities.


Even if you think cannabis should remain illegal....

2. There is something frighteningly un-American about rounding up people well after the fact because of a photo of someone smoking from a legal device known as a bong. If you support this, you can make no claim whatsoever to being a liberty-promoting small-government type. This is the State as Bully incarnate. There are so many things wrong with this I don't know where to begin. Why not claim there was cigarette tobacco in the water pipe as a perfectly valid defense if you are the victims of this witch hunt? Smoking from a water pipe is perfectly legal. What amount of pot are you going to make up for the charges? What are the implications of starting up criminal investigations because tabloids publish a photo of a celebrity doing something and all of the sudden local sheriffs / prosecutors (a la Mike Nifong) start seeing visions of the Governor's Mansion dancing through their heads?


As to this "role model" business...it's always struck me as out of line to tell someone else that their behavior has to conform to your preferred special parameters because of a career choice THEY made. Michael Phelps already made his sacrifice to win a dozen gold medals...he'll never have a normal childhood again. Other than that, you don't get a say in how he lives the rest of his life. Mind your own business and raise your own damn kids.

[Boz]

Please note: there is a difference between investigating and charging/arresting/indicting.

If the police had charged Phelps with a crime based on the evidence of a photo, then yes, that is ridiculous.

But they were investigating the issue. That is their job. The fact that people were charged with possession during the course of that investigation is no one's fault but the people who were in possession at the time.

I can go just as "slippery slope" with you in the other direction.

Say the police got a photo of a man who appeared to be smothering someone, and the photo showed a trickle of what appeared to be blood running down from the pillow.

Should the police charge this man with murder? Hell no. Should the police investigate to find out more information, even if it turns out that it was all just a prank and the person under the pillow is fine? Hell yes. And if they found out, during the course of their investigation, that someone else who was there when the picture was being taken was in possession of stolen goods, then yes, that person should be charged with that offense.

If you want to make marijuana legal, fine.

If marijuana is illegal and you don't want the police investigating you, then either A) don't do it or B) don't let pictures of you doing it get out.

[hifigator]

Boz, your strawman doesn't stand -- but then again they typically don't -- thus the term. In all seriousness, there are obvious, major differences in your analogy. Someone smothering someone is an apparent felony at the very least. Someone with a bong in their hand is a simple misdemeanor, and one without another victim. Those two differences would certainly warrant a difference in handling by the authorities don't you think? As for the Phelps issue, I do think you make a valid point in clarifying "investigation," but I don't think we arrive at the same conclusions. The article pointed out confiscating the trash outside of a house where the authorities found "cigar filling" which they then pionted out is typical of someone rolling a blunt. They were then able to obtain a search warrant and then with a dozen officers, proceeded to kick down a door and enter someone's house. When all was said and done, 7 misedemeanor possession charges were issued. Yet you say this is just a normal investigation and a proper use of man-hours? Do you really think that? I know we might disagree on certain issues involving weed, but that really isn't the point here. To try to use your parallel, suppose there was a picture of someone smoking what looked to be a Cuban Cigar. Now that's illegal, and I guess in theory, a raid of the proper house might uncover some giant smuggling operation and result in the confiscation of hundreds of thousands of Cuban cigars, with a street value of millions. That's not likely, but I guess it could happen.
Honestly, I think my scenario is far more appropriate than your analogy involving a potential homocide. In any case, would a picture of someone enjoying a Cuban cigar justify spending who knows how many resources on its investigation?

Without beating this dead horse too much, if you want to simply investigate and send a unit over to talk to someone at the house, then I guess that would be ok. In all fairness, the only real issue should be a large growing or distribution network, and officers are pretty good at sensing a cover-up. Don't you think that avenue would have been much more justified than this witch hunt?

[Boz]

It is only a witch hunt if you feel that the activity being investigated either A) was legal or B) should be legal.

If that is the argument you are making then, for the umpteenth time, fine. Make that argument. I don't even necessarily disagree with it.

I am arguing for not only the right, but the obligation, of law enforcement to investigate illegal activities.

Yes, duh, the example of a homicide is a little different, but it is only to serve the point that investigatory actions are required. One is a misdemeanor, one is a felony. Last I checked, they were both still crimes.

Moreover, I am not in the business of defending stupidity, which it seems is prevalent in at least half of the arrests made. Michael Phelps makes the news for smoking pot at a party you had, you are still at that residence and you are in possession of marijuana. Hey, here's an idea....maybe you want to get rid of that stuff, since someone might come sniffing around when this photo becomes public. Moreover, the searching of the trash was done AFTER the police observed a party at the one residence earlier. Yes, that's probable cause.

You are not making the case of why this investigation was wrong, except that you don't think that this is a crime worthy of investigation. Sorry, that's unsupportable. Again, if that is the case, your beef is with the legislature, not with law enforcement.

And yes, people do get charged and fined for having things like Cuban cigars. I know that happens because I know someone it happened to. Yeah, it was just a fine, but that's all any of these people are facing too, unless they have something else on their record.

[hifigator]

Fair enough Boz, but I still think that after the fact investigations of midemeanors -- especially of the so-called victimless variety -- are in fact a waste of time and money. I think the same resources could be used to catch people committing the exact same crime in the act, if someone is of that volition. Furthermore, I would like to see more resources dedicated to more serious crimes and only focus on crimes of this nature when you stumble onto them in the act. One last analogy: suppose someone was out with their video camera taping their kids. Then they happened to catch a car drive by going 42 mph in a 35 zone. Would such an act justify an investigation into who was illegally driving the car? I don't think so, even though a crime was committed. If such a crime is to be "caught," just post up in any of dozens of places and wait for another culprit. See my point? Notice the car wasn't going 75 mph in a 35. That type of blatant and wantant disregard for the safety of others is different. I really do see a parallel here. Phelps was presumably committing a misdemeanor, involving no one else, and if truth be told, doing what thousands of other people do daily in the very same community. Are you going to tell me that it is really worthwhile to go try to get him after the fact rather than someone else in the act?

[JohnJacquesLayup]

Victimless? What about all the potential people, not partaking in the smoking, who were subjected to Phelps' second hand pot smoke? A joint is four times as harmful to the lungs as one filtered cigarette.

Should all those people be subjected to the health risks associated with second hand pot smoke? They have every right to be at that party and not have their health impacted by the decisions of this swimmer.

Victimless? I think not.

[thebin]

Feb 17, 2009 16:30:54 GMT -5 JohnJacquesLayup said:

Victimless? What about all the potential people, not partaking in the smoking, who were subjected to Phelps' second hand pot smoke? A joint is four times as harmful to the lungs as one filtered cigarette.

Should all those people be subjected to the health risks associated with second hand pot smoke? They have every right to be at that party and not have their health impacted by the decisions of this swimmer.

Victimless? I think not.

Of course not even at a High Times staff holiday party would one ever be exposed pot smoke in volume even approaching 1/10th the amount of cigarette smoke you could find in any bar in a free country or any college party for that matter. You might be dangerously "exposed" to a joint a few times a year but exposed whether you like it or not to cigarettes a hundred times more often, even just walking down the street during rush hour. Of course there are a thousand things more likely to kill you than second hand pot smoke, including second hand booze (drunk driver kills you), McDonalds, being attacked by ill-tempered sea bass, etc.

What a nation of semi-retarded children we are about such things.

[hifigator]

bin, I think layup might have used a tad of sarcasm ... not sure but ...

[thebin]

Feb 17, 2009 17:10:18 GMT -5 hifigator said:

bin, I think layup might have used a tad of sarcasm ... not sure but ...

You know that thought crossed my mind...the idiocy of those that think it should be illegal just "because....well you know...because it should be otherwise it wouldn't be already" can't every be over-estimated.

[williambraskyiii]

ok, ok we get it...hifi is a pot-smoking degenerate and thebin enjoys Rage Against the Machine...let this thread die - the whole Phelps episode doesn't warrant nearly this much attention.