Read my post again.
Also, it’s not that nobody cares about honor. It’s that your particular version of honor doesn’t seem any more developed than the Boy Scout Code.
So are you saying that Phelps didn’t make a mistake?
Oh yeah missed that. Yep the Boy (Girl) Scout Code would be a good start for some folks.
Had trouble keeping blood pressure down over the past few days so I’ve avoided talk radio.
What did the hypocritcal Overpaid, Under-brained Oxycontin Freak have to say about this?
Hey, Cervaise, where’d ya go?
Yes. But what you fail to realize is that it makes a lousy end.
Finish this sentence please: the smoking of marijuana should be illegal because it harms _________.
Clearly, Kellogg’s is missing a great re-branding opportunity.
Michael Phelps for new Baked Flakes™: the cereal for when you have the munchies but are too stoned to pick up the phone to order pizza.
I just want to say I won’t be buying any Kellogg stuff anymore, and jimpatro is an idiot.
Peace.
It’s alright as a starting point, but it doesn’t address what you do when the law is wrong, which it plainly is at times. The boy scout oath says you honor your country by “working for your country’s good and obeying its laws.”* If you think for about a minute you’ll realize these goals can conflict, which is why that oath is not sufficient as a moral framework. Consider the civil rights movement.
I looked this up just now, having quit the cub scouts at about age nine.*
**Because I was bored, not because I wanted to get stoned.
But I already said that I don’t think it should be illegal. It just is and no one is above the law.
If users had just obeyed the law in the first place they wouldn’t have experienced pot and gotten to the point where they have to defend their use of it.
Christ, you idiot. Do you have ANY evidence that your stupid straw man about the pot Phelps smoked came from Mexico is actually true? One little shred of evidence? Cite? Anything, you tard?
If not, then drop your idiotic logical fallacy, and stick to the actual issue. Not the made-up ones you think score bigger points.
I should know better than expecting consistency from the US Swimming folks, but I’m curious how they though Phelps was supposed to have known he was required to be a role model for young swimmers, and that as part of this he was required to abstain from banned substances during the period he is not competing (and thus, not under their ban).
Although, their punishment is such a weak slap on the wrist it is almost laughable – the stipend is inconsequential to Phelps, and a 3-month suspension would drop him from, at most, one meet. But, of course, US Swimming wouldn’t want to impose a significant suspension on him – that might prevent him from going to Worlds in Rome, which could affect them.
The Kellogg thing is really no surprise – Phelps should have known that was a potential consequence when he accepted the bong hit. Actually, I’m surprised more sponsors haven’t dropped him… the Beijing glow has faded, and with him giving them an excuse to get out of the contract, why not?
It doesn’t require defense. As I said earlier it’s possible to be pro-legalization without smoking. There are some rigidly sober libertarians out there for instance. And then there’s the issue of medical marijuana: I’m sure not everyone who uses that was previously a stoner.
Lightray, you self-centered oaf, I’m not making up the fact that people are dying because of the drug trade. Oh, but Phelps’ was smoking American grown so people just can’t be dying. Go ahead rationalize some more.
You want to act seriously against a drug that kills people? Go bomb a liquor store.
Whatever, dude. Disobedience of unjust laws harm no one.
You probably call the cops on jaywalkers, don’t you, Skippy?
Yeah, but what this is really about is the sponsors. Basically, his image is his product that Kellogg’s is paying good money for…if they don’t like the image he’s projecting, or don’t think it fits the image they want to project, they aren’t going to pay for it, and why should they?
I believe people should be allowed to do whatever they want, provided they don’t physically harm anybody else or infringe on their property. Therefore, I think you’re asking the wrong question. We should be asking “Should people who use crack or meth be thrown in jail for it?” Drug taking doesn’t harm anyone but the addict. In cases where drug addicts rob people to feed their habits, that should be dealt with separately.
For me, the bottom line is this: A man’s body is his temple, and if he wants to take big dump on the altar, that’s his business. Obviously, if someone wants to get off drugs they should be given help if they need it. That’s in everyone’s interests. But it’s morally wrong to demonise and punish them simply for taking a substance we don’t like. It’s also rather hypocritical, because nicotine and alcohol kill more people each year than crack, coke, heroin, and meth combined.
But the problems with trying to fight a war on drugs run deeper than this. Even if you disagree with my premise that people have the right to eat, drink, or smoke whatever they feel like, it doesn’t follow that bludgeoning drug addicts with prison sentences is the right thing to do.
Think about this: In England, the maximum penalty for heroin possession is 7 years. That’s just simple possession, not possession with intent to supply. By contrast, the maximum penalty for GBH with a deadly weapon is only 5 years. Do you think it’s fair that non-violent drug addicts get harsher treatment than thugs who try to kill people?
Under the law, drug addicts are criminals just as much as violent scumbags who beat people up. But it seems clear to me that they are different kinds of criminal, and they should be treated very differently. Drug addicts aren’t criminals in the way some chav who knocks over an old woman for her pension money is a criminal. They may be sick, but I don’t think prison is going to cure them.
I know nobody’s talking about sending Michael Phelps to jail, but that’s only because he’s Michael Phelps. If he was just another stoner he’d be in a completely different situation.
You douchebag 
Perfect.
Don’t call the cops on jaywalkers but they should be ticketed. It’s about pedestrian safety and keeping some driver from having to live with injuring or killing another human being.
I know, I know, it’s about subjugating the populace. :rolleyes:
Thank you for admitting that you have nothing to support your stupid straw man to the actual topic of Phelps smoking pot.