Phelps Bong Hit

[Pa Jayhawk]

Inspired largely by Martin Luther King Jr., I find that hiding the fact that you break the law is what makes the action insidious. You see, to break the law, admit to doing it and saying part of the reason you do so is because the law is irrational is one thing. However, cowardice is shown when you break it and hide from the consequences, and makes your actions meaningless.

FWIW, if you applied this to what Phelps did, the act would not have been "Insidious". Had he been smart enough or done a better job (or even tried) to hide his action, this entire conversation would not be taking place.

Although for me, I really don't feel the entire legality of the issue really means anything to me. IMO he has a moral obligation to his sponsors, and I am not sure I view him any different from say John Daly. Just because what Daly has done over his career was legal does not make it Morally acceptable to his sponsors, and the reason he will continue to lose them. The difference is, most of Daly's current sponsors knew they were getting damaged goods going into it, and you won't see him get sponsored by children's cereal any time soon.

Phelps is bright enough (or lets go with old enough) to know that what he did would negatively impact his image for which people paid millions. Doesn't matter if it is legal or not. To use that as the defining issue is actually a mistake IMO, because it excuses irrational behavior as long as it is legal. I actual would have viewed possibly showing up to a swim meet drunk off his arse and falling of the stand twice and being disqualified as worse behavior, however legal it may be in the eyes of the law. I don't think it would have been any less detrimental to his sponsors because he can legally drink.

 

[TheWOAT]

Sports should go green, allow pot smoking

Sports should go green, allow pot smoking

Common sense says that athletes shouldn't be punished for pot any more than they would be if they ran a red light. Creative thinking says that the sports leagues should lobby for legalization and then treat the stuff like Gatorade or Budweiser. Call it the greening of athletics, which it will be, as soon as the checks clear.

Hmmm, cant say Ive seen a reporter take this stance till now. Any thoughts.

 

[SilverUberXeno]

It's an irrational law. It should be changed. But the stance the reporter takes on it is really ridiculous. Gatorade and Budweiser are QUITE different.

 

[TheWOAT]

Well, she was on KNBR sports radio today at 5pm, and basically she said that weed is no worse to a player than cheating on his wife and getting caught, and is far more harmless than DUIs (something you see around sports every year)... She believed smoking weed was a players own business, and we all know it has zero athletic enhancement effects. She thinks Sports leagues should only concern themselves with drugs that actually could enhance performance, like steroids, anphetamines, flax seed oil.. etc etc

 

[SilverUberXeno]

Well, she's right about that. A sport league is not the law. BUT, a sport league has the right, like any employer, to demand a certain level of character in its employees.

 

[JEFF4i]

Its a shame that you have to argue respect for the law, even if you disagree with it. Perhaps it is my background, perhaps it is simply me. If I feel strong enough to do something unlawful, then I feel I should be strong enough to try to change it.

Bottom line is SUX, you and I are two very different people with two very different paradigms. I know you love to think otherwise, but rationality is not linear my friend. People can have good reasons and strong beliefs, be totally rationale, and disagree.

 

[SilverUberXeno]

Its a shame that you have to argue respect for the law, even if you disagree with it.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Actually, your whole post there is pretty vague and ambiguous. But I figured it would be. I actually discussed with someone that your next post would be something "above" me like, "Even though you think this, ha!"

Bottom line is SUX, you and I are two very different people with two very different paradigms. I know you love to think otherwise, but rationality is not linear my friend. People can have good reasons and strong beliefs, be totally rationale, and disagree.

And for the record, you do have strong beliefs, and we do disagree. But that does NOT mean that you are totally rational, despite how you love to think otherwise.

 

[JEFF4i]

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Actually, your whole post there is pretty vague and ambiguous. But I figured it would be. I actually discussed with someone that your next post would be something "above" me like, "Even though you think this, ha!"



And for the record, you do have strong beliefs, and we do disagree. But that does NOT mean that you are totally rational, despite how you love to think otherwise.

Okay, I'll express myself fully here, attempting to not be vague.

Yes, I agree drugs should be legal. In fact I advocate it. Why spend billions on a drug war with little-to-no production, when you can legalize, control (of course, to a point), and profit off of them? It is irrational that they are not legal, especially marijuana. I do not smoke weed or do any other drugs, nor do I feel strongly enough to pioneer a movement for legalization, but my beliefs on the subject are about the law and a citizen's relationship to it.

I have a certain amount of respect and humility before the law. Referencing Plato and Socrates' view fo the Social Contract, citizens in a society agree to abide by the established rules so long as they live within said society. John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau furthered this theory that in a democracy-style government (of sorts, they didn't implicitly say democracy but this is foundational theory of democracy) the laws are a reflection of the people's will. These are points that I staunchly believe in, and we see them excersized within our government. (i.e. theft, murder, etc.).

In an attempt to pre-empt your questions of societal will, it depends on where you look. A recent Gallup Poll (I'll try and get the link, was looking at it in class), showed that 34% of people are in favor of legalizing marijuana for recreational use, and 62% opposed. A Nevada poll showed 49% in favor, 43% opposed. In regards to societal will and it changing the law, I find that there is less-than-ample evidence that we should legalize marijuana. In nature, similar to desegragation, it rational that it should be legalized. Yet, Martin Luther King Jr. did feel (and I do as well), that unjust laws can -and in some cases, should-, be broken, but not in such a way that shows no respect for the institution of the Law.

To quote Mr. King,

"There are just laws and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that an unjust law is no law at all... One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly...I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law."

Upon reading this I felt that coupled with Social Contract theory that one must respect the law out of necessity, but breaking an unjust law is not a bad thing, but should be done in the correct fashion. All of this is rooted in rationality, as many of our laws are. Further, we can presume that rational laws are just ones. Because of this, unjust laws should be broken by those who seek to change them. This all cumulates to a my viewpoint on Phelps.

If he was to immediately say, "Yes, I do it. It should be legalized, and punish me, but it is absurd that this is against the law," I could accept that and would appreciate it to a great measure. However, he simply stated that he knew it was wrong, shouldn't have done it, etc. I feel that he subjected himself to all the according punishment and deserved it. No, he isn't a crusader, but unless you plan on attempting to rectify the law itself, I see no reason why he should be spared.

Oh, and to Sling and the mods, if you feel this is too far into politics I apologize. PM me and I'll delete the whole bit.

To summarize; Laws exist for a very essential reason, even the seemingly irrational ones. To me, more important than specific laws is the Law itself, and the social contract and respect of it. If you are to break an unjust law, do so in a fashion that Mr. King and his constituency layed out. Otherwise, barring few examples (and I do not consider this to be one of them), you are subject to the punishment.

I apologize if I continue to be vague and ambiguous. Though rooted in reason, many of these concepts are fiercely idealist, which tends to err on the side of ambiguity. I feel that reverence of the law is something that everyone should have, be them lawmaker or swimmer. The reality is otherwise, I admit, but that changes little for me if you hadn't guessed. Symantics complicate this issue that I am trying to express, which I attempted to clarify here. There are laws, and then there is the institution of Law, i.e. the collective rules of the State. To me, one doesn't necessarily have to respect any given law, but within the Social Contract one has an obligation to respect the institution.

 

[SilverUberXeno]

Now THIS is what I'm talking about!

Yes, I agree drugs should be legal. In fact I advocate it. Why spend billions on a drug war with little-to-no production, when you can legalize, control (of course, to a point), and profit off of them?

This is a ridiculous reason to legalize something though- for the sake of government profit. Murder and theft can be very profitable too, but I would hope that legalizing the former never happens, and the legalization of the latter is halted. Marijuana should be legal because of the individual right to one's own life, and the right to cherish or destroy that life at one's own will.

I have a certain amount of respect and humility before the law. Referencing Plato and Socrates' view fo the Social Contract, citizens in a society agree to abide by the established rules so long as they live within said society. John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau furthered this theory that in a democracy-style government (of sorts, they didn't implicitly say democracy but this is foundational theory of democracy) the laws are a reflection of the people's will. These are points that I staunchly believe in, and we see them excersized within our government. (i.e. theft, murder, etc.).

A government of the people certainly works if the people are willing to do what's RIGHT instead of what's just easier for them. It's easy to see that they're NOT, at this point. Democracy guarantees NO freedom; Hitler was elected. In a democracy, freedoms can be voted away. Many people, apparently MOST people, are too near-sighted to care about individual rights and freedom. They'll vote to hurt somebody else if it favors them. And if they vote it, it's law.

If laws are reflections of the peoples' will, then laws have no consistency, necessarily, with right or wrong, because it's simply majority rule. If the standard of value for right and wrong is individual rights, and a democracy votes to enact laws that destroy individual rights, "right" by the law is not right. Law becomes arbitrary.

In an attempt to pre-empt your questions of societal will, it depends on where you look. A recent Gallup Poll (I'll try and get the link, was looking at it in class), showed that 34% of people are in favor of legalizing marijuana for recreational use, and 62% opposed.

Chances are those in favor of legalizing marijuana and those opposed have this in common; they plead their case ENTIRELY for the wrong reasons. For probably pleads as you did, "it'd make money." Against probably pleads, "it's bad for you." Both are true, and both are really beside the point.

Dr. King makes a solid point- that if something is wrong, fight it openly. I do. However, some people just want to live their lives and would rather not crusade for a cause if it costs them their life, in a sense that they can't pursue their own personal happiness. Frankly, they shouldn't HAVE to fight just to have a right to their own lives.

All of this is rooted in rationality, as many of our laws are. Further, we can presume that rational laws are just ones. Because of this, unjust laws should be broken by those who seek to change them. This all cumulates to a my viewpoint on Phelps.

Rational thinking + an adherence to individual rights as the standard of value = just laws.

If Phelps did come out and speak openly about legalization for the right reasons, he'd probably make great headway. It's really difficult to rationally refute the premise of legalization beyond pure emotionalism or the "people are too stupid" argument.

Oh, and to Sling and the mods, if you feel this is too far into politics I apologize. PM me and I'll delete the whole bit.

Aye. But this IS good.

To summarize; Laws exist for a very essential reason, even the seemingly irrational ones. To me, more important than specific laws is the Law itself, and the social contract and respect of it.

Law exists to punish those who infringe unfairly upon the lives of other people, ideally. Law should protect the right to life, liberty, and property. Laws need to be DEFENSEIVE, not OFFENSIVE. Laws DEFEND rights (ideally, of course. This is not the case now.) Laws beyond that are really the government interfering in ways it should not be able to.

I apologize if I continue to be vague and ambiguous. Though rooted in reason, many of these concepts are fiercely idealist, which tends to err on the side of ambiguity. I feel that reverence of the law is something that everyone should have, be them lawmaker or swimmer.

A lack of clarity in expression often signifies a lack of clarity in one's mind. Perhaps you struggle with the Societal Contract when you realize that you're supporting a completely flexible agreement that may condone rape and murder in one setting, and righteous capitalism in the next, and blind adherence to a flying meatball in the next. You need a standard of value, and if that standard is the "consensus," then your moral compass just points to the majority. Right and wrong change with the days. Virtue is arbitrary.

You can live that way, but you can't live that way.

 

[JEFF4i]

The following statement is not a trap, its actually just a question...

So according to your logic (which, I'm afraid, I'm starting to like/appreciate more), would you feel given that his punishment is nearly laughable (suspension but such a short time), that this is the next best thing to it being legalized?

Adapting my point of view into your own...the Social Contract isn't linear itself, and if the vast majority feel that law should not be recognized anyway (no public outcries against Phelps yet), that in essence the Contract is being upheld anyway?

 

[SilverUberXeno]

So according to your logic (which, I'm afraid, I'm starting to like/appreciate more), would you feel given that his punishment is nearly laughable (suspension but such a short time), that this is the next best thing to it being legalized?

They certainly aren't "making an example" of him. It's really a slap on the wrist to the effect of making it look like they actually care. Frankly, they probably don't, and it makes perfect sense that they don't.

Although, they could actually hold him accountable for this on the grounds that he's not taking care of himself the way he should. But the fact that he's done something that is irrationally illegal is probably not of great concern to the swimming world. I'm more disappointed that he'd do something unhealthy. But that is ENTIRELY his own decision.

Adapting my point of view into your own...the Social Contract isn't linear itself, and if the vast majority feel that law should not be recognized anyway (no public outcries against Phelps yet), that in essence the Contract is being upheld anyway?

That's sort of my point about the social contract- that it has no bearing or loyalty to right and wrong. If right and wrong are subjective; i.e., determined by the will of a majority, then morality is arbitrary, because the "right" thing can change every week.

If one accepts a standard of value for right and wrong, such as individual rights, then the social contract becomes flawed, because it condones whatever the majority sees fit- which may be immoral.

This is why the United States isn't a pure democracy- because democracy is tyranny by the majority instead of tyranny by a single individual. Any system that bends toward the will, or collective will or any individual or group, is only moral when it is convenient to be so.

In a republic, ideally, the men making the decisions have a very solid understanding of the fact that RIGHT is not the same as EASY, or "practical."

Law should be recognized assuming law is rational. Irrational law is a misuse of the system.