Sherrif wants to charge Michael Phelps
 

So a sheriff in South Carolina says he is going to charge Michael Phelps on drug charges.

"The bottom line is, if he broke the law, and he did it in Richland County, he's going to be charged,'' Cowan said. "And there's no difference between Michael Phelps and several other people that we arrest for the same type of a charge everyday.''

Under South Carolina law, possession of one ounce or less of marijuana is a misdemeanor that carries a fine up to $200 and 30 days in jail for the first offense. Possession of paraphernalia is a $500 fine.

I guess someone should inform this genius that you can't charge someone with possession based on a PICTURE.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/spor...lps-Marijuana/

The sheriff is an idiot. He needs to spend his time cracking down on the meth heads and labs in his back yard. Not making a name for himself and garnishing 15 min of fame.

Sheriff Leon Lott? Dammnn! Here's the pic I took of him last year! That dude can handle a lungful!

http://cellar.org/2009/sheriff-lott.jpg

Sheriff, arrest thyself!

:D good one. Send it to their hometown paper.

I was discussing how other Olympic swimmers must feel after seeing this. They have been training their entire lives just to lose every event to a stoner.....

So taking one hit on a bong makes you a stoner? No way.

Yeh Merc that was his first and only time :eyebrow:

Even if you smoke dope on a social basis...let's say once a month at a party...doesn't make you a stoner. I'd even say if you did it every weekend it still doesn't qualify you as a stoner.

ETA: I just don't believe there's any way he could have achieved what he had and been a regular dope smoker. There's just no way. For one thing, it would impair his respiratory system.

It was a joke. For all I know it could just be celebratory. Either way, the reactions must have been funny from all the other swimmers (unless they do it as well I guess).

You know, over the years I've learned that a lot of people do things they just shouldn't do considering their circumstances, and yet they do them anyway...and get away with it, and it harms no one. It's amazing how many people do 'illegal' stuff, even when they hold positions of faith within the community.

I realize you were joking btw ph. ;) It would have been funny live.

It would be hard to prove otherwise in a court. One picture does not make a stoner. A half-assed lawyer would get the whole thing dismissed before it made it to the bench. JMHO.

BTW, I got your joke. Really.;)

Well all the lawyer would need is the picture of the sherrif holding a bong alongside phelps' pic and there you go. Case dismissed.

Damn you're in an ESPECIALLY argumentative mood lately -

Fixed it for you. :D

Thanks and in time too :D

Bored. Off work for a week. See PM.

Sure he could have. I know someone who smokes, constantly, and he has some pretty amazing lungs. Also the act of smoking weed, even if you do it every day, does not necessarily make you a stoner. What makes you a stoner, imo anyway, is if you are not productive. Some people actually become MORE productive when they smoke. (No, I am not a smoker.)

Frankly, I believe it's time we repeal the stupid drug laws, at least on plants. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are written on paper made from hemp. The first Fords ran on biofuel made from hemp. Hemp seeds are one of the most nutritional foods you can eat. Hemp is a VERY useful plant (as are mushrooms, which they now know can be used to clean up toxic waste), and it's time we recognized that and quit demonizing it. It really does have medicinal qualities tha help an awful lot of sick people.

Merc - what's with all the PMs recently?
I don't mean to me (FTR Merc has never PM'd me)

But I remember reading a couple of posts where you've mentioned PMs.
Surely I'f you're PMing, people will notice it without a post?

Then again, I might just adopt it as my sig :)

My definition of a stoner: Someone who has cones with their breakfast, morning tea, lunch, afternoon tea, dinner, then before bed.

When someone smokes this way, how can you ever know what their potential is when they're not stoned?

I'm speaking from experience with this definition. When I was young and stupid I lived with a bloke with this exact habit. Who knows what he could have achieved if he didn't have to be stoned all the time. Anyway, my opinion is that you can't smoke dope all the time and be at your full potential. If anyone can provide facts to prove otherwise I'd love to see them.

I've heard of what sugarpop mentioned and I do believe that it can happen to a very rare amount of individuals. Marijuana is one of those drugs where the effects can be completely contradictory for different people. The majority of people relax when they smoke but some get anxiety attacks. The different strands of marijuana have different effects on people as well. Some just make you want to sit there and others will work almost more as a stimulant.

Although, the personal stories I have heard about marijuana greatly improving concentration supposedly happened on someone who normally has very bad ADD so that could be the deciding factor.

Not facts but anecdotally: the smartest person I know has smoked basically daily since 1973. Holder of multiple patents, gifted computer programmer, marvelous storyteller.

They're for me. We know each other. :) (and I probably wouldn't notice if he didn't tell me. I just never look up there.)

Imagine his potential if he hadn't smoked dope. ;)

That being said, I do realize there are exceptions to every rule. I'm sure you get my point though. Even I've come up with some pretty creative stuff while stoned. It certainly has the potential to bring out that side of some people, probably more than others.

I just can't imagine an elite athlete risking the [possible] negative consequences of smoking dope every day or even every weekend. I could be wrong, but I'd be very surprised if I am in this case.

Thanks for the explanation, he did it to me too.

My screen does a popup notification whenever I get a PM. I guess that's an option people turn off...

Where is that option? I sometimes don't see mine for unfortunately long periods of time.

User CP --> Edit Options --> Last checkbox in the "Messaging and Notification" section

Yeah classicman what are ya, a stoner? :p

nope, but I used to be

That's why/how ya killed the newspaper biz. :haha:

ME TOO! It's just that in my case it didn't seem all that creative the next day. But for a while I was a genius.

Ssshhhh...I wasn't going to add that last bit. lol

I wish someone would shoot that backwoods fucking sheriff. I bet he jerks off every time he sees his stupid face or reads his stupid name somewhere. :mad:

That won't stand up in court; he just wants the attention.

:eek:

Ridiculous. Pot needs to be legalized. The drug laws need to be repealed. Jails are completely overcroweded, because of small time drug users.

I'd love to know how he intends to prove that Phelps was actually smoking Mary-Jane.

AFAIK - Phelps has not been charged. They went to the house where the party allegedly took place and charged some people from there.

Well, did they actually catch them doing anything wrong? Because you can't really charge someone for something that happened before, unless you have actual proof. Otherwise it is circumstantial.

They can charge them for owning drug parafernalia and any stash they find. Generally that's the charge anyway, rather than actually catching anyone in the act.

Ali is correct and I believe 5 were charged with possession - the others I'm not sure.

Yes, but they have to find it in his possession. You can't charge someone for a crime based solely on a picture. it's circumstantial.

Phelps has NOT been charged as of RFN.

Link

I think if you want to have a law changed, the best way to do it is to be fanatically overzealous in it's enforcement.

If they'd busted GWB and his well connected friends and they'd faced up to 18 months in jail back in the 80's, Texas would have the loosest drug laws in the country by now.

If you consider that it cost $20-30,000 a year for each prisoner, as a taxpayer you have to ask "Is it worth it to me to spend that much to keep this guy off of the street". For rapists and murders, the answer is yes. For some guy with a big bag of pot? "No".

Since even minor drug arrests count towards "three strikes", you're building a large prison population composed of people who were not well connected enough or wealthy enough to aggressively resist conviction.

So, get busted for possession 3 times and it's 25-to-life in California. This is why California has the most expensive and overcrowded prison system in the country. From a liberal and libertarian point of view, this does not make any sense. The courts have already ruled on overcrowding, and many non-violent offenders will be released. If I told the average citizen that a state was adding hundreds of bureaucrats a day at 20-30K, they'd be outraged. But everyone equates more people in jail as being safer.

For marijuana, this is not the case.

California's jails are SO overcrowded right now (they are at double capacity or something), they might have to let out almost 40,000 prisoners soon. What do you want to bet they let out dangerous criminals and keep the druggies in? Because of mandatory sentences. It's friggin' ridicuolous.

No, but the sheriff had said he wanted to arrest him. Now I understand he has recanted.

Those other people who were arrested, were they caught with something? Because again, you can't charge someone with a crime based on a picture. Well you can try, but it would be thrown out of court.

Yes, they raided the house.

He recanted because the whole case would have to have been built on anecdotal evidence, and they couldn't find enough rats.

Poor sheriff...

Nah - he got MAJOR pressure from "upstairs" to drop that shit! Rightfully so, IMO.

some pple just need a slap!

Or a cunt punt as the case may be