Videogam.in, a site about videogames

Welcome to Videogam.in, a site about videogames. Read more about this site or else pay me for the door repair charge.

Michael Phelps is the dumbest person alive

Topics

  • No tags yet
  • 13 unread posts
  • up key  +  up key down key
  • Jump between unread posts
  1. "Dude, take a picture of me while I do this massive bong hit! Don't worry, it won't have any effect on my image as an athletic idol to millions!"

    I guess when you're in the throws of partying at some frat house in SC, it really doesn't occur to you that this might be an incredibly stupid thing to do around a bunch of people you don't know with cameras.

    I also like how his response to the incident was basically the same as the one he gave when he got the DUI. Classy.

    +
    • Reply
  2. He should of just said that he thought it was a didgeridoo.

    +
    • Reply
  3. my favorite part is that right after the media went "Phelps' sponsors know about pot use, but do they care?" and "A gold medalist's sponsors don't care? Should Marijuana be legalized?" and as soon as they did that, Phelps got a slap on the wrist from his sponsors with a 3 month suspension and all kinds of other bullshit because he was drawing attention to his sponsors and making them look bad (because they really didn't care). It really isn't that big of a deal, it's just being blown way outta proportion in my opinion.

    +
    • Reply
  4. First let me say,I do not support the use of illicit drugs (or abuse of legal ones) and if I had my way the sanctions for the drug in question would be much harsher. But seriously, he is still young. Just because he is a mecha Olympic star doesn't mean he has mecha Olympic maturity. He already has a track record of boneheaded decisions (e.g. DUI) why is this such a big surprise? Unless Phelps can lose medals for it, I am not sure why this is as newsworthy as it has been made. Stick him with the punishment that is appropriate for the crimes and/or contracts broken and be done with it.

    +
    • Reply
  5. Observed from the Netherlands, this whole situation is one giant American media douchefacery. Too bad they don't have something else to focus on, like worldwide economic recession or international terrorism.

    Let's get into a brawl over Nels' comment that marijuana use should have even more retarded "sanctions" than it already does!

    +
    • Reply
  6. I'd brawl about it if I actually thought we would agree on what is recognized as scientific fact (no real discourse can occur unless there is a basis of what is true that can be agreed upon).

    Also, my much harsher stance is mainly focused on dealers and suppliers that abuse what is granted to them by the law (since there are legal operations in the US). I think of the drug problem (any drug problem) as something similar to a human. If you want to kill it successfully, cut off its head (the drug source) not its fingers (the users).

    +
    • Reply
  7. Why do you assume I won't agree? I'm up for a good conversation.

    +
    • Reply
  8. I don't really care about the drug part. It's just the thought of someone that has trained and their entire life towards something and would jeopardize it for something so stupid. This is suspension number 2, how many more before they never let him compete again?

    It's like if you had a really great job and then went out and got drunk on your lunch break.

    +
    • Reply
  9. I assumed the forum in general would disagree because I meet very few young(ish) people that agree. Since most of them fall into one of these two categories:

    1. Pot isn't harmful at all, what the heck are you talking about (current or former pot smoker)?
    2. Whether or not it is harmful doesn't matter. It is a commodity that has value to the market, so it shouldn't be under governmental control (libertarian).

    I know assuming isn't a good thing to do all the time, but I'd rather be pleasantly surprised by people's disposition than sorely disappointed.

    I think the summary by the US National Institute of Health (NIH) is an excellent starting point of what should be assumed.

    The problem with most of the statistics on marijuana are based on correlations from observation studies. Correlation does not imply causation. However a study that would actually be able to conclude causation would be considered unethical, due to the nature of the question being asked. Also the difficulty in obtaining good data is another problem (e.g. finding marijuana smokers that aren't cigarette smokers). With all this in mind, the correlations are a measure of evidence that marijuana could be a serious health risk. More study and a better understanding of the substance is needed. Considering the reaction to alcohol prohibition in America, if marijuana were ever legalized, I doubt you'd ever be able to recriminalize it again.

    I could have more to say, but I'll start with this.

    Also @ Dean: I totally agree.

    +
    • Reply
  10. I used to smoke back in the day, but stoped cause I'm not going to get a record over it (I don't smoke cigarettes, by the way). I will say though, as someone who has tried it, marijuana isn't nearly as harmful as alcohol, or as harmful as people say it is. Which is weird, since alcohol is legal and pot isn't. I will not go as far as to say that pot isn't harmful though. It has it's good and bad side effects just like other substances. Example: short term memory damage or loss = Bad / reduces swelling and nausea = Good. Marijuana is an herb, and can be smoked w/out being tampered with, just like tobacco, which is more harmful as well. If you ask me pot should be legal, and if it was, I'd probably start smoking again. There are way more harmful drugs out there that our tax money could be used to prevent hitting our streets like opiates (heroine, cocaine, etc). I say tax it like cigarettes, slap a warning label on it, and sell it to people 21 and over. And if you want to get all biblical, marijuana bares seeds. God must have put it here for a reason. Just my opinion though.

    +
    • Reply
  11. I can't argue that alcohol is safer, since all signs point to contrary. However, alcohol has basically been grandfathered into legality. I doubt many people would disagree that if alcohol had been discovered 50 years ago rather than thousands of years ago, its state of legality would almost surely be much different. Also, if I could vote on a bill to make it illegal again, I would. However I know how to pick my battles. Fighting against the legality of alcohol seems to be futile at this point in time. When the time is right, I will act on it appropriately.

    Also, the "not as harmful as people says it is" is totally subjective, since it depends on the people you talk to. Most of the pot smokers I have met are so angry at "how grownups exaggerate how bad it is" that they forget that there is still merit in the argument that it is bad for you.

    It is true that the active ingredients in marijuana could hold great medicinal purpose, and I wouldn't want to stop that. Just like how heroin is actually one of the best (if not the best) painkillers known to man. So in a way it is a shame that is is completely illegal since victims of very serious injury could benefit from its painkilling power (It's so addictive it couldn't be prescribed to just anyone).

    If it were to be legalized, I think more than a age limit and warning would be in order, since just being in proximity to a consumer can cause intoxication.

    Finally, I don't read the bible, so I won't entertain any arguments of a biblical nature.

    +
    • Reply
  12. I would think if it was to ever be legalized; it would be treated like cigarettes. 2nd hand smoke can be dangerous, no matter what you're smoking. That's why in many states it's illegal to smoke in public places/places that serve food.

    Nels said:
    Also, the "not as harmful as people says it is" is totally subjective, since it depends on the people you talk to. Most of the pot smokers I have met are so angry at "how grownups exaggerate how bad it is" that they forget that there is still merit in the argument that it is bad for you.

    That's true for cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana. They are all bad for you in one way or another, just some more then others. Alcohol, if consumed regularly, slowly eats away at your liver and other organs. It also causes various diseases, and can kill you from overdose (alcohol poisoning). It's also very addictive and effects your perception a lot. Cigarettes are very addictive, and can cause various diseases as well (cancer). Out of the 3 marijuana is really the only one that actually has good effects as well as bad. As I said before it helps with swelling and nausea. It does effect your perception, but not nearly as much as alcohol. Depending on the person, pot isn't very addictive. In my experience, and by witnessing those around me who smoke or have smoked, it's really more of a mental want. The want can be strong (maybe it's a little more like an urge), but you don't suffer any with drawls (except for maybe being a little more bitchy then usual). There was also a study done a few years back that said in order to over dose from marijuana you would have to smoke an entire diesel truck full in 30 seconds, which is impossible. However, most of this info is derived from my life’s experience, and really depends on the person. What effects one person one way, may affect another person completely differently. It also comes down to personal preference. Some people prefer the effects of some substances then others. We are all individuals, and as such, our bodies and personalities lean toward or are negatively affected by some things that others are not. As you said, it really depends on whom you talk to, but just because one person doesn't like pot doesn't mean that those who do should be punished for their decisions. Me personally, I don't drink often because I had a bad run in with Captain Morgan and the after math of alcohol poisoning, but I'm not going to go out and condemn drinking. It's their choice, and those who drink have that right as individuals. Should it not be the same with marijuana? Now, I know what some will think, "Well, then why not say that for hard drugs." Well, that's because "hard" substances are extremely addictive and the withdraws alone can kill you. They should be illegal. I don't think that marijuana should fall in that category.

    +
    • Reply
  13. I have a problem with arguments about personal choice, since no one lives in a vacuum, personal choice inevitably affects those in proximity. So justifications for behavior should consider the society in which the behavior will occur within. Whether people like or dislike smoking marijuana should be considered irrelevant. It isn't (or at least shouldn't be) illegal because people don't like it smoking it, it is illegal because it is claimed to be dangerous to our health. So that's what we should stick to: discussing health related issues.

    Also, both alcohol and cigarettes (specifically nicotine) do have positive effects as well (alcohol is a blood thinner, nicotine is an appetite suppressant). Saying marijuana is the only one of the three with positive effects in inaccurate. As a reminder, I support pharmaceutical exploration of THC.

    Just because a drug can't kill somebody, doesn't mean it should be legal. Suppose I just invented a new chemical compound that produces a highly euphoric effect with zero risk of death when consumed, though it is habit forming. However, the side effect of this drug is that it causes mental retardation after prolonged use. Should this chemical compound be legal for human consumption?

    +
    • Reply
    • ???
    • Thu November 26, 2020
    Log in to post a reply.

    Don't have an account? Register in about a minute.
Topic #2041 · Invisible to nobody · Closed to nobody older · newer
Close
Login with Facebook Login with Steam
close