Warning: I like the sound of my own voice. I also have rather strong opinions (at least when I actually have one.)

Today at lunch I had a friendly discussion about the recent developments surrounding a particular famous Olympic athlete and his poorly chosen method of relaxation. It seems the sheriff of the town where the unfavorable picture was taken of Mr. Michael Phelps has decided to pursue an investigation into the people involved with the activities partaken in said picture. I did not comment on the legality of the main issue, ie whether marijuana should be legalized or not, but merely on the fact that people are chiding the sheriff for his actions.

I suppose I did get a bit stubborn during the course of the conversation and once or twice prevented the other party from voicing their point. But I already knew what their point was. It was the same point and issue that all the people riding the sheriff were already espousing. Namely that it was a waste of resources to pursue the investigation. Phelp’s already said he was sorry, why can’t we leave it at that?

Facts:

  1. It is currently illegal to possess marijuana. (I will neither agree or disagree with this, it simply is the state of things currently.)
  2. Michael Phelps was pictured using a bong/water pipe.
  3. He later admitted that yes it indeed was filled with marijuana and not tobacco.
  4. The sheriff, based on that picture, took it upon himself to find and arrest the parties involved.
  5. Michael Phelps has a certain level of celebrity that undoubtedly  brought extra scrutiny to bear.

Yes it may be unfair that the sheriff went after arrests based on the picture simply because of Phelp’s celebrity status.  It may be a huge waste of law enforcement resources for rather minimal charges. As far as I know, Phelp’s has yet to be charged with anything. But he has already admitted to it on record. That alone is enough. His lawyers would have a hard time having his admission thrown out, especially because he said it during a press conference and he was not under arrest at the time so he would not have been in violation of his Miranda rights.

The stubbornness on my part came in when the other party involved in the conversation tried to get out their point that it was simply marijuana and surely a huge waste of resources to pursue it, and I constantly interrupted with the question: Is it legal to posses or consume marijuana?” Sure it was a bit annoying, and it was meant to be. More then trying to support the sheriff, I was trying to drive at the point, were is the line where laws can be fudged a bit?

Sure he was not hurting anyone? I attempted to make a comparison to attacking someone with a knife, but only cutting them a little, to the point of drawing blood but leaving no scar. The other party complained that comparing attempted murder or even assault was not accurate when talking about drug use. Why the hell not? Are not both against the law? The biggest difference I see is that the assault depends solely on the second party (the victim) deciding to press charges or not. In the case of drug use there is only one party. So if we apply the same rules to laws governing drug use, then the victimized party should decide whether to press charges or not. Which then means the person using the drugs should decide whether they want to press charges against themselves or not.

The point being that while the actions the sheriff have taken may be a bit overzealous, especially if he does not apply the same resources to similar cases when no celebrity is involved, he was still enforcing the law which is what he was hired to do. If you think the law he was enforcing is ridiculous or outdated, then you have every right to petition the government (local and federal), seek elected office yourself, stage demonstration (legally and peacefully) and more to see it get changed. Until then, you should full expect to pay for the consequences of your actions until such changes are made. That goes double for celebrities and others under the public microscope.