Does Michael Phelps' Massive Lung Capacity Help Him Take Monster Bong Hits?

[WilliamPitt]

The question of the hour...

:smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke:

Olympic-Size Bong Hits
Michael Phelps has extraordinary lung capacity. Does that mean he can get extraordinarily stoned?
By Juliet Lapidos
Posted Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2009, at 6:41 PM ET

The British tabloid News of the World published a photo Sunday of Michael Phelps taking a bong hit at a college party. The International Olympic Committee accepted the swimmer's apology for his behavior, and so far Phelps' sponsors are making light of the incident. Meanwhile, on blogs and chat forums, fans are wondering whether Phelps' abnormally large lung capacity means he can take monster bong rips. Can he?

He can. Total lung capacity refers to the volume of air contained in the lungs at the point of "maximal" inspiration—i.e., the biggest breath you can take. It's measured in liters. The greater a smoker's total lung capacity, the more he can inhale from a given joint, bowl, or bong. According to some estimates, Phelps' lung capacity is twice that of the average human, or 12 liters rather than six. So if he puts his mind to it, he can take a hit that's twice as big as that of the next partygoer.

Each time a smoker takes a puff of marijuana, THC is delivered to the circulatory system via the capillaries in the lungs. The rapidity with which a smoker gets high depends, in part, on how quickly he absorbs the THC, which depends, in turn, on the interval between puffs, hold time, and, yes, lung capacity. But this doesn't mean that Phelps gets twice as high, twice as fast as non-Olympians. Larger people need more cannabis than others to feel its effect. (Phelps is 6-foot-4 and weighs about 195 pounds.) How quickly a smoker gets high, and how high he gets, also depends on whether he's a regular user. Veteran tokers need to smoke more than novices to experience the drug's physiological and behavioral effects.

The rest: http://www.slate.com/id/2210441/

:smoke:

[rcrush]

1. I bet he is always getting yelled at by his mom.

His mom must be calling him all the time

"I saw you grab that strippers ass!"
"I saw you smoking pot!"

[KCS72000]

2. Hey - Don't Phelps that Bong! /nt.

nt

[lazyriver]

6. Somewhere 20, 30 or 40 years from now,

somebody will use that wonderful phrase and wonder where the reference came from. Let the record show it was coined right here.

[Left Is Write]

18. Out with the bogart, in with the phelps.

[Blue_Tires]

3. does the same research apply for the crack pipe?

phelps IS from baltimore, after all...:evilgrin:

[jmrobins00]

4. Hey now...

it's not crack anymore. That's the 80's. We're the heroin capital now, thank you very much :P

[LynneSin]

17. Sorry that's our title here in Wilmington, DE. Hell Artie Lange wrote about it

and that guy did massive amounts of Herion - all bought for here in Wilmington

[pattmarty]

12. What, crack was born in Baltimore? Clue us all in here, for the.......

...........299 million people that DON'T live in Baltimore.

[BurtWorm]

5. He shaves his brachia to cut down on smoke resistance in his lungs.

:headbang:

[Kali]

7. ...

:spray: :rofl:

[WilliamPitt]

10. *peeing*

[NightWatcher]

8. first thing I noticed from the pics: the bong is clear.

I bet he could clear one of those four footers.

[Dr.Phool]

9. I would hope so.

Put all that exercise to good use.

[pattmarty]

11. Katt Williams is a super-expert on this. Just watch one of his..........

........comedy routines on the "marijuana issue" and you will laugh your fucking ass off.

[mentalslavery]

13. This should be outlawed.

I am so tired of the media thinking that it is their job to assassinate peoples character. Everyone has a right to personal privacy when it comes to personal issues. This is not news, it does not affect the population or any sub-population. Had I not hear about this I would have been fine. Because it dominated the news cycle, their are pressing issues that we are not examining.

And yes, it should be illegal. It is media practices such as these that are major factors in our march to war and other mistakes. We can not make decisions without information, democracy is based upon accurate information as well as a variety of idea's that are justifiably legitimate. The "truth" exist as the most accurate description of events according to those viewing it. For example, this information that you are viewing is on internet and you are using your eyes to read it. Their are many things that this is not such as love, the universe, an elephant, or a family member. While we might have minor disagreements about what the "truth" is, the subjective reality is confined by the objective reality. They are co-existing aspects of our notions of reality. They are two parts of the whole. Evidence of this is that if you agree that, "this information that you are viewing is on internet and you are using your eyes to read it", but actually find the content vacuous then you might argue that it is not information at all because it is empty. Thus, we might have a minor disagreement about what the "truth" is such that our subjective perspective lead us to slightly different conclusions. However, you will not agree that what you are reading is "love, the universe, an elephant, or a family member." If I am wrong about this, you need to seek medical treatment immediately, those mushrooms were organic.

If you are one who still believes that there is no form of objectivity to our notions of "reality", then I am the person who actually owns your house, car, and any other thing you currently poses. Please send me your address so that I can stop by and pick my stuff up.

If we are mis-informed and lied to or presented with distorted information and choices; people die, money is wasted, and the environment is polluted. I could give a rats ass about the poor journalist who was restricted in some way from their sense of journalistic freedom (as if it is all about YOU, asshole!). The argument that they have the right to present anything they want is bankrupt. Every action is restricted in some way. For example, they can not show us porn in a report about porn, at least not certain acts and body parts.

The most significant evidence to justify legal restrictions is the following. Our country is based upon a certain set of principles that include liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I want to know how we, or phelps are able to pursue liberty and happiness. He is being harassed and slandered as well as discriminated against. He's going to lose his endorsements and most likely future opportunities because he smoked some pot, while a rock star who does the same only sells more records. What, the guy is a famous swimmer so he should always have to look over his shoulder before doing everything? Really? I could see if he lite up a joint on the medal stand during the presentation, but he is obviously not in public. In terms of our pursuit of liberty and happiness, we are impeded from progress by distracting and time consuming stories such as these. We can not maximize our efforts because we become consumed with this story in our personal conversations and pursuits. Therefore, this argument contends that the relative harm to journalistic freedom is not nearly matched by the harm to the individual and society as a whole from these practices.

I am a teacher and have academic freedom to present almost any type of information that I want to in class but that does not free me to slander or liable a student or any other member of the public. Just because I teach a criminology or deviant behavior class does not mean I can take photo's of students in the act of committing a crime or deviant act (from their facebook or myspace accounts or otherwise) and present it to the class. It would constitute harassment. It would create an antagonistic and uncomfortable educational atmosphere for the specific student and for the class as a whole. There are limits to everything and the media is really pushing those limits. Correspondingly, I can present evidence that a government official is deviant or possibly criminal as long as that government official is not in my class. The differences between the two issues are many First, society is the subject matter of my discipline and crime and deviance are the specialized topics and my job is to relate how IMPORTANT criminal acts and deviant behavior manifest itself in society. The theories and research methods of my discipline focus on those things. An individual students actions are irrelevant actions to society as a whole. An elected poli's actions, if they negatively effect society, are important actions that shape society. One persons actions can not effect the population beyond the highly abstract ways in which drugs present negative modeling effects for children. Arguing that any picture on the internet presents a negative modeling effect for the youth of America would be difficult because I would have to show that a large group of children saw that exact photo. Even if I could support that claim, it would not change the harassing nature of my actions and therefore would be inappropriate because there are different pictures that I can present if I feel that it is necessary. This is not true for a political crime, which by definition is an illegal act that effects the functioning of social institutions and involves harm to the population. The harm caused is both direct and indirect and large in scope and severity. Thus, if I can present legitimate information to support those claims and that official is not present in my class then such a presentation is protected by academic freedom.

The news organizations who ran this story where aware of the personal effects that it would have on him. Additionally, they have the balls to run the photo and then accuse him of setting a bad example. But it is a cheap way to fill the news cycle and will attract viewers. They are also aware of the pressing issues that face this nation, but designing a comprehensive news story is expensive. I feel sorry for the dude and others who are harassed about their personal decisions, just victims of the christo-capitalistic nightmare we call the news media. Nations go the way of their informational resources, crap in-crap out. Wake up.

The legal guidelines? Does this information affect society or sub-groups? If the public were unaware of this information, would that lack of information negatively affect society or sub-groups? Basically scope and severity. This is not really as complex or confusing as people tend to make it. The media's job is to serve society by providing the most relevant information (what is the effect) to the population or sub-groups. Of course, we should never pass a law that punishes journalists because it could be argued that the topic of choice is not the "most" relevant to the population or sub-groups. But, we should require that it is relevant to the population or sub-groups. Additionally, personal destruction stories should be accompanied by fines and possibly imprisonment. A perpetrator could likely have ruined someones life for financial gain. In the process, valuable time that has been set aside to keep the public informed has been subverted for personal gain. These are not small infractions. Just because we allow it, does not mean that it does not violate the basic principles that are the foundation of our criminal justice system-harming others and disrupting order.

[Shakespeare]

14. There's a small thing called the First Amendment that negates your suggestion.

The First Amendment occasionally allows for ugly, troubling behavior, but it still protects speech, and thank goodness for that. There are very specific case law "tests" that determine when a publication goes too far (i.e., "actual malice" in the case of public figures), so the limits that currently exist are just fine.

[mentalslavery]

21. Re-read and think about it critically this time

come on-there are many restrictions on free speech-registering for a protest???. Arguing that, this is what we do so this is what we should be doing is not an argument. This is not about ugly, troubling behavior such as people screaming insults at each other in public. This is about character assassination.

[Shakespeare]

36. You presume that I didn't.

I did. I'm also a former working journalist, and currently work in the legal field in First Amendment law. I'm pretty well-versed on the First Amendment, and also extremely protective of the rights it bestows.

You do not have a good understanding of what limits on free speech there are (hint: registering for a protest is not). And there are already safeguards in place that concern public figures, as I mentioned in my first post.

We have enough limits on the First Amendment as it is, and I find it deeply troubling that somebody on a democratic message board would be arguing for more limits.

[mentalslavery]

54. Yeah, you guys are doing an awesome job

An article that is presented as news in not covered by freedom of expression because news is not supposed to be about individuals or organizations expressing themselves. Duh.

Another thing, registering for a protest is a limit on free speech. Because you can protest with out first obtaining registration. Therefore, the speech, the expression is limited. One must ask the organization it is protesting for permission, before expressing their grievances. That limitation is exactly what the first amendment was designed block. Don't you understand the historical, contextual, and social environment of the first amendment.

This is not about more or less. This is about what speech is protected and what speech is not. We have the wrong limitations and they have bastardized the heart of the amendment. Personally, I do not register for protests that I organize because I won't be told when and where to express myself and neither will my crew.

Additionally, a protest is supposed to catch people by surprise, stop the normal function of events, and disturb. Of course, there are things that I think should never be protested, such as funerals, because they are sacred events. These sacred events are more important than ensuring someones right to express themselves. Would you agree that there is no issue that supersedes a families right to say goodbye in a peaceful way. If I want to read a prayer, and protesters are screaming about gays and my family members can not hear my prayer, then is my right to self-expression being violated? Isn't the first amendment about protecting that type of free speech. Are those organizations expressing themselves or harassing me?

There are also area's that should be protected, such as an emergency room. Even if a person has a problem with a hospital, there right to express themselves is not more important than the hospitals ability to save lives. Because a protest will in that area will almost always lead to a death, it is legitimate to restrict it and punish people severely for a violation.

Kinda like, if we are at war and the news media is showing you Britney's ass as a substitute for vital information. It will almost always lead to deaths. Most of this country had know idea what was going on because they were told about Britney's ass. The length of time spent on that information, which is not news (look up the definition), not only subverts democracy but also violates the citizens right to express themselves, because you know, self-expression requires information. Is it really to much, during times of economic crisis or war to have a black out on Britney's ass. Is that regulation really limiting free speech, or does that regulation encourage it.

Dude, news is not expression. CNN is not expressing itself when it puts up a pix of phelps or follows Brittney. People express themselves. The first amendment is about protecting the average citizen when they speak out about a topic from the sanctions of powerful people. Money is not free speech, it is paper with green paint on it. As a society we must carefully way out the cost and benefits of different forms of free speech. Of course I can not scream fire in a crowded building when there is not fire because people might get hurt.

The invisible hand of information is self-regulating and is the best thing for news

[Shakespeare]

55. First, your word count to substance ratio is way, way off.

In other words, you're typing and typing and not saying a damn thing.

Now, to get to the heart of the matter: you can bemoan tabloid journalism all you want, but it ALL falls under protected speech under the First Amendment, whether you like it or not.

The First Amendment is not about sifting through and determining what constitutes "quality" information. That is up to YOU as the consumer. Deal with it, and govern yourself accordingly.

And as far as your odd tangent about registering for protests is concerned, you're confusing federal protections with local ordinances. I also don't see many municipalities--in fact, I don't know of ANY--who require citizens to register before they can protest. Ergo, you're full of shit, and you don't understand what you're talking about. I shudder to think that you might actually be a teacher.

[mentalslavery]

65. Really? have you ever protested before?

Because if you don't register, you will probably get arrested. I don't know where you are attempting to look for information about registering for a protest and why you can't find it.

Additionally, an amendment is interpreted. You state it as fact as if I don't know the case law. I am challenging the conceptual and theoretical underpinnings of the rulings.

You will need to re-read it a couple times. Go back to the first post. You are completely missing the point. I am not talking about tabloid journalism. I am not talking about commercial speech. This is not about the quality of information. This is not about me and you. This is about the effect that unregulated corporate news media has had on society. This is about whether our old paradigm has been bastardized.

Don't you find it ironic that you are using two freedoms that were specifically designed to get at the truth as a cover of lies?

This free speech you think you have, its all about you, right? Just as long as you get accurate information, right? Then, free speech is still alive. So, all the we need to say that we have freedom of speech is the ability to say whatever we want, true or false, whenever we want? If we have freedom of speech and freedom of the press, then why do people have no clue what the hell is going on. Why are fox, cnn, and msnbc protected by speech and press? All their shows are opinion debates about news items. Thats not news. Since when did we decide that people could go on tv and lie and trick others repeatedly without penalty?

You really don't see the danger? So, there is absolutely no line. No slander line. No liable line. No defamation line. Anything goes. You better study up on the law. Whatever you do, don't call 9/11 and report a fire when there is none, because that is not covered by the first amendment. fyi

[Shakespeare]

67. You are completely full of it.

I protest quite regularly here in Los Angeles, and did so as well in northern California, Texas and Washington DC. Not ONCE was I ever asked or required to register. I'd bet none of the folks on this board have, either.

I'm not missing the point at all. I know exactly what you're proposing, and you're wrong--and probably a little nuts.

People do NOT go on TV or print whatever they want without penalty. There are most certainly repercussions for slander and libel, so I think you're the one who needs to go study up. I deal with this on a daily basis, and I'm quite familiar with the law on this.

[mentalslavery]

77. The organizers have to register the protest. not every individual

Well if we can penalize people for slander and libel then me and you are on the same page. Who do we prosecute first?

All the people at CNN
Almost the people at MSNBC
Everyone at Fox and their Mothers (adding and abetting via birth)

Dude, people go on tv these days and lie all the time. Where have you been for the last 10 years? Did you hear the repeated "palin around with terrorist's"? I guess that is legitimate. Wait, who is the terrorist? Thats right, a college teacher in chicago. Wait, if terrorist is a legitimate label to refer to this person as on national tv every night, then he should be arrested right? Or do we just thro that word around at people we don't like?

[Shakespeare]

80. I'm not a "dude," dude.

You're suggesting federal regulation of news content.

Fuck. That.

I'd like to point one thing out, and then I'm done with this insanity ('cause that's what it is): notice that you are the ONLY PERSON on this thread spouting that asinine position. Think about THAT.

[mentalslavery]

25. Re-read and think about it critically this time

come on-there are many restrictions on free speech-registering for a protest???. Arguing that, this is what we do so this is what we should be doing is not an argument. This is not about ugly, troubling behavior such as people screaming insults at each other in public. This is about character assassination.

[mentalslavery]

51. So, showing a picture of phelps smoking pot is a free speech issue

Who is expressing what? Is CNN expressing its feelings on the issue of drugs and sports?

News is a corporate commodity sold to us. It is a product. This is fraud. Think about it. Unfortunately, you have heard, all your life, from the news media that if they are subjected to criminal sanctions for the things the say or print or the images the present then they will become corrupted. They will feel like they can not report the real news and will not get us the vital information that ensures the public is informed. Wow, man I glad that has not occurred. I get it, the invisible hand of information is self-regulating.

[Shakespeare]

53. Yes, it is, whether you like it or not.

I'll just let you ponder that for awhile.

Yes, publishing that pic of Phelps smoking pot IS protected free speech in action.

So, tell us all how you'd re-write the First Amendment. And please be specific.

[mentalslavery]

63. What does it express and who is expressing it?

First, I don't have the answers to everything yet. But I do know when I am being played. So, I cant tell you how to re-write the amendment and I don't know that it would do anything.

What I can tell you is we have a problem with how we are conceptualizing free speech and free press. Its not working. Its being used to protect lies and distract us, instead of expose them. Its also taking on a strangely moralistic character that justifies revealing anything about people with no regard for the public interest. It reminded me about how they followed Britney forever and just filmed her personal issues. There was absolutely no point besides to cheer at someone's destruction. Thats all it is. You know it. Profit on misery. There was no information that related to the public's interest. But, they made a lot of money because people wanted to watch her go down. Remember when some slimy journalist got a shot up her shirt? Why did we need to see that?

The phelps story probably ruined his future and distracted us. Thats all it did. You gained nothing from it. I gained nothing from it. At a time when we have big problems, they spend time screwing him. If that is free speech then does it really matter if we protect it? Is that the freedom of the press? Can you honestly tell me that people risk their lives to start a country, fought off an empire so that one day we could celebrate the destruction of

Dont you think that it is reasonable that if they are going to ruin a big contract deal and someone's reputation, then it should be more than the celebration of misery?

Why is profiting from ruining someones reputation protected by free speech?

I can't think of why that was important? Can you? Why did we need to see that?

How does that inform you about what is in the stimulus package or some other more important issue?

I think a couple fines would really help the situation out. Tell me how it could get worse?

They show us crap and we accept it as news. That is what is killing freedom of speech and freedom of the press. How can we have freedom of speech when they give us meaningless issues to discuss? Freedom of speech implies that the speech is important to the public and relevant to common interest. That is what the people meant when they used that phrase. Revolutionaries were not really concerned with protecting gossip about some individual.

Lets look at the amendments and think about the purpose of the amendment.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Obviously, we don't really follow this amendment in a literal way, we deduce from the language, as well as the context in which it was written, the meaning. All legal/constitutional documents and writings are living documents, and mutually inclusive. That is to say, they are taken as a body of work that has internal contradictions and that those internal contradictions are balanced via a case specific decisions and hierarchical courts.

Now, lets look at another amendment.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It is the end of this amendment that protects us from being abused before a criminal trial is completed. This amendment was specifically designed to protect people from powerful organizations (religion, at the time) that might seek to do harm, or be a form of extra-judicial punishment. Basically, this amendment was an attempt to create a legal body, that inflicts punishment, only after the conclusion of a criminal case.

Our criminal justice and governmental history (western) is ripe with problems relating to powerful organizations whose message had a mass audience and used the "court of public" opinion to stigmatize and punish peoplet(witches/sexuality/birth control/divorce/family structure/marriage). The bill of rights did not appear out of thin air, it was conceptualized within this social, cultural, and historical context.

The specific language (constitution) is less important than the intent of the amendments. The language of the amendments is weak because society changes, expressions and meanings change and therefore if we use the words to "speak for themselves" that speech becomes bastardized.

For a specific list of some of the high courts rulings that pertain to this argument as well as the dangers of inaction see.

http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/archives/17/freespeech.html


In terms of the idea that the things presented on the idiot box are protected by free speech, that is the exact opposite of the intent of free speech. Free speech is for the individual, it is not for organizations who can quickly stigmatize and create feelings of hatred. Regulations such as liable and slander apply to them. Freedom of the press was not intended to ruin peoples lives and block economic prosperity unless it came at the cost of the public. Freedom of the press was intended to criticize powerful organizations and inform the public of their actions, because they affect our lives in a direct and concrete way. This is where the concept of newsworthy comes from. While I am familiar with legislation and ruling as well as the practical implications of addressing these issues, the conventional wisdom is bankrupt. I recognize the power of the courts, but refute the legitimacy of their rulings because they strip the heart of our rights away and leave behind a shell of words. These protections were not designed or intended to protect an organizations actions when they broadcast peoples personal dirt and ruin their lives. It was also not to protect them from repeating lies mixed with the same words, over, and over, and over to create negative feelings about weak groups. All day, everyday, immigrants, minorities, whores, druggies, welfare queens, non-christian, big government (which is code for socialism), handouts (which is code for the poor), terrorist, etc. Freedom of speech is about debate and expression and the realization of common interest and better ways of doing things. How does repeating the same theme's everyday and provide little accurate information and a few complete lies constitute anything but slander and liable and defamation of character. All these channels do is create feelings of hostility among the public and distract us from achieving public goals. These actions are totally against everything the bill of rights was supposed to ensure.

I'm not crazy, I know that congress is not going to pass a law to regulate the "news" media. But, I want people to think about whether the corporate news, political organizations, and politicians can say anything they want and do anything they want to people. Because, if you think about it, thats what we have in corporate news and among poli-leaders. An organization that operates with complete immunity for the things that it says. It is in no way obligated to be factual and has wide spread influence.

So, let me get this straight. Most of you here at DU are well aware of the history of these 24 hour corporate news networks. They have basically never been correct on a single major issue since they started in the late nineties. But you are going to accept the idea that they are still news organizations. So, if a series of news organizations misleads the country on a series of really big issues for about 10 years, thats fine, thats free speech. So, free speech is the powerful corporations lying to us and fucking us over. I mean, we all know they are corporate owned. We all know they lie, mislead, and distract. If that is the low bar that we consider free speech and freedom of the press then have we fucked up. I mean, you do realize that it was supposed to have the opposite effect, right. They were supposed to help us. They are supposed to cut through the lies, not repeat them. Can you honestly say that they serve a purpose besides to lie about any topic that is populist.

Either they are scream at each other and name call or show us some drunk celebrities ass or a personal failing. So, thats free speech. Wow, well have fun with your free speech. Wait, isn't free speech supposed to be a good thing. You ever think that maybe they are using the idea of free speech to lie and distract us? Where did you get the idea that less limitations of free speech always a good thing? Did you hear that on the idiot box. Does it feel good. How do like living in a country where you leaders and news hosts call you names and encourage your neighbor to hate you. You liberal, you right-winger. I'm tired of leaders and the news personalities profiting off of hate and someone's personal mistakes.

I got news for you, that story

I am so sick of turning on the news and hearing the word liberal with a nasty tone and twisted face. Over and over and over. Thats not news, thats classic conditioning. There is no information, folks, words are not information in and of themselves. Speech implied truthful and accurate information that was important for the public. When they wrote the first amendment, thats what free speech and press referred to. Free speech and free press were supposed to cut through the lies. They have convinced us that, even though they are massive liars, they are protected because they are speaking and have labeled the program news. Are we that stupid. All they have to do is keep talking and put the word news in front of whatever they say and then anything is fair game. I know I am the only one because I try to talk to others about this a lot but, it is so fucking obvious. We are getting played. They are using the notion of rights and the other protections in the constitution to spread propaganda. We live in a country were money is somehow a form of free speech, even though we know it blocks the goals of free speech. Corporations have legal person status and the some of the rights of humans. So, basically, the powerful can tell us that a cat is a dog and we will sit here and agree. Yep, that corporation is a human and the end result is that they can do more then before the had legal person status.

Personally, I believe that showing us a pix of this dude just as he is about to land a contract criminal slander, and liable, defamation of character as well as denial of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They knew damn well that he was going to be screwed. This dude worked his whole life at being a swimmer and in 5 days they will ruin his future. What you want to bet, if he tries to go to the back and compete they start talking about him again and the bad press screws him from competing.

The more I think about it the crazy I think all of you are. I said that putting a picture on the TV that will fuck someones job up should be legal and you guys accuse me of wanting to do away with the first amendment. That is a joke. So, let me get this straight, outlawing stories like this is bad for freedom of speech and the press. So, this story somehow provided information that benefits the public. Are you sure? Are you really trying to tell me that if we actually outlawed these stories then the news would be worse? This is good for society? This is good for free speech? It benefits and advances free speech?

A crime is not defined solely by judicial action. Bush is not going to jail, his actions are clearly criminal behavior as well as in direct violation of law.

Even if I do concede those conceptual points and accept the conventional concepts, not ever picture or idea is protected. Some pictures and ideas are considered to be illegal acts. For example, their are a host of statements that are regulated because they would cause harm to the general public. Thus, the interest of the public are considered more important than the rights of an individual to say whatever comes to mind.

Additionally, some pictures are not appropriate and are regulated because of the negative effect that they might have on a persons reputation or future. It must be more important for the public to see the image, for this act to be protected. The image must have a significant value to the population, such as the pix that revealed how brutal our treatment was of the Iraqis. Showing those pix are more important than protecting the civil rights of the people in them because of the significance they have for the population. Thus, the negative effects that the individuals suffer are not considered as important and therefore do not supersede the interests of the public.

Someone, such as phelps, who will ultimately suffer greatly by revealing this image might be a victim of harassment, defamation of character, and liable (yes that's right, not slander because liable covers images via TV or print). Additionally, this persons liberty and right to pursue happiness might have been violated. Only the future will tell. The first amendment was not about destroying a persons reputation and future earnings or career at the drop of a hat, for any reason at all. I mean, really, for hitting a bong. He should suffer such a penalty? He has not privacy rights?

What is the burning public interest behind this story? How does my knowledge of these events supersede the negative effects that he will suffer. What can I do with this knowledge? The fundamental principle behind the freedom of the speech is to advance the interests of the people, speak truth to power, and allow for a spirited debate (among citizens, in their communities, and in papers and writings that were passed from town to town). The freedom of speech concept was not intended for the idiot box, in fact, it was intended to be a tool for the person to fight back with! The founders could have have never envisioned the idiot box, but they had their own version of the idiot box. Oppressive religious organizations and public punishments. The freedom of speech concept was designed under the premise that all societies have powerful organizations are able to stigmatize individuals and groups as well as punish. These actions were and are at the expensive of the weak and for the benefit of the powerful. Fox, MSNBC, and CNN are not news organizations or the press because the content is opinion directed at shaping negative images of people, groups, or organizations. Basically, they slander, liable, and defame character for profit by stigmatizing people. They are our modern version of religious persecution and public punishments. We turn it on everyday to hear about the bad people and have their personal trash paraded through the square.

The issue of commercial speech, which is regulated for truthfulness and is presented for purposes of profit applies to "corporate news networks". Their programing, what is said and the images used, is for the purposes profit. Thus, factual content is relevant. Additionally, these networks advertise themselves as news or press organizations.

[Shakespeare]

68. Good god.

Complete batshit insanity. Good luck with that.

[Runcible Spoon]

84. I've read French semiotics works that were easier to follow than that

Made my brain hurt, and I am quite fond of Baudrillard lol.

[ColesCountyDem]

15. When you become a 'public figure', your 'expectation of privacy' is minimal.

So sayeth the Supreme Court.

[mentalslavery]

27. Really, your going to cite the supreme court.

Of course the are the official body that makes these decisions, however, their role does not make them correct.

[Midlodemocrat]

31. Maybe not, but they can spell.

:thumbsup:

[mentalslavery]

48. Well, that is important. Its too bad that they can not think

because we suffer

[Shakespeare]

37. Whether you like it or not, yes, their decisions are final and correct.

And thank goodness they're in charge of protecting the First Amendment, and you are not.

[mentalslavery]

49. They are protecting the first amendment?

Really? Like when they have ruled that political donations were protected under the first amendment. Ha! Have you ever considered that maybe reason for the first amendment was to preserve accurate and reliable information? That insuring free speech would enable the average citizen to speak the truth without retribution as well as to express themselves? Have you ever considered that this amendment needs to be revised because our society has changed such that it is used to stifle accurate information and expression?

That 1st amendment, hows it working out for you? Good thing we got free speech! I mean, otherwise we would not know about Phelps smoking pot! The first amendment rules, it is more important than any other civil right in all cases!!

[Shakespeare]

50. LOL--you can't make up your mind if you want more restrictions, or fewer.

And no, the Amendment doesn't need to be changed. That's what makes the constitution such an amazing document.

Now, I'll give you time to regroup and decide once and for all if the first amendment is too lenient or not lenient enough, since you've come down on both sides of the issue today. :rofl:

[mentalslavery]

66. I never advocated an amendment change, I advocated a law.

A law based upon the privacy, liberty, and pursuit of happiness concepts that are found in an amendment. A law specifically related to the media with some harsh penalties for extreme situations.

See, you are only guaranteed these things in an abstract way by an amendment. A law specifies the punishment for each type of infraction.

I have repeatedly stated that this is not about the first amendment. The first amendment does no always supersede every other issue. Amendments do no have lenient or strict qualities, they are statements of commitment to abstract principles.

You need to think a little more. You are repeating conventional thinking. I am challenging the underpinnings of that thinking regarding its effectiveness. The reason why that document is still around is because every once and a while we decide to challenge its interpretation. As society changes, we revisit it and decide how well it is working.

[Shakespeare]

69. Laws are governed by the constitution.

You really, REALLY don't have a good grasp of law or government.

[mentalslavery]

76. We use an interpretation of the consitution to evaluate law

Well, not us, but courts.

A law that would provide for stronger penalties for liable, slander, and defamation of character would not necessarily be consider unconstitutional. The idea that someone can say anything because that protects freedom of speech and press is strange. I mean, there is a limit to what a person can say. If there is no limit to what a person can say the free speech breaks down. It is not a debate, but a series of statements.

I want people who have feel their character has been assassinated to have their day in court to argue the harm was not acceptable. I want them to be able to present a case that what the country saw was a misrepresentation. I want them to be able to present evidence of how severe they suffered from those acts. I want them to be able to be compensated. I think if they win, the punishment should be more severe. I don't think we should take such acts lightly. But, I guess affording that person the opportunity to make their case somehow violates free speech. I guess increasing penalties somehow violates free speech. Don't you find it odd that when I argue this dude has a liable case, you automatically contend the court has already ruled that this act is covered by the first amendment. The debate in court is what is supposed to determine that. If the court is dogmatically asserting such claims and refuses to hear the merits of both sides then a defacto law restricting free speech has already be established by the government. Basically, someone you feels slandered or defamed has no voice.

What I am moreso theorizing about is a law that address's privacy, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Is there room for the argument that these tactics are a modern witch hunt? If these tactics are designed to celebrate misery, for private profit, is that legal?

Why do we need this so bad? Why are we protecting these MSM corps practices of digging up dirty on people? It is not freeing speech or press, it is bastardizing it. To express oneself, you have to say something. Words do not speak for themselves, they must be presented in a way that makes a point. That is free speech. Not merely repeating the same talking points of liberal, tax and spend, big government. What are you getting out of that?

Start thinking yall, don't dogmatically repeat the first amendment. Think about what it means. Think about the purpose of the protections. Was it designed to protect modern day witch hunts that serve no purpose to the public.

What separates harassment and stalking from free speech and press, a camera?

[Shakespeare]

81. I work in the legal field.

Please. Please do not condescend to tell me how the law works, especially where constitutional (and specifically free speech) issues are concerned.

God, but you're tiresome.

[mentalslavery]

88. Well, I provide the underpinnings for the conceptualization of laws

So, stop telling me about court cases and get off you fed. regulation bullshit. I mentioned nothing about fed regulation. Also, the feds. already do regulate, like state secrets, like when they were using the networks to spread propga.

Now, think about it, don't strain yourself. If we can not punish people in the media for allowing propa, then the government is restricting free speech to whatever they want us to hear. OHHH, I guess you haven't thought about it from that angle, have you? oh, yeah, well now that you put it like that, maybe this is about a protection of speech.

You legal field guys can't think beyond discrete definitions. What are you, a para?

[Shakespeare]

89. I've thought about it from more angles, and with more knowledge, than you'll ever approach.

You're nutty.

[mentalslavery]

90. Paralegal-tryin to talk shit abou the law

Please dude. So, what do we do about government proga showing up on our "news" stations? Since your such a big thinker. Let me guess, the typical response, nothing, because any law we pass is a violation of the 1 amendment.

But corporate ownership of media presented as news is the 1 amendment in action. Yes, that is exactly what jefferson was thinking about whenever he wrote or spoke about freedom of speech, discourse, and decision. But I sure such a "legal field" expert such as yourself is familiar with jeffersons body of work.

[Shakespeare]

91. LOL--you don't know shit about me.

But your wrong-headed assumptions about my profession--and lame attempts at insult--are somewhat entertaining.

You are simply wrong.

I've pissed you off because I refuse to engage you anymore, because your long-winded rants are nonsense. Get a thicker skin, seriously.

[ColesCountyDem]

82. It may not make them correct, but it does make them legal. n/t

[Midlodemocrat]

22. WooHoo!!!! Outrage!!!!

Excellent!!!!

:thumbsup:



:eyes:

[taterguy]

23. Too bad I'm too high to read that overly long post

What did it say?

[Midlodemocrat]

24. No idea. I only read Shake's reply.

I'm too drunk to read all that.


:rofl:

[mythyc]

59. hahahahaha, I only read Shaq's too

couldn't focus enough through the smoke haze to make out the other, but everything Shaq had to say made perfect sense, and shure was funny to boot :rofl:

and then you two at the end of that sequence.... :spray:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Here's a quick summary.

It will unequivocally surprise some people to hear me say this, but big media's contrivances are brusque but reflective of the localized normative attitudes among oppressive flibbertigibbets. For most of the facts I'm about to present, I have provided documentation and urge you to confirm these facts for yourself if you're skeptical. One does not have to saddle the economy with crippling debt in order to drive off and disperse the bloody-minded personæ non gratæ who siphon off scarce international capital intended for underdeveloped countries. It is a brutal person who believes otherwise. Although big media wants to hoodoo us, if we fail to pursue virtue and knowledge, then we have no one to blame but ourselves. Big media's excuses are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive—even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, the problem with big media is not that it's pouty. It's that it wants to oppose the visceral views of 98 percent of the nation's citizens.

Big media maintains that it answers to no one. That's not just a lie but is actually the exact opposite of the truth—and big media knows it. Why is big media deliberately turning the truth on its head like that? Whenever that question is asked, big media and its cat's-paws run and hide. I suspect that that's precisely what they're going to do now so as to avoid hearing me say that if big media got its way, it'd be able to let amoral, unctuous deadbeats run rampant through the streets. Brrrr! It sends chills down my spine just thinking about that. Time cannot change big media's behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which big media can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, call for ritualistic invocations of needlessly formal rules.

You might not care that big media's head is so far in rectal defilade it would require major surgery to extricate it, but you'd better start caring if you don't want big media to panic irrationally and overreact completely. I would like to digress here. Big media frequently avers its support of democracy and its love of freedom. But one need only look at what big media is doing—as opposed to what it is saying—to understand its true aims. I welcome big media's comments. However, big media needs to realize that I once had a nightmare in which it was free to foment, precipitate, and finance large-scale wars to emasculate and bankrupt nations and thereby force them into a one-world government. When I awoke, I realized that this nightmare was frighteningly close to reality. For instance, it is the case both in my nightmare and in reality that if we hinder the power of unenlightened racketeers like big media then the sea of quislingism, on which big media so heavily relies, will begin to dry up. In closing, although this letter has been lengthy there are still a large number of comments about big media that I have had to leave aside. I didn't even begin to mention, for instance, that people who draw attention to big media's addlepated initiatives are systematically labeled by big media's followers as "demented, barbaric cheapskates" or terms synonymous therewith. Anyway, the important point is that many of us do not wish to live within big media's walls of denominationalism.

[Midlodemocrat]

28. Didn't read all that, either.

:rofl:

[mythyc]

60. it's worth reading..... hilarious satiro-rant

worth of cervantes and swift themselves

bravo HiFructosePronSyrup :applause: if you're not a writer you should be :rofl: :rofl:

[Midlodemocrat]

29. Here's a quicker one.

I am a douchebag for posting that crap in the first place.

[taterguy]

32. Heh heh heh, you said "denominationalism"

That's deep man, fucking deep

If only I hade the slightest idea of what you were talking about

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. Denominationalism is a funny word.

Subcultural semanticist theory and semiotic neodeconstructivist theory

1. Contexts of genre

In the works of Smith, a predominant concept is the concept of dialectic culture. It could be said that several appropriations concerning the role of the participant as observer exist. The subject is contextualised into a that includes language as a totality.

However, subcultural semanticist theory suggests that culture is used to disempower the underprivileged. In Chasing Amy, Smith affirms neocapitalist socialism; in Mallrats, however, he examines subcultural semanticist theory.

Therefore, Hubbard<1> states that we have to choose between Marxist capitalism and the material paradigm of consensus. Baudrillard promotes the use of posttextual dialectic theory to attack class divisions.

2. Smith and subcultural semanticist theory

“Society is unattainable,” says Derrida; however, according to de Selby<2> , it is not so much society that is unattainable, but rather the absurdity, and eventually the failure, of society. But the premise of Marxist capitalism implies that context must come from the collective unconscious, given that Sartre’s essay on Lyotardist narrative is invalid. Any number of narratives concerning semiotic neodeconstructivist theory may be revealed.

In the works of Smith, a predominant concept is the distinction between creation and destruction. Therefore, Sartre uses the term ’subcultural semanticist theory’ to denote the fatal flaw, and therefore the failure, of dialectic sexual identity. The subject is interpolated into a that includes sexuality as a paradox.

The characteristic theme of the works of Smith is a postconstructive totality. However, if subcultural semanticist theory holds, the works of Smith are an example of self-justifying objectivism. Wilson<3> states that we have to choose between Marxist capitalism and the patriarchialist paradigm of expression.

“Class is fundamentally dead,” says Derrida; however, according to Porter<4> , it is not so much class that is fundamentally dead, but rather the economy, and subsequent failure, of class. But the subject is contextualised into a that includes art as a paradox. Lyotard uses the term ‘Marxist capitalism’ to denote the bridge between sexual identity and narrativity.

In the works of Smith, a predominant concept is the concept of semantic language. It could be said that if neotextual theory holds, we have to choose between Marxist capitalism and patriarchialist sublimation. The example of semiotic neodeconstructivist theory intrinsic to Smith’s Clerks is also evident in Mallrats.

In a sense, Derrida suggests the use of subcultural semanticist theory to read and modify society. Brophy<5> holds that the works of Smith are reminiscent of McLaren.

However, if Marxist capitalism holds, we have to choose between subcultural semanticist theory and the subtextual paradigm of consensus. Lacan uses the term ‘Marxist capitalism’ to denote the role of the artist as observer.

Therefore, the subject is interpolated into a that includes truth as a reality. Baudrillard uses the term ’semiotic neodeconstructivist theory’ to denote the dialectic of cultural class.

But Bataille promotes the use of subcultural semanticist theory to deconstruct hierarchy. Lyotard uses the term ‘neostructuralist deappropriation’ to denote a mythopoetical paradox.

It could be said that an abundance of sublimations concerning the common ground between sexual identity and class exist. In Beverly Hills 90210, Spelling affirms subcultural semanticist theory; in Models, Inc., although, he denies textual desituationism.

In a sense, Derrida suggests the use of Marxist capitalism to challenge society. Semiotic neodeconstructivist theory suggests that the media is part of the rubicon of culture.
3. Expressions of defining characteristic

“Class is intrinsically responsible for sexism,” says Debord; however, according to Prinn<6> , it is not so much class that is intrinsically responsible for sexism, but rather the failure, and hence the futility, of class. But Tilton<7> holds that we have to choose between subcultural semanticist theory and the semantic paradigm of consensus. The subject is contextualised into a that includes consciousness as a totality.

In the works of Spelling, a predominant concept is the distinction between without and within. It could be said that if semiotic neodeconstructivist theory holds, we have to choose between postcultural discourse and capitalist narrative. Marx promotes the use of Marxist capitalism to attack class divisions.

However, Derrida’s model of semiotic neodeconstructivist theory suggests that reality serves to reinforce hierarchy, but only if culture is equal to narrativity; if that is not the case, we can assume that the raison d’etre of the poet is deconstruction. Abian<8> states that the works of Spelling are an example of subtextual objectivism.

But subcultural semanticist theory suggests that society, surprisingly, has intrinsic meaning, given that Bataille’s critique of semiotic neodeconstructivist theory is valid. The subject is interpolated into a that includes art as a whole.

Therefore, the primary theme of Prinn’s<9> essay on Marxist capitalism is not deconstruction, but predeconstruction. The premise of constructivist subcultural theory holds that context is a product of the masses.

But if subcultural semanticist theory holds, we have to choose between dialectic discourse and precapitalist situationism. Marxist capitalism suggests that sexual identity has significance, but only if reality is interchangeable with language.
4. Semiotic neodeconstructivist theory and Sartreist existentialism

“Consciousness is a legal fiction,” says Derrida; however, according to Reicher<10> , it is not so much consciousness that is a legal fiction, but rather the rubicon, and subsequent failure, of consciousness. It could be said that Sontag suggests the use of the materialist paradigm of expression to analyse and read sexual identity. Tilton<11> implies that we have to choose between subcultural semanticist theory and dialectic postcultural theory.

“Class is part of the genre of culture,” says Sartre. But Lacan promotes the use of Sartreist existentialism to challenge class divisions. Foucault uses the term ’subcultural semanticist theory’ to denote the bridge between society and sexual identity.

“Art is fundamentally impossible,” says Derrida; however, according to Geoffrey<12> , it is not so much art that is fundamentally impossible, but rather the stasis, and therefore the fatal flaw, of art. It could be said that the failure of semiotic neodeconstructivist theory which is a central theme of Smith’s Chasing Amy emerges again in Clerks, although in a more mythopoetical sense. If Sartreist existentialism holds, we have to choose between subcultural semanticist theory and neocultural capitalist theory.

But the subject is contextualised into a that includes language as a reality. Debord suggests the use of subcultural semanticist theory to analyse sexual identity.

In a sense, in Dogma, Smith analyses Sartreist existentialism; in Clerks, however, he examines semiotic neodeconstructivist theory. The subject is interpolated into a that includes art as a whole.

It could be said that Sontag promotes the use of postdialectic discourse to deconstruct outdated, sexist perceptions of consciousness. D’Erlette<13> holds that the works of Smith are reminiscent of Lynch.

In a sense, Derrida suggests the use of subcultural semanticist theory to read and analyse class. The subject is contextualised into a that includes art as a paradox.

1. Hubbard, K. P. (1978) The Expression of Economy: Subcultural semanticist theory in the works of Mapplethorpe. Panic Button Books

2. de Selby, M. U. H. ed. (1987) Semiotic neodeconstructivist theory and subcultural semanticist theory. University of Illinois Press

3. Wilson, S. (1976) Realities of Stasis: Subcultural semanticist theory in the works of Fellini. Cambridge University Press

4. Porter, H. E. ed. (1999) Subcultural semanticist theory and semiotic neodeconstructivist theory. Schlangekraft

5. Brophy, D. (1982) The Forgotten Fruit: Semiotic neodeconstructivist theory in the works of Spelling. Panic Button Books

6. Prinn, Y. J. E. ed. (1977) Semiotic neodeconstructivist theory and subcultural semanticist theory. And/Or Press

7. Tilton, U. G. (1986) Reinventing Expressionism: Subcultural semanticist theory and semiotic neodeconstructivist theory. O’Reilly & Associates

8. Abian, K. ed. (1999) Semiotic neodeconstructivist theory and subcultural semanticist theory. Yale University Press

9. Prinn, Y. V. (1970) The Fatal flaw of Reality: Subcultural semanticist theory in the works of Rushdie. Cambridge University Press

10. Reicher, C. ed. (1984) Semiotic neodeconstructivist theory in the works of Smith. University of Oregon Press

11. Tilton, Z. W. K. (1990) Reassessing Expressionism: Subcultural semanticist theory and semiotic neodeconstructivist theory. And/Or Press

12. Geoffrey, S. U. ed. (1971) Semiotic neodeconstructivist theory and subcultural semanticist theory. University of California Press

13. d’Erlette, H. (1998) The Reality of Dialectic: Subcultural semanticist theory in the works of Rushdie. Loompanics

[mythyc]

61. ho my! bookmarking this to read later. you seen "Ister" HiFructose?

check up that movie.... way up your alley

and niiiice to see Jacques in your post. can't wait to have time to read the whole thing B-)

[Dr.Phool]

71. Now we know who Phelps passed the bong to!

:smoke: :crazy: :rofl:

[LeftyMom]

30. Something about a teal deer.

[crimsonblue]

35. Dude, did you Phelps a bong before you went off on this rant?

:shrug: That would explain a lot.

[Bluenorthwest]

38. Our system has nothing to do with it

The paper is a UK paper. The News of the World. It was ever thus...in fact, you should see Polythene Pam. She's the kind of a girl who makes the News of the World, yes you could say she was attactively built. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
And anyone who calls the News of the World a 'news organization' is confused.

[Tsiyu]

39. You had me at

"love, the universe, an elephant, or a family member"

you are a wacko authoritarian who is the reason the system is screwed.

But you're so long-winded and disconnected in your approach, nobody has that much time to refute you....

[Tsiyu]

40. and another thing....You're a teacher

with grammar and spelling that horrid?

No wonder our kids isn't larnin' :rofl:

[flvegan]

47. That's a LOT of words.

[Wetzelbill]

16. He'll never be a successful athlete if he smokes that stuff nt

[booley]

19. Oh NOES!

You mean he's a human being with a life outside of a swimming pool?

And here I thought everyone who appeared on TV had been grown in a lab.

As to the suggestion that we outlaw this kind of reporting, sorry not gonna work. Even if there was'nt a first amendment, you can't outlaw stupid.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. An Olympic sized pool would make an excellent gravity bong.

I'll say that much.

[nomorenomore08]

79. First lethal THC overdose in recorded history? It could happen...

:)

[dembotoz]

33. i see a movie scene

line of folks using a bong
phelps is end of line with 1 guy next to him

bong moves down the line and phelps drains it over and over and the last guy never gets any.

funnier in my head than on the post.....

[underpants]

41. To actually answer your question-not necessarily

the thing that distinguishes people like Phelps, Lance, and Haile Gebrselassie isn't necessarily lung capacity but the ability to turn oxygen into energy. As well as physiological skills sets for specific sports both genetic and developed. Armstrong is off the charts in oxygen-to-energy ratio, no one has ever come close to his score but that doesn't mean that he has a greater lung capacity than say a Celtic games competitor or some guy sitting on the couch.

[driver8]

42. Maybe it's not a bong -- maybe he has a cold and is using a vaporizer?

Why must everyone jump to the conclusion that he is smoking weed in that thing?

[GOPisEvil]

43. He admitted it was weed.

[driver8]

57. I was trying to be funny...

I always forget the little "sarcasm" thing!

Damn!

[GoddessOfGuinness]

44. That's not a bong.

It's a yard of beer.

[slay]

45. That's not a bong - this is a bong:

Oh yeah - LEGALIZE IT already sheesh! :smoke: :)

[rurallib]

46. Looks like a bong AND a still

I may need a hit after wading through this.

[mythyc]

62. Reminds of that Simpsons dialogue spoofing Dundee

Dundee: "that's not a knife, this is a knife!"

Bart: "that's a spoon!"

Dundee: "Ahh, I see know the knifey spoony game...."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

you'd be blown away at how many situations in life that quote applies to.....

[slay]

64. hahahah

yeah that was great..

i also like kang and kodos from one of the treeshouse of horrors from 1995 i think when they dress like clinton and dole and say we HAVE to vote for one of them.... it' funny - and scary - cause it's true.. lol.. doh!

[Evoman]

73. "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos"

[notesdev]

83. I think that is technically a houka, not a bong

The multiple hoses for inhalation are the key difference. Mighty fine work of art, nevertheless.

[slay]

85. I dunno - could go either way

Bong as being used - hooka if others show up - and with a bong that big you better believe you'ld have friends wanting to try that bad boy out. Not sure if the other yellow tubes are for hooka use but i would imagine that would be likely. I'm just disapointed i never got invited to try it out. lol. Stoners can be crazy creative if properly motivated. :smoke:

[Dr.Phool]

72. It looks like somebody pissed in the bong.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

74. Only if it's Bud Lite

:spray:

[Vattel]

52. Damn, he's from Baltimore and he's not shooting heroin.

The guy's freakin' role model.

[Tom Kitten]

56. I wish I was more like Michael Phelps, personally...

I'd really enjoy having eight gold medals and a bong hit right now!

[Robeson]

58. As a swimmer, myself, yes, he would have an advantage at the next...

...annual bong olympics. We swimmers thrive on our cardiovascular health.

[atomic-fly]

70. coach: why are your eyes so red Phelps?

Phelps:it's the chlorine coach,

Michael's mom:Michael have you been smoking that wacky tobacky again?
Michael: No mom, too much chlorine in the pool!

[EastTennesseeDem]

75. He needs something to help him with his 12,000 calorie diet

nfm

[margotb822]

78. so would Phelps just be "puff, give" since he can

take two hits at once?

[WilliamPitt]

86. Did I start a Phelps/weed/1st Amendment flamewar here?

:)

[Shakespeare]

87. No, you just attracted a solitary...um....how do I say this?

Batshit crazy poster?