Last week The News of the World revealed that the winner of no fewer than eight gold medals at the Beijing Olympics, Michael Phelps, had smoked marijuana. So what?
The embarrassing pontificating from some op-ed writers in the Australian media only constituted arrogant preaching of morality, if not outright hypocrisy.
Their arguments seem to rest on two fundamental premises.
The first is that sports stars serve as role models to younger viewers and therefore should not be smoking marijuana as it might encourage younger fans to do so.
In general, sports stars should adhere to creditable behaviour for these reasons.
But why, specifically, should smoking a bong be seen as worse than other forms of behaviour? Sports stars, such as those in the Australian cricket team, regularly abuse umpires, fellow players and fans, often with profanities.
Others utter arrogancies of the worst sort to waiting journalists (Peter Fitzsimons’ Third Person Award taps a deep vein of public antipathy).
Some even engage in sexual practices of the most dubious and abominable nature possible; those found not guilty of coercion invariably are deplored by public sensibilities.
The only difference between such forms of behaviour and smoking pot is the illegality of the latter act. But that illegality itself is widely seen as irrational.
Dr Alex Wodak, a leading expert at St Vincent’s Hospital on the impact of drugs on young people, has said on numerous occasions that the best way to limit the harm caused by marijuana is to legalise it.
He is hardly alone.
A survey of marajuana usage among baby boomers in all professions would struggle to find too many who had never used marijuana, and fewer still who had never been at a party at which it was used and said nothing. Bill Clinton, Nick Minchin and Peter Garrett are all on the public record as users. They are surely the tip of the silent iceberg.
The second ground for damning Mr Phelps is that as sports stars’ wealth is predicated upon the value of their abilities in the media market, the public has the right to demand higher standards of behaviour from them.
On the one hand, having one’s income entirely dependent on public exposure inevitably means that one is held to higher standards of public scrutiny. Those who live by the Daily Telegraph die by it too.
But this works both ways.
If we accept that the rules of unfettered capitalism are sacrosanct, then we must accept that they apply consistently. It makes no sense to argue that those same market forces that inflate incomes cannot correct the value of sports stars whose behaviour causes them to fall from public grace.
If people truly disapprove of Phelps’ actions, his commercial value will drop.
The Bulldogs sex scandals was a critical factor in the break-up of a championship team. Wendell Sailor’s cocaine revelations led just as quickly to the demise of his once glittering career. And even though Andrew Johns and Ben Cousins dressed their serious drug abuses up as psychological conditions, the careers of both fell quickly into disarray.
The fact that this has not happened with Phelps only reinforces my earlier point: that society does not see the use of marijuana as a serious breach of social mores and thus sees no need to correct his social value in light of such misdemeanours.
So what can we conclude from this ridiculous saga?
Phelps insists he has never used marijuana before and never will again. No one should assume that either assertion is true. This is a public relations stonewall; any relation to the truth is entirely coincidental.
Instead the truth is that marijuana use is widespread in our community and its legality should be reviewed in light of that reality.
But failing that, at the very least it makes little sense to adopt Fred Nile postures when one of our sports idols engages in conduct widely accepted in our community.
Sam
Guest
"On the one hand, having one’s income entirely dependent on public exposure inevitably means that one is held to higher standards of public scrutiny. Those who live by the Daily Telegraph die by it too." That pretty much says it all. the more money you earn, the more people will question the validity of it.
joeb
Guest
``Dr Alex Wodak, a leading expert at St Vincent’s Hospital on the impact of drugs on young people, has said ... the best way to limit the harm caused by marijuana is to legalise it.'' In 2001 on 60 Minutes he said to Mike Carlton in an interview titled "The Unwinnable War" (or something like that), that it should be sold through Australia Post outlets 'because' in his opinion they're so inept [at serving we the public, apparently, though I beg to disagree] that it would turn users away... but then wouldn't they go somewhere else to get it illegally? (So why not instead take the Bannon Labor Gov of 1986 approach? It was in place over there for about 15 years.) He also said that by keeping it illegal it only encourages corruption and thereby good cops go crooked to supply it, which apparently has happened in the past. ``Bill Clinton, Nick Minchin and Peter Garrett are all on the public record as users.'' Erm, 'former users' I believe you'll find. "All in the past; turned over fresh leaf, so lemme alone," one of 'em recently uttered when queried either last year or the year before. Presumably after the political career ends, it'll be back on. ``If people truly disapprove of Phelps’ actions, his commercial value will drop.'' It's a storm in a teacup -- them Yanks have truly very warped rules, e.g., Dubya snorted coke in his pre-presidential days, he was outed for it, yet did the corporate media ever use it against him once he got the West embroiled in the phoney 'war on terror' farce of their own making? Nup, not a word, just endless "them fundamentalist boys with long beards are tryin' to get us and, umm, yeah, believe me." Good riddance Dubya. ``The fact that this has not happened with Phelps only reinforces my earlier point: that society does not see the use of marijuana as a serious breach of social mores and thus sees no need to correct his social value in light of such misdemeanours.'' Right on. ``So what can we conclude from this ridiculous saga?'' One rule for presidents and politicians, another for Olympians and sports people? ``Instead the truth is that marijuana use is widespread in our community and its legality should be reviewed in light of that reality.'' The annual Nimbin Cannabis Law Reform Rally takes place the 1st, 2nd and 3rd of May 2009. Dr Wodak will probably be invited to speak again (he did last year), as probably will Peter Garret, Malcolm Turnbull (recently confessed to Tony Jones on Q&A), and Julia Gillard. There's also a possibility our former cop minister Michael Costa will put in an appearance, should time permit from his hectic schedule. Who knows, even Morris Iemma could turn up. I trust you're going? Debate over marijuana for medicinal use continues http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2001/s297965.htm Malcolm confesses: I smoked marijuana http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMc3PK2QUXM&feature=channel_page
dasilva
Roar Guru
Kaz When something small like increase tax on premix drinks can caused controversy- imagine complete prohibition. When it comes to celebrities. I'm not so keen on this whole role model - I think it reflects more negatively on society that we look up to sports stars for model behaviour then other people. I believe they get disproportionate amount of media attention then they deserve. there are plenty of people in the world who do good things and are legitimate role models, it's just that none of them are recognize. The only thing I expect is professionalism and law abiding. When it comes to behavior I just think - if anyone else was in that situation would they get sacked from work. If the answer is yes then I think they cross the line. Case like symonds - Skipping team meetings to go fishing, go to work hungover and drunk, doing PR work for your employer (eg. doing radio interviews) while drunk. For every professional worker these are sackable offense. For symonds- a slap on the wrist. What people do in the spare time - if it's legal - i generally have a more lenient attitude.
Kazama
Roar Guru
Yeah, I think really it's up to society to change on alcohol abuse - I'm not holding my breath though. Banning, or even putting limits on drinking would be disastrous. It would cause riots in places like Adelaide where everyone drinks themselves stupid on Friday and Saturday nights. Personally heavy drinking has always been unattractive to me because of the costs. Why would you spend your hard earned on something that is only going to harm you? Never made any sense to me. If you go out with about 8 friends it is like $50 to buy a round, which is a hell of a lot of money if you are a student. A couple of weeks ago I went out and one of my mates would have spent over $100 buying drinks for everyone, and he's not a rich man by any stretch of the imagination. I'd rather keep my money and spend it on things I'll enjoy like going to sports and rock concerts or even save up for a holiday. Given our love of sports you'd think athletes could be used to encourage people to be more responsible; instead they and the teams they play for are all sponsored by makers of alcohol and the money is important to the development of sports. It's not an ideal situation but that's how it is and it's not going to change. At least there is a ban on advertising smoking in sports here now. I don't want to be looking down on people that abuse themselves - nobody's perfect, after all - but I have a real problem with celebrities who forget about the repercussions of their actions should their antics become public knowledge. Like it or not fame makes you a role model and people look up to you. You have a responsibility to do the right thing for the people who idolise you. If you err you are inadvertently going to lead others astray. For example, the fact that you have sports stars going out and getting hammered all the time can't be good for the perceptions of alcohol among teenagers.
dasilva
Roar Guru
Yeah I agree Kaz I seldomly drink and it's bit strange going out and watching all your friends getting smashed. One time I had join them with the alcohol and have a rather experience I rather forget (I started acting like a complete arsehole) and I no longer binge drinking. I also have close friends who fell out and has stuffed up their lives over drugs. If people want to harm their own body I'm not going to preach to them about it as most of the time that's counterproductive. I don't really think it's a moral issue (I'm not going to look down on people who do drugs) but more so of a social issue. However I do support strong regulations from governments on drugs and after all it's their job to look after society. To me alcohol is such an socially entrenched drug that any sort of prohibition on it will cause huge problems to society. Social changes and attitudes have to change first.
Kazama
Roar Guru
I think it is really up to every person to decide for themselves that they should not be abusing substances that will harm them. Personally I don't smoke and never have, I don't do drugs and never have, and I very rarely drink alcohol and never to excess. When I go out with friends I feel a bit alienated because they are all drinking and they say to me "where's yours?" even though they know I don't drink when I'm out. I can live with people drinking but I wish they'd respect my wishes and not push something on me I don't want. I think a lot of athletes get sucked in like that. It's like you're not a real man if you don't drink heavily, which is a pretty brainless concept but a well established one nonetheless. In some circles it's not drinking but drug use that is seen as cool - a close friend recently fell out of my life because she listened to the idiots around her convincing her to sell her soul for drugs. I don't really give a damn what people think of me so I think that's why peer pressure never got to me. Perhaps people just need to keep their heads and consider what the consequences of giving into the desires of others or the temptation fame affords could be. Maybe if Phelps had have stopped and thought about what he was doing instead of trying to look cool and be one of the boys he wouldn't be in the mess he's in now.
dasilva
Roar Guru
In a purely harmful to the body point of views. There is no reason why alcohol shouldn't be ban. I can't see how cannabis is any worst then alcohol from a health point of view. However in a sociological point of view. Banning of alcohol will cause absolute chaos to society. Suddenly the majority of the population will engage in criminal behaviour. Suddenly gangs and criminal will have access to the very large markets. You will then have police and politicians who love to drink alcohol leaving them open to corruption from criminal gang. Organised crime will be empowered by any prohibition on alcohol. Heavy drugs such as heroin, cocaine etc are not socially acceptable therefore limits the market of criminal. Alcohol and cigarette if were ban will do nothing more then increase the power of criminals. That's what happen with America With marijuana - well it's bad enough that alcohol and cigarettes has to be legalized. Don't want to add another drug to the legal section unless absolutely necessary. I'm not going to moralized what people should do with their body but perhaps sportsman should abide by the laws of the country.
Michael C
Guest
It does show that if people really care about cannaboids, then, they should linclude these in the out of testing drugs testing programs. WADA covers mainly 'performance enhancing'drugs, and do conduct out of competition testing. But - - when concerned with player welfare - - as I presume we are when discussing Michael Phelps - - then, something like the AFL illicit drugs policy seems reasonably appropriate. The argument about being 'illegal' is a fine line at any rate, as that can depend from state to state and country to country relative to personal use vs cultivation vs trafficking. At any rate - - we are now seeing more and more that even the old squeaky clean image sports such as the Austrailan swim team has been sullied by the sort of images usually only associated with 'footballers'. Which, again, suggests it's a societal issue. It's very difficult to expect all athletes at all times to be fully removed from such pressures/temptations etc. The process to manage such needs to be in place. The AFL for example has developed (well, not so much the AFL, but the experts they commissioned) a plan that treated it as a health issue. No doubt, some zealots prefer a zero tolerance legalistic approach.
Dave
Guest
Dan Agreed about alcohol and so many sportsmen are caught out behaving badly as a result of alcohol consumption. IMO they should be treated no differently. If their actions were against the law charge them, if not educate them. The issue re legality of alcohol is a historical one and l dont think will be changed in the foreseeable future. In that case eduction is needed (and l understand most professional sportsmen are given it these days) on the problems surrounding alcohol consumption.
Dan
Guest
Dave, generally I agree with what you said, but just on your first point - yes Marijuana has been proven to have detrimental long term effects, but being someone who detests alcohol I find it ironic that the same treatment isn't given to it. Especially considering that alcohol has been shown to be a far more damaging drug both mentally and socially when long term abuse of it is present. It leads to weight, heart, live and deep emotional problems, destroys families, jobs and is responsible for the majority of violence I've witnesses while working in an emergancy ward. Yes pot is bad, but why are we so kind to alcos?
Dave
Guest
First point there have been many many studies that have found the long term use of marijuana can have very severe effects on an individuals health. Second it is illegal in the place he was using. Third he has made his fame and fortune from performing very well in his chosen sport, gaining positive publicity from his efforts. Fourthly drugs and sport dont mix. Now he has done something illegal he has received a slap on the wrist from authorities and it is the general public and his sponsors who will determine his ultimate punishment. Phelps has taken the money and fame on board (he could have refused the money saying he didn't want to be seen as a role model) now he learns that it is a double edged sword...yes l want the money and fame from the general public adoring me but if he does this then he must accept there are responsibilties that go with it. His image has been built up so he can achieve the riches from sponsors etc. I feel the time has passed when elite sportspeople who are paid a fortune can just behave as they please with total disregard for the consequences. Phelps actions maybe at the lower end of the scale but they are illegal and he must face the consequences (which have largely been embarrassment to his image at this stage).