Lance Armstrong, Michael Phelps -- and What They Say About Our Idiotic Drug Policies

Lance Armstrong and Michael Phelps are probably the only two athletes that we can safely call real-life, modern-day Supermen. Their physical achievements are unmatched -- and they have both become international megastars because of that.

Unfortunately, though, the public treatment of these two icons, while similar in many respects, has diverged when the two have come into contact with drugs. One has been treated like a pariah, another has been financially rewarded -- and, as my new newspaper column shows, the double standard is a powerful commentary on our nation's absurd narcotics policy.

Why do we as a country encourage the consumption of drugs that are far more harmful than some of the drugs we outright criminalize? Why do we shun even private consumption of the safer drug, but promote -- and financially reward -- the public promotion of the dangerous one?

Why, in short, do we ignore scientific fact in our drug policies?

These are tough questions that Phelps and Armstrong raise in their Tale of Two Supermen -- questions that I try to answer with the help of this important book, which I strongly suggest you read (after, of course, you check out my column today).

 

Comments

[worldlyhick]

My observations of alcohol addicts has been that they do not think for themselves deeply or very well. Of course they can follow along with a group, as the majority of so called "social drinkers" do. If one ingests a toxin such as alcohol that is to be expected.

I don't wish to step on anyone's toes, but I see the interests of alcohol as being directly opposed to sensible cannabis policy.

Alcohol is an addictive poison. Cannabis is an herbal that is an excellent way to relax and is useful for a variety of conditions . There is no comparison really. But of course, the drunks don't want to use their poisoned brains to consider a concept that would require a little thought and a divergence from their herd mentality.

[Bailey Reynolds]

Idiocracy is right. The double standards and hypocrisy is insane. Far too many of those critical of marijuana love their booze and pills. They're either filled with insufferable self-righteousness or they have a financial stake in keeping marijuana illegal.

I guess the bright side is, most of them won't be around much longer. Like most Republicans today, they're old and dying off.

[Stirner]

Sorry, the "War on Drugs" is here to stay. Some are still alive who remember when most drugs were legal. No "War on Drugs" -- no big problems either. However, do you think that all the anti-drug profiteers will get out of the way, and allow a the de-criminalization of drugs? No way. Look at all the folks that would hurt: The drug dealers, who now have a tax-free monopoly; the "Drug Czar" and his thousands of agents; the Prison industry folks who depend for their livelihood on the continued round up and imprisonment of people; the Alcohol industry who have the only legalized drug in town: the do-good politicians with a ready-made moral issue, and the majority of uptight Americans, who are against any vice (and haven't they been told that all "drugs" are bad? -- drinking or pharmaceutical tranquillizers being exceptions). Let's face it, any "War" -- be it on Drugs, or Terror, or Poverty or just "bad things"-- is as American as Apple pie.

[Carl Caroli]

Why do we as a country encourage the consumption of drugs that are far more harmful than some of the drugs we outright criminalize?
That's an easy one - because the drug and alcohol companies wont make any money it, silly. It's that simple.

[Opus007]

Yes- and the privatization of the prison system makes locklng people up for any bs reason very lucrative.

[racetoinfinity]

Although the 60s counterculture had some elements of regression, a lot of it was regression in the service of reintegration (of the body and mind) and progression (evolution) to "Bodymind," and the best of it was evolutionary. With the triumph of Reagan in 1980, the "Silent Majority"'s reactionary back-to-the-50s (or '20s or 1890s) values reigned, and it's been a long slog since then to keep progressive values and ideas kindled, awakening in people, and moving forward. It's true that people grow, and the more advanced (progressive, green, and integral) are only about 25% of the population - the idea is to help more people grow into that bigger, deeper, more inclusive, beyond-their-egos "place."

[carolm62]

So sorry and no offense, but progressives are not nearly as evolved as you wish to believe. They are just as ethnocentric as conservatives -- but just another flavor.

If you don't mind me saying, well, progressives commonly possess and demonstrate great disdain for those not of their mindset. Progressive policies are rife with aggression and the punishments they believe the infidels deserve. Observe, for instance, how health care reform is riddled with punitive taxes and fines for both having insurance and not having insurance, as well as holding threats of prison. This is hardly universal care....

Progressives commonly refer to Conservatives as Repugnicans,. "They" are called heartless and selfish and stupid and all manner of pejorative labels, implying of course, that progressives are the harbor of virtue and intelligence.

I find it rather frustrating to see a great many progressives who are trying to be Integrally oriented still attributing totally false motives to those of other political persuasions. And these attributions of motive come from a wholly uncharitable perspective -- from a belief that "that" party does not care about people and even wishes harm upon them.

I think, however, that the war on drugs points out a few things that might be valuable to those seeking an integral model. The war on drugs has been a colossal failure, exacerbating what well-intended people hoped to prevent -- lives destroyed by addiction. The fundamental flaw, I believe, was the assault against individual agency.

[carolm62]

To take or not to take drugs needs to be a personal choice. Goodness must be a choice. If a bad result ensues from an individual's exercise of agency the damage is still somewhat contained. But when the government imposes its will -- at the point of a gun -- badness multiplies exponentially.

The drug war resulted in drugs becoming stronger. Violent cartels and inner city gangs formed. Prices soared., meaning involvement in prostitution and theft became part of the process for many. Not to mention the acts of aggression that were committed by the government against the people.

So, my question for integrally minded progressives is this: Can the level of goodness within a society be increased via coercion...?

If a little old lady struggles to cross the street I may choose to offer her my arm and assist her. Or a policeman may hold a gun to my head and force me to help her. If he does so, has the level of goodness within the society increased...? The lady got across the street safely, but I had my agency transgressed against and the otherwise peaceful policeman committed an act of aggression. Perhaps it would have been better if the old woman had struggled on her own. If assistance is offered, it seems to me that for goodness to win the day it must be offered of one's own free will and choice. I have to offer my own arm -- not forcibly give your arm.

[carolm62]

I think that progressives are well intended but much of progressive policy rests upon a foundation of coercion, which removes the possibility of universal care. It seems to me that if we want a society to evolve to a stage of universal care, preserving agency is key.

Thoughts...?

[scottpot]

Lenny Bruce said ,''Someday marijuana will be legal because of all the law students who are smoking pot'' Are you hearing me Mr.President?
We need successful people to be brave and admit they use cannabis.If enough writers,
athletes,m­usicians,a­ctors, scientists,lawyers, doctors,and politicians came out, a load of misconceptions
could be dispelled and we can make non-users understand that marijuana is simply not a harmful
substance.In fact, it would be incredibly liberating for millions of Americans. Yes,we cannabis.

[johnsopinion]

I'm a marijuana non-user.

I'd like to make a deal with you, leave my cigarettes
in MY home or MY car alone and I'll vote in favor of
any and all bills aimed at legalizing marijuana.

Deal?

I'm a non drinker.

"Oh, hey, you there, with the whiskey bottle, I'd like
to make a deal with you .............. "

[Nicon]

With you all the way. As an human you should have the right to put anything in to your own body you wish. Marijuana, alcohol, cigarettes, a bullet, it should be up to you. Unless it directly harms another person, its not a crime.

[iblogleft]

Our drug policy is based on controlling monopolies and maintaining special interest funding.

We will keep fighting until people understand the truth.

[RobinLandseadel]

PlaceboStudman: "Wait. Did I miss something? Has it been definitively proven that Armstrong took steroids? He did for his cancer, but before that?"

Yes, you did. The article David Sirota wrote today is about the endorsement deal that Lance Armstrong has with Anheuser-Busch and the fact that Alcohol is far more toxic than Cannabis. Marijuana doesn't have an LD50:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/mj_overdose.htm

. . . making it safer than all prescription drugs. What Mr. Sirota is talking about is a psychotic double-standard.

[Peleador]

Well, you can always attack national drug policy on the fact that it's almost entirely unconstitutional.

And if you do, a lot of independents will support you. HOWEVER. Most liberal programs are ALSO unconstitutional, like fining people who don't get insurance or social security.

I'm willing to support you, but what are you willing to give to get?

[PlaceboStudman]

Wait. Did I miss something? Has it been definitively proven that Armstrong took steroids? He did for his cancer, but before that?

[Trophoto]

You miss the point of the article linked to this post. His point is that Phelps was pilloried for smoking a bong and Armstrong just singed a lucrative Beer endorsement deal. He is making the point that pot is safer than alcohol yet alcohol is celebrated. Its a comment on the absurdity of the historical prohibition of cannabis. I recommend following the link to David's full article. Its worth it.