Okay, Enough is Enough by George Ziemann -- February 9, 2009 America needs to take a chill pill of some sort. We're over the edge and need to back off a little, in more ways than one. Paranoid Over-reaction Let's begin with the thing at the top of reddit this very moment, a link to an image that appears to be a screen shot from the University of Connecticut "University Alert Notification System." You can't trust something like that, but I found the same thing through Fark, which linked to UConn's site. UCONN Police Reporting a Suspicious Occurrence and Safety Alert: On 2/7/09 at approximately 6:35 PM a suspicious incident occurred at Hilltop Apartments, in the parking lot between the Beard and French buildings. A male approached a female from the opposite direction and came up within several feet of her personal space. The female turned around and left the area. The male walked away in the opposite direction. The male did not say anything or make physical contact with the female. The intention of the male is unknown. Description as follows: a white male 6' 0" with shoulder length brown hair wearing a red or brown cloth jacket and jeans. Male described as older than college age. The male had a round face and large build. If you have any information or witnessed the incident please call UConn Police at 486-4800. As always, you are encouraged to travel in groups at night and in well lit areas. Please notify police of any suspicious activity to police immediately. Let's examine the details of this suspicious activity again. In the parking lot of a college apartment building, a man walks toward a woman. He stops several feet away, does not invade her personal space, says nothing, makes no personal contact with the woman. They both turn around and walk away in opposite directions. That's suspicious activity? The only thing that sounds suspicious to me is that someone thought this was suspicious. Let's try harder. It's 6:35 p.m. on a Saturday night. In the parking lot of a college apartment building, a man is walking to his car. A girl is approaching from the opposite direction. She looks vaguely familiar until she gets within a few feet, which is when he stops, having just realized that he left his car keys at his girlfriend's apartment. Not knowing the woman, he says nothing to her, turns around to go back and get them. The woman turns around and walks back the way she came. Okay, I cheated, created a character whose motivations make him harmless. It's in the italics spots, where I create answers to the "why" that we don't know. The problem is that it's hard to make this guy much more sinister since he didn't do anything negative. You could give him evil thoughts... It's 6:35 p.m. on a Saturday night. In the parking lot of a college apartment building, a man is walking to his car. A girl is approaching from the opposite direction. He thinks, '___________________ (evil thought here),' until she gets within a few feet, which is when he stops. A) Not knowing the woman; B) Not in possession of a weapon; or C) Incapable of doing any real harm, he says nothing to her, turns around, and walks away. The woman turns around and walks back the way she came. ...but in the end, there's no activity to be suspicious of. You'd need thought police to find the crime here. Which brings us to... Michael Phelps and the Bong of Doom You've all heard the story by now. Olympic gold medal winner (he won 8 of them) gets photographed taking a hit off of a bong, which makes the subject of smoking pot suddenly more important than the answer to "When do our guys come home?" The reason for all the brouhaha over Phelps seems to be because Kelloggs dropped their sponsorship over the incident. Yet they didn't have a problem with his 2004 DUI in Maryland. So alcohol is okay, even if you hit the road over the limit at 19, but a 24-year-old smoking pot while at a party, that is just inexcusable. Reportedly, he was also drinking heavily at the party, too, so there's no room for the "choosing weed over alcohol because it's safer" argument, however valid it may or may not be. I used to know a member of the Kellogg family. She lived in Battle Creek, Michigan. Long time ago. Let's just say that when she was college age, she would not have agreed with this decision. This story first appeared in the The News of the World, which is a British celebrity gossip tabloid. Today it happens to be featuring another celebrity (telly presenter) who "smokes drug pipe like Michael Phelps." The third paragraph proudly boasts, "And this is the SECOND TIME this month we have exposed a drug-taking celebrity." I thought News of the World was Weekly World News, which is the one that has Batboy and alien visitors. Not quite as bad... What I find bizarre about the whole thing is that, the last I heard, the county sheriff was saying he may have to arrest Phelps over this. For what? If he was smoking a bong and someone else loaded it for him, he may have never actually touched any of the pot, so he was never really in possession of any. I saw the picture. There was a bong in it, but I didn't see any weed. If I were to guess, I'd say the pot most likely belonged to the guy who took the picture. Or maybe the owner of the house where this party took place. Even so, is this their worst crime. Phelps is an adult, so the drinking part was perfectly legal, and he didn't get caught drunk driving. No harm, no foul. But he smoked some pot and, even though he didn't get caught doing that either, another party-goer takes a picture of him. He's 24 and sometimes people that age will party down for the weekend. As far as we know, otherwise the guy is a model citizen. This is his worst crime. This random event can conceivably give Phelps a criminal record. If he weren't already famous, if he was an average person, age 24, maybe with a wife and one child, getting by but not getting ahead, it would have the potential to destroy his life. Oddly enough, the voice of reason on this issue comes from law enforcement, a group called LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition), who have seen the effect of the War on Drugs in the neighborhoods they were supposed to "protect and serve." It amounts to the realization that they are taking otherwise normal lives and ruining them because of the wrong choice of intoxicants and it makes no more sense than it did in the 1920s. I think their most illuminating statement (which I saw in a video somewhere and will be paraphrasing) was something to the effect of: When you arrest a bank robber, bank robberies stop. When you arrest a burglar, burglaries stop. When you arrest a rapist, rapes stop. When you arrest a serial killer, the murder rate drops. But no matter how many pot smokers Sheriff Arpaio puts in Tent City, it'll never change the overall availability, supply, or demand. Phelps shouldn't be punished for taking a bong hit. Neither should anyone else. That's why the cannabis-loving crowd is currently boycotting Kelloggs. Instead of buying Wheaties or Frosted Flakes, they're going over to Subway, which has not dropped its support for Phelps. But probably not for breakfast. That's pizza time.