Kudos To Sheriff Lott

After returning from SD, I decided to catch up on the news and this caught my eye.(Yes, women do occasionally read the Sports page.)
There was an article by AP columnist Jim Litke making fun of Richland County, SC Sheriff, Leon Lott for doing his job.
Apparently Sheriff Lott is attempting to build a case against Olympic champion Michael Phelps for smoking marijuana at a party and Mr. Litke feels this is ridiculous and over the top. In his words: "If Lott genuinely believes that Phelps is a danger to Richland County, somebody needs to sit him down and explain the meaning of prioritizing. "
Mr. Phelps' attorney also makes light of the matter , saying:"It seems to me that Richland County has a host of it's own crime problems much more serious than a kid featured in a photograph with a bong in his hand."
I beg to differ.
First, Mr. Phelps is not a kid. He is an adult. Twenty three years old = adult.
Second, he is a role model. The Saturday Night Live joke quoted in the article where a parent should answer a child's queries about why they can't smoke pot when Michael Phelps does may be funny, but it is inappropriate. (The answer was "right after you win 12 gold medals")
Third, this sort of moral relativity is at the heart of our country's troubles today. We have a standard of behavior here. It is called the law. It is the duty of citizens to uphold the law and to condemn those who break it.
Mr. Litke says"While there's no condoning what Phelps did, " and then goes on to explain why he does condone what Mr. Phelps did. "..if anybody has the right to blow off some steam, it's him. Phelps has been in the pool nearly every day since age 7." Then he cites some of the consequences Mr. Phelps has already suffered for his lapse in judgment as further reasons why he shouldn't be subject to Sheriff Lott's persecution.

This article disturbed me. I have spent a bit of time volunteering with children and one of the things I teach them is the meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance. When we get to the lines "with liberty and justice for all" I have a little exercise I do with them. I say that phrase means that the law applies to everyone equally.
Then I set up a scenario for them:"We have a law against littering here. If Thomas(my son-who served as my den chief) and I are walking down the street and we both litter and a police officer sees us both, to whom should he give a ticket?" They usually get that one right. Both of us. Then I say what if the mayor and I were walking down the street and we both litter? Sometimes they have trouble with that one. They almost always have trouble with it when I name a celebrity or if I say the other person is a big businessman with lots of money. The point is, that I reassure them that the law applies to everybody equally in this country-or at least it's supposed to.

Now I would like to ask Mr. Litke, "At exactly what point did Michael Phelps transcend his subjection to the laws of the USA in your opinion?"

I'd like to know. Was it when he reached a certain number of hours of hard work? There are guys out there working 60-80 hour weeks to pay their bills who have been doing so for longer than Mr. Phelps has been alive. Should they get a free pass too?

Does this law transcendent status result from the winning of a gold medal? Does everyone with a gold medal get to consider themselves above the law or do they have to win more than one? Just what would that magic-the-law-no-longer-applies-to-me number be?

Is it celebrity perhaps? My son has a following of older folks who show up for open mic nights on the chance that he might be there playing piano. The benefit concert he put on for his Scoutmaster got him an interview on satellite radio and one of his school projects caused him to be interviewed on camera for a television show intended for Japanese schoolchildren. Is that celebrity enough for him to smoke pot without fear of legal repercussions? Maybe he can speed now that he has his license.

Do you see where I'm going here? Simply because you have a soft spot for someone or find some of their achievements admirable does not mean that they should no longer be subject to the same laws as the rest of us.

I say kudos to Sheriff Lott. How would it help the crime rate in his county if he ignored a blatant, publicized instance of lawbreaking where the guilty party can be easily found upon whom to enforce the law? I'm assuming Mr. Phelps did not bring the marijuana to the party, which means someone else, who has access to the drug dealers of Richland County did. It is Sheriff Lott's sworn duty to press charges against Mr. Phelps and anyone else who broke the law at that party. It was Mr. Phelp's civic duty, not only to refuse the drug, but to report whoever offered it to him to the police himself. The only message criminals in Richland County should be taking from his actions is the message that no one is above the law here.

I don't have any idea how Sheriff Lott handles the rest of his duties, but in this instance, he's right on target.
So, kudos to you, Sheriff Lott and shame on you Mr. Litke for eroding the values and standards that uphold the republic.
"My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not." ~Proverbs 1:10