“It’s not like he was smoking a crack-pipe,” was my immediate reaction to the media hype, and the United States Swimming Association’s (USSA) decision to suspend gold-medal-winning Olympian Michael Phelps from competition for three months, after a photo of him taking a hefty rip of marijuana from a tall, glass bong surfaced. Since the photo of Phelps smoking marijuana at the University of South Carolina-Columbia became public on Jan. 31, Kellogg’s Corn Flakes has dropped their $10 million contract with Phelps, claiming that Phelps’ behavior does not uphold the morals of the Kelloggs Corporation.

The USSA suspended Phelps on the same moral grounds that Kelloggs did.

According to an Association spokesperson, “This is not a situation where any anti-doping rule was violated, but we decided to send a strong message to Michael because he disappointed so many people, particularly the hundreds of thousands of USSA member kids who look up to him as a role model and a hero.”

Phelps didn’t actually break an official USSA rule. But he did (at least through the USSA’s eyes), cripple his reputation as a wholesome and healthy role model for young swimmers, which warrants further punishment.

Whether or not smoking marijuana, or Cannabis sativa, is immoral and in turn perpetuates carelessness and irresponsibility is a matter of personal opinion. However, despite one’s feeling about the ethics of smoking, the following is undeniable: marijuana is not a performance-enhancing drug. Cannabis sativa is a depressant, as opposed to a stimulant, meaning that it slows down both mental and physical bodily functions, as opposed to accelerating them.

Both the USSA and the popular media’s decision to punish, and heavily snub Phelps’ pressing of his lips to a glass water pipe, are criticisms of specific behavior that in no way, shape, or form, can give Phelps an unfair advantage in his sport.

So, if Phelps didn’t violate any USSA rule, and his drug use does not unfairly enhance his abilities to perform athletically, then what right does USA Swimming have to dictate the parameters surrounding Phelps’ personal life?

Perhaps if marijuana had been medically proven to drive individuals towards acting violently (much like alcohol consumption does), then the punishment and criticism would make more sense.

Despite differences in legislation and legality, marijuana is scientifically and inarguably no more detrimental, if not less detrimental, to one’s mind and body, than alcohol is.

Would the media and USSA have reacted so harshly to Phelps’ behavior had the photo featured a bottle of booze as opposed to a bong?

If USSA and the popular media would like to keep hold of the dwindling amount of credibility that they still have, then the next time a photo of an Olympian drinking a can of beer surfaces, I suggest that they take the same disciplinary measures that they took towards Phelps.

Marijuana is still illegal, and I understand that USSA cannot ignore legislation. But since it isn’t their job to police out-of-season athlete behavior, and interpret the law and the ethics of smoking cannabis sativa, then they should let Phelps hit the bong in peace.