Green Room

Video: Pot aficionados as up-to-speed on current events as you’d expect

posted at 4:47 pm on April 26, 2013 by

To be fair, you’d probably get the same level of engagement in current affairs on your average college campus. On the other hand, there is a lot of overlap between those two populations:


Bill O’Reilly challenges Jesse Watters on picking and choosing his interview subjects, but Watters claims that this was a representative sample. I think we need to see how well the Uranian demo was represented before we can accept that, however.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Everyone else is just as clueless.

So yeah, the video is misleading.

jhffmn on April 27, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Calling marijuana a gateway drug is focusing on what is usually step three rather than step one. By the time most kids get to pot they are already smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol. But don’t worry. You’re not part of the problem.

Dan_Yul on April 27, 2013 at 6:11 PM

So society is to blame and not them for breaking a law

njrob on April 27, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Not society at large, no, but a portion of society with short sighted ambitions, and willful disregard to the law of unintended consequences. If pot usage wasn’t wrongfully stigmatized and outlawed, those people who are in jail right now for whatever pot related offense they did wouldn’t be there… Let me qualify that a little. They might still be in jail for some other offense, but a high percentage of people who have been stigmatized for pot usage/sales would be normal productive people in society if not for these laws against it. As it stands now though, they go to jail and get stigmatized even further until they have no other choice but to get by doing whatever they can to survive.

Yes, they are guilty of breaking the law, but it’s a dumb, crappy, shortsighted and reactionary law that needs to be rescinded. Just like being fined for spitting on the curb is a dumb law.

These people obviously do not have the free will to avoid crime so we shouldn’t penalize them for their actions. That about sum it up?

Of course they have the free will to avoid crime, but we shouldn’t penalize them like we do a murderer and lock them up for life simply because they smoke a plant that the god that could be apparently felt should be part of his creation.

If you’re so against pot smoking, you need to take it up with your god who supposedly created the plant in the first place. ;-)

SauerKraut537 on April 27, 2013 at 6:41 PM

You’re “sure”? You should pass that secret info, to which you alone are privy, along to law enforcement.
(Unless you’re just pulling your claims outta your backside, of course.)

whatcat on April 27, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Don’t be disengenuous whatcat… You know as well as I that some percentage of the diamonds people buy for wedding rings came through this black market angle. Surely you’re not so lazy that you can’t just google Blood Diamonds Africa for yourself and see.

The Kimberly Process has rampant corruption running through it.

SauerKraut537 on April 27, 2013 at 6:47 PM

we are doomed, my one consulattion is they won’t last as long as me.

losarkos on April 27, 2013 at 6:59 PM

If you’re so against pot smoking, you need to take it up with your god who supposedly created the plant in the first place.

SauerKraut537 on April 27, 2013 at 6:41 PM

You want a lesson on the Tree of Knowledge? Seriously?

P.S. I’m not equating pot with the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge other than to say that just because God puts the plant on the earth, it doesn’t mean we should partake in it. Guess you’re all for legalization of cocaine and other “natural” drugs too then.

njrob on April 27, 2013 at 7:11 PM

Calling marijuana a gateway drug is focusing on what is usually step three rather than step one. By the time most kids get to pot they are already smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol. But don’t worry. You’re not part of the problem.

Dan_Yul on April 27, 2013 at 6:11 PM

I’m not sure who you think you’re talking to here.

I thought that pot was easier for kids to get than liquor. That’s what a lot of legalization advocates keep telling me. I guess you’d better get your talking points straight.

I’ve never known anybody who smoked pot who wasn’t looking for a bigger and better high. It IS a gateway drug. If you don’t acknowledge that, then YOU are part of the problem.

I’m also told that pot is safer than alcohol, yet I’ve never known anyone who smoked pot and didn’t drink alcohol at the same time. I’m sure they exist, but young people who “party” almost invariably do both…so, so much for the “safer than alcohol” canard.

JannyMae on April 27, 2013 at 7:24 PM

Guess you’re all for legalization of cocaine and other “natural” drugs too then.

njrob on April 27, 2013 at 7:11 PM

Not at all, only pot, and I don’t know what you’ve been reading to think that, but cocaine is anything but natural. It’s ingredients, and the method used to create it are well known. It is NOT natural, although one can chew the coca leaf to suppress hunger, thirst, pain, and fatigue plus and a few other minor medicinal uses. The coca leaf by itself is non addictive and chewing the leaves has been shown to ease cocaine addicted people off their addiction.

SauerKraut537 on April 27, 2013 at 7:36 PM

I’m also told that pot is safer than alcohol, yet I’ve never known anyone who smoked pot and didn’t drink alcohol at the same time. I’m sure they exist, but young people who “party” almost invariably do both…so, so much for the “safer than alcohol” canard.

JannyMae on April 27, 2013 at 7:24 PM

Take a teenager/young 20 something and feed him only pot for 8 hours. No drinks at all.

Now take a teenager/young 20 something and feed him only alcohol, no pot or anything else.

Now take one and let them do both.

I’d feel a hell of a lot safer driving in a car with the “only” stoned person than with the alcohol only or alcohol and pot inebriated person.

So much for your “so much for” canard ;-)

SauerKraut537 on April 27, 2013 at 7:54 PM

You’re “sure”? You should pass that secret info, to which you alone are privy, along to law enforcement.
(Unless you’re just pulling your claims outta your backside, of course.)
whatcat on April 27, 2013 at 5:06 PM

You know as well as I
SauerKraut537 on April 27, 2013 at 6:47 PM

Nope, sorry – you’re the one claiming you have info about criminal activity, not me. The FBI is listed is the phone book, give them a call, name names, and give them the full rundown on what’s what. I’m sure they’ll appreciate your help.

whatcat on April 27, 2013 at 8:32 PM

JannyMae on April 27, 2013 at 7:24 PM

You can sure read a lot of stuff into my post that I didn’t say. I didn’t say it wasn’t a gateway. I said it is usually gate number three rather than gate number one as some people assert. I also didn’t say it was safer than alcohol.

As I said, by the time people get to pot most of them have already taken up alcohol and tobacco.

Dan_Yul on April 27, 2013 at 8:41 PM

jimmy the notable on April 27, 2013 at 9:04 AM

Pretty much a Xerox of the life of this pothead. As well as the lives of multiple potheads I know who are friends and co-workers. We treat it exactly the same as any responsible alcohol consumer would treat booze. We don’t smoke and drive. We don’t go to work high. We don’t go to family functions high. We smoke either in the privacy of our homes or each others’ homes. Ultimately, we don’t get high or expect to get high anywhere we wouldn’t have a few drinks.

This is, in my experience, how most post-college potheads enjoy their relaxant of choice. Whether you support its legalization or not, serious debate needs to drop the image of the dreadlocked, unemployed, mindless burnout as the fact of marijuana use, because it no longer passes muster. This is not about liberal vs. conservative or hippie vs. square. It has become a part of the states’ rights discussion, and sneering and jeering from so-called federalists only demonstrates their fair-weather view of the concept.

MadisonConservative on April 27, 2013 at 8:58 PM

Funny how the very real human cost of illicit drug use never gets mentioned in Squiggy’s mewlings.

This cr@p is worse than the “Indian rug children” scandal, worse than the Chinese sweatshops. People get brutally murdered by this trade on a daily basis. And we’re supposed to sit down and shut up when some pothead goes “maaaan, you’re like, evil judgemental liberals”?

MelonCollie on April 27, 2013 at 10:34 AM

I’m a country boy, so I have nothing to do with those crimes. What I consume, I produce. So the brutal crimes you speak of have vastly more to do with you (and the laws you support) than with me. And just fyi, yes I was a lib. Until Jimmah made me cringe, and then Reagan made me insanely proud to be an American.

Nothing you want to happen to me will help anyone, nor will it stop the murders you have in your community. The right to bear arms would make a difference, but I won’t hold my breath. Oh, and that prohibition thing, too (which worked so well before, with amazingly similar – read disastrous – results.)

Sleep well. As a Christian I’m supposed to care, but I have found it to be difficult at times.

Squiggy on April 27, 2013 at 9:08 PM

What was the problem with just smoking a joint, eating a couple of Twinkies, and going to sleep? Was that a problem? They say marijuana leads to other drugs. No it doesn’t, it leads to f***ing carpentry. That’s the problem, folks. People getting high going, “Wow man, this box would make an excellent bong! *snort* This guy’s head would make an excellent bong! *snort*” Relax! That’s why I stopped doing drugs in the first place. Not because I didn’t like ‘em, but because I didn’t want to build anything, ok?

Denis Leary

Rusty Allen on April 27, 2013 at 9:29 PM

You’ve had your medical card for years and are still going to school. Any thought about working when you grow up?
I ditched the guy I dated for 3 years of college when it became apparent he was perfectly happy being a stoned student forever. Four years later I ran into someone from State College who had met him-he was still there, small time dealing, hadn’t graduated. A nice guy, smart, funny, cute, but never grew up.

I don’t know if his parents ever cut him off. I don’t know how he was going to pay back his student loans.

talkingpoints on April 26, 2013 at 9:58 PM

I graduate in two weeks and am actually going to go teach English in Asia, probably China, for a year or two to pay down my student loans before I go to Grad School to get my MBA in International Business.

I’ve also had multiple steady, and good paying, jobs while I have been in college.

So even though I’m considered a “stoner” I’ve got my act together and I have a well thought out plan for my next steps in life.

Blu3Yeti on April 27, 2013 at 9:30 PM

Drug users care more about their fix than any true ethical statement. That’s why they’re irrational when it comes to their drug use. There’s nothing altruistic about the drug being benign or it’s just a political position to ban drugs. It’s all about getting their next hit. That shows to any objective person why drugs should never be legalized.

njrob on April 27, 2013 at 9:35 PM

Funny how the very real human cost of illicit drug use never gets mentioned in Squiggy’s mewlings.

MelonCollie on April 27, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Tell me the human cost of my weed, which comes from a couple of hippie farmers outside of town who grow it. In fact, most of the weed that circulates in this area either comes from Canada(usually British Columbia) where decriminalization in a number of areas has allowed for cultivation without the involvement of violent criminals…or it comes cross-country from California dispensaries. The latter method will become even more common with Washington and Colorado having legalized it.

If you’re worried about the human cost, then think about legalization. However, the likelihood then will be that the industry will be taken over the same way as the tobacco industry, with a few companies controlling the flow of product, and the Commerce Clause tripping up anyone who tries to grow it locally.

MadisonConservative on April 27, 2013 at 11:24 PM

whatcat on April 27, 2013 at 8:32 PM

Don’t be a dipstick. I never said I had intimate knowledge of laws being broken as regards blood diamonds. I just know human psychology and history and it’s a known element of the diamond trade. Some of those diamonds mined by slave laborers in Nigeria, and other areas of Africa where diamonds can be readily found, make their way into the “legal” diamond trade. It’s like laundering money. They, the buyers and the sellers, find a way to make those diamonds sell to pretty little fiances everywhere.

Again, as I said earlier, you only have to use Google to find example after example of blood diamonds making their way into the mainstream diamond trade.

SauerKraut537 on April 27, 2013 at 11:55 PM

njrob on April 27, 2013 at 9:35 PM

Your generalization demonstrates an ignorance of the difference between drugs. Are you suggesting that a pothead feels the same way about weed that a meth user feels about crystal? Are you suggesting that shrooms and crack work the same way?

Conservatives seem to see drugs the same way that liberals see guns – just some abstract object of destruction whose uses and differences they don’t have the knowledge to articulate…and they don’t feel they have any responsibility to learn about the thing they want to prevent others from having.

MadisonConservative on April 28, 2013 at 12:00 AM

whatcat on April 27, 2013 at 8:32 PM

I never said I had intimate knowledge of laws being broken as regards blood diamonds.
SauerKraut537 on April 27, 2013 at 11:55 PM

Too easy:

“Not saying Tiffany’s is TRYing to get their hands on blood diamonds but I’m sure SOME percentage of them are making it into their display cases.
SauerKraut537 on April 27, 2013 at 4:29 PM”

Of course, the illegal goods you claim to know for sure are in Tiffany’s display cases were secretly placed there by the heinous evildoers as a goodwill gesture. You can submit your report about this specific case and other crime tips anonymously, you know.

whatcat on April 28, 2013 at 12:36 AM

Conservatives seem to see drugs the same way that liberals see guns – just some abstract object of destruction
MadisonConservative on April 28, 2013 at 12:00 AM

Yeah, you tell ‘em! True Conservatism is really about drugged up losers running around armed. Well….true Libertarianism, at least.

whatcat on April 28, 2013 at 12:40 AM

Yeah, you tell ‘em! True Conservatism is really about drugged up losers running around armed. Well….true Libertarianism, at least.

whatcat on April 28, 2013 at 12:40 AM

“Drugged up losers”…once again, you demonstrate ignorance, willful or otherwise, that many people use marijuana as responsibly as your average person uses alcohol. Not that I’ve ever seen you let logic get in the way of useless hyperbole, or the fact that being armed while intoxicated is already illegal, and would remain so regardless of marijuana legalization.

I guess the continued legality of alcohol is all about drunk losers running around armed, right?

MadisonConservative on April 28, 2013 at 12:50 AM

I guess the continued legality of alcohol is all about drunk losers running around armed, right?
MadisonConservative on April 28, 2013 at 12:50 AM

Yup, that’s the the meaning of true Conservatism right there. Well…true Libertarianism, at least. Drugged-up, drunk and armed.
Y’know, that Chicago must be a real bastion of Conservatism! Well…true Libertarianism…

whatcat on April 28, 2013 at 1:38 AM

whatcat on April 28, 2013 at 1:38 AM

Wow. Nice use of Chicago to cite as “drugged-up, drunk and armed”…when the place has the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Alaska has lax laws regarding marijuana, firearms, and alcohol. I guess they’re all drugged-up, drunk and armed, right? That describes Sarah Palin to a T when she says the government shouldn’t waste time on personal use of marijuana, right?

I await your next feeble strawman regarding the “meaning of true Conservatism” when I’m suggesting nothing of the sort. It’s amusing every time a legalization opponent demonstrates they have nothing left but empty mockery to defend their position. Maybe it’s conservative, maybe it isn’t…but it sure reeks of Leftist tactics. Perhaps next you’ll find a way to label us racist?

MadisonConservative on April 28, 2013 at 3:45 AM

Of course, the illegal goods you claim to know for sure are in Tiffany’s display cases were secretly placed there by the heinous evildoers as a goodwill gesture. You can submit your report about this specific case and other crime tips anonymously, you know.

whatcat on April 28, 2013 at 12:36 AM

Does acting like a douchebag help your argument? Just curious.

Squiggy on April 28, 2013 at 7:47 AM

Squiggy on April 28, 2013 at 7:47 AM

Thanks Squiggy. I wasn’t sure what else to say to the guy. I tried reasoning with him but he just seems more interested in obstinate jack ass-hattery. I actually had a reply just about to send last night when the dreaded HA page refresher kicked in and killed all I had to say. I didn’t feel like retyping it out at that point… I figured what was the point. He’d just come back with another inane comment.

SauerKraut537 on April 28, 2013 at 8:44 AM

Not at all, only pot, and I don’t know what you’ve been reading to think that, but cocaine is anything but natural. It’s ingredients, and the method used to create it are well known. It is NOT natural, although one can chew the coca leaf to suppress hunger, thirst, pain, and fatigue plus and a few other minor medicinal uses. The coca leaf by itself is non addictive and chewing the leaves has been shown to ease cocaine addicted people off their addiction.

SauerKraut537 on April 27, 2013 at 7:36 PM

Ok, but pot isn’t the only drug plant either. There are quite a bit of hallucinogens out there that you don’t even have to put a flame to in order to feel their effects. Some even provide exemptions through religious use. What’s your ruling on those?

But really, the point about the forbidden fruit is apt. Just because God made it, doesn’t mean he wants us to do anything with it. There are plenty of things in nature that would kill you in its natural state if consumed.

Which isn’t to say I think pot is that bad. I know it’s not. But I also don’t like the way people downplay it as though it’s harmless. Sure I’d rather drive with someone who’s high than someone who’s drunk, but I’d take the sober person over both of them any day. Stoned drivers are not good drivers, no matter how much they swear it makes them pay more attention on the road.

That’s why I’m not yet in favor of legalization. I’d prefer national decriminalization first, so we’re going into this with open eyes and baby steps.

Esthier on April 28, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Well. That explains Barack Obama winning two elections.

RebeccaH on April 28, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Sure I’d rather drive with someone who’s high than someone who’s drunk, but I’d take the sober person over both of them any day. Stoned drivers are not good drivers, no matter how much they swear it makes them pay more attention on the road.

Esthier on April 28, 2013 at 9:50 AM

“but I’d take the sober person over both of them any day.” Me too, but it is completely wrong to equate alcoholic inebriation with being stoned. A stoned person is NOT a drunk person. They are two completely different buzzes and while one experiences an initial buzz with getting high, the main effects are very short term and a person can be road worthy in a matter of minutes. The same isn’t true for alcohol consumption, it takes a long while for a drunk person to sober up and the effects of drinking often hit people once they’ve left the party and are on their way home.

Let me put it to you this way. I’ve never seen someone smoke so much weed that they couldn’t pass a sobriety test (ie say R to M backwards, say the alphabet without singing it, count numbers, touch their nose while looking up with their eyes closed, or walk in a straight line, etc). A pot induced stoned person is essentially as sober as the soberest person among you. The stereotypes like Jeff Spicoli are just that, stereotypes.

Stoned drivers aren’t bad drivers. Any bad driving is either because the person was a bad driver to begin with, or they’re under the influence of some other drug (most probably the legal drug called alcohol).

SauerKraut537 on April 28, 2013 at 10:53 AM

whatcat on April 28, 2013 at 1:38 AM

It’s amusing every time a legalization opponent demonstrates they have nothing left but empty mockery to defend their position.
MadisonConservative on April 28, 2013 at 3:45 AM

Actually, I’m mocking your attempt to throw up a smokescreen in trying to drag the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the USA into a question about the problem of spaced out druggies. I’ve never confused the 2nd Amendment with a joint or with a hit of LSD. So, yeah, I think it’s funny and mockworthy.

whatcat on April 28, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Esthier on April 28, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Genesis 1:29

Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

Now, your point about the forbidden fruit is fine, but are we to assume that the tree of knowledge was a marijuana plant? If not, why was it put here?

MadisonConservative on April 28, 2013 at 11:04 AM

He’d just come back with another inane comment.
SauerKraut537 on April 28, 2013 at 8:44 AM

Like this?

“Not saying Tiffany’s is TRYing to get their hands on blood diamonds but I’m sure SOME percentage of them are making it into their display cases.
SauerKraut537 on April 27, 2013 at 4:29 PM”

You’ll be famous – no one ever before has gotten the goods on Tiffany’s stocking it’s shelves with illegal jewelry. That is, unless you’re just talking about your emotions in the above quote – just BSing to try to make some point – instead of being factual. (If so, maybe you better hold off a bit on contacting LE about the Tiffany’s Caper.)

whatcat on April 28, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Actually, I’m mocking your attempt to throw up a smokescreen in trying to drag the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the USA into a question about the problem of spaced out druggies. I’ve never confused the 2nd Amendment with a joint or with a hit of LSD. So, yeah, I think it’s funny and mockworthy.

whatcat on April 28, 2013 at 10:58 AM

You clearly don’t give a rat’s ass about states’ rights, which is the real issue here. Either that, or you lack the intellectual capacity to look past your pathetic stereotypes to address the issue in a rational manner. Given your attitude, both seem likely.

I focused on the fallacious “high with a gun” garbage you threw out because it demonstrates willful ignorance on your part. Again, being intoxicated while using a firearm is already a crime, just like driving while intoxicated is already a crime. These will not change just because a drug is legalized. You got any logical arguments, or should I simply expect more “HURR HURR POT LEGULIZURS ARE DUM!!!111″ feces like all the rest of your responses?

MadisonConservative on April 28, 2013 at 11:10 AM

They are two completely different buzzes and while one experiences an initial buzz with getting high, the main effects are very short term and a person can be road worthy in a matter of minutes.

SauerKraut537 on April 28, 2013 at 10:53 AM

On this, I must disagree. As with alcohol, of course…it depends on the person. However, a good buzz from weed severely affects your awareness in most cases, and you’d best get a taxi or a ride within the first hour.

MadisonConservative on April 28, 2013 at 11:16 AM

You clearly don’t give a rat’s ass about states’ rights
MadisonConservative on April 28, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Nah, I’m having much more fun watching and mocking the dopeheads trying to assuage guilty consciences via bizarre routes of moral equivalency and total relativism. I understand they need their drugs, but going off on snipe hunts of guns, diamonds and booze just doesn’t validate that need. Or exempt them from snark or mockery, though it hurts their feelings.

whatcat on April 28, 2013 at 11:21 AM

whatcat on April 28, 2013 at 11:21 AM

You’ve got Alinsky down cold. Obama would be proud.

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”

I mean, “Rules for Radicals” is what true Conservatism is all about, right?

MadisonConservative on April 28, 2013 at 11:33 AM

On this, I must disagree. As with alcohol, of course…it depends on the person. However, a good buzz from weed severely affects your awareness in most cases, and you’d best get a taxi or a ride within the first hour.

MadisonConservative on April 28, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Of course it depends on the person and yes it takes some time for the initial buzz to wear off, but it’s not nearly the amount of time one needs to recuperate from alcohol consumption.

Not one hour, but 20-30 minutes of down time is all it takes, and it never gets worse like it can with alcohol. However prudent one would be doing so, you wouldn’t NEED to get a taxi or a ride.

SauerKraut537 on April 28, 2013 at 11:40 AM

SauerKraut537 on April 28, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Your experience is different than mine, then. Either way, as I said, BEST get a taxi or ride. Why take chances? Right now, we need not debate the appropriate time after which the effect of intoxicants allows us to drive. Doing so only serves to validate the belief of some ignorant opponents that as soon as ganja is at the gas station, we’re gonna be taking a slow ride, taking it easy.

MadisonConservative on April 28, 2013 at 11:44 AM

You’ve got Alinsky down cold.
MadisonConservative on April 28, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Good ol’ Saul, another pothead.

whatcat on April 28, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Good ol’ Saul, another pothead.

whatcat on April 28, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Good ol’ whatcat. Another Alinskyite radical.

I’d rather be called a pothead then silently admit to being a “community organizer”.

MadisonConservative on April 28, 2013 at 11:46 AM

Good ol’ whatcat. Another Alinskyite radical.
MadisonConservative on April 28, 2013 at 11:46 AM

Alinsky was against using pot? News to me. What will the Choom Boy-King say when he finds that out???

whatcat on April 28, 2013 at 11:54 AM

the main effects are very short term and a person can be road worthy in a matter of minutes.

Minutes? Are we talking about 60 or more of them? Because while you won’t feel blazed out of your mind after 10 or 20, that doesn’t mean you’re at all sober after an hour.

A pot induced stoned person is essentially as sober as the soberest person among you. The stereotypes like Jeff Spicoli are just that, stereotypes.

I’m so not the one buying into stereotypes here. A high person is a high person. Quit trying to pretend they’re sober.

Stoned drivers aren’t bad drivers. Any bad driving is either because the person was a bad driver to begin with, or they’re under the influence of some other drug (most probably the legal drug called alcohol).

SauerKraut537 on April 28, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Seriously? And I’m sure pot cures cancer too! There’s nothing this wonder drug can’t do!

It’s not like you have slowed reflexes or anything while under the influence.

Come on. It’s arguments like these that convince me the country isn’t ready for legalization. I’ve been to Amsterdam, and Vegas makes this place look like Disney World. Heck, most places make Amsterdam look like Disney World. I get that relative legality (it’s not actually officially legal there) hasn’t turned the town into a bunch of crazed stoners. I’ve seen Reefer Madness and know it for the propaganda it is.

But pot supporters have just as much propaganda on their side, and we’d all do better to just speak honestly on the issue.

Esthier on April 28, 2013 at 2:04 PM

In fact, most of the weed that circulates in this area either comes from Canada(usually British Columbia) where decriminalization in a number of areas has allowed for cultivation without the involvement of violent criminals… MadisonConservative on April 27, 2013 at 11:24 PM

I live in BC. Cultivation here is legal only for medical use and grown only by people who have a federal government license to grow only for legal medical permit holders. Provincial law enforcement won’t charge people for having a few joints on them, or for growing a few plants for personal use, but it’s illegal to sell or buy any amount without medical permits, and always illegal to traffic out of the province. If you’re buying BC bud, you’re buying illegal product grown and sold by criminals.

lili on April 28, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Now, your point about the forbidden fruit is fine, but are we to assume that the tree of knowledge was a marijuana plant? If not, why was it put here?

MadisonConservative on April 28, 2013 at 11:04 AM

The Bible is very vague on what the plant was. But are we to assume the plant had no seeds? Seems unlikely to me. And I’ll admit I haven’t researched it, but surely the ones that can kill you also have seeds? That doesn’t seem like an outlandish assumption.

The Bible has a lot of apparent contradictions. I’ve long accepted that, usually understanding it to mean that our assumptions on what the verses mean are just that, assumptions that aren’t taking the full context to heard. For example, the Bible says repeatedly that God is I AM, never changing. But the New and Old Testaments seem to paint an entirely different picture of supposedly the same Creator.

Besides, no one’s eating weed for food. So I can see an argument saying the verse doesn’t apply anymore than it would for tobacco.

Even still, that’s not to say that Christianity forbids it. I just don’t buy the argument that because God made it, it’s automatically good.

Esthier on April 28, 2013 at 2:12 PM

I just don’t buy the argument that because God made it, it’s automatically good.
Esthier on April 28, 2013 at 2:12 PM

God created rocks, but it’s not the best idea to pick one up and pound it against one’s head.

whatcat on April 28, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Doing so only serves to validate the belief of some ignorant opponents that as soon as ganja is at the gas station, we’re gonna be taking a slow ride, taking it easy.

MadisonConservative on April 28, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Exactly. Let’s at least pretend to take it seriously.

Esthier on April 28, 2013 at 2:36 PM

God created rocks, but it’s not the best idea to pick one up and pound it against one’s head.

whatcat on April 28, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Well, that’s more about not abusing what God gave us seeing as rocks have so many other functions. I suppose that works if you’re making the argument that hemp itself is good but the mind altering aspects of the plant are not.

Esthier on April 28, 2013 at 2:37 PM

God created rocks, but it’s not the best idea to pick one up and pound it against one’s head.
whatcat on April 28, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Well, that’s more about not abusing what God gave us seeing as rocks have so many other functions. I suppose that works if you’re making the argument that hemp itself is good but the mind altering aspects of the plant are not.
Esthier on April 28, 2013 at 2:37 PM

It’s like a bathtub filled with water. People can hop in it and get clean, other people drown their kids in it.

whatcat on April 28, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Besides, no one’s eating weed for food. So I can see an argument saying the verse doesn’t apply anymore than it would for tobacco.

Even still, that’s not to say that Christianity forbids it. I just don’t buy the argument that because God made it, it’s automatically good.

Esthier on April 28, 2013 at 2:12 PM

People have eaten hempseed for millennia. They made gruel out of it, and it happens to be very nutritious. How tasty is a matter of conjecture, but they kept eating it.

As for the Bible, cannabis IS an “herb bearing seed” with medical properties which has been used all throughout human history, with NONE of the societal evils that alcohol has fosted upon us.

I am a responsible adult American man who will not be dictated to by self-righteous blowhards like “whatnut”. People who don’t know the difference between being clever and being intelligent.

Squiggy on April 28, 2013 at 3:10 PM

Everyone else is just as clueless.

So yeah, the video is misleading.

jhffmn on April 27, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Really? Come and talk to my college age sons and their friends..

Nice try though!

CW on April 28, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3