Slog - Comments on This Week on Drugs

Comment by flamingbanjo

flamingbanjo — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:59:30 -0800

"I don't smoke to make myself more interesting. I smoke to make you more interesting."

Comment by Fnarf

Fnarf — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:16:06 -0800

Pot does make you stupid. But nothing short of an icepick lobotomy will make you as stupid as Howie Carr, who was already a legendary Boston idiot twenty years ago when I was there.

Comment by Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:31:37 -0800

The link goes to the Boston Herald, not the Boston Globe. The Herald is the tabloid that Rupert Murdoch bought and sold. The Globe is the one that the NYT says that they would love to sell, but its worth so little that they can't afford to.

The last oped I see from the Globe about decriminalization is from about a half year ago: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/11/22/creating_a_sensible_marijuana_law/ and is much more sensible.

Comment by bigyaz

bigyaz — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:30:52 -0800

Too much pot, Dom? Howie Carr writes for the Herald, not the Globe -- as your own link says. And nobody really takes Howie seriously in Boston. He's just there to get people like you riled up.

Comment by Fnarf

Fnarf — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:16:01 -0800

When I worked at Harvard, we had a serial foot fondler at work in the stacks, and they set some undercover cops to try and trap him. Problem was, you could spot them a mile away, because they were all drinking coffee out of thermoses and reading the Herald. No one at Harvard reads the Herald, ever; it's just not done. It'd be like catching Frank Blethen reading The Stranger.

Like all tabloid vs. highbrow broadsheet rivalries, though, the Herald always had the better sports section. I wish the P-I would turn into a tab and put sports on the back page, like God intended.

Comment by Hartiepie

Hartiepie — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 04:41:53 -0800

I wish I could understand the constant intense need to defend pot smoking (apart from genuine medicinal reasons).

Comment by Schweighsr

Schweighsr — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:52:00 -0800

Dear #6;

I support *medical*, marijuana, but I understand those who want it legalized across the board. Pot, unlike cigarettes, can't kill the smoker. Pot, unlike alcohol, makes the consumer quiet and mellow, not agressive. Pot, unlike both, is a relatively harmless drug - and if legalized would be regulated [under 18 years old? no Pot for you!] and taxed.

I truly believe that if marijuanna was legalized, that tobacco products could be phased out and made into a prescription medication. That would certainly do a lot to reducehealth care costs. And the government could tax the Hell out of it and [maybe]balance the budget.

But, as I said, my main support is for medical marijuanna, which has been proven to help a variety of ailments. Almost 30 years ago I watched my aunt die of starvation - she had stomach cancer and eating gave her terrible pain. When she smoked marijuanna she was able to eat. The cancer didn't have time to kill her, though - Reagan declared his War on Drugs and we weren't able to obtain enough pot for her. She weighed 62 pounds when she did and looked like an Auschwitz victim. I've supported medical marijuanna since and always will.

Comment by NapoleonXIV

NapoleonXIV — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:44:07 -0800

"our Carr is actually smart on non-pot issues," said Dominic Holden.

You're gonna need to drop the bong and provide more substantive proof.

The guy's been an unmitigated disaster.

Comment by Hartiepie

Hartiepie — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:13:02 -0800

@7--- lots of things should be legalized. Pot has a subculture hook to it like nothing else.

I just don't understand why it's so popular(Yes I've done it in several ways etc) and why it seems to bring out the beast in everyone who thinks it is so cooool. Every pothead I have ever met is indeed stoopid.

If it was legalized --- and it should be-- I wonder how long it would take to lose the counter-culture vibe it maintains in the states.

Comment by samdinista

samdinista — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:59:06 -0800

71 oz for sixty days? Are they insane? no one could possibly consume 71 oz in sixty days. You wouldn't be able to move.
I go through about an 1/8 of an ounce a month and I think I smoke too much... over an ounce a day is just...nuts.

Comment by Dominic Holden

Dominic Holden — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:23:10 -0800

@ 3 & 4, fixed to say Herald. Thanks!

Comment by RainMan

RainMan — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:24:58 -0800

As a former Mass. resident I concur with Fnarf's observation about Howie Carr and Boston Herald readers. When I lived there he was matched only by the idiotic Jerry Williams of WRKO radio and Tim Eyman-esque Barbara Anderson, Marblehead's very own marblehead, as the unelected state resident who had waaaay too much political power resulting from addle-brained state residents who thought his word was gospel. (Massachusetts' reputation as a bastion of liberalism is highly overrated. A surprising number of incredibly stupid people live there.)

Intelligent New Englanders read the Globe. The Herald, on the other hand, has to make sure no word it prints has more than two syllables lest the readers have to go find a dictionary.

Comment by Colin

Colin — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:18:58 -0800

I can't imagine what you could possibly do with 24 ounces of pot in 60 days much less 71 ounces. Especially with medical marijuana which tends to be much stronger. Even if you're not smoking any and you're just eating it you'd be immobilized all the time.

In reality if they legalized 24oz I would like to think that if they found someone so incredibly sick that they needed over 1oz/day they would just cut them some slack. As a huge proponent of medical marijuana, and someone who really thinks it should generally be legalized I think if you're going to bother setting up limits like this 71oz is just absurd.