Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Groundhog Day rebellion signals coming decade of liberty and prosperity | Main | University of Calgary brings trespassing charges against anti-abortion group members »

Monday, February 02, 2009

Michael Phelps triggers global debate over marijuana legalization

PHELPS-BONG-large Fourteen-time Olympic gold medal-winning swimmer Michael Phelps has triggered a much-needed global discussion about marijuana legalization after photos of him smoking marijuana from a bong were released to the media.

Business News Network (BNN) host Amanda Lang joined the chorus of voices today calling for the legalization of the drug.

Tony Newman with the Huffington Post wrote:

"Phelps struck another blow to the myth that marijuana smokers are lazy couch potatoes. Here is the guy who has won more gold medals than anyone in history, and obviously his health and accomplishments are not hindered by smoking some pot."

Actor Ashton Kutcher from the marijuana-friendly TV series "That 70ties Show" wrote:

“I wish the media would kill this Phelps story. God forbid he hit a bong. Go ask your 20 year old kid what they did last weekend.”

Dave Larzelere with The Sporting Blog wrote:

"We’re at a point in our history now where most of our parents either smoked weed, still smoke weed, or at the very least grew up in a culture where smoking weed was not that big a deal. Our last three presidents have been 1. A known former marijuana user (who claimed, in the lamest excuse ever offered, that he “didn’t inhale”), 2. A known former cocaine user who was also, by all accounts, a raging alcoholic in his youth, and 3. A guy who openly admits to having smoked his fair share of weed and even dabbled in some snow here and there back in the day. So, I ask you ... why the HELL is it international news that Michael Phelps was photographed taking a bong-hit at a party in November?"

Swiss watchmaker Omega, a Phelp's sponsor, said his actions were a “private matter and a ‘nonissue.’” Swimwear manufacturer Speedo, another sponsor, called him a "valued member of the Speedo team." Mazda will continue with its $1-million-plus endorsement of the swimmer. And even Kellogg's Frosted Flakes has not yet cancelled its endorsement agreement with the Olympian.

Update #1:

In an interview with the Western Standard, Cannabis Culture magazine publisher Marc Emery said:

"The hypocrisy is that this choice of intoxicants is a big improvement over Phelps' drinking and driving, and is clearly a wiser choice since getting a DUI when he was 19.

"It's unfortunate he said using cannabis was a youthful and inappropriate. Phelps could have said, 'I'll let my 8 gold medals do my talking for me.'"

Update #2:

Responding to the Michael Phelps marijuana smoking controversy, Whoopi Goldberg said on The View today:

"I'm gonna make an admission, I hope you all are sitting down: I have smoked weed." She then made the point that Phelps is being paid "millions" not to "be perfect," but "to be a spokesperson for a company."

Posted by Matthew Johnston

Posted by westernstandard on February 2, 2009 | Permalink

Comments

He got lucky. He could have lost everything, and he should have had he not been valuable to some people. Most aren't, so don't use this example to justify your cause. Heck, you people even use the Holocaust to do so, which is pathetic.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-02-02 5:01:11 PM


He could have lost everything because of an unjust law, which is why he's a great example, ZP.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-02-02 5:20:36 PM


If it was unjust why did he apologize?

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-02-02 5:36:13 PM


Because police officers like you, through your invasion of our schools, scare the piss out of voting soccer moms.

Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2009-02-02 5:43:54 PM


Silly question, ZP. He apologized to protect millions in endorsements.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-02-02 5:50:58 PM


And other people don't have things to protect, like homes, property, investments, families and their freedom?

Don't do drugs, pure and simple.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-02-02 6:29:30 PM


Of course they do, ZP, which is they we should end the war on drugs. Until we do, it is good advice to stay away from drugs. in fact, it is always good advice to stay away from drugs. But the issue is bigger than that. Marijuana prohibition is unjust and unnecessary.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-02-02 6:41:31 PM


Try to imagine the life of an elite athlete. At this level, everybody remotely close to him is looking to get rich off his accomplishments. That would include his mother. He's under constant pressure to train hard, eat right, and avoid any of the "fun" his friends are having. He can't touch alcohol, because it'll totally mess up his schedule. The least harmful diversion available is the occasional puff.

The fact that his endorsements weren't pulled immediately signals a shift in attitudes. Things might change if his sponsors come under pressure, but they don't seem to be expecting a big backlash.

What I'm wondering is, what kind of asshole would take that picture, and sell it to the media? I hope the SOB ends up on the receiving end of a worse hazing than Phelps gets.

Posted by: dp | 2009-02-02 6:44:01 PM


The ignorance of youth, you all should probably be glad it wasn't crack or meth

Posted by: am | 2009-02-02 7:07:37 PM


Your saying it's an unjust law doesn't make it so, Matthew. He didn't have to break the law; there was absolutely no rationale for him to do so. He chose to do it anyway. Yes, most of our parents smoked weed. However, the baby boomers are not the best role model for--well, just about anything. Not much of an argument really.

That said, I find this whole thing extremely fishy. For all we know those photos were staged. A curious question remains: How is it that his marijuana use remained undetected when, as an Olympian, he is one of the most thoroughly drug-tested people on the planet?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-02 7:35:56 PM


Shane- He must have had the good sense to lay off for a few months before any big events.

As for role models, they're only a rough guide. If you're not happy with the previous generation, join the club. Neither were we. I doubt that your kids will be happy with your ideals either. The generation gap wasn't a product of the boomers.

Posted by: dp | 2009-02-02 7:59:41 PM


If anything the drug war should be escalated to remove this menace to life, liberty and property.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-02-02 8:02:53 PM


Unlike us, though, dp, your generation really didn't have that much to be unhappy about. You had parents who won a difficult war and ushered in an unprecedented era of prosperity, from which you benefited handsomely. Parents who, for the most part, provided solid role models.

I've never understood what went screwy with the Boomers, but one thing is plain--they are NOT an improvement on their antecedents, their delusions to the contrary notwithstanding. They have proved to be the most immature, self-centred, hedonistic, self-indulgent, and spoiled cohort in history. Boomers may not have invented the generation gap, but they sure as hell perfected it.

Tell me, what was it about their parents that pissed the boomers off so much?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-02 8:28:59 PM


P.S. He would have had to keep his hair fairly short too, on the chance that they did a hair test. Frankly, the whole thing is rather implausible. Sounds like a publicity stunt.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-02 8:31:15 PM


This great athlete may have done more for the cause of decriminalization of pot with one bong hit than Mark Emery has done in the past twenty years.

Posted by: John V | 2009-02-02 8:36:45 PM


I don't think so, John. Phelps is unlikely to be martyred for the cause.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-02 8:57:54 PM


Ross Rebagliati. Now that was a hero and he really advanced the cause.

Whatever the f**k the cause is.

Play like you're a victim and ....

You are locked in a prison of your own design.

Posted by: set you free | 2009-02-02 8:58:49 PM


Shane- Why does everyone under 40 think that every single person from the boomer generation is cut from the same cloth? My parents have been dead for 25 years, and they didn't participate in any war. Only 600,000 Canadians went to WW2, so plenty of boomers had no family connection to that war. The rest of us just watched movies about it. Sort of like the way western Canadians experienced the sixties.

I was born into poverty, and had to fight my way out. I had to pay for my parents' funerals. I didn't exactly benefit handsomely from their efforts. I had to take crap from wannabe patriots as a kid, and now that I'm getting older, I have to take it from wannabe conservatives from a new generation. One of these days, I'm going to take a bottle of whiskey and a .308 up on the roof.

On second thought, maybe I should take up smoking the odd pipe. It kept me off the roof when I was young, maybe it's what I need now.

Posted by: dp | 2009-02-02 9:03:39 PM


Maybe I'll sit up on my roof with a rifle and pick off drug dealers and druggies.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-02-02 9:22:07 PM


Hey, maybe there'll be a reward for bringing in scalps.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-02-02 9:37:27 PM


Zeb- The roof is a metaphor for your last stand. I don't recommend it for simply dispatching people you don't like. Once you're up there, you don't climb back down.

Posted by: dp | 2009-02-02 9:37:52 PM


Yup, just keep your mind closed Zeb and pretend you aren't taking away others' liberty in order to impose your pet beliefs. You probably demand mandatory religion too.

Posted by: DH | 2009-02-02 9:41:38 PM


First, why are including listing Ashton Kutcher's analysis? What makes him worth hearing? The guys an idiot. Use someone who knows what they are talking about. Second, if marijuana is no big deal let not just legalize it but make it available to all ages. Maybe marijuana can be the next ingredient to sprinkle on Lucky Charms? Maybe it will make it really magically delicious? Just more junk from the elderly hippies of the 60's generation. My god when will senility finally hit these nuts? They have ruined Canada and damaged American society. The 60's generation is nothing more than the long haired spoiled brats of the WW 2 generation.

Posted by: Arnold | 2009-02-02 9:54:55 PM


Arnold, shut up. We all know Ashton Kutcher is your hero.

Posted by: dp | 2009-02-02 10:09:47 PM


dp,

1. Sip the whiskey, don't gulp. Drunkenness is murder on accuracy. I expect no woundings or maimings; only clean kills. Use a range card and mil-dot scope; no Kentucky windage, please. And make it a low roof--high perches have strong updrafts that mirage your scope and distort trajectories.

2. I recommend the 150-grain Winchester Power Point. $18 per 20 at Wal-Mart; accurate in most guns; neat little entry hole, liquefies the vitals, rarely exits. It's considerate to the families not to mutilate the victim overmuch and ensure they don't suffer. Just because you're being a homicidal maniac doesn't mean you can't be a gentleman about it.

3. A typical police sniper's bullet will NOT pierce all the way through most telescopic sights, a la Saving Private Ryan, so your dominant eye, at least, is safe. They'll tag you in the ear instead.

4. As for the boomers, I am of course speaking of the distinguishing characteristics of the entire cohort, not individual cases thereof, which span the gamut in ANY generation. You are not typical of your cohort, just as I am not typical of mine. You know the essential truth of what I say about the boomers--you have, in fact, voiced the same convictions yourself, more than once. No need to take it personally.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-02 11:11:01 PM


Shane and Arnold sound jealous.

Who were the leaders of that nasty 60s generation?

"Student protests and the Free Speech movement: The Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) was America's most strident student movement of the 1960s and 70s. It spawned an even more radical sibling, the violent Weather Underground. In 1979, Arthur Liebman wrote his influential Jews and the Left, one of several scholarly books written by Jews to explore the disproportionate representation of Jews among leftist student activists. Liebman concluded that Jews were 46 percent of the delegates at the 1966 SDS convention. They were equally important in the movement's leadership including Richard Flacks, Al Haber, Robb Ross, Steve Max, Mike Spiegal, Mike Klonsky, Todd Gitlin, Kathy Boudin, Bettina Aptheker, and Mark Rudd, (who came to national prominence as leader of the student takeover of the President's office at Columbia University.) Between 1960 and 1970, five of the nine SDS presidents were Jewish (Haber, Gitlin, Spiegel, Klonsky and Rudd.)

Liebman also concluded that the majority of the Free Speech Movement steering committee at University of California, Berkeley, was Jewish, as were 50 percent of the California Peace and Freedom party, according to David R. Schweitzer and James Eden.

The most radical group was the Weathermen, so named for Bob Dylan's (Jewish) line "You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing." The name was later changed to Weather Underground. In today's terms the Weather Underground would be classed as "terrorist." Frustrated by the Viet Nam War, disaffected by failures in the civil rights movement, and opposed to capitalism, the group intended to take over the government. They freed Timothy Leary from jail, bombed two dozen public buildings, including the Capital Building and Pentagon, and lost three of their members to a premature bomb explosion in Greenwich Village. One member was also later implicated in the death of two police officers as the result of a Brinks truck robbery. Among its leaders were, Mark Rudd, Bernadine Dohrn, Bill Ayers, Naomi Jaffe, David Gilbert, Laura Whitehorn and Brian Flanagan. Of the seven, only Ayers and Flanagan are not Jewish.

The Chicago Seven: One high water mark of the tumultuous late 1960s was the riot at Chicago's 1968 Democratic National Convention. It came after the Viet Cong had mounted the Tet offensive, draft cards were being burned, Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy had been assassinated, and the Democrats were poised to nominate Hubert Humphrey to succeed Lyndon Johnson - this despite the peace movement's efforts to have Eugene McCarthy nominated instead.

Two groups, the National Mobilization to End the War (MOBE) and Youth International Party (YIPPIES) organized joint demonstrations to effect the nomination. What may have begun as peaceful and fun, ended up violent, with almost 25,000 police, Army and National Guardsmen trying to control thousands of demonstrators. Curfews were violated, the police used force, and the demonstration's leaders made public comments, such as non-Jew Tom Hayden's, "Make sure that if blood is going to flow, let it flow all over the city," and Jerry Rubin's "Kill the pigs! Kill the cops!"

After the riots, a Chicago grand jury indicted eight rioters and eight police officers. The rioters included: Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, David Dellinger, Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, John Froines, Lee Weiner, and Bobby Seale. Seale was later removed from the case and it became the Chicago Seven. Through it all, there was a decidedly disproportionate Jewish involvement. Of the seven defendants, three: Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin and Lee Weiner were Jewish, as was the presiding Judge, Julius Hoffman, and two of the lead defense attorneys, William Kunstler and Leonard Weinglass."

Posted by: DJ | 2009-02-02 11:23:35 PM


Right on Phelps. Hit that bong like a champ and show all those ignorant bastards whats up. LEGALIZE IT!

Posted by: Drew Ferguson | 2009-02-02 11:44:28 PM


Jealous of what, DJ?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-02 11:50:05 PM


More of those 60s radicals!

"Gay, Lesbian and Transgender rights: Harvey Milk (don't miss Penn's, no doubt Academy Award winning performance;) was named one of Time's "100 Most Important People of the Twentieth Century." He was the first self-acknowledged homosexual to win high local office in the United States when he was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977. His first piece of legislation was a gay rights bill which San Francisco adopted and which, in its passage, led tragically to Milk's assassination by former supervisor Dan White.

Two years earlier, Bella Abzug had sponsored the first gay rights bill in the U.S. Congress, and that, together with Milk's opening of the closet door, led to a string of Jewish lesbian and gay activists. Barney Frank was elected to Congress from Massachusetts. Larry Kramer, an Academy Award nominee for his screenplay of D.H. Lawrence's "Women in Love," was a co-founder of both the Gay Men's Health Crises and ACT UP. After her election to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Roberta Achtenberg moved on to serve the Clinton Administration as Assistant Secretary of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, and as Senior Advisor to HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros.

Leslie Fienberg is the editor of the Marxist Workers World and is a leading transgender activist and author of Transgender Liberation and Stone Butch Blues. Among the founders of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) was Arnie Kantrowitz. Its Treasurer is William Weinberger, its Secretary, Judy Gluckstern, General Counsel, David Huebner and at least three of the twenty directors are Jewish. The Human Rights Campaign, which bills itself as the largest gay and lesbian organization, is similar with a likely five of thirty-seven directors Jewish. Finally, The gay magazine Advocate was owned by David Goodstein from 1975 to 1985 and it is now led by Senior Vice President and Corporate Editorial Director, Judy Wieder."

Trudeau's decriminalisation of homosexuality was based upon the Sexual Offences Act of 1967 which decriminalised male homosexual behaviour in England and Wales. It was sponsored by Leo Abse one of the sons of Rudolf Abse, a Jewish solicitor and cinema owner who lived in Cardiff.

Posted by: DJ | 2009-02-03 12:09:54 AM


UPDATE: It turns out that Phelps and his staff had advance knowledge that publication of these photos was imminent, according to the morning news. They offered to buy the photos prior to publication, but the tabloid decided to run them. If so, it knocks my theory that this is a publicity stunt full of holes, but it also torpedoes the notion that there will be no backlash.

Of course, Hollyweird and other celebs are lining up behind the Olympian and telling people to get over it, but what they don't seem to realize is that celebrities don't exactly have a sterling reputation for classy morals themselves. Funny how a group so vocally opposed to blood for oil is so sanguine about blood for pot.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-03 9:43:32 AM


Nobody is sanguine about blood for pot, Shane. In fact, they want to remove the blood from the pot trade my taking a more liberal approach to drug laws.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-02-03 10:13:32 AM


But until that more liberal approach is in place, Matthew, they would rather the blood continue to flow than give up their pot, correct?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-03 11:05:00 AM


Just another shining example of the complete and utter failure of our current prohibition laws.

Time to decrminalize, it's already past the point of deviant use. Mainstream society and everybody knows it.

Posted by: Q | 2009-02-03 11:10:58 AM


I say make an example out of Phelps - take away all of his endorsements, throw him in jail for a while, and take his medals away - all to show that drugs are bad.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-02-03 11:14:05 AM


Zeb, the purpose of the law is not to "send messages" or "make examples" of people. The punishment should fit the crime, period; a brief stint, say 14 days, should suffice for a first offence. Or perhaps a large fine to be donated to drug enforcement in lieu of jail time. His athletic and publicist career, however, is a separate issue, and not within the purview of the courts.

If some or all of his sponsors choose to withdraw their support, that's certainly their right, as it is their right to stay with him (although they will have to answer some embarrassing questions if they do.) And the medals should be taken away ONLY if it can be proven that he cheated in those events. His reputation may be diminished, but not his achievements.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-03 11:50:21 AM


That single picture is not enough evidence to charge him with any crime. If he wanted to, he could just say it was a stunt, and there were no drugs in the pipe. Or he could say he was tricked into it because his knowledge of the drug culture is limited by his years of strict training. Or he could just say nothing, and be acquitted due to lack of evidence.

He was being honest by admitting he inhaled.

Are there actually jurisdictions in the US that give jail time for taking a puff on a bong? It sure seems like this event is bringing out the crazies. Calling for all these outrageous penalties reminds me of something we'd see in Iran. Why not go all out Zeb? Start screeching, and demand he's beheaded. You might be able to sneak in with a cellphone camera, and post it on youtube.

Posted by: dp | 2009-02-03 12:16:24 PM


There are places in the U.S. that will lock you up for spitting on the sidewalk, dp.

He wouldn't be charged with "inhaling" or "taking a puff on a bong," dp; he'd be charged with possession of a controlled substance. In order to inhale said substance, you kind of have to actually possess said substance, if only for a moment.

This is not a case of "I didn't know it was loaded." He was perfectly aware of what he was doing; he knew it was illegal; he knew what he stood to lose if it came to light. And he did it anyway. The legal consequences, assuming there are any at all, will likely pale before the professional ones. If he had a choice of no jail time and losing all his endorsements or a month in the cooler without risk to his endorsements, I have little doubt which option he'd choose.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-03 12:39:46 PM


So DJ, what is your point? So, a lot of Jews have been involved in stupid left-wing activism. Guess what, if you go to Israel, Britain, or eastern europe you will find a lot of Jews that are definitely not left-wing. In fact, if you talk to a Jew who lived under soviet or arab rule you'll hear a very different story. The Jews of Canada and the U.S. came largely from europe(particularly eastern europe) where the largely right-wing dictatorships persecuted them. Look at the treatment of jews in Russia(ever hear of progroms), Germany(there was alot of discrimination before Hitler showed up) and the Balkans. Also, look at the garbage of the Spanish Inquisition. The result was that many Jews were sympathetic to any group that offered to change the status quo. For god sakes, the Irish and Italian immigrants were the same way! In the U.S., the Irish catholics voted about 95% democrat around 1900. The Italians were the same. Gradually, these groups changed as they became more educated(and saw what a fraud the left was), wealthier(began to realize the heavy tax burden that comes with big government) and saw traditional values go down the toilet. The same is happening to Jews in America(I can't speak for Canada). It is not fast enough for my taste but it is happening. It is happening because of changes in American Jewish cultural(some of the FDR worship because of his taking on Hitler has died down). Also, it is happening because of the higher birth rates of the more religious members of our faith(high orthodox birthrate). Instead, of Jews voting 90% Dem its largely down to the 65% margin and going down. In reality, most Jews are no more radical then anyone else. Ted Kennedy is an irish catholic whose views differ greatly from his church's teachings. Yet, a lot of catholics in Massachusetts keep electing this buffoon. I don't use the stupidity and crackpot leftism of the Kennedys to trash all irish catholics. In fact, I find it scary when I hear that the 2008 Canadian election was the first time that a larger share of the catholic vote went to the Conservatives than the Liberals. I can't figure out how any serious professing catholic could vote for a party that is so against their catholic upbringing. In fact, the Conservative Party(with the exception of Christian Heritage Party) seems to be the only party there that shows any respect for religious people or individuals who have traditional values. There are large and growing numbers of Jews that are both economically(low taxes, less regulation, pro-free trade) and socially conservative(pro-death penalty, pro-gun, pro-life). Does anybody remember the role that Milton Friedman played in influencing Reagan's economic strategies? Anybody ever hear of Ben Stein or Norm Coleman(who started out as a Democrat)?

Posted by: David | 2009-02-03 10:06:20 PM


Zeb- all i keep reading from you is the same bulsh*t that's been shoved down my throat since grade school.
"drugs are bad", "don't do drugs", "stay above the influence". taking all of that literally, i'd be willing to bet every pill poppping American out there is a hypocrite. take a look in their "medicine" cabinet and you'll find a plethora of prescribed "drugs" that are for some reason, legal. take one look at the side-effects of marijuana or even the dependency issues concerning it and then take a look at the side-effects of your legal drugs and the high percentage of prescription abuse and addiction, i think you'll see some huge differences. Also, have you ever researched as to why and how marijuana came to be illegal? if you did a little digging instead of blindly following the voice in the crowd, you might learn a little something.
but you probably wont, because all you know and all you will ever know is what you've been told.
You're a great example of how ignorant our population has become, so quick to condemn and "make an example of" just to further your ignorant beliefs.
also, if using the Holocaust and Michael Phelps as an example for our cause is pathetic, lets look back in history...
The Christians slaughtered thousands of innocent people in their cause to convert the "heathens" and non-believers.. at least our examples are real. Not taken out of some book written thousands of years ago by people who, like you, thought that their way of thinking was the only way.
Keep your heads in the sand and your ignorance close, if it keeps you warm at night.


Posted by: Gavin | 2009-02-05 2:44:36 PM


Some world debate.. its just a quickie news item a huh=ge so what? he was not cultivating, manufacturing distributing or selling dope , he was just wiping his head on it..

another rich sports guy gets Outted- note, he was not caught with drugs or imparted on them- ,,it was his reputation of being seen chugging on a bong..
so much for a huge world debate, its just another apology for whatever reason he offers,,

,a young man blaming his drug use on youth-
now _thats entertainment

Posted by: 419 | 2009-02-05 4:41:47 PM


Using drugs for "enlightenment" is a contradiction in terms.

I think the best solution to the drug problem is unrestricted vigilante justice.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-02-05 5:15:47 PM


Gavin, there’s a reason you’ve been told since grade school that drugs are bad—it’s because they are, at least when abused. Virtually all drugs, including marijuana, are available with a prescription in Canada and even parts of the U.S. The drugs themselves aren’t bad; they’re just chemicals. But unsupervised use can have very undesirable consequences, for the druggie and those in his vicinity.

What you’d be “willing to bet” is not relevant; this sentence amounts to opinion, which means it amounts to nothing. Those “habit forming pills” you rail against have one very important thing going for them that marijuana doesn’t—they do something medically useful. And yes, I have EXTENSIVELY researched the reasons for marijuana’s outlawry, and it wasn’t all because of the film “Reefer Madness,” despite what potheads would have you believe. Nor was it a corporate conspiracy by the nylon companies. It was an extension of the anti-narcotics drive that swept most Western countries in the early 20th century, itself a product of the horrors of the Civil War and Opium Wars of the mid-19th century. But I’ve discovered that most potheads have a very one-sided, X-Files-esque idea of history.

As for you, you fit the mold of pottie quite comfortably. Petulant, self-righteous, overflowing with spite and bitterness and scorn for a world that looks down on you (and is quite right to do so; you’re no bargain). You rail at the supposed ignorance of others, yet somehow manage to avoid inserting even a single fact into your whole pathetic screed, seeking to cover up your lack of substance with amateurish character smears. It is to laugh.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-05 6:24:58 PM


i didn't know Ashton was so smart. He hit it on the head. As for Kellogg, they are not only mean spirited, but stupid. The war on drugs is really stupid. Legalize, regulate. tax. Maybe America wouldn't be in so much hock to China.

Posted by: ANNETTE D | 2009-02-09 11:10:58 AM


"Legalize, regulate, tax." The clarion call of potheads for decades now. But how do they explain away the fact that jurisdictions that have done just that, like Amsterdam, are now quietly declaring the experiment a failure and going back to enforcement?

Marijuana smokers are lawbreakers by nature and, currently, by definition. I really do wonder what makes these naifs think that a demographic that's willing to fund organized crime and the lethal violence it engenders just so it can get high is going to turn around and obediently pay tax on an overpriced legal product when they can still get it cheap on the black market. News flash, potheads--black markets deal in LEGAL as well as illegal products. Just look at all the bootleg DVDs.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-09 11:30:57 AM


Instead of debating why pot should be legal lets debate why it should be illegal.

pot smokers are dangers to our society. they sit down on a couch light up a bowl and watch family guy. WATCH OUT! Weed is bad for you. Its not NEARLY as addictive as cigarettes, nor as harmful, and comparing it to alcohol is a joke. Weed can be considered medicine. No wait let me refrase that, weed is medicine. sure you can use it recreationally, but it is a proven cure for glaucoma, and the MOST helpful substance for recovering cancer and AIDS patients.

but but but, if its legal we'll send the wrong message to our children. FUCK YOU, stop making the government do your parenting for you. The nation would save up to 8 billion dollars a year from law enforcement. Even more from less people going to jail for it. The govt would make money from taxing it, and creating jobs in the business. AND the most useful plant known to man would rightfully be used again. What does that money mean? money to go to education on drugs, not DARE, thats lies. i mean true education, pros and cons, facts and myths. in real life today the dare program will lie to your kids and the kids find out and rebel and smoke pot, tell the kids the truth and they will choose whether or not to try it for much better reasons. oh and 1 out of every 5 people smoke pot on a regular basis, im sure some of your best friends do, its better then alcohol and tobacco, so why should it be illegal?

Posted by: Dewey | 2009-02-14 9:34:51 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.