If a bona fide jerk calls you a jerk, does that make you the opposite of a jerk, or are you a jerk squared?
In the same manner, if a stoner calls you boring, what does that mean, exactly? You’ve got this guy who uses a drug that clouds his mind, dulls his coordination and slurs his speech, and he’s going to call somebody else “boring.” I don’t get it.
I realize that writing for an “alternative” paper suggests that one would ascribe to certain “acceptable” points of view—drugs are good; cops are bad; vegetarians are healthy. Sorry to disappoint. I also know that when writing about marijuana, unless one gushes about its ability to do whatever it does, one is going to get slammed for not being hip enough.
Last week, I wrote about how the marijuana-legalization movement appears to be gaining traction around the country. I’ve always thought that using drugs was stupid, and I reiterated that point. The response was mostly predictable.
One guy took me to task for quoting Denis Leary, who, shall we say, borrowed liberally from the late Bill Hicks. All stand-up comedy is derivative, if not downright incestuous. Robin Williams was the new Jonathan Winters. Even my (and most everybody else’s) favorite, Richard Pryor, used Redd Foxx’s act as a jumping-off point.
What got me is that the person who posted it was called “McLovin.” That’s always funny.
My least-favorite comment was from a guy who quoted my line about drugs being stupid and then added, “and I am SURE you get a lot of party invitations … ahahahahaha!”
How does one respond to someone who misspells “ha ha”? Come on, dude. It’s a two-letter word! Sound it out.
As a matter of fact, I do get invited to parties. Not so much for my witty repartee, but rather for my ability to drive drunk-ass people home without other motorists having to fear for their lives. But I generally don’t go to such parties, because only a really small percentage of drinkers get more interesting as the night goes along.
I never go to marijuana-smoking gatherings. (You can’t really call such things “parties,” because that word suggests a certain energy level.) That stuff is still illegal, and I have yet to meet even one stoner who gets more interesting as time drags forward.
One guy wrote me a nice e-mail, suggesting that I had adopted a holier-than-thou stance, and then calling me a “prig.” I’ve been called that word before, without the “r” in it, and I’ve been called a different word that starts with the same first three letters, but never a prig.
I swear I don’t consider myself holier than thou. I’m just different than thou. But when I point that out, stoners get all defensive. Well, their moment to show me and everybody else what’s up may be on the horizon. On the ballot in California this fall is a ballot initiative that would legalize marijuana in the state.
Not surprisingly, supporters and opponents of the measure are already lining up and having their say. The surprise comes from the bedfellows who are joining up on each side of the issue. Law enforcement is split (albeit not evenly) on the issue. A group called LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) argues that so much time is spent dealing with nonviolent drug offenders that there aren’t enough cops to go after (in the immortal words of Gilbert Gottfried) “the people out there with chainsaws.”
Much of the money that went into the signature-gathering effort came from a guy who has become wealthy selling medical marijuana in the state, but there is strong opposition in Northern California communities where much of the local economy is based on the huge profits made in the currently illegal cultivation and sale of marijuana.
Another big supporter of the measure is George Zimmer, founder and spokesperson for the Men’s Wearhouse. (I always thought that guy sounded extra-mellow in those commercials.) But Jerry Brown, California’s attorney general and probable Democratic gubernatorial nominee—and the most-prominent counter-culture politician in the history of that state—does not support the measure.
Passage is by no means certain. Just two years ago, there was an initiative that, if passed, would have favored treatment over jail time for drug offenders. It was voted down by an almost 60-40 margin.
Backers of the Tax Cannabis Act claim that it would not increase drug use in the state, but merely save law-enforcement time and resources. As written, the proposal would ban users from smoking marijuana in public or around minors. (Yeah, right!) It would also be a crime to possess it on school grounds and/or to drive under the influence of marijuana. (Yeah, yeah, right, right!!)
We’ll see what kind of push it gets. To quote Bill Hicks: “They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie! When you’re high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well. You just realize it’s not worth the f—ing effort. There is a difference.”
Is it just me, or does that sound like the definition of unmotivated?
This article appears in Apr 1-7, 2010.
Oh Danehy laughter often sounds exactly how it was written. Sometimes it even sounds like “squeak, snort huhuhuhuhuhuh” too. I didn’t realize laughter phrasing was so precise. What makes you think I am a “stoner” anyway? Perhaps it was in reference to the alcohol did you ever think of that? Obviously I hit a nerve and I apologize, there are plenty of straight edge and christian groups in town that have parties at which you would be more than welcome.
To clarify so as people don’t realize the shifty writing above, I quoted you saying “Alcohol and drugs are stupid” not “drugs are stupid.”
Sure you struck a nerve, you’re writing comes through as sarcastic and judgmental.
It seems either you were picked on by stoners or left out as a kid, so now you’re getting back at them with your sarcasm. You said it yourself that you came from Southern California without ever trying it, wearing it like a badge of honor – which really isn’t a bad thing; but I’m from Southern California to (grant it a much younger generation) and gotta ask “Was he just excluded?”.
Anyways, I don’t mean to bag on you its just that the good seems to outweigh the bad, from all stand points of legalizing marijuana. Less people in the prison system, that culture will be safer (even though its not crack, getting weed can be just as scary), and the revenue to the state beneficial.
Sure it would be great and get rid of the medical guise. I would pay 100 dollars for a general users license but we know that’s not gonna happen. The truth is there is so much against one plant its amazing to contemplate.
I’m not gonna tell you it makes music better or any of that B.S but it does help put me to sleep at the end of the night. And also as I take those deep inhales late at night one can’t help but wonder “What the fuss is all about?” I mean really, why is there so much anger towards one plant?
“I have a scoop for you: I stole his act. I camouflaged it with punchlines, and to really throw people off, I did it before he did.” — Bill Hicks on Denis Leary.
Easy there Mr Danehy, it was all in good fun. And I really think that your restraint should be commended. After all, you didn’t go *full* church-lady on all those dopers, whom you are *so* much hipper than, if only someone would notice…
A study I read years ago showed a graph of the frequency of violent crimes over time with tick marks showing the year prohibition of alcohol started and its repeal years later. The graph line representing the number of violent crimes increased exponentially,following the initiation of the prohibition of alcohol, then did almost a straight line plunge upon repeal of prohibition. The article suggested that prohibition of marijuana produces similar results in violent crime for a variety of reasons.
Combine that report with articles about bootleggers being opposed to the repeal of the prohibition of alcohol … (their livelihoods were being abolished) and with reports that European countries that have legal marijuana bars still have intact societies, and I am for legalization of marijuana.
If you examine propaganda such as “Marihuana: Assassin of Youth” and “Refer Madness”, most far fetched political drivel, you are more likely to be convinced that legalization of marijuana is a reasonable decision.
An on line newspaper in Oregon ran a poll, asking readers to vote on legalization of marijuana. The result was ~70% in favor of legalization. 70%!
Marijuana is a relatively benign substance that many, many people have enjoyed, including President Obama and President Clinton, among other successful leaders all over the world. So, I vote “YES”, legalize it.
Danahey, you should try it for its aphrodisiac qualities.
Thanks Tom Degan and Miggy420 for wording my thoughts better than I can write them.
Danehy why must you be so dense? This comment is coming from someone who is not a stoner. Startling isnt it? I’m just as coherent as you are.
Mr. Danehy appears to support the Laws in place on this issue in Arizona which keep citizens under the continual threat of Search and other actions while at the same time divert rebellion into dead-end channels of criminality and addiction.
It would appear that Tom supports the current laws regarding this issue in the State of Arizona. These laws keep peaceful citizens under continual threat of search, seizure, and other actions, and at the same time divert rebellion into dead-end channels of criminality and addiction.
So, Tom, are you for or against pot legalization? You’re very clearly against its use which is quite fine. But beyond that I really couldn’t tell what point you’re trying to get at.
Caterpillar (after looking at Alice for some time ) : “Who are you?”
Tom, you say that marijuana “clouds his mind, dulls his coordination & slurs his speach”. Lets explore your belief that marijuana usage is always going to have the above stated affects. Since you haven’t tried it you must be going off of anecdotal evidence and propaganda you’ve read.
Some examples of marijuana users from the world of science: Carl Sagan (astrophysicist and author), Stephen Jay Gould (evolutionary biologist and historian of science), Richard Feynman (nobel prize winner in quantum physics), even our own estemed Dr. Andrew Weil & countless others who may have been to afraid to admit it to thier bigoted collegues and public. This should address the clouded mind theory.
Since you are a girls 2A Basketball coach maybe some folks from pro sports would be a better example for you. A NYT article from ’97 had this to say: “Contrary to the wholesome image marketed by the National Basketball Association, 60 to 70 percent of its 350-plus players smoke marijuana and drink excessively, according to conversations with more than two dozen players, former players, agents and basketball executives.” As for the NFL here’s an interesting link : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/n….
So, it would apear that not all smokers suffer a loss of coordination or clouding of the mind. Such a heavy-handed approach to your subject shows a lack of respect/knowledge of those you are speaking about. If you wonder why people are responding to your self proclaimed “different than thou” stance with such fervor you need only to see it is because of the denegrating way in which your writing lumps together all smokers. Such as the generalizations and outdated ways of thinking you spew will fall by the wayside as sensible laws are passed and more of the responsible, athletic and brilliant users of the plant can come “out of the closet” so to speak.
Tom Danehy asks, “If a bona fide jerk calls you a jerk, does that make you the opposite of a jerk, or are you a jerk squared?” It seems to me, if you’re a jerk, you’re a jerk, whatever anyone calls you.
Without getting so personal, however, I offer this paraphrase: “If a tenured columnist writes the same column twice, if anything the second time with less information and more contempt for his readers — is he stoned? Shouldn’t he be?”
In denouncing marijuana use, Tom’s found a mule he can lazily ride for many a mile. The topic is calculated to stir ire among a goodly portion of Tucson’s populace who came here to live or who were born here and stayed for the city’s mildly laid-back, “live and let live” attitude. I particularly enjoyed last week’s terrorist riff about kids getting prematurely stoned and becoming meth addicts, just like that, echoed here in a closing statement.
Elmer Gantrys, more-holy-than-thou types instinctively understand how to denounce others. They don’t do so well, speaking for themselves. This column proves it.
Tom clearly has no idea of what’s transpiring in California (my home state) and why the people of California (like citizens in a growing number of states) may decide that decriminalization of marijuana is preferable to illegal drugs fueling machine-gun gang wars and throwing many noncriminals into overcrowded prisons. In California, building prisons to house drug users is now depleting funds for education, which California cannot afford, in the same way it cannot afford infinite investments in anti-drug law enforcement and corruption of the justice system that inevitably follows. Or the deadening consequence of unnecessary Big Brotherism that demeans the state, making it the enemy of its own citizens.
Tom has even less knowledge — none firsthand, he admitted last week — of the actual qualities of marijuana, pro and con, that over the millennia most cultures have learned to live with and manage, maximizing its value and mitigating its costs. Nor does he cite the extensive research that shows that for almost every potentially addictive behavior, the number of people who succumb to addiction is remarkably consistent: seven percent. That means 93 percent of people who drink, drive cars, have sex, shoot guns, play cards, watch TV, or smoke marijuana do so responsibly. (And even in the worst case, wouldn’t seven percent of people smoking too much be preferable to seven percent who drink and fire their guns irresponsibly? Unfortunately, the AZ Legislature, like Tom, doesn’t think so.)
Interestingly, the one real danger Tom doesn’t discuss, perhaps because doesn’t comprehend its social significance, is that legalization will permit tobacco and liquor companies to monopolize marijuana’s cultivation and sales, increasing its price and contaminating the natural product with additives that will cheapen and make it less healthy.
Tom, if you’re the life of the party, the parties you attend must be real mindfests. Please alert me early when one will take place in our neighborhood so that I have plenty of time to evacuate and avoid the intellectual blackhole that follows.
Tom, I support and applaud your personal choice to not smoke pot. I really do. Is there any way possible you could support another’s personal choice to do so?
If not, why do you think it necessary for those that wish to use this plant for medicinal or other purposes to get your permission, or that of the legislature to do so? Personal choice is a wonderful thing; coupled with personal responsibility it can actually make one believe we are living in a country where the concept of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness still exist. Or, we could just turn over our lives to a Higher Power such as the Government, the Pope, or Pat Robertson and try to be happy living under their benevolent guidance. If only the choice were ours to make.
Jake and Lingo Head have both summed up this editorial quagmire concisely (and finally, one can only hope…)
Thank you, Mr. Danehy, for voicing something I have often thought: Why do drugs?
Seriously, there are cheaper and more legal alternatives. Like chocolate.
If you’ve ever been the only sober person in a room (whether people were intoxicated by alcohol, illegal drugs, inhalants, pick your poison), you know that it can be an unsettling experience. I’ve never found it fun to watch intoxicated people stumble around or try to speak in complete sentences, and I don’t know why they find it fun to do such things.
That being said, if people want to overindulge in legal intoxicating substances, that is their right. If marijuana was legalized I would have no problem with people getting high, as long as they did it responsibly.
This brings us to another point that seems to have been overlooked here. Many proponents of marijuana legalization have argued that it will eliminate the need for law enforcement to combat the drug trade, and this will save a lot of tax dollars and lives. But you are not taking into account the money and manpower that will still be needed to enforce the laws that would regulate legalized marijuana, similar to those that regulate alcohol and tobacco use. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be legalized, I’m just saying we should examine all angles of the issue and make the most informed decision possible.
Finally, I wish people who choose to partake would not judge those of us that don’t so harshly. My choice to avoid illegal substances is not a judgement of your choice to use them.
Watchit Tom! Criticize whatever else, but to many/most TW readers, being critical of pot smoking & alcohol drinking (OK, I drink… a bit) and you have stepped waaaay over the line buster! Yup, the only thing that motivates pot heads is critical speech of pot, pot heads, and pot related products. Q: How do you get a pot head to cross the street? A: You could tell them there is a half used roach on the other side, but to really make ‘him’ (him/her – OK!) move, tell him there is an author who is critical of pot on the other side.
Sitting here, sober & unmotivated; reading Danehy & wondering if I learned anything. ??
Emerson Crossjostle
There are patients who need the best medical forms of cannabis, but at this point the State of Arizona finds the issue inconvenient. Unfortunately, because the voters of Arizona approve of laws being used as a pretext to extend State government, to increase State Government spending and personnel, and with the aid of the Media control opinion- allowing for no reconsiderations or opposition.
Currently, on the subject there is a call for intellectual conformity, and this appears more and more necessary as the contradictions and failures of current administrations become more and more evident. Express a moderate opinion about Drugs and you are accused of advocating their use. Express a belief that there might be something wrong with your society and you are accused of being an anarchist. Our local population as become conditioned to react to words rather than word referents.
Captainbess, you wonder why people indulge in drugs such as pot or alcohol and the answer is relatively simple, it brings them pleasure. The chemical process in the brain has been studied for decades and this is the basic conclusion. I am over-simplifying greatly here but I think you get my point. Have you ever seen nature type programming showing primates, elephants and all sorts of other critters sometimes traveling for many miles to find rotting, fermenting fruits that when consumed make them drunk as the proverbial skunk? I recently watched The Botany of Desire, a documentary produced by Michael Pollan, and I highly recommend it. As with Tom, it is your personal choice to not imbibe such drugs and I support you completely in this decision. But, as with Tom, if you haven’t tried it you really cant say with certainty how the drugs make you feel and thus you can never say with certainty why you don’t like the feeling the drugs give you. Of course, I never tried Meth, heroin or other such drugs because I found that research shows they are so devastating. You may feel the same about pot and alcohol and I would never argue your right to your feelings or to try to invalidate them. I have had people try to tell me I should try Meth and heroin and the like before and I refused, mostly because I knew how addictive they are, same goes for nicotine. And I cannot say I don’t like how they make me feel because I never tried them. Personal choice, it’s a swell invention. Personal responsibility, it’s a must.
Jesus, this guy is a whiny loser – and clearly has no factual data to back up his stereotyping and other worthless judgments.
1. I don’t get what your headline has to do with your commentary, maybe you could have called your article “Why Stoners Suck” instead. Then I could have avoided reading it looking for the part where you think stoners will be getting the last laugh.
2. For someone who says he has never smoked pot and doesn’t hang around stoners, you seem to know a lot about what stoners can’t do.
3. For someone who considers himself “just different than thou”, you seem awfully angry.
Tom may seem like a judgemental, holier-than-thou, prig on the subject of drug and alcohol use, but he is really just the son of an alcoholic. The fear and the scars never go away; instead they act as an infrastructure for your adult behavior. In many cases this infrastructure develops into a negative clone of the parent’s behavior, and the child becomes an alcoholic. In Tom’s case the fears and the scars developed into a positive infrasctructure and made him a tee-totaler. Good for him; the last thing that we need in this world are more muddle-headed drunks and druggies.-