Below The Beltway |
Posted by FoM on March 18, 2001 at 08:36:49 PT By Gene Weingarten Source: Washington Post I just got back from the office of the Marijuana Policy Project, a reputable Washington lobbying organization dedicated to bringing about the repeal of harsh and, um, unfair and harsh, uh, what was I . . . whoa, did you know that when you hit the "Num Lock" key, a little light goes on? Ha-ha. That is typical druggie humor of the sort that really cheeses off the folks at the Marijuana Policy Project. I decided to visit the folks at the MPP after receiving one of their news releases and being impressed with its earnestness. This is the modern American marijuana movement, as distinguished from the American marijuana movement of my youth, which wasn't much of a movement on account of certain organizational inefficiencies related to the munchies. The MPP is, apparently, all business. It supports the decriminalization of marijuana and an end to restrictions on its use for medicinal purposes. To achieve credibility, lobbyists for the MPP must present themselves as clear-eyed representatives of an organization dedicated to fostering a climate of justice and tolerance, as opposed to an organization dedicated to fostering a climate where you can stroll the streets sucking on a doobie the size of a dachshund. The MPP's co-founder and communications director, Chuck Thomas, is a slim, smart, articulate, scraggle-bearded man who wears a suit and tie that seem as natural on him as earmuffs on a geranium. He's trying. At 31, Chuck is a wizened old geezer compared with most of his staff. And this gave me an idea: Because of my past, I was not unfamiliar with the lexicon and protocols of the subject at hand; here was a golden opportunity to rekindle a spirit of joyful sedition from a bygone time, a chance to reach warmly across a generational divide and bond with America's youth, plus ask questions that would make ol' Chuck squirm like a maggot on a rump roast in a South Florida dumpster. But right off the bat, Chuck informed me that to avoid trivializing the issue, he declines to answer irrelevant questions about personal marijuana consumption. No problemo, I said. "So, do you ever get really, really, really hungry for no good reason?" No, he said. He can pretty much always eat, even after a big meal. "Did you ever listen to music and hear some extra notes you never noticed before that sound really good?" He loves music, he said, and appreciates tonal nuances. The man was as unflappable as a penguin. Desperate, I pulled out a tape recorder and played him that old "Dave's not here" routine from Cheech and Chong, in which a man who has just purchased some weed and is being pursued by the cops cannot gain entrance to his own house because his roommate is too stoned to realize who is at the door. "Perhaps," I said, hopefully, "you might recognize a certain, shall we say, familiar state of mind . . . ?" "It is funny," Chuck said, "but I cringe on a sociopolitical level. It contributes to government propaganda by suggesting that marijuana makes people permanently stupid instead of affecting their short-term memory, and only for the period of time they are under the influence." I was in despair. We were talking about weed all right, but we were not getting down. We were not grooving. Was there no way of breaching this wall, of finding common ground? Prosecutorially, I reached into my briefcase and whipped something out. "Can you not identify . . . this?" I asked. Chuck blinked and stared. "Yes," he said. Yayyy. "It is a coat hanger with a knotted plastic dry cleaner bag hanging from it." Oh, man. Together we went out into the anteroom, where his youthful, clean-cut staff was working. Can anyone, anyone identify this object? Nope. Nuh-uh. No. So I hung the coat hanger from a door frame and let the knotted bag dangle like a rope. I put a pan under it, then lit it like a fuse. It flared. It fumed. It dripped down in little hiccups of liquid plastic, making a weird zzzzip noise. I hadn't seen this in 30 years. I, um, had never seen it entirely clear-headed. It's something I and half a million other young collegians used to do in our dorm rooms, around 2 a.m., while listening to the Moody Blues and squirting Cheez Whiz directly into our mouths. "Pretty neat, huh?" I said. Silence. "It's called a zip candle," I said. "In my day . . . " Zzzip. "Uh, it's better at night," I said, wanly. Zzzip. "It's sort of interesting," a young woman offered, kindly. As I slouched away, they were typing press releases and grousing about the smell of plastic in the air. Source: Washington Post (DC) Marijuana Policy Project CannabisNews - Cannabis Archives Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
Comment #12 posted by Juan Costo on March 19, 2001 at 10:40:52 PT |
The article was part of the Washington Post magazine, which also runs Dilbert and Dave Barry. It's a Sunday entertainment insert, NOT part of the newspaper per se. And all the angry letters being sent to the Post are going to the wrong address. The Post is admittedly one of the worst in terms of drug policy (almost as bad as the San Diego Union Tribune), but this one is not worth the outrage. The graphic included in the hard copy made clear that the author is making fun of himself, not MPP. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #11 posted by dddd on March 19, 2001 at 00:35:20 PT |
I think jormanash has provided some excellent insights about this obtuse item,(article?). This turkey was expecting to trash MMJ,and the people involved with legalization It's as if he barely made some deadline for submitting the item.Perhaps even for ondcp Does anyone know if the ondcp is still crediting newspapers and magazines for articles
[ Post Comment ] |
Comment #10 posted by jorma nash on March 18, 2001 at 23:14:35 PT:
|
i am a long time viewer, but this is my first posting. i've been meaning to join the discussion for some time now, i feel this is an superb website perhaps too informed in this case. so anyways, here's the chain of events the i envision leading up to this article: reporter sees mpp press kit and figures organization is a joke. the mpp people probably picked up his vibe in about ten seconds. and so the interview pretty much forced him a pity he couldn't completely get out of the mj, ha ha mindset i thinks the article pokes a little fun at the mj movement. he also pretty much admits without saying it that he used mj in college, so yes, it was a tiny step, but would you prefer no step at all? i have come to respect the intellect and integrity of the posters to this forum but i wonder sometimes when posters snarl 'anti!' at any article i can't help but think that this reporter learned his lesson to some degree [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #9 posted by Dankhank on March 18, 2001 at 22:20:32 PT:
|
to me ... Not sure I consider it inimical in any way. It's seems to be a tongue-in-cheek story about a failure to connect... Someone should tell the writer to get to Lafayette Park on July 4th. He may recognise someone there ... :-) [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #8 posted by aocp on March 18, 2001 at 21:05:47 PT:
|
Much easier to blow it off and make fun. The antis must be getting desperate for folks to write for them. This guy came across as a bumbling oaf next to the "druggies" he wrote off as clean-cut and well-spoken. What the hell was he trying to accomplish? I'm as confused as everyone else. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #7 posted by Jeaneous on March 18, 2001 at 19:39:36 PT:
|
This is a strange article. If you look at it one way this guy states over and over again how businesslike and straightfoward MMP is and is determined to stay that way. Sometimes making fun of things is a way of dealing with the fear of it. This guy probably expected a building full of stoners, kicking back getting high. Might have scared him to deal with "pot issues" on an intelligent level. Much easier to blow it off and make fun. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #6 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on March 18, 2001 at 18:59:10 PT:
|
What was this article about? I know these guys, and have worked with them. Here is the type of good work they have done: http://www.mpp.org/statelaw/index.html a state-by-state analysis of cannabis laws. Check it out, and wonder why this reporter wasted tree pulp to write this trash. At least hemp is renewable. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #5 posted by observer on March 18, 2001 at 16:28:34 PT |
But right off the bat, Chuck informed me that to avoid trivializing the issue, he declines to answer irrelevant questions about personal marijuana consumption. No problemo, I said. But, the Washington Post reporter lied. MPP's screw up. MPP trusted the Washington Post reporter not to lie. That's always a serious mistake. To achieve credibility, lobbyists for the MPP must present themselves as clear-eyed representatives of an organization dedicated to fostering a climate of justice and tolerance, as opposed to an organization dedicated to fostering a climate where you can stroll the streets sucking on a doobie the size of a dachshund. Ha ha ... Yeah, whatever this psychological operator does, notice that he's very careful to completely misrepresent what the MPP is all about: repealing the laws that put people in jail for using cannabis. ("MPP believes that the greatest harm associated with marijuana is prison.") Jail isn't mentioned. No need to bring up little details like "jail" (the reason MPP exists), when we can ridicule some outrageous straw man cooked up, instead. Ugly little hit piece ... which is par for the course at the Washington Post. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #4 posted by observer on March 18, 2001 at 16:02:50 PT |
Ha-ha. That is typical druggie humor. . . etc. I think that was an extended exercise in plain, old-fashioned name calling technique. Name Calling or Substitutions of Names or Moral Labels. This technique attempts to arouse prejudices in an audience by labeling the object of the propaganda campaign as something the target audience fears, hates, loathes, or finds undesirable. This could be another piece along the lines of the Matt Smith articles in the SF Weekly a month or so ago. Just another little propaganda barrage fired in the "war" where the first casualty was ... you know. Smoke And Smearers (Feb 14) Burning Question (Feb 21) [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #3 posted by kaptinemo on March 18, 2001 at 11:04:10 PT:
|
And not through any chemically-induced state of mind. Can anybody out there tell me what the flippin' Hell was the point of the article? I'd really like to know. Despite the professed age of the author, I can't shake the feeling that it was actually ghost-written by some local kid in the 10th grade. One with delusions of attaining a career in journalism. Or another Janet Cooke. If he's really old enough, the author might remember the Janet Cooke/Washington Post fiasco: and what damage happens when people with journalistic pretenses and little else write about things they have next to no understanding of. If this author wants to be taken seriously in his coverage of the DrugWar, he might take a page from his (supposed) colleague, Judy Mann. Otherwise, he should best go back to writing obituaries or whatever else he was doing. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #2 posted by Dan Hillman on March 18, 2001 at 10:56:10 PT |
...when I got busted for possession of cannabis. What a scream when the cop pointed a gun at my head. I couldn't stifle a guffaw as I was taken to jail. The strip search was rilly> funny. Having to borrow a few thousand buck to bail myself out was a mirthful experience. The huge legal fee was a laugh-and-a-half. Oh, stop it, Gene, you're killing me! [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #1 posted by J.R. Bob Dobbs on March 18, 2001 at 10:17:15 PT |
What can you even say about this article, except even to the totally uninformed the writer comes across as a total goober and the marijuana activists come across as the kind of people we need more of in Washington DC... The Washington Post is usually the mantle of prohibitionist hate-speak, but this time they almost seem to be making fun of themselves, while remaining completely immature. It's an impressive piece of writing, all right, but they're going to need to do a lot better than this drivel to justify keeping the war going... The Supreme Court case gets underway on March 28th... and I think we may see more of the same kind of yellow journalism for a while, at least from the Post, at least until the verdict is returned... [ Post Comment ] |
Post Comment | |