Cannabis News Media Awareness Project
  Below The Beltway
Posted by FoM on March 18, 2001 at 08:36:49 PT
By Gene Weingarten 
Source: Washington Post 

cannabis 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)
Author: Gene Weingarten
Published: Sunday, March 18, 2001; Page W03
Copyright: 2001 The Washington Post Company
Address: 1150 15th Street Northwest, Washington, DC 20071
Contact: letters@washpost.com
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Feedback: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm

Marijuana Policy Project
http://www.mpp.org/

CannabisNews - Cannabis Archives
http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml


Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

 
Comment #12 posted by Juan Costo on March 19, 2001 at 10:40:52 PT
Calm down people
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
most peculiar....indeed!
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
efforts.After realising that things were not quite what he had expected,he made a
lame attempt to write a jocular critique.

It's as if he barely made some deadline for submitting the item.Perhaps even for ondcp
credit.

Does anyone know if the ondcp is still crediting newspapers and magazines for articles
that further their cause.It was a shock when the scandal broke,but I dont think it was
ever made clear,as to whether they would put an end to it......There is probably no way
to find out anyway,because such information is probably considered classified as some
type of war secret.They cant let us enemy citizens know what their offensive strategies are


.......dddd


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #10 posted by jorma nash on March 18, 2001 at 23:14:35 PT:

hello everyone.
i am a long time viewer,
but this is my first posting.

i've been meaning to join the discussion for some time now,
but when seemingly everyone was just plain confused by this article
i finally decided i really needed to chime in.

i feel this is an superb website
that keeps people it's users very well informed.

perhaps too informed in this case.
i believe this is an article by and for the average person
who does not follow this topic even remotely as close as we do.

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.
he expects to write an article about a pathetic organization
whose members can't remember what they are supposed to be doing.

the mpp people probably picked up his vibe in about ten seconds.
i imagine the atmosphere was quite tense.
the reporter realized what a fool he was making of himself.

and so the interview pretty much forced him
to change the angle of the story somewhat, into
'i was going to write a story about what a joke the MPP was,
but i turns out i was wrong.'

a pity he couldn't completely get out of the mj, ha ha mindset
and write the serious article that he more or less admits the MPP deserves.

i thinks the article pokes a little fun at the mj movement.
but, it pokes a lot more fun at himself,
admitting his preconceptions were sharply at odds with what he experienced.
and therefore, also poking a little fun at prohibitionist assumptions, as well.

he also pretty much admits without saying it that he used mj in college,
and it seems not to have ruined his life
or stop him from becoming a washington post reporter.

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
often the discussion is just as articulate (sometimes more so) than the article being discussed.

but i wonder sometimes when posters snarl 'anti!' at any article
not advocating full re-legalization.

i can't help but think that this reporter learned his lesson to some degree
and might go back to the MPP someday,
and won't bring the cheech and chong tape and the zip candle next time.


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #9 posted by Dankhank on March 18, 2001 at 22:20:32 PT:

Kinda Funny
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:

Re: Jeanous
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:

strange
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 is the Point?
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
In Goebbels don't Trust
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
Government Propaganda
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.

Types of name calling:

-Direct name calling is used when the audience is sympathetic or neutral. It is a simple, straightforward attack on an opponent or opposing idea.

-Indirect name calling is used when direct name calling would antagonize the audience. It is a label for the degree of attack between direct name calling and insinuation. Sarcasm and ridicule are employed with this technique. . . .

Insinuation devices. A number of devices are available to exploit these and similar vulnerabilities: ... - Humor: Humor can be an effective form of insinuation. Jokes and cartoons about the enemy find a ready audience among those persons in the target country or military camp who normally reject straightforward accusations or assertions.

Propaganda Techniques, App. I, PSYOP Techniques, FM 33-1, 1979
http://www.mcad.edu/classrooms/POLITPROP/palace/library/proptech.html

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)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n281/a02.html

Burning Question (Feb 21)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n312/a09.html


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #3 posted by kaptinemo on March 18, 2001 at 11:04:10 PT:

I'm confused
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:
http://www.feedmag.com/html/filter/98.05cox/98.05cox1.5.html

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
It was a million laughs...
...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
The last gasp?
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
Name:       Optional Password:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:


Return to Main Menu


So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on March 18, 2001 at 08:36:49