I loved the speak-truth-to-power tone of Susan Andrew's "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes" article [Green Scene, June 29 Xpress]. It's embarrassing how every government agency attempts to synthesize some asinine-though-remotely plausible argument against marijuana. Thank you for subtly exposing the huge flaws in the ecological criticism of hand-cultivating a hearty, healthy plant in the forest.
It also brings to light the bass-ackwards horticultural dynamic that has evolved around this particular species of plant due to ridiculous and contrived government policies. Makes me wonder (hopefully) when thoughtful, compassionate and openly creative minds will be finally holding the leashes of government agencies, our legislative bodies and law enforcement ... and if I wasn't clear enough: It’s a plant!
— Mary Quinn
Asheville
Subscribe to XpressMail. Free Sneak Peek. Every Week.
Want to know what's coming out in Xpress this week before the paper even hits the stands?
We've got your free sneak peek, along with deals available in XpressMail, our weekly email newsletter. (It's the best we can do without time travel.)
-
Comments
-
Related Articles
-
Comments
Make a comment
In the future, when a letter is referencing a past article, can you provide a hyperlink?
I don't recall the same tone of the article at all. methinks ms quin may be seeing sarcasm where none sexists.
By bill smith
07/13/2011
exists. although none sexists is nice too.
By bill smith
07/13/2011
Roadblocks to legalization:
Law Enforcement/Judicial system lose 1/3-1/2 of their arrests/property seizures/caseloads. (which would be fantastic). The Judicial system with its LE/private attorney tentacles is a massive industry. Illegal weed is their cash cow.
There is no test to determine what constitutes "High" akin to a breathalyzer reading for alcohol. Smoke up the night before and THC is still measurable in the body for days/weeks afterward. Businesses and insurance companies are at risk with stoned workers when an accident happens with personal injury to others, lawsuit follows. If it's a legal product how do you fire the dope smoker employee? Corporations will not want the legal exposure decriminalization and or legalization brings.
By cosmic ballroom
07/13/2011
Mr. Smith's suggestion, that a link to the article referenced in a letter, is a good one and would no doubt be appreciated by your readers.
By Media Watcher
07/13/2011
@Bill Smith: Huh??? The original article exposed the lame gov't argument that growing mj in forests is an ecological threat. It went on to SUBTLY expose how paper-thin that logic is, especially when compared to other, higher-impact (roads, etc.) though legal endeavors...I see no sarcasm in the article or letter. I agree with Mary--it seemed a quiet, thoughful and sincere analysis of an idiotic government stance. Since when did "speak truth to power" indicate sarcasm? I'd love to hear from Susan Andrew on this.
By normanplombe
07/13/2011
"If it’s a legal product how do you fire the dope smoker employee?"
Same as an employee under the influence of an already legal product, alcohol, would be fired. If an employee is perceived by co-workers or supervisors to be acting oddly (try and keep a smile and red eyes from a someone stoned on pot), a test for drugs or alcohol is required as a condition of continued employment. If an illicit substance is found (and has been confirmed by a mass spectrometry test), that person is discharged.
As an aside, the result of recent decriminalization of marijuana and other drugs in Portugal and Spain has been that the use of them, particularly among young people, had dropped off.
By Dionysis
07/13/2011
@ cosmic ballroom: They could fire the employee for bad behaviour (regardless of chemical conditions). Big pharma pills are no different, and everybody's legally popping them like PEZ.
By normanplombe
07/13/2011
Re: Bill Smith, Media Watcher:
Linking referenced articles is a great idea. I will look into the possibility.
Thanks
By Jaye Bartell
07/14/2011
Thanks, normanplombe. We do our best to provide quiet, thoughtful, and sincere reporting around here. (Although a little light-hearted fun sneaks in from time to time, too.) Y'all keep reading and asking critical questions -- that's the take-home message.
By Susan Andrew
07/15/2011
@norman-Interesting take. If it is the article I am thinking of, i certainly didnt read it with that tone. I wish there was a link so i coud find it easily for a re-read.
Grow ops in the forest are indeed often very bad for the environment. Sure, its not as bad as even worse examples, but it can still be quite destructive, depending on the practices.
By bill smith
07/15/2011
and if I wasn't clear enough: It’s a plant!
While marijuana is indeed 'just a plant', the way most who cultivate it is indeed incredibly environmentally destructive. Fertilizer run off is not benign. Trash left behind is not either. Too many hippies pretend pot isnt big business.
By bill smith
07/15/2011