Maureen Dowd's Eating Disability

By Jeralyn, Section Colorado News
Posted on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 04:37:50 PM EST
Tags: Maureen Dowd, Marijuana (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd came to Colorado and wanted to try the state's newly legal pot. Rather than smoking a joint, she decided to try a pot-infused candy bar. She says she nibbled the end of the bar and not feeling the high, nibbled a bit more. She ended up gob-smacked by her piece of candy -- it laid her out for 8 hours and made her delusional and paranoid. She blames her experience on labeling deficiencies on the candy and criticizes Colorado's regulatory system.

Why would an intelligent adult like Dowd, who is obviously not a regular marijuana user, not inquire about potency or dosage before she experimented? When she first felt the effects, why didn't she turn on her computer and do a google search -- she would have quickly learned she should drink a lot of water and "this too, shall pass."

Instead of accepting personal accountability for her actions, she blames the candy, the manufacturer and retailer's lack of warning labels, Colorado's regulatory system -- everyone but herself. Her column reeks of a "reefer-madness" mentality. Her tale includes references to a man jumping off a roof, a man who kills his wife and stoned driving. [More...]

What she should have written: "I went to Colorado and decided to get high. I was stupid and did no research or fact-checking. I asked no questions. I just started eating, and then ate some more. I got really sick. My bad. I'll be smarter next time."

Imagine the Times sends Maureen Dowd to Colombia. Would she decide to try out the coca leaves, not ask how many to chew and consume a bushel? If the Times sent her to Yemen, would she decide to chew some Khat leaves, and not feeling the desired effect, keep chewing for hours? Tens of millions of people in South America and Africa chew coca and khat leaves without overdosing or dying, just like tens of millions of people around the world use marijuana and marijuana-infused products and don't hallucinate to the point they think they are dying. When you ingest a new substance, you are experimenting. Do a little homework and you'll be fine. If you're dumb enough to dive in blind, you have only yourself to blame.

< Wednesday Open Thread | Thursday Night Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Maureen Dowd's Eating Disability | 99 comments (99 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I wonder if she told the pot store... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Dadler on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 04:41:49 PM EST

...that she was a newbie. I would wager she did not. If she had told them, I have no doubt they would have steered her to something less potent, or told her to eat a small square of the chocolate and wait an hour.

When she calls for Bacardi 151 to be taken off the shelves, call me.

Dowd dosing (5.00 / 1) (#89)
by Lfrieling on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:10:34 AM EST

Why, with edibles having been available for so many years in Colorado and elsewhere, have we only recently seen the reports of psychedelic reactions? Are we really dealing with dose issues, or are we dealing with pre-existing mental health issues? What about chemistry additionally present, whether it is a licit or illicit drug or alcohol? Did Ms. Dowd have blood drawn in her pre-medicated state, and then during her thrill ride as reported? Was the edible that she ate, regardless of dose, get tested? Was it pure? Are some cooks adding ingredients to increase the perceived potency of their product? If someone eats ten times the recommended dosage, does that reflect badly on the brownie, or upon the eater? Remember that while smoking or eating pot does not make people stupid, some stupid people do consume marijuana. Lenny www.Lfrieling.com


and then this about this (none / 0) (#2)
by Dadler on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 04:44:13 PM EST

when you go to the supermarket and can buy alcohol up to 75.5% potent, does the store provide a liquor expert there to advise you on how much to drink?

No.

If you go into any decent pot shop (and your eyes and reason should be able to tell you what decent is when you walk in), they have these people called "budtenders," and they are there to help you get what is the best for you personally.


Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 04:47:48 PM EST

Last time I looked the vodka bottle in my freezer did not have dosage guidelines


but it does have an alcohol % (none / 0) (#5)
by ZtoA on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 05:11:30 PM EST

Do you think % of THC (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 05:13:47 PM EST

Would have given her any useful information?


No, I'm not thinking of her (none / 0) (#10)
by ZtoA on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 05:49:23 PM EST

she sounds rather stupid and reckless about this. But in the long run better labeling of pot products would be very helpful for the budding industry. Becoming educated on THC level meanings will be a good consumer boost. Maybe she should learn that lesson.


: lab teting for purity part of pending puzzle (none / 0) (#124)
by Lfrieling on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:44:01 AM EST

An important part of the picture is real lab testing for purity. If 95% of the edibles are about as pure as our food supply, we need to protect ourselves from the 5% which might be either intentionally adulterated or made with unsanitary methods. Sadly I fear there might be incentive to have ones brownie product seem more potent with some "spice" or other adulterant added. Lenny

percentage alcohol (5.00 / 1) (#126)
by Lfrieling on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:47:54 AM EST

Great point, but to be really useful, education is still needed. For example, while the label on a vodka bottle might disclose the % ethyl alcohol, should it not also include a warning that less than a full bottle, consumed within a short time, will kill some people, It again makes the point that we need honest sufficient labeling AND education for potential consumers. Lenny


MJ OD Not Uncommon for Eating (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by squeaky on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 09:44:28 AM EST

Were Dowd a normal person and not an op-ed feature columnist for the NYT, I would have had some sympathy.

Eating MJ can be tricky, even for experienced people. You stay stoned for much longer and the high is very much in the body.

I know several people who have misjudged the amount on both sides, as cook and as eater.

But considering that Dowd set out to do a NYT story on Colorado's MJ stores and products, she gets zero sympathy from me. I am not even sure that she really ate the candy bar...

It is crystal clear that her agenda was set well before her trip (no pun intended). If she were setting out to write anything but a hit piece, she would have either gotten the dosage right, or tried again with the correct dosage.

I suspect that she made the whole story up as it is quite typical for newbie eating MJ, IOW similar stories are easily researched, and retold.

First Google hit:

Although impossible to have a toxic overdose of cannabis, it is quite possible to consume more than necessary. When you smoke too much marijuana or eat too much pot food, you may have symptoms of ataxia/dizziness, sweating, nausea, vomiting, possible crying, and sometimes a sensation of dying. But don't be concerned; ingesting too much cannabis is not fatal or injurious to any organs. The best antidote is to crawl in bed, turn off the lights and go to sleep; all will be normal in the morning.
Indeed, eating cannabis is not for the novice or faint of heart. I am "experienced" with practically every hallucinogen known to man, but I have never hallucinated stronger and longer on anything the way I did from ingesting cannabis. While I've only known of one person who actually called an ambulance while freaking out from a chronic food experience, I have known of several serious tokers - including myself - who've endured long, strange trips from ingesting too much THC.

: I eagerly await an intended pun as your (none / 0) (#75)
by oculus on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 01:14:14 PM EST

unintendeds are spot on.

pot store teachers (5.00 / 1) (#128)
by Lfrieling on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:52:41 AM EST

My experience legally in Colorado is that the counter-people at the pot stores are not just happy to educate their customers, but anxious to do so. They don't want to just push pot over the counter. Most would talk to you all day sharing their knowledge about the products, honestly, happily, and for the enjoyment and safety of all.
In Colorado, we are VERY aware that the world is watching us, and we are doing our best to rise to the occasion, meet the challenge, and help spread the basic freedom which is at least 5000 years old; to inhale pot, with all of the cannabinoids intact.
Lenny


and then THINK about this (none / 0) (#3)
by Dadler on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 04:44:41 PM EST

Alcohol proof is on every bottle (none / 0) (#23)
by Lora on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:03:40 PM EST

So it is up to you to figure out how much you can handle but at least you have the information to work with.

It only makes sense to have milligrams of TCH per serving and number of servings per package. You have the information; then it's up to you.


: typo (none / 0) (#24)
by Lora on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:05:17 PM EST

and I'm straight...in the 60's sense of the word!
Meant THC.

I have been wondering (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by KeysDan on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 05:34:54 PM EST

if the real reason for the departure of Jill Abramson as NYT executive editor had more to do with ideologic/circulation opportunity shift than some of the other reasons posited.

Since Ms. Abramson left and Dean Bacquet arrived, there have been some curious and suspect examples: Alessandra Stanley, the TV critic's review of Brian Williams interview with Edward Snowden came across as if Ms. Stanley was on James Clapper's payroll.

In a news report (not an op-ed) by Eric Schmitt, Helene Cooper and Charlie Savage, regarding Guantanamo and Sgt. Bergdahl, the following statement was included, "Yes, I'm angry, said Joshua Cornelison, a former medic in Sgt. Bergdahl's platoon in an interivew on Monday arranged by Republican strategists." What was that line doing there in a front-page news report?

Maureen Dowd' s electric candy bar experience may have been followed by a preordained agenda. Or, maybe she was just stumped on a new story twist about which to write. Although, in fairness when she sat down to play at the keyboard she may still have been experiencing those delusions.

The Times is and always has been (none / 0) (#18)
by scribe on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 07:43:14 PM EST

the Voice of The Establishment.

I mean, there was an article in there a month or so ago titled "when the help slept in" (or something like that), probably written for those people who live(d) in Manhattan apartments with their own servants' quarters.


: Yes, the new guy must like her. (none / 0) (#52)
by KeysDan on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 09:59:15 PM EST

MoDo used to have a column once a week, on Sundays. Now, it looks like she is back to two a week.

Sad (none / 0) (#64)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 08:41:00 AM EST

Can She Be That Stupid? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by squeaky on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 05:37:18 PM EST

I guess it is possible that Dowd column is purely opinion, and that she inserted herself in a little fictional story as a 12 year old who was dumber than a brick.

IOW, she never went to CO, but has an opinion about MJ, and it is not positive.

Read Cannabist.con (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by byteb on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 05:57:58 PM EST

Has an interview with Matt Brown from My 420 Tours. He gave her a three to four hour behind the scenes tour and answered her questions when she came to Colorado in January.
From my reading it wasn't so much her being ill informed as much as hubris with a healthy dose of stupidity.

Interesting (5.00 / 3) (#20)
by squeaky on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 07:57:18 PM EST

More reason to believe that Dowd's story is a fiction.

She is a hack.


: Personally I would not believe anything she says (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by ruffian on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:36:31 PM EST

on any topic.
Now I know what all the tweets I saw about her last night were all about. I gathered they were pot related. Pretty funny too.

Correction, it's (none / 0) (#12)
by byteb on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 05:59:21 PM EST

Thecannabist.com


And possibly (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 06:01:44 PM EST

An agenda


: Good point. (none / 0) (#14)
by byteb on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 06:09:47 PM EST

I am sure there are any number of stories (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by scribe on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 07:55:09 PM EST

about Ms. Dowd during her freshman year wherever getting absolutely hammered and doing wickedly stupid things (or maybe stupidly wicked things!). One would love to hear them and I'd love for Larry Flynt to post a reward - like he did for stories about philandering Rethuglican pols - for those stories.

I mean, she's old enough to have lived through the 70s, if not the 60s. Anyone who during that time was of an age where getting high on anything was an activity of interest (among their peers) surely absorbed (by osmosis if not empirically) that eating hash brownies was an activity that often yielded things like ... projectile vomit. Toking was a quicker way to get high and therefore more susceptible to not getting too much into one's system because one could take a hit, say "... whoa, that's some wicked sh*t", and put down/hand off the pipe. There's no way to undo overeating something containing an active ingredient save ... tossing it back.

Not that I know much more about active ingredients than what I absorbed by social osmosis. I was and am a beer and other alcohol consumer only. (Yes, there are some epic stories out there and, yes, I learned how to handle it.)

Who wears green corduroy jeans? (none / 0) (#22)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:02:44 PM EST

And in the summer?

She might have been a little hammered before the candy bar :)


I last wore green cords (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by scribe on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 07:09:52 AM EST

back in the early 80s. Cuffed.

Went well with a tweed jacket at early-fall football games.


: and a deer stalker cap to top it off? (none / 0) (#104)
by jondee on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 03:02:52 PM EST

I have olive green (none / 0) (#133)
by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:25:14 AM EST

cords and corduroy jeans in almost every dark color. Ralph Lauren makes really nice ones. I think her visit was in January and she's just writing about it now.


Given the story her tour guide tells (none / 0) (#60)
by scribe on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 07:22:23 AM EST

about warning her re edibles (which I credit more than her hackery), I can see her being one of those kids saying "gee, this Kool-Aid is good" and slamming it down, ignoring the fact that it's grain punch mixed at 8 to 1 or 12 to 1 (some houses were notorious for their extra-strength recipes). And lying, passed out, in a gutter an hour or two later.


Assuming Dowd's ultimate goal is have as (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by oculus on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 09:17:28 PM EST

many people as possible read her column and/or talk about it, mission accomplished.

: For some reason (none / 0) (#43)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 09:20:05 PM EST

I doubt becoming a national punch line (trending on FB and twitter) was the goal. But maybe.

The more I think about this, the more (5.00 / 2) (#70)
by Anne on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 10:06:28 AM EST

convinced I am that this wasn't some innocent oversight - this was a not-very-bright person getting the not-very-bright idea to throw caution to the wind in hope of having an experience she could "report" on negatively in the hope of influencing public opinion against further legalization/de-criminalization efforts.

I think what we were all supposed to think was, "Golly, if this could happen to a really smart New York Times writer, just think what could happen to a teenager, or a child or someone not quite as wise in the ways of the world!"

For those who say, well, who wouldn't think it was okay to eat an entire candy bar - aren't they considered one serving? I would say those people aren't very bright, either.

If you hand me a candy bar and tell me there's THC in it, how stupid am I not to ask how much, how concentrated, how it might affect someone who had never ingested it before, how long it would take for the effects to kick in, and so on?

No, sorry - I think she started from a transparently dishonest place, I think it got worse because she grossly exaggerated her own cleverness, and so, instead of people thinking negatively about pot, she has them thinking they have dust bunnies under the bed that could be doing a better job writing for the NYT.

Can't tell you how much I look forward to her comedy stylings heading into the 2016 campaign.

Something about green corduroy awareness (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 12:16:51 PM EST

While I'm stoned out of my ever loving mind is just too contrived.

That's IT! That's my last corduroy reference until I can't take it anymore again.


Nibbling....nibbling too (none / 0) (#74)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 12:20:32 PM EST

Nibble nibble like a mouse....Holy $hit I'm a witches pot pie!

Childhood anchored horrors!

Contrived I Tell You!


"green corduroy awareness" (none / 0) (#85)
by unitron on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 09:24:22 PM EST

I hear that was the original working title for the tune that eventually became "Crystal Blue Persuasion".

: - )


: Really would have changed (none / 0) (#86)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 09:36:43 PM EST

Breaking Bad

So We Are to Believe... (5.00 / 3) (#76)
by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 01:50:09 PM EST

...that curiosity lead a person to fly to Colorado who doesn't use cannabis or other drugs and to try it without any sort of direction from anyone just because it's there ?

Then to write/complain about it for profit ?

Like me going to Amsterdam to find out what a legal prostitute is like when I don't frequent them here in Houston. Yeah, guess what, they roll you over and have diseases even though they are legal, just like the ones here. Just because they sit under a red light and have a permit on the wall doesn't mean they aren't as dangerous as the one here at home.

Never mind I could have stayed here and did the exact same thing, so I had to take a plane to get one of the legalized ones for an article that would only make print if my there was some sort of problem. "Lovely time with the legal prostitute/weed" isn't going to cut it, I would imagine.

These are worries that we set aside for children; my 12 year old nephew just called, he wants his MO back. Just because it's legal doesn't mean you have to do it. It is legal to go topless in NYC, but look around, not many women taking advantage of that law just because it exists.

Maureen, there is cannabis in NYC, you don't have to fly across the country to get it, just give the *dog a jingle. And is the NYT's cool with staff drug use or is this something that is only OK if it sells papers.

Seems like a great defense for any employees who are caught doing somehtuing they shouldn't at work, the paper can't randomly decide what employees are allowed to be high while on the job, I would think.

*joke, don't call the dog for weed.

Would it make more sense to you if (5.00 / 3) (#92)
by Anne on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 10:58:15 AM EST

he'd said this:

Like me going to Colorado to find out what legal marijuana is like when I don't partake here in Houston. Yeah, guess what, just because it's legal doesn't mean it can't be as dangerous as the stuff you can get on the street here at home...kinda like, just because prostitution is legal in Amsterdam doesn't mean I'd be stupid enough not to use condoms.

Scott's point, as I understood it, was that she didn't have to go to Colorado to experience marijuana, but allegedly having done so, she was stupid to assume that "legal" means "safe," and was absolved of applying any common sense to her experiment.

If, in fact, the experiment even happened. I'm not so sure it did.

: Yes Anne. (5.00 / 3) (#103)
by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 02:29:01 PM EST

The point was really that just because it's legal doesn't make is safe, maybe safer, but not safe. Similar, although not exact, to the Dowd idiocity. Maybe I should have used Ecuador or Costa Rica as not to offend squeaky fragile sensibilities in regards to European prostitutes.
But really the more important point that I am taking away is the squeaky is so trigger happy with the non-sense that he/she doesn't remember the hundreds of replies he/she has made to my posts in the past.
What a GD tool. Unaware of what or who he/she is replying to, just a perpetual need to be the antagonist.
Can't get one post in without complete and utter non-sense from squeaky, pathetic. I will never reply to that idiot.

: Thanks (none / 0) (#95)
by sj on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 11:15:26 AM EST

you said in words how my lizard brain interpreted that.
And I've also wondered if her experiment was real. Or if the real experiment was an intentional abuse of the candy bar she purchased. If so, she may have gotten more than she bargained for.

: Not What He Said (none / 0) (#96)
by squeaky on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 11:16:51 AM EST

And yes his point was clear, except for the topless analogy which seems really out there.
Spreading disinformation about sex work in Amsterdam is wrong in every sense of wrong. These women, transgender, and men, have worked hard to legalize sex work in Amsterdam which boasts as extremely safe sex.
And suggesting that unregulated and illegal sex work in Houston is the same as sex work in Amsterdam is bizarre.
And then using that as an analogy to show that smoking weed in NYC is dangerous compared to CO, or that it is dangerous everywhere, or that Dowd should have smoked in NYC.. or whatever the point of the analogy is absurd, imo.

Why do you bother? (5.00 / 1) (#121)
by oculus on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 10:56:39 PM EST

Lenny's a criminal defense attorney, (5.00 / 1) (#129)
by Anne on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:53:12 AM EST

and I may be wrong, but I think he knows Jeralyn. Probably the link to his website that makes it look like spam, but I don't think that's the case at all.

: If that's true my bad (none / 0) (#131)
by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 09:04:43 AM EST

He might have said so. He was posting the same time I was posting "site violators"

If it matters squeak (5.00 / 1) (#132)
by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 09:33:53 AM EST

I thought it was a bizarre comparison. I am no big fan of the industry of prostitution because I think it mostly hurts women and others working in it, usually individuals who have already been very hurt and harmed.

Thanks MT (5.00 / 1) (#134)
by squeaky on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:35:07 AM EST

Certainly there is an obvious analogy between legalizing prostitution and legalizing drugs in that keeping drugs and prostitution illegal puts people in danger, and enriches organized crime. Scott714 appeared to be making the opposite argument, imo. That the dangers of prostitution, and drug use do not change even when they become legal.

And the moralism that appears to be on display, perhaps inadvertent, borders on sexism, imo.


: I thought/felt the same (5.00 / 1) (#136)
by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:49:22 AM EST

Is Zms. Dowd generally an advocate of big (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 05:12:04 PM EST

government?

For folks like Dowd... (none / 0) (#15)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 06:32:23 PM EST

...more state control is always the answer. BTW, you may note that bottles of gin, vodka, whiskey, etc. carry no dosage information.

All I'm going to say (none / 0) (#16)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 07:24:33 PM EST

is Dowd gives me a headache and I would not read her column except maybe for a laugh.

Nom Nom Nom (none / 0) (#17)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 07:27:49 PM EST

What a hoot

I'm thinking it is a good thing (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by ruffian on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:39:41 PM EST

I did not try kdog's brownies!


I might have loved the music. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by oculus on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 09:19:47 PM EST

: Would have danced with the wizard though? (none / 0) (#48)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 09:29:40 PM EST

I know it is a good thing I didn't :) (none / 0) (#33)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:46:11 PM EST

I'm no good at THC, I just need a nice martini sometimes.

Too many brownies, I'd be buying corduroys :)


Honestly (none / 0) (#34)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:48:09 PM EST

When was the last time you even heard the word corduroy? Am I really that out of touch fashion wise?


I guess both of us are (none / 0) (#35)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:56:44 PM EST

Ummm...I wear corduroys happily (none / 0) (#38)
by ruffian on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 09:11:53 PM EST

Even in summer!

Not green though.


Uh-oh (none / 0) (#39)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 09:13:54 PM EST

If it matters (none / 0) (#40)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 09:17:24 PM EST

I am rather well know in my community as tragically style challenged.

Its even led to skepticism of my orientation.


haha...no one is more fashion challenged (none / 0) (#49)
by ruffian on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 09:30:04 PM EST

than I am. I may have the only corduroy in Florida.


The gay (none / 0) (#50)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 09:40:11 PM EST

community might disown you for that one Howdy. Every gay friend I have had has been very fashionable.


I see a coment deleted (none / 0) (#61)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 07:53:37 AM EST

Sorry if it was offensive. It wasn't meant to be.


I did (none / 0) (#71)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 10:59:15 AM EST

not see anything offensive.


: Fwiw (none / 0) (#72)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 11:05:01 AM EST

I got that comparison from a gay black friend. Maybe it's one of those things only a black person should say. I'm ok with that. No offense meant. None taken.

You don't :) (none / 0) (#46)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 09:26:45 PM EST

Green corduroys! (none / 0) (#37)
by oculus on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 09:10:03 PM EST

: Only if Vera Wang (none / 0) (#47)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 09:27:39 PM EST

Does them in stretch leggings :)

Methinks (none / 0) (#21)
by Lora on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 07:58:39 PM EST

Attempting to identify a serving size and the amount of THC present per serving sounds to me like a good idea.

I had an "episode" in my past with some brownies that my friends and I had made that was very similar to Dowd's. And yes, we did research it in advance, and yes, I did have considerable experience with the active ingredient. But the brownie experience was unlike anything I'd ever had before. I was definitely incapacitated and it wasn't cool. It was overwhelming and disturbing. I was glad I wasn't alone, or I probably would've been as afraid as Dowd was.

Story (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:20:09 PM EST

A few years ago I was experimenting with cooking having just sort of discovered it, or really discovered how to make really good tasting stuff with it. Anyway I was making little muffins. If you have never done this the way it works is to sauté the weed in oil and strain away all the grit leaving the oil which is what you cook with.
So
I did all that. Poured up the muffins and as I was about to stuff them in the oven I noticed that a pool of magic oil had in the meantime collected under the strainer as be to big to dispose of so I just poured it all into one muffin which was of course what I ate first.

Oooooo baby.

Never been so cheeched. I had to hold on to the walls to walk on the floor. The difference between me and MoDo is I LOVED IT.
Having said that I can honestly understand that that kind of altitude might be unpleasant to frightening to a novice.
So I understand your point. Personally I think basic education might be better and more effective that some sort of cryptic percentage labeling.


Basic education: (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Lora on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:39:30 PM EST

Saute in butter and don't throw out the "grit." It gets crunchy, and the taste isn't bad at all, kinda like popcorn, and it works fine with a strong brownie mix!

And...always have a batch of (labeled) regular brownies to go along with. Otherwise, what else is there to do when the munchies hit??? O.O

But I think labeling will be fine as people get used to it. Anyone who drinks at all regularly understands "proof" and knows how to read it. While they may not get out their calculator, they know that the higher the proof, the quicker they will get plastered.

So "mg THC per serving" will become the new "proof."


: Throw nothing away (none / 0) (#32)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:44:54 PM EST

It's like the dark meat

Check out the first draft... (none / 0) (#26)
by unitron on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:25:38 PM EST

...of MoDo's column at funnyordie

Amazing (none / 0) (#27)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:34:11 PM EST

I also really liked the dragons = nuclear weapons thing. You should repost that.


Your wish is my command... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by unitron on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 03:30:28 AM EST

Dragons as nukes for all you GoT fans


: Should read this (none / 0) (#62)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 08:07:42 AM EST

Very interesting and loooong. Guy out a lot of thought into this. Not just for GOT fans

I think our MoDo should next travel to ... (none / 0) (#36)
by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 08:59:38 PM EST

... Honolulu, and guzzle down a quart of kava tea. Hilarity will no doubt ensue.

Sad to say this is nothing new (none / 0) (#44)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 09:24:11 PM EST

Instead of accepting personal accountability for her actions, she blames the candy, the manufacturer and retailer's lack of warning labels, Colorado's regulatory system -- everyone but herself.

The above is done everyday by all kinds of people of all political leanings about all kinds of things.

What she has that most do not is a national stage.

assumes facts not in evidence. (none / 0) (#45)
by cpinva on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 09:26:43 PM EST

"Why would an intelligent adult like Dowd"

your first mistake ms. merritt. whatever intelligence ms. dowd may have once possessed (and there's scant evidence of that), has long since been overridden by her clinical insanity.

I assume the nyt's keeps her around out of pity, knowing she wouldn't get a job anywhere else, were she fired. but no, this recent bout of modoinsanity isn't surprising in the least. she probably prepped, by watching Reefer Madness, because the column reads as though it stole from the script.

I guess poor... (none / 0) (#53)
by desertswine on Wed Jun 04, 2014 at 10:07:45 PM EST

Maureen doesn't have any friends.

I don't understand the hate-on for Dowd. (none / 0) (#66)
by Mr Natural on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 09:11:36 AM EST

It's a column. She's funny sometimes. Other times, she's not. It's a tough racket. Some writers are tuned to your funny waves, others can't find the transmitter.

Suspecting a confluence of gender bias with the expected politics, but who can say? Yesterday I heard an XM radio comedian discussing the misogyny inherent in many of the insults males casually trade.

You want funny? Maria Bamford. Sarah Silverman.


: There was a lot of hate (none / 0) (#68)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 09:14:39 AM EST

For MoDo on this site way before this. I tend to agree that she is occasionally funny. Although less and less lately honestly IMO

I do hope this potent candybar is (none / 0) (#54)
by oculus on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 12:42:08 AM EST

not placed where children can filch it.

16 doses in a single candy bar is idiotic. (none / 0) (#58)
by Mr Natural on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 06:21:03 AM EST

The presumption that a candy bar is for one person to eat is practically hard-wired into us. There should have been product labeling to correct that misunderstanding.

If the manufacturers don't get their act together, product liability lawyers will.


On the other hand (none / 0) (#67)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 09:12:18 AM EST

X-Lax is chocolate. Most people would not eat a whole bar of that. I am not disagreeing that it should have been labeled if it was not. Maybe if this silly tantrum by MoDo does anything good it will raise awareness of that need. As you say for protection if nothing else.
Would just say this "industry" didn't even exist a year ago. And still may not be able to use the banking system. It will be a process.


: It would have been some kind of (none / 0) (#80)
by Anne on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 05:32:47 PM EST

sweet, ironic justice if that candy bar had been Ex-Lax, don't you think?
Probably would have ruined the green corduroy pants, though.

Lifes tough (none / 0) (#77)
by Mikado Cat on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 04:48:26 PM EST

Its a lot tougher if your stupid.

Funny (none / 0) (#82)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 06:40:44 PM EST

Maureen Dowd burned over pot op-ed
Columnist's bad trip on edible marijuana mocked

: More (none / 0) (#83)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 06:42:38 PM EST

Maureen Dowd Eats Pot Candy in Denver, Breaks Internet

THAT'S what you got out of that (none / 0) (#87)
by sj on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 11:41:44 PM EST

statement? Read again.

BS (none / 0) (#93)
by squeaky on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 11:08:17 AM EST

Both analogies are offensive, imo. Sarcasm or not.

And both analogies are extremely poor, and weirdly related, imo.

However, having once gone to a medical seminar about the working girls in Amsterdam I can tell you that in my opinion they are the cleanest sex workers in the world.
They can get a condom on a guy even if he doesn't know they're doing it! And your friends are right about them being tested regularly.

And as for the topless analogy, wtf?

Activists go topless in order to normalize the act of women's legal right to go topless in NYC, just as men do, and that is somehow analogous to Dowd's op-ed?

Are the two analogies made less weird because Dowd is a woman, or more?

Scott (none / 0) (#109)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 07:21:31 PM EST

makes one completely understandable statement. I mean I got it. It devolves into a literal junkfest because one person doesn't get what he is saying. I'm banging my head people. Please stop it!

: I Get What He is Saying (none / 0) (#113)
by squeaky on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 08:32:57 PM EST

It is clear what his position is regarding Dowd and her little adventure. I am taking issue with the offensive analogies that he used.
So you could care less about legal prostitution? or are you a supporter of it?
Does not bother you that the way sex workers in Amsterdam are characterized by Scott714?
OK, what if Scott714 used gay people as an analogy.. sodomy is still illegal in places and legal in other places..
Would characterizing the dangerousness of gay sex be offensive to you? Do you think it would be a fine analogy for Dowd?s little mis-adventure?
What about we switch the equal rights argument of women being able to bare their breasts just as men can do?
does that trouble you? Something you would never do?
How about we shift the analogy to women's dress codes?

The University of Texas-Austin Nursing School has removed dress code signs it posted earlier this week after critics rightfully pointed out that that the signs which banned such sartorial sins as visible cleavage and "low rise pants," (which is insane because I have no idea where a person would even buy late 90's Britney-style low rise pants 15 years after they stopped being fashionable) were sexist as hell.
Revealing clothing "distracts" from the learning environment, say the signs. Distracts whom? The teachers? Maybe schools having difficulty with students who are "distracted" should consider disciplining the distracted entities rather than the students who dare wear a shirt that reveals top boob meat.
jezebel
OK now that Texas-Austin Nursing School has removed the signs women can show their cleavage,

but look around, not many women taking advantage of that law just because it exists.
Getting high is tantamount to showing cleavage? How would that sit with you..

thread cleaned of (none / 0) (#135)
by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:46:02 AM EST

sniping and personal attacks on commenters. Please stay on topic of Dowd and her article and edibles.

CO's pot store clientele (none / 0) (#137)
by Aspidistra on Wed Jun 11, 2014 at 11:55:32 AM EST

A bit off-topic, but I recently heard through the son of a friend that the clients in Denver's pot shops are all tourists and soccer moms.

What's up with the soccer moms?

: Nothing new... (none / 0) (#138)
by kdog on Wed Jun 11, 2014 at 02:08:09 PM EST

I don't think, just out of the shadows in CO. Moms smoke/eat/vaporize just as much as anybody else...all kinds enjoy the sacrament.
Maybe your friend's son is doing his shopping during daytime hours when most people are at work...which leaves tourists on vacay and stay at home moms as the most likely daytime shoppers.