If anyone can explain to me in the comments what, if anything, about this photograph suggests “Youth marijuana abuse can hurt a child’s education” I’ll send them a free BMG coffee mug:
![](https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5584/14209899055_51c6db9b76.jpg)
Or an advertising campaign. (Spotted at the Charles/MGH Red Line station)
Borowitz:
G.O.P. RIVALS QUESTION RUBIO’S IGNORANCE CREDENTIALS
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—After claiming on Sunday that human activity does not cause climate change, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) suddenly found his ignorance credentials under attack by potential rivals for the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination.
“Now that Marco’s thinking of running for President, he doesn’t believe in climate change,” said Texas Governor Rick Perry. “To those of us with long track records of ignorance on this issue, he seems a little late to the rodeo.”
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) echoed Gov. Perry’s criticism, calling Rubio a “dummy-come-lately” on climate change.
“At the end of the day, I have faith that Republican voters can tell the difference between someone who’s truly uninformed and someone who’s just faking it,” he said. “These comments by Marco don’t pass the smell test.”
By Sunday evening, a defensive Sen. Rubio was pushing back against the attacks, telling reporters, “Any questions about the authenticity of my ignorance are deeply offensive to me.”
“My refusal to accept the scientific research on climate change is a matter of public record,” he said. “On this issue and many others my ignorance should take a back seat to no one’s.”
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Millions of unemployed Americans who have fruitlessly been looking for work for months are determined that Congress get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi, a new poll indicates.
According to the survey, job-seeking Americans hope that Congress will eventually do something about job creation, but they are adamant that it hold new hearings about Benghazi first.
By a wide majority, respondents to the poll “strongly agreed” with the statement “I would really like to find a job, but not if it in any way distracts Congress from my No. 1 concern: finding out what really happened in Benghazi.”
In related findings, a survey of Americans found that taxpayers overwhelmingly consider Benghazi hearings to be the best use of taxpayer money, well ahead of schools, roads, and infant nutrition.
In the House of Representatives, Speaker John Boehner released the following statement: “I want to reassure the American people that, until we have completed our Benghazi investigations, there will be absolutely no action on job creation, infrastructure, immigration, education, housing, or food.”
‘During his trip to the White House yesterday, Uruguay’s president said that more Americans should be bilingual. Then Joe Biden said, ‘Thanks, but I’m happily married.” –Jimmy Fallon
“The first openly gay player has been drafted by the NFL. If you saw it on ESPN, Michael Sam celebrated by kissing his boyfriend. This is historic. This is the first time anyone has celebrated being drafted by the St. Louis Rams.” –Conan O’Brien
“So that’s our choice: Malala, or Rush — the quivering rage heap who is apparently desperately trying to extinguish any remaining molecule of humanity that might still reside in the Chernobyl-esque superfund clean-up site that was his soul. Who should we choose? I don’t know, why don’t we tweet our votes to hashtag #F*ckyouRush.” -Jon Stewart, showing a photo of Malala Yousufzai with a #BringBackOurGirls sign in solidarity with the drive to rescue 300 kidnapped Nigerian girls, and conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, who mocked the effort.
Onion: Should Obama Blow The Silver Horn?
The Founding Fathers promised to return upon hearing the enchanted horn, but warned it should only be used in times of dire need.
Should Obama Blow The Silver Horn The Founding Fathers Left In Case The Country Ever Needed Them?
His educational progress has clearly been slowed to a snail’s pace. The slowing of time is a well-known effect of smoking the reefer.
The child on the left’s head has come loose, and the middle one’s eyes are disappearing. These kids are so stonered, none of them seem to care!
It obviously isn’t a “this is your brain on drugs” image, but I think the message is if you want to be happy and graduate don’t abuse marijuana.
I concur with Bob that the ad is a singularly ineffective way of delivering that message.
the happy graduate in the photo was the biggest stoner in her class.
Doesn’t pot induce laziness and procrastination? Sure such a person might graduate, but the overall message of success is not really compatible.
I’ve known several people who could have been considered stoners in high school who did well there, in college, and in their jobs. “Stoner” is a stereotype, and like many stereotypes there is some shred of truth there, but you can’t make blanket assumptions like “pot induces laziness and procrastination”.
I’m sorry, Christopher, but you are advancing tired stereotypes with little or no basis in fact. This ad panders to just those stereotypes you advance.
People who are lazy and procrastinate find all sorts of ways to express those flaws. Marijuana use is certainly one of them — there are a host of others. Alcohol consumption on college campuses is a far worse problem than marijuana use. Beyond intoxicating substances, I suggest that students who are lazy and who procrastinate lose just as much time sitting in coffee shops nursing lattes, playing candy crush on their cellphones, or sexting with friends.
Internalizing the discipline needed to manage distractions is one of the more valuable lessons of college — for the overwhelming majority of students, a host of other factors are far more significant than marijuana.
Your stereotypes about “stoners”, “laziness”, and “procrastination” demean you.
Sure we can all find ways and excuses to procrastinate – blogging on BMG for instance:)
My understanding is that one of the physical effects of marijuana is that it induces lethargy and makes people less productive. I believe you have mentioned that it slows people down. That is what I was referring to. Of course alcohol consumption is a far worse problem on campuses, but of course it is also available because it is legal. The effects are real and I’m frankly getting tired of feeling like I’m arguing with climate deniers on this issue.
Nobody disputes the short-term effects of marijuana, it is its illegality that is in dispute.
The science of anthropogenic climate change is compelling. The fundamental science has been settled for more than century, has been widely published, and is supported by an overwhelming consensus of credentialed climatologists. There are thousands of peer-reviewed papers supporting the scientific reality of anthropogenic climate change. The original motivation for addressing climate change came from the scientific community, and it was politicized by climate change deniers.
The science cited by opponents of marijuana legalization is sparse (it was illegal to even do research using marijuana for decades), unpersuasive, and disputed. The original motivation for criminalizing marijuana came from the business/political community, and the scientific community was excluded from the process.
Your attempted comparison between climate change and marijuana is woefully inaccurate.
We hear from time to time compelling stories from families wishing the FDA would approve this drug or that drug already because they are convinced it will help what ails a family member. Only marijuana seems to have behind it what feels like an ideological compulsion to satisfy our inner hippie. I cited a well-respected medical website and until I hear from more scientists and doctors rather than civil libertarian ideologues I am comfortable with my stance.
Why the urgency? Because of stupid arrests like those reported in this piece from today’s Globe:
We’ve been over this ground before. In my view, the burden of proof rightly belongs on those who would prohibit the recreational use of marijuana. The article you cited is itself ambiguous and acknowledges that the science is murky. From your cite:
I note that “believe” is NOT a word used by scientists about a theory. The data either supports or does not support a link. I also don’t doubt that HEAVY pot smokers are at increased risk for lung cancer. Heavy use of just about anything is associated with an increased risk of some form of cancer.
Again, an utterly inappropriate use of the word “believe”.
What that last item fails to mention is that it could be the very illegality of marijuana that leads pot smokers to use other ILLEGAL drugs. This is the old “99% of today’s heroin users drank milk as children” argument.
In any case, as the site points out, the jury is still out. In other words, there is precious little science to support the claim that marijuana is a gateway drug.
I don’t feel any “compulsion”, ideological or otherwise. My stance is that our laws should be neutral unless and until we hear from scientists and doctors — using peer-reviewed publications — that marijuana use is harmful. I don’t think that makes me a “civil libertarian ideologue”, I think it makes me an American who is aware of my civil rights and rather acutely aware of the many and growing assaults on those rights.
I’ve defended your stance in the past on this issue as one I respectfully disagree with, and maybe it’s because Tom or others that are more vocally enthusiastic about this are pushing you in this direction, but you’ve become quite grouchy and reactionary on this issue, the way I used to get when people criticized the Pope around here.
But the citation of zero facts and usage of outdated rhetoric like hippies and gateway drugs is really uncalled for. For what it’s worth, I think after reading this article you would be more comfortable with legalization.
I will have a full post recommending it later, but it critiques the way alcohol has been legalized since it enabled the beer distributors to set the pace and control of regulation. Once big business gets into the pot game, we don’t want to make the same mistake twice. Better to have a control model (like the NH State Liquor Stores) for pot, it will ensure that the state maximizes revenue while also acts as the sole responsible party for regulation to ensure public safety. This is the Washington approach rather than the Colorado approach, which is also quite lucrative.
…and the article from WebMD says the jury is out on that one which I’m willing to accept, but I stand by the my statement that this feels a lot more ideological and scientific when other drugs that are potential candidates for approval have only science and no ideology thus we only hear occasional anecdotes about them.
n/m
Then feel free to provide evidence for that statement to be verified.
Did you even read the Washington Monthly article I linked to? It’s a long read examining all sides of the debate and proposing a rather modest and sensible solution. I strongly believe that if you read that, it would create a legalization regime even you can appreciate.
This isn’t about personal feelings. I think pot smells terrible, I think friends who’ve gotten high act like idiots when they are on it, and I definitely know more than one person who smoked so often that it became difficult for them to be sober. There are definitely risks associated with it-which is exactly why the government should step in as a regulating agent to ensure the product is safe, healthy, and rarely used. We both dislike abortion, we also recognize banning it causes more problems than it solves. We both dislike cigarettes, which are just if not more harmful, and would recognize that banning them causes more problems than it solves. This is a policy question you keep insisting on treating as a morality question, which is rather incongruous with your support for a right to choose and for lottery users.
Do you mean Business Insider because that’s the only link in your comments on this thread that I can find? Tax revenue is not enough of a reason to override health concerns. I don’t have to inhale fumes from somebody gambling in the room I’m in nor do I have to worry about a gambler driving safely. I could not care less about morality, but I care a lot about health and safety and I think I have been reasonable about enforcement. If it were already legal maybe I wouldn’t be champing at the bit to ban it, but since it is illegal I see no reason for us to say it’s OK, which is exactly the message you send if you outright legalize it.
The link is “this article” in the following excerpt:
It’s a well-written and reasonable analysis of the pros and cons, but I’m not sure it would, or is even intended to, move either side off of their position.
If she hadn’t been smoking so much dope, this would be her medical school graduation.
Any more contestants? Perhaps, to develop Kirth’s theory, all three of the people pictured are actually the same age: the man is the heaviest marijuana user, the woman in the middle the second-greatest user, and the girl in the robe the abstainer…