Thursday, June 07, 2012

...And the Hits Just Keep on Coming

As promised just a little while ago, my latest post for the Daily Banter is now up -- seemingly in record time -- and it deals with even more backlash in the wake of my Banter/HuffPo piece on pot culture.

Here's the opening shot:

"You know, at some point I want this little debate over 'Marijuana the Amazing Wonder Drug®' to be over, I really do; the thing’s been going on in one form or another for about two months now. But I guess I can’t complain that I cross-posted the original Daily Banter piece on pot culture that I banged out a couple of months ago over at the Huffington Post and now the floodgates have opened. (If nothing else I hope it helps to bring attention to the good work being done here at the Banter.) ..."

Read the Rest Here


Anonymous said...

Sums up everything quite neatly about this pot heads.

Colonel Yelgen P. Masters said...

Did you get more backlash from pot fans or Potter fans? I feel like I have yet to see a post on here that comes even close to the backlash garnered by your massive "fuck you" to the Harry Potter culture. You know.. that time you pulled something completely out of your ass and ruined everyone's life?

nietchzes peach fuzz said...


You are right to criticize his argument that getting high is not on par with marching for equality, but you are wrong that getting high is not a civil right. Just as it is a choice so is every right 'granted' to us in the Constitution. (funny that rights have to be defined and approved of but that is a whole other debate)What is free speech, or the right to arm yourself or the right to petition the government if not external choices?

I would put getting high on the 'rights' list at the same level as a woman's right to choose and medically assisted suicide and even freedom of religion. All very personal choices that shouldn't be subjected to an outsider or governmental body's moral or ethical litmus test. What is liberty if we the people don't have sovereignty over our own bodies? I.e., people should be able to eat, drink, smoke, implant, excavate, mark up, chop off, transform, mutilate, abort, , medically enhance, prematurely end whatever the fuck they want on their bodies as long as they aren't infringing on someone elses' rights, forcing that choice on others and old enough to make informed decisions about it.

You are right that the militant activists don't help the cause any, but would you be criticizing the pro-choice movement with the same derision? Both are about your body, your choice and both contain very passionate activists. Yet one is treated as a liberal political darling, and the other as the red-headed step child of the left.

Just curious.

Chez said...

Again, you can argue semantics but not every choice for yourself that you make can be considered an exercising of your civil rights. And I can't help but think that applying the term to something as frivolous as getting high cheapens the term and the concept.

Chez said...

And to answer your question, Colonel, the Potter thing drew much more entertaining outrage but the comical self-righteousness this time around is quite a bit of fun too.

nietzsche's peach fuzz said...

Superficial? So is plastic surgery, tattoos, gender reassignment surgery...etc What you deem frivolous, others put great personal stock in. Why should we let other people dictate a merit system as to what people can do with their own body? Isn't that a huge chunk of the argument against homosexuality? I mean, whenever I've listed through the many testimonies given at legislative committee hearings regarding civil unions or same sex marriage, one of the most common arguments, besides religion, was how 'unnatural' homosexuality sex was. (Though I was extremely entertained by the grandmother who insisted the anus was "an exit only") And we liberals consistently respond with "Stay out of people's bedrooms and let them shove whatever the fuck they want into whatever orifice they want with whomever they want!" And we are goddammed right, goddammit.

Look, like I said militantism is not quite the best way to approach the legalization issue, but neither is elitist condescension. I agreed that "getting high" by itself isn't on par with traditional Civil Right's movements. But willfully ignoring or glossing over the true issue at hand by gleefully highlighting the wierdos and the fundamentalist is wrong and intellectually dishonest. The issue at the heart of the matter is freedom of personal choice. Whether that choice is to smoke a bowl, drink wine, get an abortion, marry whoever, turn your penis into a vagina, become a Mormon, listen to shitty electronic music, end your life when you are stricken with a terminal disease, drink a 64 oz soda, get fake titties...whatEVER, you should have the right to exercise that choice free of persecution as long as you aren't endangering other people around you. And to pretend other wise is what really smacks of comical self-righteousness. It's easy to go for the low hanging fruit.