Proving You're A Loser...

Not that we needed proof, but Andrew Sullivan makes an air-tight case for his being just about as big a loser as you can be:

Longtime Dishheads will remember that rather extraordinary reader email thread that had to do with secret middle-class, mainstream marijuana use - for medical and non-medical reasons. The thread "The Cannabis Closet" began with one reader email in March 2009 and became one of the most talked-about cultural discussions on the question of marijuana legalization. Dishheads will also remember we promised, by popular demand, to compile them all into a book. We are massively over-stretched, but we have finally come through, thanks to Chris Bodenner's meticulous and back-breaking work...

The book is a compilation of first-person pot use testimonials, from top executives to responsible parents, from entrepreneurs to A-students, from unwinding suburbanites to the very sick. In more than 120 personal stories, it demolishes every hoary "stoner" stereotype of the regular pot-user. It doesn't glide over the downsides of pot-use, but it does explain more graphically and powerfully how marijuana-use has become as American as, er, brownies and milk. It shows how responsible pot-use is already compatible with middle-class life and its obligations.

No, actually it won't.

That's because there is no such thing as "responsible pot-use". Unlike alcohol, which can be taken without getting drunk, there is no such thing as smoking cannabis without getting stoned. There is no such thing as "in moderation" when it comes to pot...

If you're using it, you're stoned. Period.

Let me just note here and now that between the ages of 17 and 25 I was one very enthusiastic pot smoker (and drinker). So this isn't about being all sanctimonious and whatnot. This is about being an adult. What it's also about is the reality of cannabis... Smoking pot is the exact equivalent of drinking to get drunk. The exact equivalent. And you know what?

Only losers drink to get drunk. Period.

I once had a husband and wife team who owned a business here in town. Both of them were as dysfunctional as you could get. His dysfunction was substance abuse. In the three years they were my client he was in and out of rehab twice. One day, long after they'd fired me, I saw him in town and asked him how he was doing. He decided to half-brag about spending four nights a week partying in bars. For him, that was "the good life". It was an assertion to which I immediately blurted out the obvious truth of the matter. What I said was this:

If you're 44 and married and you're spending more than one night a week in a bar, you're a loser.

And you know what? I was completely correct in my assessment. He was 44, married, spending more than one night a week in a bar, and a complete and total loser. He admitted as much to me a few years later (after he'd been truly clean and sober for a year and a half).

The bottom line is simple: If you need or want pot to take the edge off life, you're a loser.

Healthy, well-adjusted adults don't need pot - or booze - to get them through life. Period. And while Andrew and his followers may wish to flatter themselves as being something apart from the average drunk, the reality is that they're no better (or different) from the slob who starts his evening with a bottle in hand and ends it by falling off a bar stool.

Reality can be harsh: One need only look over the string of shabby failures that make up Andrew Sullivan's life to understand why he'd want - and need - whatever relief that could come his way. However, if Andrew Sullivan was actually a well-adjusted and responsible adult, he'd understand that cannabis is the fool's way out of what he's feeling about himself.

Then again, if Andrew Sullivan wasn't a fool, he wouldn't be Andrew Sullivan.

Comments

[aelfheld]

120 stories?

That's it?

Geeze, I could poll the local high school parking lot and get more than that. And most likely with better rationalisations than Andrew's bunch.

[martin i.]

Let the middle class have it's little illegal vice. No time or stomach to read Sully, but I see two arguments for legalizing- on principle and for enforcement simplification/ costs savings. You answer well as to the first. As to the second:

To legalize teh weed is to give employers headaches and to complicate law. You can bet your bottom dollar there'd still be enforcement against underage selling and use, against impairment when operating vehicles and machinery (how?), against smoking in certain/ many venues, and against non-licensed distribution save for homegrown exemptions, not to mention complex regulation and tax law per jurisdiction. More than likely, we'd require additional bureaucracy to enforce sanctions and collect the government's cut of cannibas money. If you read CA's Prop 19, pot revenue is a stash of cash waiting to be tapped for the gov. Even the so-called savings achieved by not prosecuting and incarcerating current mj violators don't seem to add up, given the smaller percentage they constitute of all drug offenses.

Of course, there'd be social justice issues as a result of only legalizing pot, when American blacks are disproportionately punished over crack cocaine laws. And, just as we're trying to discourage young generations from tobacco, how can we ignore the science that smoking pot is even worse on the lungs (and brain)? Legalizing will create a larger class of users, no doubt, so we can add in more medical costs to our already unaffordable obsession with staying alive :)

You know, it's completely cool you'd risk being uncool with this post, Dennis.

[Dennis The Peasant]

I am beyond cool.

[Masturbatin' Pete]

Dennis, I generally agree with you, but this is possibly the most poorly reasoned post you've ever produced.

Your primary mistake is equating the physiological effects of cannabis and alcohol. A few puffs on a joint does not make you stoned any more than two or three beers makes you drunk. A small amount of pot enhances sensory perception without gluing you to the couch and making you forget how to get to the kitchen. Not every drinker drinks to get drunk; not every pot smoker blasts himself out to the edge of oblivion every time he smokes.

You're also incorrect when you state unequivocally that "[t]here is no such thing as 'in moderation' when it comes to pot." Actually, Dennis, there is. Maybe *you* were a pothead who didn't know how to handle psychotropic substances when you were a young adult, but many people more mature than that. There most definitely is such a thing as "moderate" pot use. For starters, it involves not developing a habit that is the equivalent of "spending more than one night a week in a bar." When you do smoke, you don't do it to escape your problems; you do it to enhance music, television, food, sex, or social interaction. You shouldn't smoke alone any more than you should drink alone. The goal should not be to get as stoned as humanly possible, but rather to smoke as little as possible to produce the desired effects.

What you're describing and arguing against is the use of marijuana to cope with life. I would never advocate the use of *any* substance or habit as a way to escape from problems. That's irresponsible no matter what it is: pot, booze, gambling, sex, exercise, food, pornography, tobacco, heroin, television, or work. If you're using these things to get through the day, then yes, you're a loser. But mere use of a substance that can be abused does not render you a loser.

I want to go one step further to explore your conception of the "responsible" use of substances. Suppose that once a month, a 180-pound man goes to a social setting and drinks five or six pints of Guiness over the course of a three-hour period. He's with friends, one of whom drinks virgin rum & Cokes all night because he's the designated driver. He doesn't grope any women, piss himself, or start any fights. He goes home, sleeps it off, and has no effects the next morning. Are you going to try to tell me that he's being irresponsible or that he's a loser?

Okay, same basic scenario, except once a month the guy has his friends over on a Saturday night. They smoke a few bowls, order pizzas, eat Mallomars and watch horror movies. Irresponsible losers, Dennis?

[possession]

"let the middle class have it's little illegal vice." It's "its." Stoners get dinged for this alot, too used to saying It's not mine, [authority figure].

[Dennis The Peasant]

I stand by everything I said.

I've smoked enough pot in my life to know that there is no such thing as being a "little stoned"... Anymore than one can be just a "little drunk". You're either drunk or you aren't. And, you're either stoned or you aren't. You take a toke, and you're stoned. Not a "little stoned".

Besides, people don't smoke dope just to smoke dope. They smoke dope to get stoned. There is no other reason to smoke cannabis. That is the critical difference between smoking dope and social drinking. Remember, what I said was smoking dope is the exact equivalent of drinking to get drunk. I meant that. I did not equate it with social drinking.

[Dennis The Peasant]

MP-

The last time I checked, it wasn't the Boy Scouts who were growing, importing/distributing or selling that pot. It was guys with guns who are quite happy to kill anyone who crosses them. And let's remember that that business includes importing/distributing drugs like coke, crack, meth and heroin. This isn't a victimless crime we're talking about here. There's nothing benign about this.

Andrew Sullivan may buy his dope from some cool, laid-back hipster, but that ain't the thug who is actually providing it.

[Masturbatin' Pete]

Dennis, you didn't address the question I posed regarding social pot smoking. I gave you a plausible scenario in which someone infrequently uses marijuana with friends in a social setting. He's not doing it because his life sucks; he's doing it because it's pleasurable. Yes, he fully intends to feel the intoxicating effects of marijuana. Is he a loser?

[Masturbatin' Pete]

Dennis:

It wasn't the Boy Scouts who were brewing, distilling, importing/distributing or selling alcohol in the 1920's. It was Al Capone. There was nothing benign about that.

[Dennis The Peasant]

Yes. He's a loser. And he's a loser for no other reason than he's enabling violent criminals in their criminal enterprise. Would he feel right enabling a thief? Or enabling a rapist? If not, why would he feel right enabling a pusher? A pusher that, for all he knows, might be selling crack to his own kids.

[Allen]

Hmmm, "The Self-Reported Success Stories of Pot Smokers." Well in his defense he did get the stories by e-mail, so they must be true. The man is pathetic; he must have one hell of a contract.

[Masturbatin' Pete]

"[H]e's a loser for no other reason than he's enabling violent criminals in their criminal enterprise."

Thank you, Dennis. You are saying that the sole reason that my hypothetical casual pot smoker is a loser is that he's enabling violent criminals. That's the only reason, because if there were any other reasons, you would not have said "for no other reason." Because you're someone who criticizes Amanda Marcotte and Matty Y for terrible writing, I know that you must have chosen your words carefully.

So we've now established that responsible marijuana use would be possible if it were legalized. Great to have you on board, Dennis!

[Dennis The Peasant]

MP-

You're right. There was nothing benign about it. It was only make benign when decriminalization took it out of the hands of criminals. If Sully and his stoner pals want to get pot legalized and then smoke it, that's fine. They'll still be losers, but at least they won't be aiding criminals while they're doing it. Unfortunately, being the losers that they are, they can't go that route, now can they? They have to have their little joints right now... And if a few narcs and cops and innocent bystanders get whacked, well, that's just how it goes. Right?

[Dennis The Peasant]

What's a dead cop worth when you're talkin' about a night of giggling and the munchies, eh?

[Dennis The Peasant]

The other reason has already been mentioned in the original post: If you want or need a substance to get you through life, you're a loser. Just because it's pot doesn't change the equation.

And I repeat: There is no such thing as "responsible" pot use... Because there is no such thing as being a "little stoned".

[ThomasD]

A small amount of pot enhances sensory perception

Complete and utter horseshit. Link the research or admit your asspull.

Legalize it. For no other reason than it no business of the government what you grow or smoke on your own private property (which drives a stake through the entire 'tax it as source of revenue' charade.)

But, like Dennis says, don't ever pretend that ingesting cannabis doesn't get you certifiably altered, because it does.

And if someone doesn't want to employ you because your urine says you like to get stoned? Tough shit, freedom is like a tracer, it works both ways.

[ThomasD]

...it is no business of the government...

[Nodrog]

Speaking of Andrew Sullivan, did anyone else notice that he's gone the Charles Johnson route and started marketing overpriced tote bags with the name of his blog on it?

Pathetic.

[Masturbatin' Pete]

No, ThomasD, you provide a link that shows that smoking three grams of cannabis has the same effect as smoking thirty grams of cannabis. You and Dennis are the ones arguing that "there is no such thing as being 'a little stoned.'" I'm not the one who has raised such a laughably absurd proposition.

[Masturbatin' Pete]

Well, then it's settled: the successful neurosurgeon who smokes pot one Saturday night per month nights with his wife, then watches comedies and eats pizza - he's the loser. But the guy who spends his free time correcting the grammar and syntax of twentysomething liberals who no one cares about - he's the winner at the game of life. Dennis, please come collect your prize. You may be wasting your life, but at least you don't touch the evil weed, which would cause you to be instantly stoned on your first puff.

[Glen L.]

Probably 90% of pot users I know use cocaine, and more. Plus, they smoke tobacco and drink. Marijuana's not really an either/or substance choice, but an additional one.

There is no such thing as simply legalizing pot, since too many attendant legal constraints, criminal sanctions, regulations and taxation would accompany its "legalization." The FDA would step in for quality control; taxing authorities would crave the money; politicians would pander to conflicting interests of hippie consumers, foreign producers and urban distributors (read, white v. Latino v. black); and there'd still be an illegal market for underage consumption, for those who don't grow their own, and for the "best", as well as spiked varieties.

Sure, CA could salvage its economy by going into the cannibas biz, legally, if the Feds go liberal European (just as Europe is pulling back from its drug and other liberalization policies), but the rest of us would pay for the increased bureaucracy, complicated enforcement of law and reg, slackened productivity under the influence, perhaps, but certainly increased addiction rates and, health consequences.

Some fairly responsible middle classes who're into illegal pot always project too much common sense and wherewithal onto other users. It's not an affordable idle pasttime for most, money and personal consequences-wise. I say, go ahead and grow your own private stash, as you've done for decades, and have your pot and pizza. If I liked it, I'd probably grow it in small, personal use amounts. Just don't tell the rest of us that legalizing the marijuana industry will be a net good or savings for our society.

[Narcissus with myopia]

Yeah, Dennis, what about the brilliant, steadily employed rich neurosurgeon recreational users in stable married relationships who like a buzz with fun TV? Legalize MJ!

[aelfheld]

A few puffs on a joint does not make you stoned any more than two or three beers makes you drunk.

As little as I drink these days two or three beers is sufficient to put me hors de combat. Unless you've built up a tolerance 'a few puffs on a joint' will make you stoned.

[ThomasD]

you provide a link that shows that smoking three grams of cannabis has the same effect as smoking thirty grams of cannabis.

Right, because enough to get you good and stoned surely cannot be compared to enough to stone half of the audience at a Phish show.

Three grams? That's one hefty spliff Einstein. An average tobacco cigarette contains a little over one gram of tobacco. Smoke three grams of anything other than junior high school grade oregano and you will be damn stoned.

Thirty grams is an ounce. Have you ever seen an ounce of weed? It's a bit bigger than you average weekend baggie, enough to be felony possession in many jurisdictions. Smoke that and you'll be near catatonic, from anoxia, if nothing else.

If you had any functional brain cells or an ounce of pharmacologic knowledge you'd know how stupid you sound.

Your attempt at rebuttal is pathetic. Put down the bong for a few weeks and come back when your synapses are firing again.

[Dennis The Peasant]

Well, then it's settled: the successful neurosurgeon who smokes pot one Saturday night per month nights with his wife, then watches comedies and eats pizza - he's the loser. But the guy who spends his free time correcting the grammar and syntax of twentysomething liberals who no one cares about - he's the winner at the game of life. Dennis, please come collect your prize. You may be wasting your life, but at least you don't touch the evil weed, which would cause you to be instantly stoned on your first puff.

Sounding awfully bitter there, Pete. And, other than the part where the neurosurgeon puts cash in the hands of pushers, street gangs and drug cartels, tokin' is just good harmless fun. Last time I checked, correcting grammar and syntax of twentysomething liberals didn't enable cartels to pay thugs to cut the heads off Mexican peasants. But then again, what's a few dead Meskins when there's a need to fill that bong of yours, eh?

[David]

Flamers to the left of me, flamers to the right...

I've been a subject of embarrassment for all my professional friends and colleagues for the last 20 years or so because of my "Neanderthal" views about marijuana. I've never hesitated to speak up in conversations when the topic would come up about how pot smokers are 1) violating the law; 2) making a poor personal choice health-wise and in other regards; and 3) contributing to the overall decline in respect for reasonable societal authority. I've never hesitated to leave a party as quick as friends or others broke out their baggies and rolling papers. I've never hesitated to ask people to leave get-togethers at my own house when I find them out on my deck toking away while watching the sun go down. Yeah, I'm a real buzzkill.

I was a draftee in the early 70s and saw two friends die because they got stoned and made poor choices about things like driving and cleaning a personal weapon. I watched my "good liberal" uncle's youngest child smoke his high school years into a failure to graduate, after which the kid committed suicide in his early 20s because he just never seemed to be able to get his life headed in a coherent direction. I've never seen pot make someone more creative, likable or fun to be around. And, yep, people smoke it to get high. Period. And, after they've smoked it for a long time, it changes them. Their breath constantly smells bad. They can't keep up in a discussion. They don't remember stuff you told them during your last appointment with them.

Smoking pot isn't some harmless lifestyle choice. Rejecting doing it means dealing with life (presuming you have also kept yourself free of using other intoxicants) at 100% capacity. People who choose to diminish that capacity are, imho, fools, especially in this day and age.

David

[Pangur]

Dennis, would you extend the same antipathy to prescription drug abusers (or, for that matter, anyone taking anything for the psychotropic effect) as you do to stoners/drunkards/etc.?

I've believed for a long time your larger point that drinking can be done in moderation and for taste rather than for effect, and that this is far less likely to be the case for the wacky weed. I'm not as absolutist about it as you are, but I'm also not sure what else I'd expect from an Ohio accountant posting under your nom de plume.

[og]

It takes a LOT more than one hit off a joint to get you stoned. That's why there's a multimillion dollar industry making one-hitters, because taking one hit doesn't do anything at all.

This comment thread is the veritable poster child for the proof of your original post.

[GFV]

Hip me to this one, what is a dishhead? Never heard that before. Not even urbandictionary.com has a clue.

[og]

"The Daily Dish" by Andrew Sullivan

[Dennis The Peasant]

Dennis, would you extend the same antipathy to prescription drug abusers (or, for that matter, anyone taking anything for the psychotropic effect) as you do to stoners/drunkards/etc.?

Yes.

[Richard mcenroe]

Anybody who would knowingly let a neurosurgeon who toked operate on them deserves to write like Sully... Of Amanda.

[Dr. J. Fever]

One toke over the lobe, sweet Jesus?

[Eric Blair]

Ok, so stoners are losers, as are drunks. But what I'm curious about is what is the cost of continuing the drug war as it is now, vs decriminalizing the stuff.

I can't see that it would be more expensive to decriminalize, simply because then there would be less to police.

Hell, I bet there would be no quicker way to make drug use unpopular than to turn it into a corporate product.

[Glen L.]

Decriminalize possession or growth and distribution, Eric Blair? If only the former, then see Dennis' argument which is moral but which also describes the destructive delivery "costs" to society.

Were we to "legalize" weed's production and turn it into a corporate product, one counterintuitive (but spot on:)) take is that there'd be be MORE to police by both blue uniforms and bureaucratic khakis, on account of Fed/state/municipal regulation, licensing, quality control and inspections for growers and retailers, revenue takings from everybody, and law enforcement for the underage and unapproved special stuff black markets, as well as for unlawful quantities and places per the laws, etc. Did you read CA Prop 19?

Addiction rates, treatment and healthcare expenses would rise. Employment and productivity would...? Certainly, a lot of agribusiness would go grass in CA and elsewhere, displacing other food production; only money advantage in my eyes would be if we became a net exporter of the make Europeans and Third Worlders dumb and dumber drug, not the chief consumer, while making us "richer" and living up to our Great Satan epithet. Think of the corporate inspired state wars against Latino and Asian suppliers we could wage to protect our markets in the name of security. Fun will be had by the potheads, High Times, Libertarians, warmongers and smart capitalists for sure!

Meanwhile, as MJ gets mainstreamed and sold at Walmart, the kewler kids do other drugs, and the minorities want their habits legitimized as an equal opportunity issue. Or, are you an unlibertarian racist?

[Mark A]

Willian F. Buckley tried cannabis, found nothing wrong with it, and endorsed it's legalization. But I guess he was a 'loser' too. Self-righteous people call others 'losers'.

[Dennis The Peasant]

And stoners who can't justify their actions call non-stoners who can justify theirs "self-righteous".

[purplish haze]

Alinsky rule no. 54AB/VA: invoke historic Buckley despite all current evidence and failed ad hominem irony.

[Mark A]

Haven't 'lit-up' since college (25 years ago), but you're wrong on this Dennis. History might remember you like one of those ridiulous women campaigning for prohibition who held up signs saying: "lips that touch liquor will never touch mine"

[Eric Blair]

"Were we to "legalize" weed's production and turn it into a corporate product, one counterintuitive (but spot on:)) take is that there'd be be MORE to police by both blue uniforms and bureaucratic khakis, on account of Fed/state/municipal regulation, licensing, quality control and inspections for growers and retailers, revenue takings from everybody, and law enforcement for the underage and unapproved special stuff black markets, as well as for unlawful quantities and places per the laws, etc. Did you read CA Prop 19?"

Law enforcement is a sunk cost. It's already there, and it already polices against underage whatever, including drugs, right now. That obviously would not change.

You really think that any sort of licensing, etc, cannot be handled by the agencies already doing that?

C'mon.

[Glen L.]

Federal apparatchiks doubling and tripling up in their duties, Eric?? The SEIU would fix that before you could retype that last sentence.

Read CA Prop 19 for the multi-jurisdictional law and regulatory behemoth it would create, for the monies capture and bureaucracy opportunity it was crafted to be... and from a state that thinks legalization is an important "liberty" issue. California voted in Jerry Brown, fergaia's sake, but not legal chronic. Think about it.

Not so many are prosecuted and incarcerated for simple mj posession in most states, btw. Mostly harder drugs lead to harder jailtime, unless, of course, you're white and privileged. Are you going for the dope or for all drugs to be legalized?

[Dr. C. Huxtable]

That's a good question: why only pot and not other drugs? Is there a solid pharmacological or only cool sociological argument for pot decrim and not for the rest?

Pot's as addictive, more destructive to cognitive functions, and worse on the lungs than tobacco. Also, we know that pot induces dangerous demented altered states, since Cheech and Chong are hilarious to tokers.

[Dennis The Peasant]

Those of you who aren't too stoned to read might have noticed that I haven't condemned the idea of legalization anywhere here.

In fact, I would support it simply because it would take most of the industry out of the hands of criminals in street gangs and drug cartels and put it in the hands of criminals in Fortune 500 companies.

What do you think executives at Philip Morris dream of at night? They dream of the day they can sell cannabis cigarettes to all the morons who are attacking them for selling tobacco!

Legalization doesn't change the fact that pot is for losers, it just makes it somewhat less destructive to society than it presently is.

[Simon]

I think a final thought and closing summary from JWest would help at this point.

[Eric Blair]

What Dennis said.

[og]

"Those of you who aren't too stoned to read might have noticed that I haven't condemned the idea of legalization anywhere here"

That was always obvious to me, but then I didn't wake&bake today. Nor do I anyday. As SOON as someone points out that persistent dopesmoking turns you into a Jeff Spicoli wannabe, everyone comes out of the woodwork talking about how you're STOOPID and how it should be legalized, when that is obviously not the point of the discussion.

"Legalization doesn't change the fact that pot is for losers, it just makes it somewhat less destructive to society than it presently is."

If it were legal, I'd do the thing that responsible parents do: I'd make my child painfully aware of what utter losers dopesmokers turn out to be, and trust that with that knowledge she'll make good decisions on her own.

This has been a damned fine thread, Dennis, you should be proud. Especially of this line, which is absolutely priceless:

"What do you think executives at Philip Morris dream of at night? They dream of the day they can sell cannabis cigarettes to all the morons who are attacking them for selling tobacco!"