What is Drudge saying? Nothing about the Super Bowl teams or their quarterbacks. The link goes to an article that predates yesterday's games, an article at Fox Sports, saying that a Super Bowl between the Broncos and the Seahawks would be the "first ever Marijuana Bowl," because Denver and Seattle are the major cities "the only states that have legalized recreational marijuana."
Allen St. Pierre, the executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said that if this ends up being the matchup for the Super Bowl, it will be featuring "the two most pro-cannabis-legalization cities in the US." He joked that the game should be renamed "The Super Oobie Doobie Bowl."Should these legalize-pot people — with their third-rate efforts at humor — be able to seize the spotlight football has created through the spectacle that is football? I'll give Fox credit for switching from quoting St. Pierre to referring generally to "lobbyists." Marijuana "lobbyists" are saying pot might help players deal with their concussions. And they're trying to make something of the beer ads that sponsor football on TV:
Mason Tvert, spokesperson for the pro legalization Marijuana Policy Project in Denver said "Hopefully there will be a break in the beer commercials for some discussion about marijuana laws."Commercials are the break. The break in the football game people are trying to watch. We get to watch for free because there are sponsors. There are no breaks from the breaks for discussions of policy questions. Why not a break from the car ads for a discussion about how we should be riding bicycles or a break from the junk for ads for some contemplation of dieting?
ADDED: A second poll:
Posts
42 comments:
There not selling reefers in Seattle....yet.
You still need a flimsy medical reason.
I don't see them selling reefers for at least another 9 or 10 months.
The bigger story is the banks that won't accept the marijuana proceeds. So, I expect there to be a lot of skimming off the profits, and not as many taxes collected as predicted.
Should these legalize-pot people — with their third-rate efforts at humor — be able to seize the spotlight football has created through the spectacle that is football?
Why not? Last I heard, there was still something called "free speech" in this country.
"Should they" might be an irrelevant question... they can, and they will.
I thought smoking in public places has been made illegal in most cities and states.
Maybe there is an exemption for Marijuana cigars.
"Why not? Last I heard, there was still something called "free speech" in this country."
They don't control the spotlight that is the Super Bowl. The media will determine whether this platform is used for that agenda. What do we, the audience, want from the media? Do you want your Super Bowl experienced infused with marijuana policy?
"I thought smoking in public places has been made illegal in most cities and states."
It's not smoking pot that will be going on at the Super Bowl. It's talking about pot. Talking about pot will not get you high.
Interesting factoid about a family with a pot smoker dad and beer drinker teenagers
Pot is illegal and dad does not want an arrest record, so he has his teen daughter buy the pot from her sources.
The teen cannot buy her beer since they card her and there are no illegal beer pushers. So Dad buys the beer and trades her for the pot.
Modern Family Redux.
A typical NFL game: three hours of commercials for cars, beer, life insurance and limp-d*ck drugs, interspersed with a few bits of actual play.
Peter
Oh, I don't see the legalization advocates getting in much of a message. Super Bowl advertising is expensive, damn near prohibitively so for anyone who's not a huge, multi-billion dollar company. Really, the most play they'll get is from all of us football fans making those "third-rate" jokes about the first ever "Ganja Bowl", and how the DEA is going to have a field day seeing which tailgater's smoke is barbecue and which is weed.
The jokes will be there, but that's about as far as it'll get.
Clearly we reed to take a break to educate everyone. Since pot became legal I've learned that weed is not only therapeutic for a variety of ailments (in fact most ailments), pot smoke is actually better for you than alcohol, or ambient air. It makes you smarter, a better driver, a better, calmer, more law abiding person. And marijuana sales not only eliminate government deficits and structural unemployment, they promote tourism and private development, without cost to taxpayers.
I don't think everyone realizes this yet- some still think weed's for losers in mom and dad's basement.
Clearly, the football plays are themselves breaks as good friends gather together to talk about the Affordable Care Act.
Don't miss this opportunity to share your feelings about health care and all the good our betters are doing for us.
The game is in New Jersey.
It makes you smarter, a better driver, a better, calmer, more law abiding person.
Troll much!!?!
Isn't there some sort of rule against advertising cigarettes on television?
How much of a stretch, legally, would it be to use the same rule against TV ads for marijuana?
Partly out of curiosity, and partly out of a reminder that there are advertisements which are forbidden on TV...
"I don't think everyone realizes this yet- some still think weed's for losers in mom and dad's basement."
I assume your comment is parody. While I support legalization, and could support legalization of heroin in proper circumstances, pot does make you stupid and can precipitate schizophrenia in teenagers at risk.
I was late turning on the Denver-NE game, at 3:13 EST. Just in time for an incomplete third-down pass, a Denver punt, and a commercial break. By 3:35, we had been treated to seven commercial breaks, and the longest uninterrupted stretch of football had been five plays.
I hate to break news that some might find disconcerting, but the commercials are the purpose of the telecast. The game is just the fix provided by the advertisers to give viewers the munchies.
Well, legalizing marijuana in the NFL would have helpe my team's season (the Browns), since Josh Gordon wouldn't have been suspended for the first two games...
The game is in New Jersey.
And the long-range forecast is COLD! Yee-Ha!
Ann Althouse said...
"What do we, the audience, want from the media? Do you want your Super Bowl experienced infused with marijuana policy?"
Well no, I don't. I didn't prefer my media infused with phony racial diversity, gay is good, being a single mom is fine, married men are doofuses, either. I unplugged a long time ago.
There should be exactly as many marijuana commercials as there are tobacco commercials.
The two weeks leading up to the game should definitely "be an occasion to focus on the legalization of marijuana." If for no other reason than it means one less story about Peyton Manning's records or Jim Harbaugh's pants.
But during the game? Of course not.
Missing option:
No, because it is still illegal under federal law.
I have a question about the economics of legalized pot. Colorado expects to make money off of pot taxes. Does marijuana not grow as easily out west as it does in the Midwest? Because it actually grows like a weed in most of the country---the wild varieties spring up all the time...So...
Wouldn't legalized pot lead to no taxes, as every pothead grew enough for himself since it's practically free and effortless? Or are potheads incapable of growing their own?
God willing, drug legalization will kill pot "culture". Nothing has done more to retard the legalization movement than potheads.
Blogger Deirdre Mundy said...
Wouldn't legalized pot lead to no taxes, as every pothead grew enough for himself since it's practically free and effortless? Or are potheads incapable of growing their own?
Two things: (1)Agriculture is work. If the stereotype of dopers as slackers is true, it's probably more work than it's worth, especially given that (2)the end product would be low-quality ditch weed, compared to the cultivated varieties that dealers sell.
Sure, you could probably make cheap, low-quality home brew, too, but it's easier to just go to the store and buy beer there and get a better product. Same principle applies here. You get what you pay for.
Your second poll, Professor Althouse, is missing an important option, one that I thought (from your earlier posts on the subject of marijuana legalization efforts) would likely have been your own choice:
• No, because marijuana is still illegal under federal law regardless of state efforts to legalize it in Washington State and Colorado, and the national TV networks (using federally-granted and -regulated rights to broadcast) ought not be promoting products that can and do still get people sent to federal prisons.
So the 'good' varieties aren't as hardy? Sort of like with Tomatoes? (The tasteless hybrids grow like weeds, the yummy heritage ones take babying?)
@ Deirdre Mundy: Growing *good* pot is neither free nor effortless; it's considerably more trouble than making one's own wine or beer. Yes, marijuana does indeed grow like a weed in a very broad range of environments and with little or no tending, but the result is a low-THC product in which most of the plants' energies are diverted into leaves and stems. The out-of-pocket costs in growing high-quality pot depend in large measure on whether one's doing it indoors (where the environment can be controlled) or outdoors and on the measures needed to avoid theft, mishap, and/or prosecution. But the investment of time in tending, snipping, preventing normal sexual pollination, and focusing the growth into THC-rich buds is substantial; economies of scale make it attractive to do on a larger-than-household-use basis, just as with alcohol or tobacco products sold at retail.
The entry barriers (other than legal ones) aren't particularly high, but they're high enough, in other words, to permit a market in which the pot farmers' investments of time and money can justify a reasonable profit return.
To be more clear re naturally-growing marijuana:
Marijuana plants are male or female, and only the male ones produce pollen that, in turn, produces seeds. Stands of naturally growing (weed-like) marijuana plants will ensure their own survival and perpetuation through a mix of male and female plants for the specific biological and evolutionary purpose of producing SEEDS.
Marijuana seeds (like leaves and stems) have little THC, however, and instead produce nasty odors and tastes when burned; seeds give people headaches, and they're a pain in the butt to sort out.
Even a single male plant among a bunch of female bud-producing plants can ruin the season's efforts by pollinating all of the female plants -- resulting in seeds. So the developing plants have to be systematically, ruthlessly tended and the male plants culled.
Carefully cultivated marijuana, the sort being sold in these pot stores in Washington State and Colorado, consists of unpollinated, seedless buds that are rich in THC and largely missing leaves and stems.
One can easily find more details about this on the internet, and I speak from only second-hand knowledge, so others may explain it better or more accurately. But the bottom line is that yes, the professional or semi-professional growers add significant value that causes consumers to hold their products in higher demand with higher prices.
or a break from the junk for ads for some contemplation of dieting?
for = food
The junk food ads should be even more popular in the home states of the two teams.
I have memories of one guy bringing back stuff he found along the road some 40+ years ago on the way back to college. He picked up better than a hundred pounds of what he called "Kansas Brown". Apparently, you would need to smoke several ounces of the stuff to get a buzz, and by then, your throat was raw. The story was that the feds planted a lot of hemp during WW II for rope, and then tried to irradiate such after the war. A lot of plants escaped, and part became this haul of ultra low quality pot.
A pot commercial would be a welcome reprieve from the endless ads about boner pills and light beer.
"Commercials are the break. The break in the football game people are trying to watch."
Not in the Super Bowl. For many (I'll go out on a limb and say most), the ads are the main attraction.
"And the long-range forecast is COLD! Yee-Ha!"
13-days out, you might as well flip a coin.
Beldar- Thanks for all the information. That makes a lot more sense.
So, here's a question-- if a state legalizes pot, does that mean that growing hemp fro fabric/rope/soap/ etc. is legal there too?
Shouldn't it be SHOOM BOWL?
In the second poll, I voted for 3, but agreed with 2 and 4 as well.
Wait, all those "Bud Bowl" commercials weren't already about pot?
Apparently, you would need to smoke several ounces of the stuff to get a buzz
That is not so true anymore.
One of my high school buddies has a flimsy medical excuse for marijuana. He consumes his medicine using what I used to call a hash pipe. It's one, and done for him.
Today's pot potency is a little concerning. The duration of the buzz is much longer as well.
"Your second poll, Professor Althouse, is missing an important option, one that I thought (from your earlier posts on the subject of marijuana legalization efforts) would likely have been your own choice:"
I meant to posit a future time when marijuana is fully legal.
I don't see the Superbowl accepting marijuana commercials anytime soon. Too controversial.
Post a Comment