« The Gospel According to Apostle Barack: In Search of a More Perfect Political Union as "Heaven Here on Earth" | Main | Clown Shortage? What Clown Shortage? »

February 17, 2014

Current Seattle Beverage Option

cannibizlemonade.jpg
cannibislemonadewarning.jpg

Until you know the effect of this product, consume half and wait...

Posted by gerardvanderleun at February 17, 2014 6:50 PM. This is an entry on the sideblog of American Digest: Check it out.

Your Say

Buy six, and we'll throw in a large bag of Doritos.

Posted by: ahem at February 17, 2014 7:52 PM

Just what they hoped for. Every six-year-old in town will be stoned before the summer vacation commences.

Great.

Posted by: Rob De Witt at February 17, 2014 8:49 PM

With the recent talk of widespread use of marijuana in the NFL, maybe one day this will replace Gatorade on the sidelines.

Posted by: Jim at February 17, 2014 8:53 PM

Yeah rob, it will be like 1913 all over again! Ban it!

Posted by: Allen at February 17, 2014 9:15 PM

If there's one thing that everyone agrees on, whatever their stance on weed or drugs in general, its that pot tastes like crap.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 17, 2014 9:52 PM

Lemonade that causes its own dry mouth.

That's fiendishly clever.

Posted by: Rich Fader at February 17, 2014 9:57 PM

Yeah rob, it will be like 1913 all over again! Ban it!

Ya got me, kid. I forgot that in 1913 marijuana was being packaged in bright-colored candy products available on every street corner.

Posted by: Rob De Witt at February 17, 2014 10:56 PM

My local quickie store has some kind of cannabis-based "energy drink" too. I just have a hard time believing that a pot laced beverage is going to pep me up.

Posted by: Mumblix Grumph at February 17, 2014 10:57 PM

I'm not sure about the packaging rob, but you could get it over the counter. Damn hippies.

Posted by: Allen at February 17, 2014 11:26 PM

You could also get: cocaine, opium or heroin. Not sure about the packaging on those.

Posted by: Allen at February 17, 2014 11:30 PM

Great, more mind and mood altering drugs. Spatial and temporal perceptions are distorted. What we need, more stoners driving and working in jobs like fixing the brakes on your car or repairing gas and electric faults, driving them big eighteen wheelers on down the road.

Before ya start flamin' me I'll tell you that I know what I am talking about. I am 67 years old and have not always been on the straight. Here's what I'd say at an NA meeting. (I didn't like them, too many losers there, I got my sobriety in the rooms of Alcoholics Anonymous):

I betcha I smoked more dope than what you weigh and, kid, pot brownies were not invented yesterday; I have popped pills; snorted coke — speed with a better alibi; shot junk in all forms, took it orally — methadone in Tang, it did the job; never tried opium suppositories, would have but they were unavailable; I did peyote, psilocybin, mescaline — never dropped acid, didn't want to get too out of control, haha.

When I wanted to straighten up I shifted to booze, figured what's good for the nation is good for me. Uh huh, same pattern of addiction and I do indeed consider that folks who smoke weed on a regular basis have an addiction. Not in a physical sense, but there is dysfunction, some emotional and mental deficiencies. It can be a recreational drug if used like someone that has a couple beers or glasses of wine, stops, "nope had enough" and maybe doesn't consume again for a week.

Boy, I am drifting a bit. Don't fear, I have not lost sight of shore. OK, patterns of addiction can be applied like workaholic, sexaholic, the gamblers, people who get off on violence. The thing is, the substance is only a symptom, the rest of an addiction is an Inside Job.

Here we go, headin' for shore. I quit all that crap twenty seven years ago. I followed the program of AA and have never regretted it. I got God in my life (now don't go EEK, all running away from that concept, it worked for me) I maintain that all chemicals that alter our reality are essentially not good for us as individuals and certainly not good for society as we all seem to wish it was — according to all the commenters. I am reading on the sites. Much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments, "oh how good we could be, uh, just as soon's I get up off the couch". Awright, up on shore and waiting for what will be excellent replies. Work with me, folks, we're all in this together. I am sure I can learn something, there appears to be a whole lot of commenters smarter than I am.

Posted by: chasmatic at February 18, 2014 1:08 AM

I have read that legal marijuana is correlated to fewer suicides and believe it.

But maybe Darwin requires those dead in order to cull the herb-enthusiasm?

Whatever we do and conclude, it simply can't be leave other people alone and mind your own business, as that means our children will perish in short time.

I am a GOOD person because I care about children by locking up stoners, preventing them from affording college by denying student loans, and applying social pressure against the menace. Are you good like me?

Posted by: Notquiteunbuckley at February 18, 2014 3:51 AM

I have read that legal marijuana is correlated to fewer suicides and believe it.

But maybe Darwin requires those dead in order to cull the herb-enthusiasm?

Whatever we do and conclude, it simply can't be leave other people alone and mind your own business, as that means our children will perish in short time.

I am a GOOD person because I care about children by locking up stoners, preventing them from affording college by denying student loans, and applying social pressure against the menace. Are you good like me?

Posted by: Notquiteunbuckley at February 18, 2014 3:52 AM

Just almost exactly what Chasmatic said except I''m 73 and still using bourbon to mellow off the edge.

Posted by: Charley Hua Chu at February 18, 2014 3:56 AM

In keeping with the limitless trend to use old pop music as the background for commercials, I predict an ad campaign for this product featuring Roger Miller's 'Chug-A-Lug'.

Posted by: ed in texas at February 18, 2014 4:41 AM

Rob De Witt,

I know what you are saying, alcohol is legal and every kid is always drunk. We don't need to return to 1913 when pot was legal.

You obviously are from the Bloomberg school of political thought, the government must spend and regulate what people put into their bodies for their own good. Like Bloomberg you agree the government should dictate how much salt, soda, fats and other substances they can use. All these things are poison, and the government is doing it for the common good.

Your inner statist is there for everyone to see.

Posted by: Potsie at February 18, 2014 5:15 AM

Rob....

I bet you are one of those people that complains about other drug addicts but yet can't make it through the morning without your caffeine addiction in your cup of coffee.

Posted by: Potsie at February 18, 2014 5:20 AM

chasmatic said: The thing is, the substance is only a symptom, the rest of an addiction is an Inside Job.

That's it. I called my state senator to complain about a bill that passed the house side to create a massive database of every prescription to prevent "doctor shopping" by abusers. What could possibly go wrong?

The problem with the war on drugs was summed up by the Redleg captain in "Josey Wales" -- "Doin' good ain't got no end."

The government solution to any problem is almost always worse than the problem.

Posted by: mushroom at February 18, 2014 6:36 AM

War on poverty,
war on terror,
war on drugs.
war on...

These are nothing more than big government programs that do nothing but shuffle tax-payer money around and are by design made to never solve the problem. As long as there is a problem there is a need for the program and the money. It is the best interest of the program to keep the problem rather than solve the problem.

The only difference between these government programs are the people that support these big government big spending programs.

Posted by: Potsie at February 18, 2014 6:53 AM

To paraphrase, "fat, stoned, and stupid is no way to go though life: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK-Dqj4fHmM

Posted by: Fausta at February 18, 2014 7:15 AM

"I bet you are one of those people that complains about other drug addicts but yet can't make it through the morning without your caffeine addiction in your cup of coffee."

Darn Potsie, I was feeling so smug until you brought up coffee addiction.

Posted by: Terry at February 18, 2014 7:35 AM

You obviously are from the Bloomberg school of political thought, the government must spend and regulate what people put into their bodies for their own good. Like Bloomberg you agree the government should dictate how much salt, soda, fats and other substances they can use. All these things are poison, and the government is doing it for the common good.

Your inner statist is there for everyone to see.

Dear little potsie,

Jesus, kid, are you so unlettered you've never heard of "projection?" You know fuckall about me, yet you're pleased to show your ass in public for no other reason than to defend your pot smoking. Your apparent assumption here is that anyone who's seen things you haven't is your father, and therefore another tantrum is called for.

Pretty lame, young fella.

FWIW, go back and read chasmatic's testimony above and add another year to his age; that'll give you a dim perception of my experience in the matter.

And further FWIW, you and your "libertarian" buddies have succeeded in expanding the power of the state beyond your wildest imaginings by getting the Government in the marijuana business. That makes you stupid, son.

Posted by: Rob De Witt at February 18, 2014 8:09 AM

It is easy to surmise which of the commenters are "pot-friendly". I wonder which of 'em are closet democrats or libertarians, hmm.

Tactics of the left include:

*offer a tenuous comparison, such as comparing pot to booze and including Prohibition;
*deflecting the content and sense of the debate by turning on the commenter rather than sticking to the topic;
*making a blanket statement of opinion and calling it fact. "I know what you're saying." Really? You really are that good, you know what I am thinking by reading some words and misinterpreting them?

"... what people put into their bodies for their own good." is fine as far as it goes, which is to the point where it might not be for anyone else's good. A person can get drunker'n a billy goat on his own property, higher'n a kite too. When that person mingles with others of the general public his self-medicating could prove detrimental to others, perhaps fatally.

I am slow on the uptake: semi-literate, inadequately articulate and not well-read at all. I tend to speak to the realities of a topic rather than side-tracking into hypothetical or ethical or idealistic "...oh this could be such a perfect world if only ..." If only, uh huh.

Folks, we oughta be looking out our window, listening to the rumble not quite heard, rather sensed, of the thousand horsemen coming to take away whatever they can and burning the rest. You think all the pols of every stripe, especially black and white (ooh, clever insinuation) you think they give a shit what we shove into our bodies? I don't. All they care about is power and control.

Unaccustomed as I am to public speaking I offer this quote:
"There is simply no room left for 'freedom from the tyranny of government' since city dwellers depend on it for food, power, water, transportation, protection, and welfare. Your right to live where you want, with companions of your choosing, under laws to which you agree, died in the eighteenth century with Captain Mission. Only a miracle or a disaster could restore it." W. S. Burroughs Cities of the Red Night (1981)

Posted by: chasmatic at February 18, 2014 8:13 AM

If it contained 20oz and some sugar "we" could ban that!!

Posted by: M. Bloomy at February 18, 2014 8:37 AM

Robby, I don't smoke pot, take drugs or drink. You are clueless to what a libertarian is but I am not a registered libertarian. You are right, I do believe in personal responsibility, and personal freedoms, which is something you seem to be very much against.

Posted by: Potsie at February 18, 2014 9:27 AM

You are right, I do believe in personal responsibility, and personal freedoms, which is something you seem to be very much against.

There you go again, son. Anybody who disagrees with you after extensive experience is, by your lights, "against personal responsibility and personal freedoms."

If you're older than 17 you're embarrassing yourself. I'm almost certainly old enough to be your grandfather, and have taken "personal responsibility" for making stupid mistakes you have yet to even fantasize about. And I never, ever, projected my paranoia onto people who disagreed with me. Unlike you and your "I'm not a registered libertarian" pals, guys my age had the good sense to keep our opinions, and our habits, to ourselves.

I'm pretty sure I know what "libertarian" means, at least enough to put that term in irony-quotes. Have you no notion of the extent to which you are a parody of yourself? A guy could make a handy checklist of the projections that will be trotted out by the marijuana-apologists any time somebody who's beentheredonethat has the temerity to point out the lessons of experience in a public forum.

And it's never wrong, and boys like you never disappoint.

Posted by: Rob De Witt at February 18, 2014 10:25 AM

Potsie:

"Robbie"? How condescending. Seems to me you are acting all socialist by attacking the speaker rather than the message. The topic is legalized marijuana and derivatives, not whether Rob is clued or clueless. He's a polite guy and you can't get the idea, uh?

I will give you a clue big as a barn door: where I come from people lose teeth talking like you. If you talk to me the way you talk to Rob, while hiding behind your keyboard, I will rip you a new asshole, reach right through the screen. Please stick to topic at hand and don't try to get into other people's heads. FWIW if you ever managed to get into my head you wouldn't make it back in one piece.

C'mon kid, play nice.

Posted by: chasmatic at February 18, 2014 11:14 AM

Oh yes, the topic. What is it again? Marijuana in a beverage…is gonn’a entice people who normally don’t nor currently do drugs into doing them? So says they guys who’ve been there done that?

Well, I’ve been there done that, except the needle & spoon, including the acid. I’m at a lost to rationalize how anyone who doesn’t partake, who either doesn’t like it, feels it’s morally wrong, doesn’t want to break the law, etc. etc., suddenly will decide to swig a bottle of weed.

And let’s stop with “the kids!!!” screed. We’ve manage to separate the adult world of booze, porn, driving, guns, etc, from kids. We can certainly keep kids from a bottle of weed. And if not, like the illegal scene where everything seems to be available to kids, then the system is broke. We don’t take away what’s available to adults because some kids get access. Anymore than we should outlaw guns because of some lunatics shoot up some schools.

Go ahead, tear me up.

Posted by: tim at February 18, 2014 12:26 PM

Everyone thinks that there needs to be restrictions on behavior and things we do. That's universal, at least when it comes to how each person acts toward the individual.

In other words: some will pretend they want no restrictions at all by government, until they are mistreated, then they call for limits.

The only difference is where we put those restrictions and why. Someone is not a statist tyrant for merely wanting restrictions on what we do, only for why, and how far they want to go.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 18, 2014 12:29 PM

Nonsense; good weed tastes wonderful. Thirty years ago, I used to smoke a lid a week. I'd probably still smoke it if I hadn't grown up---and if it had not ruined my lungs.

The problem is that no one can do anything well while they're stoned: they can't drive, they can't think, and they can't perform their job.

But they believe they can. But they're wrong.

(For a good example of this note the comedy film "The Party" starring Peter Sellers, directed by Blake Edwards. It's a terribly un-funny work by two guys who could give us all lessons on how to be entertaining. But they were stoned back in '68 when they made it, and it shows. Last time I saw it a few weeks ago, I kept thinking 'that's the kind of thing that's funny when you're stoned out of your mind.')

Posted by: ahem at February 18, 2014 3:26 PM

"FWIW if you ever managed to get into my head you wouldn't make it back in one piece."

chasmatic - Ain't that the truth. I find the types like Robby would run screaming if they really knew what some of us thought of their limits. Man, that made me laugh.

Remember the 60's? Thought so. I survived the Taos Hippy Wars.

Posted by: R Daneel at February 18, 2014 7:11 PM

tim:

Not dissing you, but you may want to reconsider your assertion that We’ve manage to separate the adult world of booze, porn, driving, guns, etc. from kids.

I have read a lot of reports recently from MSM, Fox mainly. Yeah, yeah, I know, they have destroyed their credibility but some stories are true, kinda. The man bites dog stuff seems to get through without distortion. Anyway, where was I? OK, got it — grade school kids are drinking booze and otherwise ingesting mind-altering drugs. They have sex when they reach puberty. eigh graders get busted for bringing a real gun to school, wasn't there a story recently about some juvie bringing a shotgun to school and letting go on some classmates? This one type of story the MSM distorts for their agenda but the base facts are there.

Awright, rant off. I am saying that the more available stuff is the more folks will consume it and if the eleven year old boy schleps into a convenience store and cops a couple pot pops, him and buddies will hang out in back by the dumpster and slam 'em down. Don't the kids post soft porn pix on Facebook, see Suzie going down on Tommy &c?

Posted by: chasmatic at February 18, 2014 7:21 PM

The "for the children" argument won't fly, that horse has left the barn. Sex, drugs and rock'n roll all available at your local school. There were drunken parties when I was in high school back in the fifties. Our grandaughter has had a drink and drug problem since she was 12 or 13. One of my sponsee's kids died of an alcohol overdose at an over night party after graduation. These are good kids from good homes - shit happens.
It's out there and the best thing we can do is try to raise our kids with enough sense to avoid the bad stuff and the bad scenes.
Prohibition didn't work then and it won't work now and people will still get hurt.
One can make a pretty good argument that decriminalizing everything would reduce the chances of death and disease due to bad drugs and dirty needles. At least when you buy from a legal store your weed probably hasn't been sprayed with agent orange by the DEA.

Posted by: Old Surfer at February 19, 2014 5:57 PM

Many thanks! This is an remarkable site!

Posted by: Emelia at February 20, 2014 5:06 AM

Ԝhat's uр, I log on to уour new stuff on a rеɡular basіs.
Your stoгy-telling style is witty, keep doing what
yοu're doing!

Posted by: canada goose sverige at March 26, 2014 2:18 PM

Hi, I do belіeve this іs a great web site. I stumblеdupon iіt ;) I mаy returո once again since
I saved as a favorite it. Money and freedom is the greatest way too chаngе, may you be rich and continue too guide others.

Posted by: the north face jacka at March 30, 2014 6:39 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)