7 ms·

The Life of a Pot Critic for the Denver Post

55 points by samclemens 12y ago

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
6stringmerc 12y ago
Interesting! So here's what makes me think so hard about this: All the experience that qualified him for his job was, for lack of a better term, in a "grey market" - what I mean by this is while the Medical System was established, due to it being officially still banned by the Federal Government, he was breaking the law. Not Colorado law. Federal "if you send this across state lines you are forever ruined" Law, right? Fate is cruel. There are, without a doubt, thousands of young men who are easily as qualified with the product, whom are locked behind bars. This is inefficient. You don't want Maureen "Serious Journalist Doesn't Take Marijuana Seriously" Dowd as an ambassador, you want an educated, intelligent person (in agreement with the article here). I've not got a lot more to add on this subject, other than I find it very, very strange that it was, relatively speaking, so easy to get the job. I have an actual writing degree, an advanced degree in education, and spent the first couple years of my life watching nearly every job posting reveal inflated expectations for qualifications and/or experience. That is a very real problem, so maybe I'm partially just grumbling that it was so easy for him, whereas getting a, you know, "real" white-collar job means the Secretary needs a Bachelors and minimum 5 years experience for a salary of $37,000 in a major metropolitan city. This may seem extreme (especially to STEM professionals) but it's genuinely true, and if it isn't a problem in your industry - or not debilitating - be vigilant so it does not.
- jdminhbg 12y ago
  To be fair, the end of the article indicates that the job "doesn't pay the bills" and that the Denver Post doesn't even reimburse him for the pot itself (probably out legal worries?). So this is more like being in a locally-popular band -- a fun side gig that isn't costing you money and is a good conversation starter at parties -- than full time white collar job.
- Devthrowaway80 12y ago
  I would love to read more articles by Maureen Dowd about her experiences using ridiculously large amounts of any substance she's unfamiliar with and then quietly freaking out in her hotel room. The article you reference was unintentional comedy at its finest. "Fine Scotch critic Maureen Down drinks 750ml bottle of Macallan 18, concludes alcohol should be illegal"
  - tedks 12y ago
    "Coffee critic Maureen Dowd overdoses at 62 after caffeine-induced heart attack"
  - Robadob 12y ago
    This is the article being refereed to for anyone interested; http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/04/opinion/dowd-dont-harsh-our-mellow-dude.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/04/opinion/dowd-dont-harsh-ou...
- yohanatan 12y ago
  Not to be 'that guy'TM but I think your last sentence is missing at least a word. Also, there are comma splices throughout. :) [Maybe that was the real reason you had trouble finding a job writing]. [just kidding] :)
chimeracoder 12y ago
This is slightly tangential, but I really hate it when reputable news outlets use the term 'pot' in reporting. I'm not talking about the headline, where different style rules apply, but further down in the article where they use the term 'pot' in a descriptive way. ('Pot wasn’t legal... ') Cannabis and marijuana are more neutral terms, whereas the connotation of slang terms like 'pot' is usually slightly derogatory. You rarely see the word 'booze' used the same way in similar news pieces - not that it never happens, but it's nowhere near as common.
- fphhotchips 12y ago
  I disagree. To me it's more like saying "Tylenol" instead of paracetamol.
- Carrok 12y ago
  Cannabis is a neutral term, yes. But 'marijuana'? Might want to do some research on that one. http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/07/14/201981025/the-mysterious-history-of-marijuana http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/07/14/201981025/the...
- Stratoscope 12y ago
  At least around here (SF Peninsula/Silicon Valley), "pot" isn't a derogatory term at all. It seems to be what most everyone calls it, users and non-users alike. Except for the kids. They call it "weed". Which is a bit confusing because "weed" used to mean the cheap stuff and "pot" the good stuff. A few people called it "dope" 25-30 years ago, but that didn't last. Before that it was "grass", but that really was the bad cheap stuff, ten dollars a lid (an ounce of leaves in a baggie with the flap sealed by spit) from Mexico. The dispensaries and producers seem to prefer "cannabis" - there's Buddy's Cannabis for example - or "medical marijuana", but never just "marijuana". In fact, the dispensaries never call it "pot" either. It's "medicine" or "flowers", or just referred to by the name of the specific strain.
  - bobyley 12y ago
    so tell me about your site
Stratoscope 12y ago
Dude should use a vaporizer instead of smoking. Much healthier, and he could taste a lot more of the subtle notes instead of having them burned away. OTOH, maybe he needs to burn the pot to taste it after smoking tobacco! It's like a wine critic eating salsa between tastings.
- DigitalJack 12y ago
  Marijuana is a drug with few studies. Have there actually been any that investigate vaporizers vs smoking? I suppose any studies with regard to tobacco might have some relevancy, but marijuana isn't tobacco. It's a very complex plant and I wish the states that legalized it had included funding for clinical studies in their statutes.
  - radnor 12y ago
    Here's one study that shows vaporization reduces the amount of toxins released versus regular combustion: http://www.cannabis-med.org/data/pdf/2001-03-04-9.pdf http://www.cannabis-med.org/data/pdf/2001-03-04-9.pdf
  - couchand 12y ago
    I got the impression the GP's main point was about the taste, which seems valid, if oversimplified. It seems like he should be tasting using a variety of methods, so as to recommend the vector that brings out the best in each strain. And certainly he should not be smoking cigarettes! The comparison to a wine critic eating salsa is quite apt. But your point about the lack of research is a good one. Unfortunately the federal government makes it very, very hard to conduct legitimate cannabis research in this country.
  - im2w1l 12y ago
    Inhaling plant smoke is a bad thing http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8446 http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8446 >To assess the effect of reductions in air pollution from biomass smoke on daily mortality. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22302628 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22302628 >The authors tracked changes in children's respiratory health during a wood stove intervention
syllogism 12y ago
I really think this glamourises weed, and moves us towards a point where there will be companies marketing weed at us. We need to stop throwing people in prison for using heroin and cocaine. But if the only alternative is to put someone in the business of getting people addicted to heroin...Well, why should we accept that dilemma? We need to find a third way, in between drugs being illegal, and them being a marketable product like any other. And shit like this isn't helping.
- hockeybias 12y ago
  Agree completely.
- TillE 12y ago
  Whenever you get concerned about this sort of thing, just look at the Netherlands for an example of how you can have a very public marijuana culture that's still quite small. Usage rates are the same as elsewhere. It's just not an actual problem. By all means, forbid advertising like most places do with tobacco. But there's little harm in it becoming a legal commercial product.
  - serve_yay 12y ago
    The amount of such concern trolling is immensely out of line with whatever the threat is supposed to be. Makes you wish some of that concern would be applied to other already-existing aspects of our society.
- noamyoungerm 12y ago
  > a point where there will be companies marketing weed at us. What did you expect? I thought it was common knowledge that the weed market would be basically swept up by companies that operate like Marlboro (and as soon as it's legal nationwide, just watch all the cigarette companies turn to weed companies)
- couchand 12y ago
  I'm going to strongly disagree with this argument. You don't see wine critics advocating downing 1.5L bottles of grocery-store wine, you don't see food critics telling you to stuff your face with McDonald's. If anything, presenting high-bar critiques has the potential to reduce abuse of cannabis by focusing on quality over quantity.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
rickdale 12y ago
Theres a fundamental flaw in this type of review. For all of us reading this article we assume this jack ripper strain is the bomb, but really it just happens that the grower he got it from grew some good jack the ripper or whatever. I work in the industry, and mostly people will be like, Oh I tried this strain and its no good, but its just because they got it from a mediocre grower and indeed it wasn't as good as the real deal. Also, there are hundreds of seed companies selling similar strains under various names and thus one persons og kush isn't the same as another. The problem with this is, outside of places like Colorado, Oregon, and Washington, under the guise of medical marijuana its now more important for the specific review of a flower that can be reproduced by the grower. Ugh, I am just saying, these reviews are specifically of the nug that guy smoked not of the overall strain but they pretend it is of the overall strain.
- alexandros 12y ago
  I assume it also has to do with his mental state at the time &c &c. All in all this a double-blind randomised control experiment isn't.
  - alttab 12y ago
    The article likened the job to food critics, none of which is double-blind, randomized, or performed with the scientific method. For a local newspaper in Denver, an article that says "Go down to ye ol mary pub, and get this nug its the bomb" will be relevant for most who read it. If you read it online from Flordia, and then buy the "same" Lemon Skunk from your street dealer in Orlando, of course you are going to end up with a different product...
- dice 12y ago
  It seems like the current methodology is, to use wine analogies, to compare grapes instead of harvests. Charles Shaw has a Cabernet, but it's a very different beast from Joseph Phelps', and they will both have variations from harvest to harvest. Perhaps in the future we'll see the marijuana landscape settle down into a few widely recognized and harvested strains, with different growers touting their harvests and growing techniques over those of others.

55 points by samclemens 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Interesting! So here's what makes me think so hard about this: All the experience that qualified him for his job was, for lack of a better term, in a "grey market" - what I mean by this is while the Medical System was established, due to it being officially still banned by the Federal Government, he was breaking the law. Not Colorado law. Federal "if you send this across state lines you are forever ruined" Law, right? Fate is cruel. There are, without a doubt, thousands of young men who are easily as qualified with the product, whom are locked behind bars. This is inefficient. You don't want Maureen "Serious Journalist Doesn't Take Marijuana Seriously" Dowd as an ambassador, you want an educated, intelligent person (in agreement with the article here). I've not got a lot more to add on this subject, other than I find it very, very strange that it was, relatively speaking, so easy to get the job. I have an actual writing degree, an advanced degree in education, and spent the first couple years of my life watching nearly every job posting reveal inflated expectations for qualifications and/or experience. That is a very real problem, so maybe I'm partially just grumbling that it was so easy for him, whereas getting a, you know, "real" white-collar job means the Secretary needs a Bachelors and minimum 5 years experience for a salary of $37,000 in a major metropolitan city. This may seem extreme (especially to STEM professionals) but it's genuinely true, and if it isn't a problem in your industry - or not debilitating - be vigilant so it does not.

jdminhbg 12y ago
To be fair, the end of the article indicates that the job "doesn't pay the bills" and that the Denver Post doesn't even reimburse him for the pot itself (probably out legal worries?). So this is more like being in a locally-popular band -- a fun side gig that isn't costing you money and is a good conversation starter at parties -- than full time white collar job.
Devthrowaway80 12y ago
I would love to read more articles by Maureen Dowd about her experiences using ridiculously large amounts of any substance she's unfamiliar with and then quietly freaking out in her hotel room. The article you reference was unintentional comedy at its finest. "Fine Scotch critic Maureen Down drinks 750ml bottle of Macallan 18, concludes alcohol should be illegal"
- tedks 12y ago
  "Coffee critic Maureen Dowd overdoses at 62 after caffeine-induced heart attack"
- Robadob 12y ago
  This is the article being refereed to for anyone interested; http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/04/opinion/dowd-dont-harsh-our-mellow-dude.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/04/opinion/dowd-dont-harsh-ou...
yohanatan 12y ago
Not to be 'that guy'TM but I think your last sentence is missing at least a word. Also, there are comma splices throughout. :) [Maybe that was the real reason you had trouble finding a job writing]. [just kidding] :)

chimeracoder 12y ago

This is slightly tangential, but I really hate it when reputable news outlets use the term 'pot' in reporting. I'm not talking about the headline, where different style rules apply, but further down in the article where they use the term 'pot' in a descriptive way. ('Pot wasn’t legal... ') Cannabis and marijuana are more neutral terms, whereas the connotation of slang terms like 'pot' is usually slightly derogatory. You rarely see the word 'booze' used the same way in similar news pieces - not that it never happens, but it's nowhere near as common.

fphhotchips 12y ago
I disagree. To me it's more like saying "Tylenol" instead of paracetamol.
Carrok 12y ago
Cannabis is a neutral term, yes. But 'marijuana'? Might want to do some research on that one. http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/07/14/201981025/the-mysterious-history-of-marijuana http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/07/14/201981025/the...
Stratoscope 12y ago
At least around here (SF Peninsula/Silicon Valley), "pot" isn't a derogatory term at all. It seems to be what most everyone calls it, users and non-users alike. Except for the kids. They call it "weed". Which is a bit confusing because "weed" used to mean the cheap stuff and "pot" the good stuff. A few people called it "dope" 25-30 years ago, but that didn't last. Before that it was "grass", but that really was the bad cheap stuff, ten dollars a lid (an ounce of leaves in a baggie with the flap sealed by spit) from Mexico. The dispensaries and producers seem to prefer "cannabis" - there's Buddy's Cannabis for example - or "medical marijuana", but never just "marijuana". In fact, the dispensaries never call it "pot" either. It's "medicine" or "flowers", or just referred to by the name of the specific strain.
- bobyley 12y ago
  so tell me about your site

Stratoscope 12y ago

Dude should use a vaporizer instead of smoking. Much healthier, and he could taste a lot more of the subtle notes instead of having them burned away. OTOH, maybe he needs to burn the pot to taste it after smoking tobacco! It's like a wine critic eating salsa between tastings.

DigitalJack 12y ago
Marijuana is a drug with few studies. Have there actually been any that investigate vaporizers vs smoking? I suppose any studies with regard to tobacco might have some relevancy, but marijuana isn't tobacco. It's a very complex plant and I wish the states that legalized it had included funding for clinical studies in their statutes.
- radnor 12y ago
  Here's one study that shows vaporization reduces the amount of toxins released versus regular combustion: http://www.cannabis-med.org/data/pdf/2001-03-04-9.pdf http://www.cannabis-med.org/data/pdf/2001-03-04-9.pdf
- couchand 12y ago
  I got the impression the GP's main point was about the taste, which seems valid, if oversimplified. It seems like he should be tasting using a variety of methods, so as to recommend the vector that brings out the best in each strain. And certainly he should not be smoking cigarettes! The comparison to a wine critic eating salsa is quite apt. But your point about the lack of research is a good one. Unfortunately the federal government makes it very, very hard to conduct legitimate cannabis research in this country.
- im2w1l 12y ago
  Inhaling plant smoke is a bad thing http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8446 http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8446 >To assess the effect of reductions in air pollution from biomass smoke on daily mortality. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22302628 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22302628 >The authors tracked changes in children's respiratory health during a wood stove intervention

syllogism 12y ago

I really think this glamourises weed, and moves us towards a point where there will be companies marketing weed at us. We need to stop throwing people in prison for using heroin and cocaine. But if the only alternative is to put someone in the business of getting people addicted to heroin...Well, why should we accept that dilemma? We need to find a third way, in between drugs being illegal, and them being a marketable product like any other. And shit like this isn't helping.

hockeybias 12y ago
Agree completely.
TillE 12y ago
Whenever you get concerned about this sort of thing, just look at the Netherlands for an example of how you can have a very public marijuana culture that's still quite small. Usage rates are the same as elsewhere. It's just not an actual problem. By all means, forbid advertising like most places do with tobacco. But there's little harm in it becoming a legal commercial product.
- serve_yay 12y ago
  The amount of such concern trolling is immensely out of line with whatever the threat is supposed to be. Makes you wish some of that concern would be applied to other already-existing aspects of our society.
noamyoungerm 12y ago
> a point where there will be companies marketing weed at us. What did you expect? I thought it was common knowledge that the weed market would be basically swept up by companies that operate like Marlboro (and as soon as it's legal nationwide, just watch all the cigarette companies turn to weed companies)
couchand 12y ago
I'm going to strongly disagree with this argument. You don't see wine critics advocating downing 1.5L bottles of grocery-store wine, you don't see food critics telling you to stuff your face with McDonald's. If anything, presenting high-bar critiques has the potential to reduce abuse of cannabis by focusing on quality over quantity.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

rickdale 12y ago

Theres a fundamental flaw in this type of review. For all of us reading this article we assume this jack ripper strain is the bomb, but really it just happens that the grower he got it from grew some good jack the ripper or whatever. I work in the industry, and mostly people will be like, Oh I tried this strain and its no good, but its just because they got it from a mediocre grower and indeed it wasn't as good as the real deal. Also, there are hundreds of seed companies selling similar strains under various names and thus one persons og kush isn't the same as another. The problem with this is, outside of places like Colorado, Oregon, and Washington, under the guise of medical marijuana its now more important for the specific review of a flower that can be reproduced by the grower. Ugh, I am just saying, these reviews are specifically of the nug that guy smoked not of the overall strain but they pretend it is of the overall strain.

alexandros 12y ago
I assume it also has to do with his mental state at the time &c &c. All in all this a double-blind randomised control experiment isn't.
- alttab 12y ago
  The article likened the job to food critics, none of which is double-blind, randomized, or performed with the scientific method. For a local newspaper in Denver, an article that says "Go down to ye ol mary pub, and get this nug its the bomb" will be relevant for most who read it. If you read it online from Flordia, and then buy the "same" Lemon Skunk from your street dealer in Orlando, of course you are going to end up with a different product...
dice 12y ago
It seems like the current methodology is, to use wine analogies, to compare grapes instead of harvests. Charles Shaw has a Cabernet, but it's a very different beast from Joseph Phelps', and they will both have variations from harvest to harvest. Perhaps in the future we'll see the marijuana landscape settle down into a few widely recognized and harvested strains, with different growers touting their harvests and growing techniques over those of others.