▲ 55 points
back
41 comments
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.
The article states that he's trying out a specific strain from a specific dispensary and mentioning it in the article. Also mentioned is that every dispensary tends to have their own specific names for every strain.
The reviews most certainly are not about a strain (in the horticultural sense) but a strain and the grower.
I guess there are magazines that make reviews about a certain strain from a certain seed bank but this one says that it's not excluding the effect of the grower. Ie. this one is comparing the product from a specific vendor to another.
Another interesting issue is that it's not only assessing the taste but the effects too. That's certainly not the case in e.g. wine tasting but perhaps more so in evaluating coffee (or tea).
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.
But wine tasting is mostly bullshit. Double-blinding means even expert wine tasters fail to agree on good wines or to identify years or makers.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tas...
> Hodgson approached the organisers of the California State Fair wine competition, the oldest contest of its kind in North America, and proposed an experiment for their annual June tasting sessions.
> Each panel of four judges would be presented with their usual "flight" of samples to sniff, sip and slurp. But some wines would be presented to the panel three times, poured from the same bottle each time. The results would be compiled and analysed to see whether wine testing really is scientific.
> The first experiment took place in 2005. The last was in Sacramento earlier this month. Hodgson's findings have stunned the wine industry. Over the years he has shown again and again that even trained, professional palates are terrible at judging wine.
Yeah, but then there is this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBi9PfZve84
(I had to dig around to find out where I found this; it turned out to be a link entry on Daring Fireball, May 2013.)
I could see this. From my experience with weed, it sounds a lot like the winery business, with the bullshit and all. What I usually tell people is that marijuana is like art. I can get you a van gogh printed off my computer. Or you can spend a ton and get a real van gogh. Marijuana maybe doesn't go to that extreme, but it definitely relates.
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.
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...
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.
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"
This is the article being refereed to for anyone interested;
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/04/opinion/dowd-dont-harsh-ou...
"Coffee critic Maureen Dowd overdoses at 62 after caffeine-induced heart attack"
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.
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] :)
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.
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.
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.
Inhaling plant smoke is a bad thing
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
>The authors tracked changes in children's respiratory health during a wood stove intervention
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
Vaping and smoking are two different experiences, and eating it is yet another. IMHO, in order to properly review a strain, all routes of ingestion should be analyzed.
He says he doesn't want to be 'that pretentious pot critic', but I'd totally sign up for that newsletter.
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.
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.
Interesting. Slang like "pot", "dope" and "herb" sounds older to me. When I hear "dope" I usually think of heroin.
Now the kids are calling it "weed", "tree", "dro", "bomb", "doja" (Southern), "piff" (NY), "gas" (Cali), "Keyshia" (Atlanta / mid West) and a million others. Worse stuff is usually called "mid" or "brick".
so tell me about your site
I'm sorry, what site are you referring to?
I disagree. To me it's more like saying "Tylenol" instead of paracetamol.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Isn't that exactly what decriminalization is?
"The new law maintained the status of illegality for using or possessing any drug for personal use without authorization. However, the offense was changed from a criminal one, with prison a possible punishment, to an administrative one if the amount possessed was no more than ten days' supply of that substance."
>> I really think this glamourises weed, and moves us towards a point where there will be companies marketing weed at us.
Then we outlaw that like tobacco advertising is outlawed in most countries. But companies selling weed to us isn't actually a problem. In fact it's better than unregulated black-market sales.
>> 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?
Why would that be the only alternative? Look at the Portuguese model.
>> We need to find a third way, in between drugs being illegal, and them being a marketable product like any other.
We already have this third way for alcohol and tobacco in most places.
>> And shit like this isn't helping.
Neither is the use of the term 'drugs', nor the idea that we necessarily have to treat them all the same.
How did pot become heroin in your analogy when it's not nearly as dangerous as beer?
edit: Are you questioning the possibility of heroin being regulated as pot is in Colorado. or are you questioning pot being regulated in Colorado like beer has been regulated for the past century? I'm confused by your intention.
No, shit like this isn't helping. You are talking out of your ass about something you clearly know nothing about.
Marijuana is as addictive as potatoes. The fact that you even mention heroin in your post shows you clearly have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
Alcohol is way more addictive and dangerous than pot and we have a huge craft brewing and tasting culture in this country.
If you know absolutely nothing about a subject, for the love of god, please stop and think before you hit reply. You're not contributing at all by posting when you know nothing about the subject.
> Marijuana is as addictive as potatoes.
Maybe we disagree on how addictive potatoes are? Marijuana is fairly addictive, with about 9% of users becoming addicted.[1]
Alcohol's quite addictive too. I don't know whether it's more or less so than marijuana. But with alcohol, we have what we have. If I were designing policy and we didn't have the drinking culture that we do, I'd be hoping we wouldn't end up here.
All I'm saying is this: it's actually a bad thing if lots more people end up smoking lots more weed. It's bad in two ways. One, it's bad intrinsically, because I do think that smoking weed three or four times a week demotivates you and keeps you from getting your shit done. Two, we need to learn how to legalise drugs without use increasing massively, because we've got a lot more drugs to legalise.
[1] Number pulled from the summary here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/01/05/marijuana-much-more-tha... , citing research here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3371269/ . I haven't read the paper, but I do trust this blog a lot.
it's actually a bad thing if lots more people end up smoking lots more weed
Nice straw man, but it falls down when you actually look at the rates of usage in places with legalization. For instance, The Netherlands, where the toking habits are somewhat safer than in San Francisco [0].
[0]: http://www1.ucsc.edu/currents/03-04/05-03/drug_study.html
Eating hamburgers is legal both in the Netherlands and the US. But the US has a lot more obese people than the Netherlands. You cannot simply assume that the outcome of drug legalization can be transferred from one country to another.
Sure, but you also can't assume that legalization will necessarily increase incidence of usage. So let's go with what evidence we do have.
Colorado's full legalization has barely existed long enough to consider it a valid sample, but the state's Department of Public Health and Environment has found that use among high school students has gone down since legalization [0]. That's certainly an encouraging trend.
All I really would ask is that you back up the claims you make with facts rather than just sharing your assumptions.
[0]: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/08/07/pot-use-among...
> 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)