The Economist Calls Medical Marijuana Patients “Stonersâ€
Why can’t The Economist acknowledge the political progress of marijuana policy reform without resorting to derogatory stereotypes?
Grow up. This isn’t a joke, not anymore. In Massachusetts, voters overwhelming supported reforming harsh marijuana laws that ruin lives. It’s not about getting stoned. It’s about getting an education and getting a job.
In Michigan, voters overwhelmingly agreed that it’s wrong to arrest seriously ill patients for using medical marijuana on the advice of their doctors. What the hell does that have to do with being a "stoner"? Seriously, I’d like to know. This isn’t journalism, it’s childish name-calling.
If anyone remains confused about what marijuana policy reform really is, this ought to answer your questions:
Meanwhile stoners continued their slow, shuffling march to social acceptance. Massachusetts voters decided to downgrade possession of less than an ounce of cannabis to an infraction, punishable by a mere $100 fine. Michigan legalised medicinal marijuana.
Grow up. This isn’t a joke, not anymore. In Massachusetts, voters overwhelming supported reforming harsh marijuana laws that ruin lives. It’s not about getting stoned. It’s about getting an education and getting a job.
In Michigan, voters overwhelmingly agreed that it’s wrong to arrest seriously ill patients for using medical marijuana on the advice of their doctors. What the hell does that have to do with being a "stoner"? Seriously, I’d like to know. This isn’t journalism, it’s childish name-calling.
If anyone remains confused about what marijuana policy reform really is, this ought to answer your questions:
Permission to Reprint: This content is licensed under a modified Creative Commons Attribution license. Content of a purely educational nature in Drug War Chronicle appear courtesy of DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise noted.
Add new comment