Archive for experimentation

NYT's Maureen Dowd OD's On Marijuana And Blames The Candy

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

cannabs edibles maureen dowd

There's nothing like trying something before writing about it. And that's what New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd did recently -- and not without some lingering effects. For an article she was writing on Colorado's legal marijuana culture, she decided to try some of the "edibles" which contain cannabis. So far so good.

So, she bought a caramel-chocolate flavored candy bar which she said looked so innocent, like the Sky Bars she used to love as a kid. After she took one bite, then another, she didn't notice anything happening. Perhaps she was disappointed but for whatever reason, she decided in her impatience to gobble down the rest of the bar.

She waited, and then it happened. The effects began. In her NYT article, she writes:

But then I felt a scary shudder go through my body and brain. I barely made it from the desk to the bed, where I lay curled up in a hallucinatory state for the next eight hours. I was thirsty but couldn’t move to get water. Or even turn off the lights. I was panting and paranoid, sure that when the room-service waiter knocked and I didn’t answer, he’d call the police and have me arrested for being unable to handle my candy.

Based on that experience, she's come to some conclusions. The biggest one being that the entire marijuana industry was set up for potheads, people who smoked frequently. This nascent business has to educate new or first time users prior to selling them the edible goods so people will know what to expect to feel.

That's not a bad idea. But her article goes on to condemn and point out the dangers of legalization, even trying to equate her unfortunate experience with people jumping off buildings and kids eating marijuana-laced goodies and ending up with irreparable harm. These are possible, but not probable. And the reason is, she OD'd because she lacked common sense.

The next day, a medical consultant at an edibles plant where I was conducting an interview mentioned that candy bars like that are supposed to be cut into 16 pieces for novices; but that recommendation hadn’t been on the label.

So in essence, she took 16 times the amount she should have taken. No wonder she got herself into a bit of a problem. If she had bought a fifth of scotch and drunk the whole thing, she would have gotten sick or drunk or both on that too. There's no suggested servings printed on a bottle of booze. So I find it a bit disingenuous that she faults the experience on her naivete. She's been around. She knows you don't go from one bite to the whole bar, just as you don't go from one shot glass of Glenlivet to the whole bottle.

Her suggestion that if this had been alcohol, she'd have known better doesn't really hold water. She claims in her article that people know you have to be careful in how much you drink, when only an idiot or the most simpleminded would think that taking too much of a marijuana laced edible wouldn't lead to some ill effects.

But that said, I do think the public has been so scared by lies and innuendos--the Reefer Madness syndrome--that more education of the public might not be such a bad thing. But Dowd's reckless accusations that it was the lack of full labeling or the implication that she needed more knowledge to safely ingest is a disservice to an industry. If she was new to this kind of purchase, why didn't she ask when she bought the candy bar how much she should take to feel some effects? The next day when she asked, she was told. A bad assumption on her part made an ass of her, not a better investigative columnist.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Pure Sex

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Romantic couple1

Okay, it was only a matter of time for sudden urge to meet instant gratification.

Let's say you're out and about, feeling you want to do the "nasty" and you don't have time for your regular booty call. Or say you're traveling and want to make your visit something special, but you don't want to waste all that time with small talk, barroom chatter or even face rejection. Your urges have been answered with a new, proposed App which is in the works.

It's called Pure. This upcoming 'membership only' app promotes themselves as "the quick and safe way to find sex right now." If you visit their site, you'll find they advertise, "Get exactly what you want," "focus on sex," "straight to the point," "Leave no trace."

How can you beat that?

straight and same

So, you may be wondering how all this is going to work. Well, quite simply if you believe their claims to HuffPo:

Once you're a member and you decide you'd like to hook up, you submit a request. You say if you're looking for a man or a woman, and if you can host or travel. The app then presents you with some optional matches. Your photos are only visible to your matches, and no nudity is allowed on your profile photos. If you like a match, you choose him or her. If you both choose each other, you get connected.

Pure lets you find and meet up with someone to hook up while communicating very little, if you like. Just send pictures, say whether you're willing to travel or host, meet up, and do the deed. No chit-chat, no confusion, no time "wasted."

That sure seems easy enough -- at least on the surface. But do people, especially straight women, really want anonymous sex?  Isn't safety an issue here?

This was brought up with Cindy Gallup who runs a quasi-similar hook-up site called Make Love, Not Porn. Her conjecture is interesting:

"If I'm going to have sex with a stranger, I need to know that this is not a complete and total weirdo, that he's not going to rape and mutilate me," said Gallop. "Women need to know more about the stranger they're going to have sex with."

But it seems the people developing Pure have already considered that and gave it some serious thought.

"The idea that women are better protected with someone whom she already knows is proven wrong with the level of domestic violence," Sidorenko (creator of Pure app) told HuffPost in an email in response to Gallop's comments. "Historically, females have been most often victimized by someone they knew."

Somehow I find this all a bit shady, unseemly and dirty. I guess if others feel that way, this is bound to be a huge success. Move over Grinder, Tinder and Adult Friends Finder, there's a new kid coming to town. And he's got you in his/her sites.

I asked for permission and became a beta tester for a day. They had me list what I was looking for in a one night stand. I put down that I was a man, looking for a hot woman, meet at her place. I was looking for someone good at small talk, interested in politics and was wild in bed. I pressed send and instantly, look whose picture came up -- I guess they still have a few kinks to work out:

Michele Bachmann

Now I wouldn't "tease" you with all of this if I didn't have Pure app's official video. It should answer any further questions you may have about the purposefulness of the app. You  might want to watch it privately, though. You're bound to draw a crowd around your computer if you view it at work.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

VIDEO: So a white guy, a black guy, and a pretty blonde try to steal a bike...

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

santorum blah people are threat

This video is from 2010, but for some reason it's making the rounds again. It's about a social experiment that ABC set up in which actors are filmed by a hidden camera "stealing" a bicycle. Two nearly identically-dressed males who are approximately the same age are up first. One is white, the next is African American.

The white guy doesn't attract all that much attention, but the "blah" guy? That's a different story. He's immediately accused of stealing the bike, because, you know, he's (whispering) black. But of course, racial profiling has nothing to do with it.

Finally we see a young, pretty, blonde actress do her thing. When Mr. Laffy described the video to me last night, my first words were, "And people asked if she needed help, right?"

bingo2

It would be interesting to see this same experiment done in different settings, environments, cities, states.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

VIDEO: Here's proof that carrying a gun won't protect you in a crisis

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

gun aimed at camera

chart guns per country per residentVia Wiki

This post is dedicated to those who believe that the more guns we own, the safer we are. If that were true, we'd be the safest country in the world, since the U.S. has the highest gun ownership per capita in the world. Instead, we have far more gun-related killings than any other developed country.

Marketing and selling more guns (thank you NRA) is not the solution.

ABC's Diane Sawyer participated in an experiment involving several simulated gun attacks by surprise shooters on students who had been specifically trained to react to such circumstances. The outcomes were fascinating:

"[His gun] is stuck in his shirt. He can't even get it out to aim it."

"Had this event been real, Joey would have been killed in the first 5 seconds."

"His endless hours of practice... meant absolutely nothing.. This is just completely different."

"Police tell us that even ...handling a gun in a holster can be tricky if you don't stay in practice."

"A weapon alone won't save you if your body's in the wrong place... She took a deadly hit to the head... She's also confused about whether her shot hit the intruder."

One participant, Brian, froze in his seat, his hands on his desk. "In seconds, Brian was peppered with bullets."

Police officer: "You get so jacked up, that you tend to forget to do the simple things because your body elevates, your fine motor skills deteriorate..."

Even when Diane Sawyer knew what was going to happen, her own reactions were delayed: "You still can't get there in time."

Police officer: "It's too much for normal person to who's never been trained deal with. It's overwhelming."

Without ongoing training, under stress, without letting up, "it's a perishable skill. You'll lose it." Even a month or two without training makes you more susceptible.

yikes!

Tomthunkit on YouTube:

Guns are offensive not defensive weapons. Yet the NRA has people fooled into thinking that a gun can actually save them in a crisis. Here's an video proof it cant.

Follow this link for more of what Tom had to say. Please watch the entire video, it's jaw-dropping.

chart guns via WaPo smaller

Via Washington Post

H/t: @Enough_Already1

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare