By Catherine Thompson
New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd on Thursday addressed the reactions to her column about a bad marijuana edibles trip she experienced in Colorado, saying she was focused “more on the fun than the risks” and calling her experiment “ill-advised.”
“I wrote in the column that I take responsibility for not knowing enough about what I was doing,” Dowd wrote in a statement obtained by The Cannabist, a marijuana news site operated by the Denver Post. “I was focused more on the fun than the risks. In that sense, I’m probably like many other people descending on Denver.”
Curated from talkingpointsmemo.com
I hope this experience prompts you to do this again, the right way, Maureen. I am quite certain such a re-visitation of this experience would be appreciated celebrated by all of your readers
Peace!
Despite her mea culpa I’m surprised that Maureen Dowd would skip doing any kind of research or asking anyone for advice before trying weed. Her approach guaranteed that the results would be negative and then she wrote about it negatively. That all makes me wonder whether she had an agenda to begin with …
Not only does Mo have agendas, there is a pattern to them. Her columns invariably alternate between “Barry” and Hillary for the first three weeks of the month, interspersed by one column on a new book or movie. Rinse, lather, repeat!
In a friendly way, sir, I ask: Why would you be surprised at the lack of research? Maureen Dowd does an extraordinarily small amount of such work for a prominent journalist, and has done for at least a decade, mostly regurgitating a snarky conventional wisdom that apparently reflects the opinion of many journalists. A paper or two have even been written about the lack of actual journalism in her columns. Heck, she’s even had a plagiarism scandal resulting from lazily copy-pasting out of her email inbox.
I’m less surprised about her poor journalism than I am about her even poorer sense of self-preservation …
Perhaps no neeed for reply, Mr Gibbs, but I’m a little uncertain what you mean: cannabis is one of so few [in this case rather mildly, I suppose] abusable drugs which seems to pose no lethal risk at all (and as an adult it seems like it might not even be particularly bad for your brain, etc). But I think I get your point, which is simply that one really ought to do the damn research, including on proper dosing, before putting any sort of substance like that in your body. Assuming I don’t misinterpret you, your point is taken by me: she should have been mature enough to know better. (‘Mushrooms’ are also supposed to be ‘safe,’ but I must have heard three separate 2nd hand stories of the dog who ate a bag and who was just never the same…)