We know D.C. Get our free newsletter to stay in the know.
Last week’s Pot Issue concerned the many debates over the District’s increasing acceptance of marijuana in its various forms (medicinal, legalized, brownie-shaped). Luckily, the dialogue in our comments sections was, for the most part, slightly more elevated than the late-night dorm-room conversations of our university days.
In one article, Martin Austermuhle laid out the various logistical challenges of legalizing weed—from regulating and taxing a nascent industry to ensuring one’s municipality does not become a magnet for pot tourists. “It’s about time people are waking up and realizing weed needs to be legalized. It could be a GOLD MINE of tax revenue, reduce the amount of time and resources that the justice system spends arresting, prosecuting, and harassing users, and make life a little better,” wrote Typical DC BS. Added Milton Noones: “D.C. could add a residency requirement provision to reduce drug tourism. Several Dutch border cities did this a few years back to stop the influx of Germans and Belgians. This might reduce the consternation of the surrounding counties…or not.”
Elsewhere, Perry Stein looked at local doctors’ reluctance, so far, to recommend their patients use marijuana to medicate. “With the DEA already watching doctors for prescribing pain medications that are legal, many don’t want to have another reason for the feds to watch them even closer,” wrote claygooding.
“Doctors have financial incentive to prescribe pharmaceutical medications but none for a cannabis recommendation,” wrote Cliff. “In fact, they only expose themselves to liability and risk.”
Meanwhile, our list of lessons from a Colorado writer for D.C. weed enthusiasts was the final straw for reader Ryan Borger, who wrote, “To whom it may concern. I love all your points you made, but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE ONLY Refer to it as CANNABIS. It is NOT POT. It is NOT Marijuana, it is NOT weed, it is CANNABIS. All other terms are derogatory.”
For last week’s Brew in Town column, Tammy Tuck filled up her growler with Baltimore Washington Brew Works’ Pendulum Pilsner, which led to some, well, growling. “Growlers need to get less expensive,” wrote Anon. “Why would I pay $13.99 for a growler when I could get more beer (72 oz. vs. 64 oz.) for the same price, and have it be fresher? In my experience, by the second day a growler is already going a little flat. My option is less, flat beer or more, fresh beer?”
“You’re not supposed keep an opened growler overnight. It really should be consumed the day of purchase,” parried Kev29. “Of course that doesn’t mean you’re wrong about the price, though…Most people buy them for gimmick value, trying to live like an Oregonian. And I don’t think that growlers really compare with bottles or cans because you can usually assume that the fresher beer is coming out of the keg—and it’s also conditioned differently. A growler consumed with friends soon after buying will almost always be better than a six-pack, even if you’re getting eight fewer ounces. Though I don’t want to pay that much more than a six-pack.”
Department of Corrections
A review of the play In the Forest She Grew Fangs contained two reporting errors. It omitted the first name of actor Megan Graves, and it misidentified costume designer Jesse Shipley as Jenny Shipley.