4/20: LAMENESS AS RITUAL

Today, as students gather on Farrand Field to celebrate stonerdom at
4:20 p.m., or at least, attempt to gather there, I want to float the
following question, as quoted by Stan Marsh in "South Park," the
product of the University of Colorado's finest graduates, Trey Parker
and Matt Stone:

"Um, guys, what are we doing?" Stan asks, expecting the burgeoning
gathering of hippies to actually do something to combat those
dastardly "little Eichmanns" and their system of capitalist greed.

The response is just another cloud of pot smoke from the hippies, who,
as the show illustrates, don't actually believe in what they're saying
so much as they're addicted to the social scene that comes about when
one is compelled to protest for protests' sake.

And while you are inhaling the headiest nugget Boulder may offer your
lungs, perhaps it would be prudent to consider exactly what you are
doing.

Before you tell me that I'm a square who doesn't get it, man, let me
assure you, that I do, in fact, "get it," and I prefer to describe
myself as more of a trapezoid or a rhombus or maybe even just some
sort of polygon.

Stoners like to invent reasons to be high. Fair enough, I suppose -
it's a lifestyle. What it isn't, unfortunately, is a life, and it's
not really much of a political statement, either.

All this ritualistic self-aggrandizement is more hilarious than
dangerous in small doses, I agree, and it's probably worthy of nothing
more than a smirk, not tear gas (I'm looking at you, CUPD).

But really, do you really need a reason to smoke weed? Since when is
the desire to be high not enough? You need a holiday now?

End the delusional anti-reality, folks. This "event" isn't civil
disobedience and Thoreau, make no mistake, would've thought 4/20
highly ridiculous. It is stoners being stoners, nothing less, nothing
more.

The reason why it makes me angry this year, where last year I thought
it was totally sweet, dudes, is that as a result of this absurdity, an
article I wrote for the Daily almost got one of my friends suspended
for being quoted, lauding the "stoner celebration in a stoner town."

Now, let me make it clear, the Hunter S. Thompson-styled, Gonzo
journalism that allowed me to even quote a friend is what it is -
perhaps not the best way to report. But I would be as angry if I had
quoted someone else whom I did not know, who made a similar statement,
that was similarly prosecuted by the university for merely speaking to
the press and had to make the very real threat of legal action to
escape the marijuana strike.

Exactly how did the university get the absurd notion that it has the
ability to effectively violate the First Amendment? A year later and a
year wiser, Zach, my quoted friend, and I have come to the agreement
that it's really the stoners' fault.

"We need to have some sort of secret police," he says. "Boulder should
model itself after like Romania in 1974 or some other Soviet-bloc
regime - man they knew how to run a country."

Instead of actually protesting for something legitimate related to
pot, like, say, the hundreds of thousands of non-violent drug
offenders who are convicted and then rot in prison, taking up space
that could be used for violent criminals, we're out on Farrand
fighting for our right to party. And the administration is supposed to
take us seriously when we vote on a referendum to reconcile the
contradictions in its alcohol and marijuana policies?

I agree with much of what the SAFER referendum argues, and I do agree
that as a general rule, pot is less dangerous than alcohol and should
be judged accordingly.

I hope everyone has the good sense to leave promptly if the CUPD makes
good - this year - on its promise to crack down on 4/20. Rioting only
proves their point, and it only leads the administration to the absurd
belief that it can interdict someone's words as much as actions.

Sure, I think pot should be legal, and I think it would be pretty
great if smoking weed was looked upon as carrying the social cost
equal to fast food or a six-pack of beer.

But there's no question absurd policies exist because instead of
showing the stoner crowd to be fairly mature people, 4/20 shows them
to be exactly the opposite.

Smoking pot is not harmless, and while marijuana is not physically
addictive, the hook is a feeling that makes the monotony tolerable.
This attitude towards pot is what I see as the true effect: it deludes
the habitual, ritualistic smoker into believing his or her own
dissonant lies.

How is that not harmful as a lifestyle?

So, I ask again, what are we doing?

Scott Heiser is a CU sophomore and a political science major. "Our Man
on Campus" runs Wednesdays in the Colorado Daily. The views expressed
are those of the author, and not necessarily those of the Colorado
Daily staff or management.