Colbert on the beginning of recreational pot sales in Colorado

Stephen Colbert marks the beginning of legalized recreational marijuana sales in the state of Colorado.

Colbert takes on conservative columnist David Brooks, who admitted to using pot and enjoying it when he was young, but who then turned around and criticized legalization:


Then Brooks changed his mind:

david-brooks-2 david-brooks-3

Colbert responded:

“Let that be a lesson to you kids: You keep smoking weed, you keep laughing with your friends, you’ll never grow up to be David Brooks.”

(I’m told that in order to better see my Facebook posts in your feed, you need to “follow” me.)

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Video Archive

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

24 Responses to “Colbert on the beginning of recreational pot sales in Colorado”

  1. Monoceros Forth says:

    Frolicking chess players, oh God. That one got me laughing. Alexander Alekhine and Mikhail Tal did get pretty wild when they were drunk.

    It seems just a bit self-aware, though, that “uninhibited frolic”, and maybe some weak attempt at a joke. Sort of like John Cleese trying to buy some “cheesy comestibles”.

  2. BeccaM says:

    All I can say is there’s no way in hell Brooks’ former teenage buddies would’ve used the phrase ‘uninhibited frolic’ to describe their activities.

    Puppies and goat kids frolic. Teenage boys? Yeah, right… Not even an A/V or chess-club nerd would be caught dead using that word to describe his activities.

  3. BeccaM says:

    And not just okay for Brooks to have smoked pot, but not to suffer any consequences for his choice.

    I’m with what Jon Stewart suggested the other night: Brooks can absolve himself only by turning himself in for incarceration, as Brooks would insist should happen to anybody else who tokes and is caught.

  4. BeccaM says:

    Not really, no. Pot, narcotics, and other drugs were made illegal around the same time as the Prohibition movement, and for the same reasons: Because there were Fundamentalist busybodies who simply could not stand the idea that someone, somewhere, might feel less than miserable due to something they’ve drunk, eaten, or smoked.

    The whole “there is no legitimate medical use” rationale took root then, too, aided by the hysteria of the anti-pot crusaders.

    The primary reason grass remained illegal even after Prohibition ended was as a sop to politicians, law enforcement, and the burgeoning prison industry. There was lots of money available to push for full (re)legalization of alcohol, but none for weed…and yes, the pharmaceutical companies were quite happy for opiates and similar drugs to remain prescription-only because that ensured profits for them.

    Even today, the opposition to MJ legalization comes primarily not from Big Pharma, but from the Law Enforcement / Prison Industrial Complex. With thousands of stoners to bust easily, keeping grass illegal helps maintain bloated budgets and disproportionately persecute the poor.

  5. karmanot says:

    Let us consider, pray, immoral ecology: a florid mass of cross pollinating masturbating flora.

  6. Monoceros Forth says:

    The only reason it was outlawed decades ago, was inception of big Rx companies.

    That’s a pretty impressive feat considering that back in 1930, when Harry Anslinger began his campaign against marijuana, what we think of as “the pharmaceutical industry” scarcely even existed, and even it was centered in Europe.

  7. Lawerence Collins says:

    Pot should be legal! Plain and simple! The only reason it was outlawed decades ago, was inception of big Rx companies. Profit and greed over the American people, but now the truths getting out. Pot has none of the side effects of all the pharmaceuticals on the market! Pot was legal, I might actually be and to work part time.

  8. karmanot says:

    Bulwer-Lytton: It was a stark and horney night as Brooks put down his bong and opened the Thesaurus.

  9. karmanot says:

    It amazes me that anyone would give a damn about what Brooks thinks about anything.

  10. goulo says:

    With no sense of hypocrisy, Brooks thinks it’s OK for him to have smoked pot, but OTHER people shouldn’t smoke pot.

    It is the usual phenomenon of conservatives supporting conservative policies when OTHERS are affected by the policies, but not when they themselves are affected by the policies.

  11. BeccaM says:

    That’s been my experience, too. I think maybe it has to do with the state of mind from being high — which is not to want to go anywhere or do much of anything other than sit in one place.

    Whereas with alcohol, there’s both impairment and a remaining desire to do stuff and go places.

  12. heimaey says:

    Yeah, I wouldn’t condone anyone smoking and driving either. I don’t know – perhaps alcohol is worse, but neither is a good idea. Add yeah – got you, never had a hangover in my life because I never liked drinking.

  13. Monoceros Forth says:

    I was just pointing out that even the worst-case scenario with weed isn’t nearly as bad as you can expect from drink. I wouldn’t want someone to drive when really stoned but in my admittedly limited experience even the most stoned tokers know that they shouldn’t try. It’s the drunkard who’s far more likely to think that he’s OK to drive even after downing a fifth of cheap rye and trying to start his car with the wrong key.

  14. Monoceros Forth says:

    I’m somewhat sympathetic to florid prose, having written a fair amount of it myself, but then I’m just an amateur noodling around on a few websites. I’m not being paid to be lucid or make sense so I can blather as much as I like. You would think that David Brooks, however, would have had at least some of his grandiloquence and his muddled rhetoric purged out of him by the need to write for money, to a schedule, and under an editor’s supervision.

    I can only guess that it’s been a long time since Brooks has had to worry about editors, though.

  15. emjayay says:

    Actually, David, the use of pot has been quite uplifting in expanding and informing my appreciation of art and music.

  16. BeccaM says:

    ‘Uninhibited frolic.’ ‘Moral ecology.’ ‘A particularly uplifting form of pleasure.’ Who the hell talks like that, much less commits such language to the keyboard or pen?

    The fact Brooks uses these phrases just proves what an utter wanker he is, and how the rest of the world probably would’ve been better off if he hadn’t stopped toking.

    I can’t remember seeing such tortured, turgid overwrought prose outside of a Bulwer-Lytton writing contest — except in Brooks’ case, it’s not just an opening line or paragraph, but just about everything he writes.

  17. Indigo says:

    What is a moral ecology if not a suited Wall Streeter hugging a tree?

  18. heimaey says:

    Right – to each their own. Some people prefer alcohol – fine. But this prohibition needs to end. It’s a double standard, and it’s a way for the police to target minorities.

    Also, everything in moderation for me. I only smoke once or twice a week, unless I’m on vacation. It’s not an every day thing – it’s a sometimes thing.

  19. Monoceros Forth says:

    I’m not a particular fan of getting stoned myself for a number of reasons–I’ll take a glass of good wine over a toke any day–but indisputably weed is much kinder to the body and mind than drink is. The fellow who gets way too stoned at night is going to be OK the next morning; the guy who gets way too drunk at night is going to be useless.

  20. heimaey says:

    BTW I smoke pot and don’t drink. I am much more contained and together than my drunk friends. Sure, I get into giggle fits, but I never have a hangover, and I never do anything I really regret. I may say some stupid things now and then, but I do that when I’m sober, too. Pot helps relieve my anxiety and makes food taste better, and sex better, and movies, etc. I would recommend it to anyone as an alternative to alcohol, and although I don’t think kids should be doing any of this, I’d rather my kid smoke pot than become an alcoholic. Sure, both dependencies have their issues, but I’ve seen potheads turn their lives around much quicker than alcoholics. Just sayin!

  21. Monoceros Forth says:

    “Nurturing a moral ecology”? I’ve delivered myself of some bombastic turns of phrase and tortured metaphors before, but even I’m rolling my eyes.

    Yeah, I suppose it’s possible that smoking weed can get in the way of one’s growth and development, but then so can almost any pleasurable thing indulged too frequently or at the wrong time. But that’s not really the point. What is the point is that Brooks is citing the possible harm that marijuana can do to one’s “moral ecology” as a reason to keep the stuff illegal. Not actual, physical harm. No, sir: weed should be illegal because it fails to nurture one’s morals.

    I’ve come to perceive that the American right wing asserts, all across the board, that the chief duty of the state is moral instruction. (Well, the chief duty after the duties to kill Mooslims and shower gold coins on corporate benefactors.) All that stuff about justice and domestic tranquillity and the general welfare–a load of rubbish. The purpose of government is to teach morals and build character. We see this most clearly in the Republican obsession with sexual decorum but it’s not just sex. Economic policy, too, is supposed to have moral purpose. Insuring that all American citizens have some affordable means to feed themselves, house themselves and seek medical care is not a valid function of the state, in their eyes; it is far more important that the government teach the virtues of entrepreneurship and the work ethic and fight against the evils of “dependence”.

    I’m bloody sick of it, sick unto death.

  22. The_Fixer says:

    Ah, nothing funnier than a finger-wagging conservative trying to shame people who are looking for a good time. Very Puritanical.

    I think David Brooks should have continued smoking the weed. Might have kept him from developing the terminal case of stick-up-his-ass that we’re all “blessed” to have experienced through his scribblings and many TV appearances.

  23. heimaey says:

    What a loser. Martinis are fine, but pot is bad. Typical 1% mentality. I suppose the cops in his neighborhood as a kid would have only bothered him smoking pot if he were black..

  24. olandp says:

    Maybe David Brooks should smoke some pot, the drugs he is on now clearly aren’t working.

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS