Quitting Your News Job for Weed is Heroic And American?


This is your brain, (has a paying news gig) This is your brain on drugs (Thinks she’s brave and awesome because she left a job for weed.) Any questions?

Actually, I’m kinda glad this stoner is no longer paid to give any news. Hear more in this ZoNation

Thanks for watching my vids! If you like the message in them then You’ll have a BLAST nukin’ the liberal Narrative with my audio book of Christian Conservalicious profundus, written and read by Me! WEAPON OF A.S.S. DESTRUCTION! CLICK HERE OR IMAGE AND CHECK OUT SOME REVIEWS, AND GET YOUR COPY!!!


  • Chris Capp

    Awesome, as always.

  • knight2k

    Sorry Zo, this is where you and I will disagree. While I totally agree that the method she chose to quit was unprofessional, I do not believe we would be having the same discussion if she wanted to quit her job to open a Micro Brewery or work in Pharma. Why do people on the left and right feel they have to spin a discussion to their benefit when the facts don’t support them.

    MJ is non-addictive and non-lethal but can be habit forming. This has been proven in study after study all over the world yet we here in the States still hold on to this false belief that MJ is a gateway drug. It isn’t. No one is advocating juveniles abuse MJ, alcohol or any other drug yet this same tired strawman is brought out in every discussion about it.

    If the Federal Government would just admit to the beneficial uses of cannabis and move it from Sched I to Sched IV or V we wouldn’t be having these discussions. It has its uses and yes it can be abused, but so can most of the pharmaceuticals we use everyday and there is no mass opposition to any of them.

    As for her study showing youth usage down, if they are comparing it to youth usage rates prior to legalization using the same methodology, where is the problem? My biggest problem with CO and WA’s legalization is that they did not depress the cost enough to drive black market sales out of business. All they did is join in, leaving the drug dealers to continue business as usual. Cannabis is for the most part completely harmless to adults and has many proven benefits. People abuse many pharmaceutical drugs yet we do not hear universal calls to ban them because they get abused.

    Do some research Zo and support it or oppose it on the merits and not on propaganda put out by the Government at the behest of pharmaceutical companies.

    • Marc

      Albeit I like Zo, I find myself in complete agreement with you knight2k.

  • Brad Alan Pearson

    Do you have an email address that I can send a research paper I wrote to? It’s more about “medical” marijuana but it does address some of the talking points in this video. Also, I totally agree about the “third breast lady,” but that was a hoax for sure.

  • Bryan Lyman

    Right on all points ZO.
    @knight2k:disqus, regardless of whether someone tells us like a broken record that “MJ is non-addictive”, we have eyes. All we have to do is see how aggressively people like yourself fight to convince others that there is nothing wrong with it so that they can “ENJOY” it freely. “Habit forming” is the same thing as addictive, which is why tobacco smokers often find it hard to eliminate things such as wanting to put pens in their mouths even long after they have quit. Habitual means you have become so accustomed to it, your mind is “ADDICTED”! If it weren’t addictive, why do people jump all over me in anger when I say that it is; classic defensive-aggressive behavior of an addict. If it weren’t addictive, then why do the drug cartels make billions of dollars, and risk life, limb, and freedom to make it available in a law-state against its production?

    For the record, I see nothing wrong with extracting the THC in marijuana and using it in pill or liquid form to treat illnesses which this drug will actually affect; and in a regulated manner like all other prescription drugs.That system has worked extremely well to this point, regardless of if you think it is just supporting and “Evil Corporation”. The fact that people villainize pharmaceuticals as “trying to make money” from something that should be “free for everybody” is ridiculous; I have seen people kill pharmacists to get at substances that cost less than the energy drinks they buy everyday from the same store, and for what…because they are addicted to a substance that they were told to be careful with because it can lead to ADDICTION! They are controlled because they should be used for a specific purpose, not supplied in endless amounts until the cure for your ills kills you.

    It is pointless for me to go on, because the main problem with MJ is that the reason you take it in the first place is to completely ignore reality.

    • knight2k

      @Bryan First let me instruct you as to the medical meanings of addiction and habit forming. They are not the same. Habit forming while not addictive means that you can stop using and not need medical attention or experience detoxification effects. Alcohol, cocaine, heroin, nicotine etc are all addictive. Meaning if you try to cold-turkey quit you will need medical attention or you will experience mild to severe detoxification effects and may in fact die in some cases of severe addiction. This is not the case with cannabis and has been proven in study after study.

      Drug cartels make millions from cannabis purely because it is illegal, NOT because it is habit forming or addictive because the habit forming trait of cannabis is so small as to be irrelevant. You are falling for the same propoganda being put out by the Federal Government for decades. There was no scientific basis to ban cannabis in the first place, NONE. Look it up, go back to the early 70s and look at the reasoning that was given for placing it in Sched I. There is absolutely NO difference between cannabis use and other pharmaceuticals. All can be abused yet we dont hear the same calls to ban zanex or other pharma that are actually lethal, like we do with cannabis.

      I want the Federal Government and apologists like yourself to admit that they banned it for no real reason. Then if we feel it should still be monitored to drop it down to Sched IV or V which would allow Drs to prescribe it. You say with one hand that you support it being prescribed yet in the same breath you defend the government’s blanket ban of it with no scientific evidence to support such a ban. Oh and btw, please show a single instance where cannabis has caused death without being combined with another drug. The same cannot be said of the majority of pharmaceuticals on the market today.

      You claim the only reason to use MJ is to escape reality. I will assume you also feel that alcohol should be banned as the only reason anyone uses that is to escape reality as well. Then again you can overdose on alcohol which is legal and you cannot overdose on MJ which is illegal. Tell me again how that makes any sense whatsoever.

      Lastly, you want to know why people jump all over you when you claim it is addictive? Because you make the claim with no scientific evidence to prove it. It is your opinion and while you are entitled to that opinion it does not automatically make it scientific fact. My wife works in Drug and Alcohol rehabilitation. They do not consider cannabis and addictive drug and do not offer any in-patient treatment for it. Seriously, your arguments lack any logic at all. You appear to defend all these other drugs which are far more dangerous and vehemently attack cannabis legalization for, from what I can see, no valid reason supported by any facts or evidence.

    • Bryan Lyman

      @knight2k, I can smell the patronizing tone. You want to instruct me on my lack of competency for your vast wisdom; want to be pretentious? I can play that game. I understand very well the medical definition and the difference between habitual and addictive. Obviously you overlooked the whole point that regardless of what so called “experts” say, the actions don’t match the definition. My inference was not literal, rather…a demonstrative juxtaposition. How is that for pretentiousness?

      To correct you: No, the drug cartels make money not simply because cannabis is illegal, that would be non sequitur; by your logic, everybody would run around naked just because it was illegal. The actual reason is: that there is a demand for it, and a very LARGE demand. The ease with which a consumer can grow their own, rather than rely on a producer, reduces the profit margin for Drug Cartels…which is in inverse relationship to profit. Which begs the question, “if the profit grade for Cannabis is down versus other more-profitable illicit materials, why do they even attempt to market it?” The answer only further punctuates the vast production and distribution quantities in order to make it worthwhile to continue marketing it; even though there are prosecutory risks similar to narcotics. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that there is a far greater consumption of Cannabis versus other controlled substances; which in-turn begs the questions, “If cannabis isn’t an addictive substance, then why do a large segment of the population risk the same consequences as other more addictive substances? And why does a larger segment consume a much greater quantity than other illicit substances?” Those are hypotheticals by-the-way, I don’t expect an answer, just that you mull them over.

      Another correction: Nowhere in my previous post did I mention anything on my stance relating to alcohol or whether I believe in banning Marijuana, you simply assumed (and assumed falsely) that I am an…what were your words?…”an appologist” for the federal government”? I must admit, that is a new one; I have never been accused of defending the Feds before. I did not defend a “blanket ban”, in fact I recall (and this was just a few paragraphs ago, so correct me if I forgot) that I clearly stated I believed in distribution of THC for medical use. Nor did I infer that you could, or that there ever have been deaths associated with THC overdose. And I most definitely did not compare alcohol in any way, shape, or form to Marijuana. That was you trying to categorize me with those you disagree with in order to marginalize my position. But, on that note…

      I am glad that we agree that both Cannabis and Alcohol are used mainly for one reason: “Recreation”. I am fine with those that admit that this is the prime motivation for legalizing the drug. I don’t agree with you, but I can at least respect you for being honest about it instead of trying to mask your intentions by drumming up a fake medical condition which “requires” you to consume MJ; bravo! You should be commended; admitting you have an addiction is the first step in the recovery process.

      You are also correct when you state that alcohol is a far more dangerous recreational drug. Not only is it highly addictive, you CAN you overdose on it, and it is the leading cause of death in automobile related accidents. In fact, there are on average 12,000 deaths annually from drunk drivers and comparatively the FBI states that nearly 8,000 people are murdered with guns each year; so I posit another question, “Which one is the bigger problem: guns or alcohol?” Though you may think this is a good thing if you were a fascist believer in eugenics since it would be a simple matter of the weak being weeded out. But I digress, that is a conversation for another time. So my question on the matter is this: “Why when I mention the subject of recreational use of Cannabis, do proponents defend their position by comparing it to to a drug that is far more dangerous, and then saying there is no comparison between Marijuana and other more dangerous drugs?” (that would be comparing it to alcohol…just in case you missed that part). Another side-line you might want to consider is that, alcohol is not addictive to everyone, only specific people with genetic propensities and the like even become alcoholics; so are you trying to tell me that there is no possible way that anyone could ever become addicted a single one of the thousands of varieties of Marijuana that exist? Just asking…because that seems a bit short-sighted and naive considering you can become addicted to something as simple as food; just ask one of the many morbidly obese Americans you can find just about anywhere.

      And my last correction: No, I disagree that people jump all over me because there is no evidence in my argument. Answer me another question, “If Marijuana makes you so chillin’, then why do you care what I think about the matter? Why don’t you blow me off as just a [dude who don’ know what he be talkin’ bout]?” On this last question, I will give you the answer since I was playing Socratic method the whole time and this time I want to make it easy on your mind (which is probably so caked with bong resin it makes it difficult for you to comprehend) and I will dumb it down a bit for you as well: People get angry when you threaten their grass-stash man! Defensive anger is a reaction of dependence upon a substance. Ever watched lord of the rings? Gollum had the shakes bad man; he needed his fix, and the big bad nasty Hobbit dun tooked his precious away without askin’. It may not be addictive in scope or definition of narcotics, but there are a lot of Gollum-like behaviors over something that is supposedly “not addictive”.

    • knight2k

      I see you like to make assumptions as well. Sorry to inform you but I do not use cannabis. I do not see the need. However, I do not agree that banning a substance based on no substantial or scientific evidence that it is detrimental is to the benefit of anybody. The rest of your sarcastic comments pointed at me based on the assumption that I use are just so much wind and not worth my time to bother responding to. If that is the best of your logic, well you came to a battle of wits unarmed.

      You state on one hand that you are aware of the medical definition but that does not match your assertion that addiction and habit are equivalent. Make up your mind. You do not get to have it both ways. If you are aware of the medical definition you do not get to spin in your opinion that that definition is wrong without some evidentiary proof.

      Frankly, I do not care what your opinion on the matter is, but you put your opinions out as statements of fact when they are only opinions based on no science or evidentiary proof whatsoever. Point in fact. Alcohol can addict those with addictive personalities but can be addictive to ANYONE given enough abuse because it is PHYSICALLY addictive. An alcoholic suffers from not just a physical addiction but a mental one as well, but that is separate from the natural addictive quality that alcohol has. Your assertion that only specific groups of people can become alcoholics is not shown in any study I could find. Certain groups are more susceptible, but anyone can become addicted with enough abuse. Once again you are putting forth your own bias and opinion as fact without any research into it. I happen to live with someone who treats these conditions daily so sorry I have a little better information about it than you apparently have.

      Read a medical journal, or should I stoop to your level and imply you have a lack of intelligence merely because you disagree with me. I will pass on that opportunity.

      People compare cannabis to more dangerous drugs to point out the irrationality of banning one substance that is proven to be benign while simultaneously not banning numerous other drugs that are dangerous while in the same breath claiming anyone who supports cannabis legalization is in a drug induced haze (sound familiar?). The point is cannabis is not a narcotic. It has numerous uses both recreational and medical yet it is still on Sched I along with well known dangerous drugs such as heroin, crack and the like.

      I happen to rely on peer reviewed studies for my stance on cannabis while you seem to rely on innuendo, assumption and strawman arguments. You seem to refuse to research the history of why cannabis was banned in the first place. You seem to think becuase you know a few people that abuse it that you can then assume anyone the uses abuses it. Why is it that you make claims here and with very little research I find you are either blatantly lying or are just ignorant? I will assume the latter, but you seem content to live in that ignorance. So be it. Enjoy living with your hypocrisy.

      My last word on this. I am a Libertarian. I believe that the government has no business banning substances with no scientific or factual evidence that it is harmful. I have read dozens of case studies on cannabis both negative and positive. The positives far outweigh the negatives. People should be free to choose whether they want to use this plant or not without the government arbitrarily banning it only to then allow corporate pharma to market the exact same drug freely. THAT is my problem with current law. Dropping it to Sched IV or V would be a start, but it doesn’t belong on the controlled substances list in the first place.

    • Bryan Lyman

      @knight2k:disqus Look, I may have made an assumption that you are a user, but you are so adamant about it you can see how I could jump to that conclusion. But you jump to a conclusion right after you accused me of doing the same by saying that I am “ignorant” to medical journals and I “only know people who abuse”; you even say that you “assume” me to be ignorant. True I did use some harsh sarcasm so I probably deserved that, but you dismissed my observations as if they have no merit. I am an educated person (an engineer to be precise), I know all too well that not everything posted in a theoretical paper is fact, because is exactly that…”theoretical”. I like to think for myself and combine observation with the studies of others, not just blindly trust a study (that is what is getting the global warming crown into trouble).

      You never answered my question about if you think cannabis “could” be addictive in any way if something as simple as food can become addictive, because the obvious answer is yes. Pot used recreationally is a form of entertainment; have you never seen anybody addicted to other forms of entertainment; of course you have, but that is beside the point here because many things can be addictive if they are “abused”, as you stated earlier. I think we can both agree there.

      I am going to ignore the whole alcohol addictive part because we agree there too, I either wasn’t eloquent enough about it, or you took me out of context.

      As far as your defining yourself Libritarian, I used to consider myself one; and still do hold to many of its defining traits. However, I don’t define myself as holding to any specific group; I am borrowing the best from many different ideals. The main problem I see with the Libritarian movement currently is that they are blinded by so many different issues they find to be important, they have no focus. For example, there many other problems threatening liberty right now that are far more important than legalizing a drug so it can be used to have fun; that issue rates about as high on my “threat to liberty” meter as how I view the issue that environmentalists think cow farts are going to destroy the world. You may say that all of the issues that threaten liberty are important, and that any affront to our freedoms is worth fighting for and worth tackling simultaneously. If you believe this, you most likely have never played the “Risk” board game; I see no strategy to fighting all fronts at once. There needs to be some combined effort on issues that are of the most importance.

      Which is why I say, if marijuana has medicinal value, and if you think that it is extremely important that it is legalized for medical use to help people; more power to you. But fighting for anything beyond that is icing on the cake. If you can get Sched IV, chalk it up as a victory and move on to more important things.

      And just for kicks and giggles, I realize you may view it as stereotyping and propaganda but it is just so darn funny; a video that shows the stereotypical view of pot-heads actually making rational decisions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmX04EztiTE

    • ronigee dawg

      hmmm … well, I am a little more libertarian on this issue … I have seen (ahem) perfectly good, hard working and productive folks that use pot recreationally … including guys that started rather significant businesses that employ plenty of folks. They worked hard and they partied hard and pot was part of that … then they got up the next day and functioned like everybody else.
      I look at it about the same as alcohol. Not sure I buy into much of the jargon on how it is better or worse … frankly I do not really understand the craziness at which folks approach it from either extreme.

      I am 100% on board with completely obliterating ALL gubberment teat programs … and I mean ALL of them … from the grand criminal Ponzi scheme to the absolutely evil plan to destroy the black family that is welfare (LBJ – “we’ll have them n*rs voting demoncrat for 100 years”) … every single federal program related to the poor or elderly should be obliterated. ONLY veterans programs should come close … nothing else.

  • Herman Vogel

    From one Loser position to another,,,now she can REALLY destroy more Americans,,,with more then lies and Half truths about the news.

  • Laurel

    Facts are stubborn things aren’t they Zo?!

    Well done!

  • AlwaysRight

    She’s just following the money like all libs. “I care” = $$$$.

  • Jim

    How many stoners also receive some type of government assistance? EBT card? Public housing? Any type of welfare? Close down ALL of those programs and I’ll consider legalization of drugs. If you destroy your life with drugs and want help getting clean, I will support you to the best of my ability. If you want my money to buy your next joint, I want the option to cross the street and let you rot. Maximum freedom AND maximum responsibility. Actions have consequences. Welfare allows you to make stupid choices without facing the full results of those choices. You want to spend your money on drugs? Fine. Don’t ask me to buy your groceries. After you miss a few meals you might realign your priorities. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not against a safety net, just not at the federal level. Private charities and local churches know who truly need help and can deny the abusers.

  • ronigee dawg

    the three boob woman is a hoax … just sayin. this stoner bee-atch should be the POSTER CHILD for completely annihilating the Great Society, redistribution of wealth. I am NOT talking reform … I am talking eliminating it completely. this ass EPITOMIZES what is wrong with that system : the worthless parasites believe they should be able to live off of the public teat REGARDLESS of their behavior. THAT is the difference between what we have now vs in the past when this stuff was handled through charity such as churches and the like. Back then, the people handing out would be DAMN sure the person receiving it was worthy … now the people handing it out could not care less (and grotesquely are REWARDED if more freeloaders are on the dole).

  • MormonYoYoMan

    Now that I think of it — when are we gonna see ‘Zo caps for sale on this site? It’s gotten t’where ‘Zo doesn’t look like ‘Zo without the cap. And we all want to grow up to be like ‘Zo! (Assuming I ever want to grow up. My dad didn’t, and I won’t.)

STAY IN THE LOOP
Don't miss a thing. Sign up for our email newsletter to get the lastest from Alfonzo Rachel!