Today's column (below) further explores my opposition to the efforts to ban marijuana-flavored candy. On the off chance that someone disagrees with my exquisite and impermeable logic, I'll open up the comments and start another fun click-poll.

The question: Should it be legal for stores to sell marijuana-flavored candy? 

(NOTE: Comments are not posted immediately because they must go through a screening process to remove foul language, potentially libelous assertions and things potentially harmful to children.)

"Going after a concept" leaves a nasty taste

August 30, 2005

I think we can safely file this one under if-we-ignore-this-it-will-go-away. Pot tastes awful. This product is doomed.

I learned from the video game debate that some parents are too busy to monitor their children 24 hours a day. Sometimes parents drop the ball, and it is nice to have the government right there to pick it up. The officials in Springfield drove this point home at the bill signing ceremony. Parents need help, and this was one small thing that the lawmakers could do to help out.

Hopefully they will find more ways to help us, like banning t-shirts or rap lyrics in poor taste. I'll be for those too.

When I clicked on the poll just now, there were more "Illegal"s than "Legal"s. Seems there was good reason to write the column.

Just remember, if the flavor police (almost used the N-word) have their way, a flavor you like could be next.

Now I think I'll go buy one of these to cheer myself up: http://tinyurl.com/7jp9u (Caution - potentially harmful to children)

Your article hits it on the head. The government is acting like our parents or Sunday School teacher. The state of Illinois proudly announces each year how there are 200 new laws on the books. Huh? We are being stifled by way too many laws. When making laws because of a concept is what politicans are doing then we have lost our way. When will they start going after obese people because they are affecting our insurance rates? Isn't that just like DUI accidents? I think the description Land of Laws fits America of 2005 way better than Land of the Free.

Perhaps Lisa Madigan is worried that her drug sniffing dogs will lead her on a wild goose chase after sniffing some high-school kid's backback full of Pot Suckers. Maybe all this talk about Pot Suckers will make them even more popular, and they can become a focal point of the "War On Drugs." (I never heard of them until this bru-ha-ha) Lisa and the DEA could open up a whole new avenue of prosecution. They could provide a way to get to young children who may become enticed by the things and teach them a valuable lesson about freedom and law enforcement. A few weeks in the slammer for a lollipop should provide a deterent against future drug abuse!

While I can appreciate the reaction of those people who want to prevent the sale of harmless items that taste dangerous, isn’t the real “problem” the sale of dangerous products that taste harmless?

My friends are purists -- our idea of an enhanced flavor is using Diet tonic with our gin – so it was only recently that I tasted a fruit-flavored ale. Wow! My socks are still off.

But I don’t think you should be too surprised people –public and private—want to take action. When you feel like your world is falling apart, physical harm coming from fellow man and/or mother nature, it is probably logical that people reach out to control what they can, most especially when it relates to kids.

I just hope that the candy police take away the candy cigarettes too.

Oh boy! How about candy cigarettes?! They were the shiz when I was a kid, and I remember one of my son's friends puffing away on the powdery kind that blows sugar smoke and saying, "I can't wait til I smoke the real thing!" (At age 23, he now does.)

How will we survive all this insanity?

Any of us who have eaten Alice B. Toklas brownies will confirm that marijuana doesn't taste good, even mixed with a bunch of sugar. The flavor is sortof like dead plants. The pot pop excitement would run it's course and then it would go away, EXCEPT that we're making such a big deal out of it. When will we learn that the "forbidden fruit" is the most desirable??? Take a break, Lisa.

I guess what I want to know is why anyone would want to eat candy that tastes like marijuana in the first place? Yucch.

It seems that our society has decided that safety and/or health (really the same thing if you think about it) is more important then freedom; the reaction to pot suckers is just an example of this trend.

Sure...pot flavored suckers. Then what is next?

Candy cigarettes? The tobacco companies can make those. Beer candy? Gotta get them started young to move them up the consumption ladder.

Maybe Bubble gum joints? Sugar crack pipes?

Pot-flavored lollipops...personally, I'd find that comparable to drinking the bong-water, but maybe that's just me.

Think of it this way: fifty years from now, all these goofy laws will be part of some FutureTribune story on "laws our idiot forbears passed." Like these, for example:

http://www.angelfire.com/or/bozon/sillylaws.html

The Chicago City Council and Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan should next ban this product: http://i2.peapod.com/c/0P/0PVVA.jpg

Unlike the pot-lollies, this sinful product not only tastes good, it corrupts wholesome children's food like foot-long hot dogs and bacon-double cheeseburgers.

Sorry Eric, but the taste fatwah began years ago. Minors are prohibited from buying non-alcoholic beer which is really just a flavor as well. This is surely because such products contain 'less than 0.5% alcohol' not 0.0% alcohol. I hate N/A beer, but hopefully the do-gooders out there will stay away from other products that have between 0.0% and 0.5% alcohol like orange juice, apple juice, and even bread.

So if the concept is the problem, we can keep going down the list of inappropriate products that children can currently indulge in freely. Toy guns, temporary tattoos, and you can still find candy cigarettes/cigars. Ban them all - why stop at this? This ban is such nonsense. This is a novelty product that now has received more free publicity than it ever would have had the government not intervened. This product would not have been picked up by mainstream retailers. I'm so tired of the government doing the parent's jobs.

"free society" These words from the last line of your column are so sadly wrong. Our great country was founded on "freedom" our Constitution still bears witness to the rights our country was founded on, yet for those who pay attention, it is evident in everything we do that our freedoms have been and continue to be eroded continually. The Socialistic philosophy of "politically correctness" has stifled our minds, litigation has replaced common sense (millions of dollars for spilling a cup of hot joe in your lap)and the lemmings we have created actually support the idea that the government needs to help us parent our children. I wish people would wake up... can anyone name one thing that improved because we wrapped laws around it? I really don't believe that the Constitution gives one hoot about "pot-pops", and it is my job not the law's to keep my children away from violence, and it is my job to teach my children how to think, and the value of words and how to use them and how to deal with it when other's throw insults and slurs... I don't need the government for that. Here is a concept... lets stop giving the legal community the right to think and breath for us.

I tend to agree that outlawing these things is a bad idea. On the other hand, I'd hate to have my kids get turned onto these by their friends (who might have brothers who use the real chronic!). I cannot imagine it's a good taste, but it's the "thrill" of doing something you're not supposed to do that is probably fun. I remember they used to have those candy cigarettes - maybe they'll start making some candy doobies (they need to look hand-rolled). I have been thinking that, if the candy companies were smart, they could make the "chronic candy" addictive, so that you'd have to keep buying it. Oh wait, they already have an insidious, highly addictive chemical in candy that stimulates the production of endorphins....it's called sugar!

Chronically Yours,

HMan

I have some news, Eric. The government is already playing the role of 'Mom and Dad' to tens of thousands of children. You obviously have never been divorced. Divorced parents are told by the court when they may see their children, and how much they will pay for their support. That same court will order those parents to pay for college tuition, but would never likewise order married parents to do the same. The courts dictate the amount and types of medical insurance coverage, what church(es) the children can attend, and even whether or not they can see their grandparents.
It's all part of the notion that 'it takes a village to raise a child', and the village may, or may not, include the child's parents.

Personally, I think that they're right on with banning this one - it's a glamorization and glorification of an ILLEGAL substance to children. To pretend that the producers of this candy don't know how it's going to be perceived by children is insulting to everyone's intelligence. (Trust me, I was an advertising major in college, so I know what I'm talking about!) And yes this even worse than the candy cigarettes b/c pot is an ILLEGAL substance regardless of age. It's funny, growing up I remember feeling so cool and rebellious whenever I snuck a candy cigarette (that my mother expressly forbade us to EVER purchase or eat) and felt so grown-up pretending that it was a real cigarette. Thank god as an adult I realized how disgusting smoking was before I ever took it up for real. And yes, I realize that just because you try the candy doesn't mean you're going to start doing pot, but it certainly puts the concept front and center as a cool thing in the child's head - I'm living proof. The fact is parents can't monitor their children 24 hours a day, so I do think it's reasonable for others to step in when they feel it's a valid concern.

It is too bad that we all have to sacrifice our personal freedoms because a people can't be bothered to Parent their own children.
This product is not being marketed in Wal-mart as the next Halloween treat - it is sold in a novelty store.
There are plenty of things sold in Spencers that I would not want my own children to purchase. Should the store be shut down NO - I simpley don't allow my children to shop in that store, and if they do they are grounded! I don't need the government to set the laws for my children --- in my home my husband and I set it for them.

I realize parents can't supervise their children 24/7 but is it really the government's job to step in when a parent can not? What elected officials deem immoral or wrong isn't necessarily what a parent would deem immoral or wrong for their children. My friend's parents growing up felt Tom & Jerry was a bad influence on the kids, buy my parents found the show amusing. Personally, I don't want anyone telling me what's right for my children that's my job. If a parent thinks they need the government to monitor their children then that parent isn't doing his/her job.

So, let me get this straight? You support drug culture? You support people geting high? You find the idea of protecting children from themselves laughable?
As for the taste... I don't smoke,but I know those who do. They tell me cigarrettes taste awful, but yet they keep smoking away. Wine and champange taste awful, yet we keep drinking away. So, taste means little.
What's next? Lollipops that taste like arsenic or cynanide. Step right up people, it's Poison Pops!

Pot flavored candy? I'm sure kids will buy it just once for the shock value; and that will be the end. Anybody who knows can tell you marijuana tastes terrible.

I remember my parents having a fit over candy cigarettes. I think I bought a "pack" once. It tasted like sweet chalk, and I decided to spend my money on regular candy that tasted good.

My parents were always monitoring my candy "habits." They had more to worry about than candy cigarettes; I had food allergies to chocolate, coconut, and milk; most of the kid favorites contained at least one of these.

Parents should be regulating what their kids consume, not the government. And, remember, the more forbidden it is, the more kids will want it. At least once!

Brindal

Doesn't everyone know that the quickest, most effective way to "glorify...in a way likely to appeal to kids" ANYTHING, is for parents and other authority figures to ban it?

Disapprove of something and it automatically becomes cool.
Make it illegal and it's just that much cooler.

This is just how it works. Always has, always will. That Lisa Madigan and others don't realize this is both sad and scary.

RE:`Going after a concept' leaves a nasty taste

Here's a concept for Lisa Madigan, the City Council and local and state governments - why not go after real problems instead of made up ones? You know, education, public health, political corruption, AIDS, poverty, stuff like that.

Banning lollipops and cell phones in cars while attacking a country with a visible army instead of the gang of thugs that bombed NYC sure makes it look like you're doing something real. But you're not doing anything. Oh, except wasting our time, tax dollars and lives with your straw man issues. Get real.

As a prosecutor, albeit in Iowa, I cannot wait until this wave hits our Mississippi shores and we outlaw such candy. I’ll rest easy the night I first prosecute a kid for Possession of Lollypops, 1st Degree. Lollypops are a gateway candy and we have to stop these kids before they move on to PopRocks and Everlastinggobstoppers! The worst thing is that there are no treatment programs available at all due to funding cuts and other priorities, but what could be a bigger priority in the world of crimefighting? Some of these kids are so bad off that they eat sugar-coated breakfast cereals to start their day with parental approval. Some kids say the “candy” is easier to get hold of than burgers or fries and it is easier to conceal in a pocket or school lockers. Dios mio.