Originally Posted by Kanda444
that i understand and agree with....but only to a certain degree. it lowers your inhibitions less than a lot of drugs, like alcohol. so the issue is, would they mention it if the guy had drank a wine cooler before hand? would the media try to imply that the alcohol allowed him to do things he normally wouldnt, or would they make it seem like 'not only did he fuck a dog but he was drunk too' ?
Given the fact that he was 19, they may very well have mentioned any alcohol use on his part since it would have been illegal. According to the wording of the OP, the weed was not explicityly implicated as a contributing factor. It may not have been the publication's intent to blame pot; they could have just been covering their bases and reporting on the entirety of his criminal activity. The wording alone of that one sentence leaves it very much open to interpretation.
But it follows logically to assume that somewhere down the line, some anti-pot lobby will employ that one passing detail in its propoganda; I just think that as far as the original reporting, the mention of weed was done in a neutral manner.