Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Oh, Dude

Julian Sanchez | 7.6.2004 1:43 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Pro-marijuana activists in Nevada apparently forgot to file some 6,000 petition signatures, which could affect their chances of getting a decriminalization measure on the ballot. (Hat tip: Jeff Patterson)

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: That's All Right With Elvis

Julian Sanchez is a contributing editor at Reason.

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (19)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. emme   21 years ago

    Jesus. How bad does that look for our cause. This is exactly like that freakin Simpsons episode.

  2. Iguana   21 years ago

    Oh wow man, now where did those petitions go....

  3. allez Lance!   21 years ago

    forgot to file the petitions
    and I know why...hey hey
    cause I got high
    cause I got high
    cause I got high...da de da da da da

  4. TWC   21 years ago

    ROTFLMAO AND spitting coffee all over the monitor.

    Pot induced CRS, that's great. I love it. Straight out of Mad TV or SNL.

  5. Jason Ligon   21 years ago

    Pot and activism just don't mix.

  6. JSM   21 years ago

    Pot and activism just don't mix.

    9 states with medical MJ laws on the books, full decrim in a couple of counties, lowest priority for law enforcement in Seattle.....It ain't politicians (with exception of Vermont) thats getting all this done.

    However, within the pot culture, you're gonna get a few brain dead types....

  7. iconoclast   21 years ago

    jsm-
    no need to get defensive.

    The DARE crowd will eat the potheads alive with that one. I can hear it now, " the legalize marijuana crowd says that pot doesn't affect memory and that people won't be less responsible. They can't even remember 6,000 petitions to file for their own cause. And what about their children? Don't you think they'll forget to take care of them or will to lazy to raise them? You bet."

    BTW- where does the term "pot" come from? I never got that one.

  8. Jason Ligon   21 years ago

    JSM:

    Just havin' some fun, sir. Keep it up!

  9. Steve Pandolfo   21 years ago

    Since someone mentioned that Simpsons episode, I've been looking all over the net to find a grab of the Homer "stoned" poster in his suit. Anybody know?

    Iconoclast - Long story on "Pot"

    By: Brandon Steer (A stoner's history on the origination of the words 'Pot', 'Can', and 'Lid' as related by Joe Herd 1882- 1971)

    Can of Weed - where did the usage start?

    The Prince Albert tobacco tin was patented by the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company on July 30, 1907. The all metal cans were designed to hold 1-1/2 ounces of shredded cigarette tobacco. It was four inches tall, and in an oval width shape, three inches by one inch, with a hinged lid on top. It became a hit with the pot smokers for openly carrying their marijuana as it was a bright red can with the British Prince's likeness on the front. It denoted a higher social class and had status appeal for them. During this time hand rolled cigarettes were the norm, as the machine rolled had not yet been popularized. The cans were built to last for decades. Millions of these cans were produced and sold over the years, becoming one of the most popular tobacco containers in the first half of the 20th century. Although they were reusable a can came with every purchase. Many cans were used for other purposes, such as pot smoker's kits, and many were just thrown away. Thus they were readily available and with millions sold it was normal to see a person with his bright red can of Prince Albert hand rolling a cigarette. These cans are still available today and you can buy originals on e-bay and other places. Look for the Prince Albert tobacco can, not the big round one, but the 4" tall, 1-1/2 oz. can with the hinged lid. After over 90 years they will still open and close tightly to keep their contents fresh.

    Many black musicians and others would use this status symbol to store their cannabis, and except for the funny smell of their smoke, nobody questioned the contents. Folks would get together and pass the can around taking turns rolling their own. A cigarette paper would be laid on the open lid, contents inserted, and rolled on the perfect sized lid. Excess was automatically poured back into the can when the lid was closed. Smokers would ask if Al, Prince, or Red, was around, which were cultural slang references asking if some weed was available. Essentially these cans were a cheap, made to order smoker's kit. During liquor prohibition these cans were used like flasks and were carried in the inside pocket of a coat. Today if head shops sold these cans they would be considered drug paraphernalia. In other words, despite the tobacco content label, you might be arrested for mere possession of the can if this usage had continued. We will explain below how manufacturing and advertising made the social changes which rendered these red Prince Albert cans and hand rolled cigarettes out of fashion. This engineered "progress" made the can obsolete as the standard grass container and measure for smokers.

    The origination of the word "can" and "lid" for describing a specific measurement of marijuana, originated from the popular secondary usage for this Prince Albert tobacco can by early pot smokers. This author was specifically told this by the late Joe Herd, a southerner raised with descendants of former slaves. The 1-1/2 oz. size for shredded tobacco made it perfect for an oz. of bulk marijuana. Thus, no scales were used and the bulk measurement of the Prince Albert can became the unofficial standard in the United States for 1 oz. of marijuana. The cheap and readily available red cans were filled with pot and sold as a "can", or bulk 1 oz. measurement in the underground marijuana culture. Even though we never purchased weed in a Prince Albert can, the term us old smokers from the 1960s have used is "Do you have a can? I want to buy a can. Do you want to buy a can?" For you younger generation folks the term "can" was synonymous with an ounce of pot. Now you know the history and origination of the term "can" - the bright red Prince Albert tobacco can.

    Prince Albert's Cover is Blown

    Records show that in 1939 about 1 billion tobacco cans of all brands were sold. Nicotine had its hold on America. People were still rolling their own cigarettes in 1939 during the lingering economic depression both to save money and for convenience. With WWII, and the popularity and availability of cheap mass manufactured cigarettes in the military, society's acceptance of women's smoking, and mass produced cigarettes for all, the hand rollers steadily declined. Soon the popular Prince Albert cans and other brands were considered bulky and messy, and gave way to the popularity of the small throw away uniformly machine rolled cigarette packages. In America new advertising made the old hand rollers out of fashion. It you had your tobacco can and cigarette papers you became noticed. Thus, the cover provided by Prince Albert to pot smokers for decades became a focus of public attention. Why do you roll your own when you have the convenience of pre-rolled packs? Why carry cans and papers? The Prince Albert can's cover for forty years was blown forever, and the new standard for the can container changed to the publicly hidden wax paper sandwich bag. The word can, the Prince Albert measurement, was carried over to the wax paper sandwich bag which were always referred to as a can or lid, having the same bulk.

    What is a Lid

    By now you have probably figured out where the word 'lid' originated as used by us older stoners and those in the 1st half of this century. The origination of the term "lid" is more misunderstood by stoners from the 1960s era and thereafter. As you might guess, the Prince Albert "lid" permanently attached to the can holds a much, much smaller amount of bulk than does the entire can. It is difficult to determine how both the words "can" and "lid" could denote the same bulk of approximately 1 ounce of Marijuana, but at least by the 1960s, they did. A "lid" originally (prior to the 60s) was a much smaller measurement of weed, which was the bulk amount of pot heaped up onto the open lid of our Prince Albert can. Somebody who wanted a smaller amount than a can, bought a "lid" of grass. This amount is more comparable to what the younger generation of smokers call an 'eighth', for 1/8th of an ounce. Thus it is opined by this author that when our metal can lost its popularity and gave way to the more lightweight sandwich bag, the well established Prince Albert terms, can and lid, became confused in usage.

    These terms can and lid were carried over to both describe the 1 oz. quantity of a sandwich bag. This misnomer of a lid being an ounce happened either through lost knowledge, in the switch over from Prince Albert to the sandwich bag, or just careless use. Perhaps prior to the change from the can to the bag, a slang developed in the smoker's culture merging can and lid. Joe Herd claimed it was due to ignorance on the part of the sandwich bag generation who had never used the Prince Albert can. He was very specific that his generation never confused or used can and lid interchangeably. For reference he offered that a lid was equivalent to a small matchbox bulk measure, and that no confusion could occur. He said that a lid during his lifetime was equal to a matchbox and those terms were used interchangeably. However during the 1950s and thereafter the words can and lid were both used to mean 1 oz. of weed, or cannabis if you prefer. Nobody ever questioned where these terms for an ounce came from, but it was used as the vernacular by the smokers and dealers in the '60s. You older smokers and dealers know what I'm talking about as the words can and lid were all we used when scoring or selling an ounce of pot. We didn't wonder why the "Beatniks" of the 50s and early 60s, and later the Hippies, called ounces cans and lids. I never bought any weed in a Prince Albert can back in those days as every ounce came in a wax paper sandwich bag or double bag. I didn't want to sound stupid asking why the terms can or lid were used when I was actually getting a bag. Everybody just knew what the subject was when a can or lid was mentioned. For example if you had 16 cans you had a pound of weed divided into 16 ounces.

    Where did the Term Pot Originate

    This is the easiest term to explain. Have you ever played poker? Well, you have to ante up and pay into the pot or you can't play the game. This is how the term 'pot' came about. Many pot smokers were poor and pooled their money to score a can. You paid your part of the money into the pot. What your part of the money went for was your part of the POT.

  10. Evan Williams   21 years ago

    It's too bad that more politicians don't get high. Then maybe THEY'D forget to introduce some of THEIR crooked, liberty-destroying legislation more often.

    Sorta like how it was dumb for Mike Moore to criticise Bush for being on vacation so much. Hell, the more these fuckers are on vacation, the less of my liberties they're killing. SO, please, go, take a big, long trip. All of you!

  11. Jim Walsh   21 years ago

    In 1971 that prohpet of prophets, George Carlin, said that MJ would never be legalized because "they keep forgetting where they put the petitions."

  12. iconoclast   21 years ago

    Steve-
    Thanks for the info, it was thoroughly engrossing. It's amazing to find that though some terms have changed, the overall behavior of potheads has not changed in 80 years. Everyone still does the pot.

  13. Lisa Simpson   21 years ago

    I'd like to see a revival of '30s Harlem jazz-hipster slang -- "viper", "jive", and, of course, "reefer". (Anyone who likes old jazz or weed should go buy this; anyone who likes both must.)

  14. Paul   21 years ago

    Far out... man... hey... hey, man, weren't we supposed to do something today, man? Like, I mean, far out, like file something?

  15. Douglas Fletcher   21 years ago

    Um, they got stoned and they missed it.

  16. thoreau   21 years ago

    Are you sure this isn't an Onion article?

  17. Brendan Perez   21 years ago

    Good. Let this scapegoating, ill convceived initiative die the death it deserves.

    If it fails, maybe the MPP and others like them can come up with a plan that actually reforms the laws instead of just diverting all the attention towards politically powerless groups.

  18. Neil Lindsey   21 years ago

    allez_Lance:

    You may be pleased to know that Keith Olbermann used the same song reference on his show last night to spoof this story.

  19. Douglas Fletcher   21 years ago

    WC Fields in "Golddiggers of 1933" introducing some hepcat band that sang "Smoking with that Reefer Man." I wonder if Fields ever took time out from his martinis to sample the weed.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

What Frederick Douglass Can Still Teach Us About the Fourth of July

Damon Root | 7.3.2025 7:00 AM

Cincinnati's Beer-Loving Germans Endured Anti-Immigrant and Anti-Alcohol Resistance

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | From the August/September 2025 issue

Brickbat: Second Opinion

Charles Oliver | 7.3.2025 4:00 AM

How the NCAA Helped Trump Score Big on Transgender Issues

Billy Binion | 7.2.2025 5:34 PM

Under the 'Big, Beautiful Bill,' Car Companies Won't Be Fined for Failing To Hit Arbitrary Fuel Efficiency Goals

Joe Lancaster | 7.2.2025 5:15 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!