California dreamin'

A state never left out of controversy, California is about to play host to the most marketable marijuana product yet to hit pharmacy shelves: marijuana soda.

"Canna Cola," the new marijuana product courtesy of a company that finds its THC roots in Soquel, Calif., is not the first of its kind to see the light of day. It is, however, the first low-dose version of the product with a marketing strategy comparable more to that of actual soda companies (more along the lines of Sams Cola, not soda juggernauts Pepsi or Coca-Cola) than the generic "mooch off of the elderly" strategy of most drug companies.

Said to be the light beer of marijuana drinks, Canna Cola is a 12 ounce drink containing 35 to 65 milligrams of THC - significantly less than its competitors. The drink will launch in Colorado next month, with eventual plans for a California release.

With marijuana legal for medical use in 15 states, and constantly being challenged and debated in public forums (see: Proposition 19), is this just one more step forward for making marijuana use socially acceptable? After all, the labels of the product don't scream "heal me" so much as "deal me." One becomes especially skeptical, after hearing reports of how easily obtained medical marijuana is in the states that have legalized its usage.

I won't speak for or against the legalization of marijuana on a national level, but I will say that in a time of economic downturn and in a nation that, in all actuality, already abuses the drug in mass quantitities anyway; it wouldn't be the end of the world if one day the momentum turned in the direction of legalization.

And for those of you currently stuck in states where medical marijuana is still illicit, don't fret - you've still got your Mountain Dew.

Lady Gaga hints at pseudo-political album

Lady Gaga has an ironclad reputation of being music's latest weirdo-in-chief, and it looks as if the meat dress monster that is "Gaga" aims to maintain that title in 2011.

Gaga at last lifted her shades and "leaked" the full lyrics to her upcoming single and title track of her new album "Born This Way," set to premiere on February 13. The track, which takes an unsurprisingly political tone following her well-known advocation of "don't ask, don't tell" policy repeal, has already garnered enough online buzz to see the track name trending on Twitter.

"No matter gay, straight, or bi / Lesbian, transgendered life / I'm on the right track baby / I was born to survive," belts the pop singer in the bridge of the song.

This is a notably stark contrast to the direction the artist's previous singles have taken - that is, it's noticeably less ambiguous, and strangely to-the-point for a pop culture icon that loves to keep people guessing.

While the lyrics of the song are more all-inclusive than the blurb above suggests, it is one of the first pop songs of the age to tackle the tolerance of homosexuality in a direct manner. Furthermore, not since Bruce Springsteen's "Streets of Philadelphia" has the issue really been tackled at all in pop music. And, if the celebutante's comments on her new album being the "anthem of our generation" are any indication, this will be one of several politically-inspired tracks we'll see on the album when it releases in May.

But is it Lady Gaga's place to stand as a champion for gay rights, or any political movement, for that matter? Is her image and undeniably "sketch" reputation too polarizing to win over new allies in a largely conservative, "baby steps" type of nation?

Voice your thoughts below.

"Jed Clampett, meet Josiah Bartlet"

President Obama delivered his second State of the Union address Tuesday night, his first address to the nation since Republicans won a landslide election and regained control of the House of Representatives. Yet despite all of the important food for thought President Obama fed the American citizenry, one headline seemed to top them all.

Since the custom of an evening broadcast of the annual State of the Union began in 1947, audiences have looked forward to the rather amusing divisiveness of their elected officials. You know, in lieu of the usual scripted drama that would normally be airing at 9 p.m. on a Tuesday evening.

But this year, "Jed Clampett" and "Josiah Bartlett" - that is, congressional Republicans and Democrats - decided to shake hands and halt the gunfire by agreeing to sit next to one another during the speech, rather than clustered together in the usual juvenile fashion.

In fact, this was such big news, that CNN found it relevant enough to take a poll on the "issue." And what did they find, you might ask? Seventy-two percent of Americans believe this is a good idea, while 22 percent are opposed to the concept.

Now, I realize that CNN loves to put out polls for the sake of doing so, and I'm further aware of the fact that Americans love to tease a good shit-show (watching the wave of partisan ovations is always fun), but 22 percent of people really don't believe two people with differing party affiliations and political views should sit next to each other? Is courtesy and respect really such a foreign concept to the general American public?

When it comes down to it, it seems silly that CNN (and every other news organization that reported on this so heavily) should put so much emphasis on such a high school type of topic. Any partisan feelings within Congress are as much perpetuated by the mass media as they are by the people within these chambers. No one needs to glorify the simple act of sitting down next to your colleague during a speech as being the "turn of the tide" for American politics. Get a grip.

And sure enough, when the time came for President Obama's speech, the partisan applause continued nonetheless. Only instead of a neat and organized display of partisanship, it was scattered throughout the sea of egotism. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) popped out a forced smile-turned-angry-grin as she watched John Boehner (R-OH) sit in the chair that she once called her own, and John McCain grimaced at President Obama's declaration that "...no American will be forbidden from serving the country they love because of who they love." And do I even need to mention Michelle Bachman's (...T-MN?) out-of-the-blue, gasp-worthy response on behalf of the Tea Party caucus?

It's politics as usual, folks. Move along.

Fighting the power - one beer at a time

A recent study from the University of California indicates that teen drinking may cause "irreversible" damage to the brain, affecting both memory and spatial skills.

Well, no shit.

Anyone that really knows me, knows that I enjoy two things in life: cats and alcohol. (Please note that I never mix the two.) The latter discovery happened just before I entered college and has continued into my college life, which should come as no surprise.

While I appreciate the warning and information, I can't help but wonder what purpose it really serves other than to instill fear and anxiety? The fact remains, that teenagers and college students have been binge drinking for ages. In fact, it's a staple of our culture and the plotline of an endless amount of terrible teen movies. Do you think Bill Gates and Oprah never once drank when they were teens? Surely no president has ever been known to drink? (Okay, bad example.)

I understand that drinking causes health problems, and can lead to an unhealthy addiction that ruins lives. I've seen three seasons of Rock of Love and two of Celebrity Rehab - I get it. What I don't appreciate, however, is the use of this information to scare people into not living their lives. Alcohol serves as a wonderful social tool and, when used in moderation, a great way to "take the edge off." The bar world thrives on this business model, after all. Sometimes being a responsible and intelligent teenager (or person in general) doesn't mean to not use alcohol at all, it may mean simply knowing when usage is appropriate, and when it's not.

So if we're going to demonize alcohol, how about we demonize everything else that's bad in the world too? How about focusing on how candy bars clog arteries and cause diabetes? Or how caffeine can dangerously affect stress levels?

We're moving out of a time of year known for unhealthy binge eating and sugar-consumption, but do we advertise the negative health effects of that? No, instead we capitalize on weight gain and heart disease with Total Gym infomercials the week after New Year's. Why promote a healthy lifestyle, when you can promote capitalism, right?

And then there's tobacco, that equally bad (if not worse) product that those in their teens can actually legally use. I hate pulling out the "if you can shoot a gun, you can drink a beer" line, but it's too true to pass up on mentioning. Unhealthy lifestyles are a fact of life; stop with the whining.

I'm not an advocate of any of these items or substances mentioned above, but I can't help but feel that these sort of studies are merely another way to keep the public in line. So thanks, University of California. I appreciate the nice sentiment and the information, but I'll keep my health concerns to just that - myself.

DADT repealed - for real this time

"You don't need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight."

These wise words - uttered 40 years ago by unlikely gay rights supporter Barry Goldwater - hold true more now than ever before.

President Obama today signed into law the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," or in layman's terms, that archaic law that said banana-lovers and fish-lickers can't join the exclusive ranks of the military.

Color me a cynic, but I don't see how this is the major victory the mainstream media is portraying it as being. Sen. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was quoted as saying that this is the "single biggest thing" to be achieved in the history of gay rights. Really, Sen. Frank? Your own state's approval of gay marriage wasn't as big as the repeal of DADT? I beg to differ on that one.

I'm not going to sit here and be entirely pessimistic - I'm a gay rights supporter, of course I'm excited about this news. But the fact of the matter is, I should have read these headlines years ago. There's no reason why the United States should (again) be behind its companion megapower nations on this issue. It's embarrassing enough that we're 36th in the world on healthcare, do we really need to be behind on an issue like this as well?

I can't help but think that the overwhelming passage of this bill in the Senate has more to do with Republicans wanting to play the "gay-friendly" card in the future, and less to do with them actually supporting it. I don't doubt that the party is beginning to wake up to the fact that the majority of the nation does not want to elect a party of homophobes. And, on the flipside, I fear that this is merely President Obama's excuse to put gay rights on the backburner for the next two years while he plays "nice" with Republicans to gain political traction for 2012.

But alas, it's a dog eat dog world out there, and at least now we know we've got a few gays barking in the battle. Score one point for the Democrats, I suppose.