Washington Post's pot reporting stuck in the past



The good people at the Washington Post have published an interesting blog post. The piece argues that, in many states, marijuana is a relative deal compared to beer. It's a neat little piece, with a chart showing the relative costs and ratios in various states. It's not a really deep analysis of an issue, just a bit of map-oriented click bait to get some hits. It is nice that it discusses beer in terms of being a "drug." 
But you wonder how old the people putting this blog together are. The beer they use to compare with weed is Bud Light. Why not Sierra Nevada? I mean, if you're choosing between weed or beer, at least go up to Pabst.
Furthermore, describing the price of a joint seems hopelessly passé. The accessibility of prime weed strains has come a long way since Wavy Gravy started twisting up bombers. Heck, just filling your oney-bat with a dusting from a stoner's kief catcher will keep you sky-high for hours. Do the authors think that street dealers are still selling reefer sticks like it's the 1940s?
On the bright side, at least the Washington Post didn't call them "jazz cigarettes."