OH DEAR LLOYD...
RE: "So Long, Lloyd Cinemas! You Won't Be Missed" [Blogtown, May 12], regarding the news that the Lloyd Center 10 multiplex will be replaced by a mixed-use development.
DEAR MERCURY—The only real memory I have of those theaters is seeing a movie with my high school homeboy and asking another friend [who] worked at the theater for some free soda; he gave us two tiny 5 oz. Dixie cups full of root beer that we both drank in one gulp. Halfway through 2 Fast 2 Furious, he came in and sat down next to us with a dopey look on his face and told us he'd just been fired. Sorry Damen, and fuck off Lloyd Cinemas.
PERCENTAGES... AND STUFF
RE: "I Think We're Dead" [Letters, May 13], in which a pharmacist discusses the dangers of "overdosing" on cannabis edibles.
I agree that: "It is irresponsible of those of us who want to see this drug used happily and safely, both for recreation and medicine, to imply to the general public that marijuana is not a drug and is 100 percent safe." However, "...marijuana extracts, which are basically 98-99 percent active THC...." These numbers are simply incorrect. Extracts that have 80-85 percent "active THC" (scientifically known as Delta 9-Tetrahydrocannabinol) are about the highest concentrations available, and those are the rarer extractions. There are no extracts available that are 90 percent-plus that I can find. Additionally, cannabis contains 483 chemical compounds, of which 83 are cannabinoids, of which Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid is one. Not all cannabinoids need to be "activated" by decarboxylation, but you are correct—Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid needs to be decarboxylated into Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol in order to have a psychoactive effect. Since any drying, burning, vaporizing, baking of cannabis will decarboxylate it, non "activated" cannabis pretty much refers to fresh flowers. As we learn more about cannabis and become more socially accepting of it, I think it is important not to exaggerate THC percentages or use terms that can be confusing or misleading without context.
Posted by SophaKing
RE: "Mad Max for President" [Film, May 13], an enthusiastic review of Mad Max: Fury Road.
Looks like this is playing at the Lloyd Center 10—boy, I'm glad that theater is here and so conveniently located for those of us in NE Portland. I don't know what we'd do without it!
Posted by Deezus
LADIES OF PENS AND POP
RE: "This Is It" [Books, May 13], a review of Jessica Hopper's The First Collection of Criticism by A Living Female Rock Critic.
The title of Jessica Hopper's book may be accurate and the point about this being the first book specifically comprised of a female rock writer's criticism is duly noted well into the 21st Century. A bit misleading though, as an early female pioneer of rock writing was Ellen Willis, and her essays were published in her lifetime. Having said that, and in no way wanting to disparage Jessica Hopper's breakthrough here, there are other kinds of rock writing besides criticism. A couple of Pacific Coast female pioneers of rock writing, in SF Weekly and the East Bay Express, Ann Powers and Gina Arnold, have also written books that, while being closer to socio-musical memoir and biography, should be noted as context for the trail continuing to be blazed by Jessica Hopper. Ann Powers' 1990s and aughts boho Pilgrim's Progress is covered in the aptly titled Weird Like Us: My Bohemian America. Gina Arnold's Liz Phair's Exile in Guyville, a reassessment of Liz Phair, is as chunkily accessible as it is ambitious. Like Jessica Hopper and Robert Ham's appreciation, these are essayists and journalists as well as critics whose writing about the music our lives play background to works on a whole lotta levels.
Posted by Laylow Studios Mitch
THANKS FOR THE "further reading" suggestions, Mitch! Those sound like solid beach reads. In the meantime, please accept two tickets to the Laurelhurst Theater for this week's Mercury Letter/Comment of the Week! There you'll find that sometimes watching trumps reading.