‘Big Bang Theory’ actor trolls Steven Crowder over marijuana video, Crowder hits back


Comedian and Fox News contributor Steven Crowder recently released a thought-provoking video dispelling the widespread myths about “harmless” marijuana. The truth was evidently a little too inconvenient for “Big Bang Theory” actor John Ross Bowie, who decided to don his troll suit. Crowder, you see, had tweeted about having a drink with dinner, and Bowie suggested hypocrisy. But Crowder wasn’t having any of it:

Steven Crowder's Manhattan

Crowder is right. Numerous studies suggest that moderate alcohol consumption may actually have health benefits. But a conservative citing science? To Bowie, that’s just nuts!


Gee, John. Condescending much?

Bowie just doesn’t get it.

Perhaps if Bowie were willing to quit buying into tired stereotypes about conservatives and take the time to actually listen to them, he might actually learn what constitutes “healthy debate.” Until then, we’ll just pour ourselves a drink.

  • Hiraghm

    Based on what I can see, his entire acting career is based on tired stereotypes…

  • radjahshelduck

    I had to google to find out who this actor is. It’s a bit misleading to say he’s from “The Big Bang Theory” as he’s been in all of eight episodes the life of the series. He plays Barry Kripke, the guy with a lisp.

    • http://twitter.com/judywmiller judy w. miller

      Love show, but haven’t seen this guy. Sounds like didn’t miss anything.

    • Rabid

      Yeah..I had to click on Twitchy’s link too.

  • Grandma HeadInjury

    Hey! Thteven Cwowdew! You aw a cwimate change deniew and mawawana hypocwit! Theriouthly, thtop accusing me of making bwanket assewtions!

    • Lady 12

      I should know better than to read your stuff with a drink in my hand by now!

      • KansasGirl

        Was it a Manhattan? /sarc

    • http://twitter.com/who_me_too RadicalRebelWhoMeToo

      KDRWNJ – I didn’t know which character he was until I read that!!!!! XD Hilarious!!!

  • http://pinterest.com/j0s1395/ Josephine (D)

    Conservatives do not, and should not, hate science. Liberals yak on and on about “science”, but they don’t really appreciate; in fact, they abuse it.

    • RblDiver

      Meh, I’m fine with conservatives hating science. At least we aren’t like liberals and hate math!

      • http://twitter.com/andybear32 Andy Hebert

        No offense, but math is a science.

        • http://twitter.com/upherclasstwit Dean Robert

          not the way liberal use it, it’s more like fiction

        • Kevin McAuley

          Sorry Math isn’t science. If you think math is science you don’t understand math.

  • http://twitter.com/mathetes1963 VoiceMan1963

    I *knew* there was a reason I never watched that show…and Mr. Bowie should learn the difference between “scientism” and “science”.

    • RedRaider2007

      It’s actually a really hysterical show, and this dude is NOT a star. He has a minor role (8 episodes out of more than 100), and you’re actually supposed to dislike his character. If it had been a star of the show, I would have been very upset. This from him just makes me think he must be his character in real life.

  • medicinewomantwo

    So John really isn’t an actor, he really is an aszhole.

  • Tiffany Ross

    I LOVE SCIENCE! But I have little use for scientists. 😀

    • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

      I have long since stopped attributing a mere desire for the truth to scientists. They are as susceptible to money and politics and any other profession. My das was a physics teacher and he’d be as skeptical of anyone today of some of the “science” that is bandied about in the news.

  • Teresa Davis McCormick

    Once again, another actor who should just repeat the lines in the script and keep his uneducated opinion to himself.

  • Guest

    As long as I have your attention, please check out ClimateCare.org. They are NOT affiliated with me, have no idea who I am, probably wouldn’t even like me very much, but they do great work.

  • http://twitter.com/JohnRossBowie JohnRossBowie

    Sorry, posted wrong link – As long as I have your attention, please check out CreationCare.org. They are not affiliated with me, have no idea who I am, probably wouldn’t even like me, but they do great work.

    • Rabid

      You just lost the argument right there…

    • LordLieutenant

      I’m not really interested in the twitter exchange either way to be fair to you and I appreciate you being here below the line.

      I had a look over the CreationCare website, but remain convinced that the only guaranteed way to mitigate extreme weather is a government making a small surplus, a triple A credit rating on T-Bills, a population with money saved and willing to help one another.

      • SpinMeNot

        Ah, so responsible conservative law abiding citizens with a responsible limited government where the elected officials are concerned with their constituencies rather then their own net worth …

        Wow, brilliant … who’d have thunk.


    • KansasGirl

      All of the sudden you like twitchy? Good. Welcome aboard. Pfffft.
      Furthermore, you can’t compete with Crowder’s intellect…so quit embarassing yourself.

  • JoeMusgo

    If we could just get the University of East Anglia to doctor up some data proving that global warming is caused by excessive marijuana smoke, I suspect these environmental phonies would find a new pet cause to trumpet from their pitiful soap boxes.

    • RightThinking1

      And they are just the guys to do it..

  • SATURNspike

    I feel the need…the need for weed!

  • Right Wired

    Liberals substitute Religion with “causes” and apple products.

  • http://Twitter.com/jkerrysforehead John Kerry’s Forehead

    Another case of Hollywood actor who spends so much time portraying someone else they actually think they are that person. Bowie is not a scientist as he thinks he is, but he plays one on TV. My least favorite character on Big Bang.

    This is also another case supporting my point that, like you and I, first rule of business is not to discuss religion and politics with clients. In the case of all the Hollywood types, we (the viewers) are the customers. These celebs need to keep that in mind.

    • Sad Chestertonian

      The problem is not religion or politics but that the custom of complete thinking has been replaced with the curse of specialized thinking. You cannot truly know a person unless you know & understand their religion & politics, for religion is simply one’s philosophy for defining the universe, & politics is simply the human instinct to define one another for intended mutual benefit, if all goes well. The reason things do NOT go well so often these days is that specialized thinking has bound people up in their little boxes and makes too many uncomfortable when something new threatens to peek in. Many have been unwittingly TRAINED to be intolerant even as they spew & eat mindless platitudes & boiler plate about tolerance, fool themselves into thinking that that’s enough, & the kill all meaningful discussion in 100 different ways. As for what constitutes a true complete thinker, read G.K.Chesterton for more details.

  • peteee363

    liberals love science, when they can control the message of the scientist. conservatives love science, but will not agree when liberals push junk science.

    • RightThinking1

      I trust science…, it is scientists that I do not trust.

  • Steve_J

    The climate movement he referred to; is that the same climate movement whose primary proponents falsified data?

    • https://twitter.com/AlessaRosewater Maria

      If he’s a Liberal, you can be assured that is the climate movement he is referring to.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/T4QVIGWM7L7FCX47BFHX6PVY7E Mom Of three

      I don’t think they understand the concept of science, just the title scientist…

  • Gwamma

    who? I just googled him and still haven’t a clue who the Dimwit Bowie is…
    And weed not addictive, really? Tell my brother that.

    • visashadow

      He;s the comicbook store owner.

      • Jack Deth

        Hi, louise:

        According to IMDb, He’s Sheldon Cooper’s nemesis with a speech impediment, Kripke.

        Whatever role he plays. In the real world, he’s out of his league.

      • catb55

        He works at the Wubersity with Sheldon and the rest. Not the comic book store — BAZINGA!

  • orringtonmom (D)

    TBBT is still my favorite show… i have so little going for me these days. don’t take it away from me.

    • http://www.facebook.com/rafael.penariosribero Rafael Eduardo Peña-Rios Riber

      will wheaton and this guy?
      don’t worry, they are nothing that really matters for the show

      • orringtonmom (D)

        i can do without kripke, but will wheaton is a fun nemesis… nevertheless, i have never been under the delusion that the actors are anything but hollywood lefties. just makes me laugh louder when sheldon’s mom throws creationism in his face. sigh.

        • http://www.facebook.com/rafael.penariosribero Rafael Eduardo Peña-Rios Riber

          even if they are they have enough brain cells to keep it to themselves and not to use it for atention

  • visashadow

    Mr Bowie follows the teachings of a man who flunked Earth Science in College.I got an A in the course and I don’t believe humans cause climate change,natural earth cycles are the cause of climate change.

    • https://twitter.com/AlessaRosewater Maria

      Bingo! It’s climate patterns/cycles.

  • http://twitter.com/Sistervative Sistervative

    Clearly, he latched on to Steven Crowder to get a little notoriety since he’s barely on the Big Bang Theory anyways. He’s so rarely on it that Twitchy’s headline of “Big Bang Actor” is almost a misrepresentation of his career status!

  • https://twitter.com/AlessaRosewater Maria

    Umm, THC is very addictive. So is alcohol. Both are bad for you (although as stated one drink with dinner isn’t bad). Wow, Bowie is not as smart as he thinks he is. Which is no shock, really. Crowder owned him hard.

    Also, who is John Ross Bowie? I don’t watch “The Big Bang” theory. Has he done anything otherwise notable?

    • Sad Chestertonian

      I do believe that certain people need THC for certain ailments, but let them use the synthetic stuff in a breatholizer: healthier for them and for me (no clam baking to bother the rest of us).

      • https://twitter.com/AlessaRosewater Maria


  • GaryTheBrave

    So I guess he plays Big Bang’s version of Seinfeld’s Newman.

    John Ross Bowie. A name that sounds like it should belong to a mass murder or Presidential assassin.

  • Erthwjim

    Couldn’t one say a psychological addiction is worse than a physical addiction anyways? I’ve both drinked and smoked, but I’m not ignorant to the fact that weed is bad. The right (or wrong) person with the right personality can be addicted to weed or alcohol. I saw that Bowie posted some article from psychology today, but the article really didn’t say one way or the other that marijuana wasn’t physically addictive, but did state it was psychologically addictive, and that the psychological addictions can sometimes be worse than the physical… I would add onto that my 2 cents, because marijuana is psychologically addictive, people with addictive personalities are probably more prone to abuse it, since personalities tend to be psychologically based.

    • medicinewomantwo

      You are exactly right, the only media coverage given is to a big social issue, having worked with addictive personalities, they have a drug of choice but will compensate to meet that need with numerous other options, I have seen addictions from BC headache powders(they were hidden threw out her house in bags to heroin addictions and meth)Physical addiction and psychological addiction don’t always walk hand in hand.

    • v1cious

      So Is alcohol. What’s your point?

      • Erthwjim

        If you’ll notice I did indicate alcohol was similar. Let me quote the sentence for you: “The right (or wrong) person with the right personality can be addicted to weed or alcohol.” But that’s kind of part of my argument.

        The point would be that Bowie was implying alcohol is worse than weed, which it can be at times, when not done in moderation, but to the same extent weed can be worse than alcohol when not done in moderation. It’s not that I’ve seen weed destroy anyone’s life, but I have seen people never amount to anything because they smoke so much weed.

        People also underplay the negative effects of marijuana. People say more or less that it is harmless, which is not true. A psychologically addictive drug can at times be worse than a physically addictive drug. Also weed can cause short and long term memory loss, impairment of motor reflexes, etc. This is not harmless.

        So in my unprofessional opinion, weed like alcohol, should be done in moderation as they both have the potential for abuse.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

          I think you need to watch Crowder’s video.
          A scientist explains your premise and answers your questions.

          • Erthwjim

            I’ve seen Crowder’s video, and I’m not disagreeing with it. My comments are mostly about the Big Bang guy. He stated in some of his twitter posts that Alcohol is physically addictive and marijuana was not. In an article the Big Bang guy linked from psychology today, they bring up the question of marijuana’s addiction. They state there are studies both for and against it’s physical addiction, but the one thing they seem sure of is, marijuana is psychologically addictive. So in the context of the Big Banger’s argument, saying alcohol is physically addictive is a poor argument for the use of weed because a psychological addiction can be worse than the physical one, and weed has the psychological one.

            I do have some issues with Crowder’s video, but it’s more that he interviews only one person in the field of psychiatry. It would be nice if he interviewed more than one perhaps even someone that specializes in the cognitive neurosciences or drugs and behavior, or if he didn’t interview other people, perhaps he could have included several links to articles of a peer reviewed nature that supported his arguments. This would put him a step above those that rant on about the benefits of marijuana without actually providing any sources themselves.

            I’m for the legalization of Marijuana, but only if the person smoking understands the risks, which seem to be somewhat misrepresented by the majority of the population. It’s not harmless, but people “feel” otherwise. And feelings don’t do well when it comes to science.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

            Thanks for the clarification but where have I heard before about understanding the risks…where? Oh yeah cigarettes!!!!! There is also a bigger picture here besides psychological and physical addiction like dangers to society, lack of production…oh and just think of how much more money you will get to shell out for health care…oh joy. You focus on the back end but not the front end. How about the rights of innocent citizens not to have drug addicted non productive criminals foisted upon them?! Drug abuse is not a victimless crime.

          • Erthwjim

            Unproductive members of society, increased costs of healthcare, addicts… sounds like obesity to me. Sitting around on their unproductive lazy asses gorging themselves daily, increasing their chances of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and a myriad of other diseases. But hey if people want to get fat, that’s up to them, but because of those choices, they should pay more for health insurance. If someone wants to smoke cigarettes, no skin off my back, but try not to smoke near me, and if you do smoke cigarettes, well you should pay more for health insurance. If someone wants to smoke pot, fine, do it, but treat it like alcohol and cigarettes confine it to bars, impose age limits and again make them pay more for health insurance. I agree you shouldn’t have to pay more for other people’s mistakes, obesity affects 35.7% of Americans, I don’t want to pay for that, but then I don’t want to take away someone’s individual liberties.

            I understand your against marijuana, that’s fine, its harmful. But you can’t get on people for not realizing pot is harmful by throwing another popular misconception at them. Some people that smoke pot can be unproductive, but many people remain functional, pot having little to no effect on their day to day lives. It comes back to moderation, some people don’t know how to moderate and don’t know when to quit. Some people are prone to addiction, whether it’s marijuana, food, working out or alcohol, but that’s a people problem, it’s not limited to just one substance or behavior. To automatically assume a person that smokes pot becomes unproductive…. perhaps it’s that some unproductive people are attracted to pot.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

            To an extent I agree with you but you are operating on stereotype and not real facts. One can be fat and still productive. Same with smoking. However with drugs not so much and that undermines the very fabric of society. I threw no popular misconceptions at anyone. I threw facts and if you don’t like the facts that is your problem. As to paying more for insurance…TOO LATE! The cow left that barn decades ago and closing the door now is a fool’s folly. You have been paying for their healthcare along with non production and overall detrimental effects like rehab for decades. Hell your parents probably paid it before you were born. Deal with what is and not what you want it to be.

            And not all people are capable of moderation hence the reason we have drug abuse in all of it’s various forms. You need a reality check and as I said…deal with the world as it is and not as you think it should be. And your last comment is just plain ridiculous since no drug stat or science backs it up…let alone reality. Pot is not motivator.

          • Erthwjim

            Drugs in general yes, pot in particular? Let’s see these facts you speak of. Your statement was that people that smoke marijuana not only increase the costs of healthcare, which they might, but also that they were unproductive criminals. Please let me see your facts that these people are unproductive, while smoking maybe, which is goes to my statement about moderation, but when not intoxicated, they are not significantly less productive or motivated. My statement about obese people being unproductive was using the same logic as yours, stereotypes. But my statements about the costs and healthcare results of being obese were based on facts.

            Here’s a petition that references facts about Marijuana from peer reviewed journals: http://www.governor.wa.gov/priorities/healthcare/petition/combined_document.pdf
            If you go to this PDF and scroll down to pages 30-35 it references research from many studies that indicate there is little correlation between cannabis use and “amotivational syndrome”. The references can be found on pages 44 and on.

            On some side facts in reference to my earlier statements about obesity:
            35.7% of adult Americans are considered obese and in 2008 medical costs associated with obesity were estimated at $147 billion.
            Obesity-related conditions include heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and certain types of cancer, some of the leading causes of preventable death.

            Cardiovascular disease being the number one killer in the US: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm.

  • http://www.redstateeclectic.com AngelaTC

    I’m pretty much past the concept that weed should be illegal. If legalizing it makes the government smaller, I’m for it. Prohibition didn’t work then, and it doesn’t work now.

    • NCRelite

      I agree. If we’re really going to be the party of smaller government and freedom we have to mean it. Aside from some pretty kick ass governors the republicans have been more like right wing progressives than true conservatives. My 2¢

      • JannyMae

        I keep hearing about how “the war on drugs” is lost, and we should just legalize them all to “get the crime out of it.” Then what do we do about all the other much more dangerous drugs? Methamphetamine? PCP? Heroin? Cocaine? How will the need to regulate those drugs make the government smaller? I still haven’t heard a convincing argument on how marijuana is going to be regulated. How do you tax something that people grow on their window sill? We have to consider the consequences before we say prohibition is a bad idea.

        • Sad Chestertonian

          If meth is ever legalized I will join in any revolution to over throw the government that did so. I’d rather see the gladiatoral games come back then that abomination. You’d have a begets chance at surviving and a much better quality of life. Seriously, name ONE life that has ever been saved by psudoefedrine. You can only make it in industrial laboratories, and you can’t make meth without it. BOYCOTT ALL PSUDOEFEDRINE, SHUT THE LABS DOWN, STOP MAKING THE SEED OF THE DEVIL’S OWN POISON! METH IS LIVING DEATH!!

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

            Ever hear of equal application of the law? You legalize one you legalize them all.

          • Sad Chestertonian

            Comparing marijuana to meth is like comparing lemon juice to industrial acid. The law can only be equally applied to things that were equal in the first place! BOYCOTT PSUDOEFEDRINE!! PUT UP WITH YOUR SNIFFELS TO SAVE LIVES!

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

            Under the eyes of the law drugs are drugs and recreational use is just that. You can tell yourself all of the excuses and lies you want but it won’t change the facts. furthermore there has never ever been a in the history of the world a society that is productive on drugs.

          • Sad Chestertonian

            Chemistry, compassion, & common sense guide my opinion on which drugs should & should not be legal. All legal drugs have side effects, & if alternatives are available for a particular ailment then it it should be used first. I hate how Big Pharma abuses patent laws, but it has done one thing right; their brilliant handling of medical opiates these past hundred years. Poppies are grow in secret, at different farms every year, disguised within and by regular bumper crops until harvest. According to your logic, we should either out law all opiates, including morphine, and to hell with peoples pain, or allow opium dens and heroine bars for any gullible fool to walk into. I prefer the middle path, but only for drugs that can FIT in the middle. Meth can only age people100 years in 2 or 3, and make of them nihilistic maniacs. An obsolete allergy treatment is not worth the horror.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

            You can prefer the middle path all you like and you can proclaim common sense and compassion all you want but the law and it’s application is devoid of emotion. Just because you proclaim something in your mind doesn’t make it so. Opiates used in a non prescription manner are already outlawed you tool. Be aware that wasn’t always the case either. Why is that?!!! And BTW…drug groups are gearing up already to get ALL drugs legalized under the same argument and grounds as pot. THE LAW HAS TO BE EQUALLY APPLIED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. Get that through your head. It is the same with marriage. Polygamists are filing suits already as well as those that like things like bestiality under the same guise as gay marriage. If it is a right, then it is a right for everyone under any and all circumstances. Your middle path may be what you prefer but it isn’t what the law will allow and all of your waxing poetic on it won’t change it.

            You are not even remotely close to C.K. Chesterson. Unless you have something more than rampant emotionalism that has no basis in reality stop bothering me with nonsense because my time is valuable.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

        And as soon as your child was killed by a pot head you would demand the government do something!!!

    • Sad Chestertonian

      Anyone with half a brain cell should be able to see that T.H.S. has legitimate medical applications. But why are we even arguing over the plant itself? T.H.S. can now be synthesized and aerosolized and put in a breatholizer! Patients could get exactly dose they need, would not get all the unhealthy carbonized irritants that come with any type of smoke, and it eliminates any worry of second hand “clam baking”. Leave the plant itself illegal, make it a crime to share one’s cartridges, and outlaw driving for users. Pretty damn straight forward, yes? YET WHY DONT WE EVER HEAR ABOUT THIS OPTION!?!?!?

      • Sad Chestertonian

        Or is it T.H.C.? I am so tired right now…

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

      False premise and a false dichotomy. Tell me how has drug rehab make government smaller? It hasn’t. As more people become victims of the so called ‘victimless’ crime the outrage of the people will demand that the government do something. That is how it has been since before Christ. Prohibition actually did work in that many didn’t partake and yes many did! Why is that? Because laws are for the lawful. Outlawing murder hasn’t prevented no murders from ever taking place. What was the result of repealing Prohibition? Do you even know?

  • Elena0412

    That show was on at my in-laws on Thanksgiving. I thought it was Nickleodeon or the Disney channel. I found out later it was for adults. What a snore. Political correctness has ruined comedy.

  • Tighearnan

    this article is full of bias, and also chowders video was very selective of who it asked questions to

  • Bumr50

    If the intent on reporting this is to highlight “how the liberal left ignores science,” then I suppose it’s a worthwhile argument to have.

    Unfortunately, all that I see is a bunch of “weed vs. alcohol” debate that is both silly and scientifically inconclusive.

    I smoke marijuana but rarely drink alcohol, and quite honestly feel disgusted by this whole line of debate. I’m not going to go in to policy except to say that I’m socially very libertarian with some SoCon leanings.

    I think that I see the bigger picture here, and I don’t like what I see.

    I honestly feel like you’re trying to chase people out of the tent here.

    I think it’s a stupid debate to have. I hope Crowder doesn’t think that this is somehow “making inroads” into the culture war. If THAT’S what’s happening, he’s failing.

  • Bumr50

    Also, it’s hard to ignore the fact that this site (which I LOVE and visit regularly) is now featuring this item as it’s “lead story.”

    “Troubling this is.” – Yoda

  • Herman LaClair

    2 words for mr. bowie: East Anglia.

  • TheDwellerYsul

    Is there any “comedian” more witless than Steven Crowder?

    • http://www.shockandblog.com/ Jay McHue

      Rosanne Barr?

    • Megalith

      Bill Maher, Ellen, Rosanne, Janeane Garofalo, David Cross, the list goes on.

  • HeadDesk

    I’ve known many, many people who are dependent on weed. Entire subcultures exist around marijuana. Lots of people live for it. You can’t say it isn’t addictive.

  • http://www.facebook.com/oscar.furter Oscar Furter

    next time a person on the left wants to talk science – mention fetalogy – see how quickly they change the topic. Then ask if they can spell hypocrite.

  • DANEgerus

    Leftists hate science… it’s fact based, so like typical Luddites they hawk Windmills from the 16th century, trains from the 19th century, and medicine from the 20th century… all failures.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

    Steven don’t try and reason or explain science to a pithead that has fried his brains.