Gaaah! Headasplode! He actually cited drugs being a factor in violence!?! It's BECAUSE they're illegal that they're a factor. This makes me rip out my nosehairs.

Boo this man. Boo him.

I'm glad they're having this debate though...

Three things from a stoner:

1) If the weed is stronger, that means you smoke less of it.

2) There are many varieties of low- to moderate-grade weed still available, and it's easier to find that product when it is legalized and when the THC ratio is clearly displayed.

3) DEA agents really don't give a shit about anything but their jobs, which exist only because drugs are illegal.

This gets my head spinning and me talking to the screen when I hear that stupid dolt Walters open his cock hole. How many lifes has this twat ruined because of his biased non supportive view.

>> ^dirtythirtyix:
I'm glad they're having this debate though...


It's not a debate though. On one side you have the facts presented by educated advocates who rationally explain why the other side is wrong, on the other you have people trying desperately to maintain their out dated system by continuing to spew old lies.

In this era of (near)instant information I would love to see these debates go like this, pro side presents facts, con side presents lies, pro shows examples exposing con advocate as lying dickcheese, moderator terminates feed of con side weasel and continues to interview pro advocate. Because sadly, without proof of blatant deception and presentation of factual information, there will remain people who watch these interviews and come away thinking that people like Walters were correct in their assumptions because of their positions on the issue. When in fact they're just disingenuous assholes trying to force their puritanical views on the rest of the population.

Personally I think that the weed advocates should focus on combating the anti-pot propaganda that chokes our media. A good start would be remaking every anti-pot commercial based in reality, with drunks running over the little kid on the bike, etc.

It's ridiculous that a substance with such mild effects as pot remains illegal when alcohol continues to be a source for so much violence and death. Has anyone ever heard of a domestic violence situation where a person toked up and then proceeded to beat their spouse because of a minor error like burning a steak?

Wow, more mj dispenses than starbucks, that's a lot!

I am in oregon and under an ounce is very minor, I don't smoke(anymore) but the people I know that do(and that's a lot) are very normal.
If law enforcement can smell mj on a traffic stop,and then go from there(meaning enforce dui), I don't see what the problem with full legalization would cause! If people use in the privacy of their homes, that is their business.

Wow, Walters got his ass kicked by a ROBOT. Domo arigato Mr. Roboto...

I'd love it for a Republican Governor to legalize marijuana in California.

This is good, I want more debates about legalization.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

^That would be amazing. I would forgive him for Kindergarten Cop.

I agree with Hollywood bob.

So here's a debate for everyone!

Gay Marriage vs Legalization of Pot, which should happen first!?

aw they showed a stank nug 1:06.. sweet hairs

as to your question:

They should happen at the same time... tomorrow.

I was waiting for the ZING moment and was ecstatic to see it at the end where he asked "where is the surge in violence if there is a surge in use in CA?'

>> ^Darkhand:
I agree with Hollywood bob.
So here's a debate for everyone!
Gay Marriage vs Legalization of Pot, which should happen first!?


Both topics can be boiled down to the same root issue: closed-minded, fear mongering, totalitarian fascists, trying to exert their prudish will over the behaviors others. As some of us see it, both as they stand are a violation of civil rights. A citizen should have the right to do what they please with who or what they please as long as all parties involved agree. No one is forcing anyone to smoke weed, and no one is forcing people to get married if they don't wish it.

Basically if everyone would just stick to the things that directly effect them and their families, we'd all live much happier lives.

The funny thing is that the vast majority of people arguing against legalization of both, could probably benefit from a little of both. I know there's quite a few GOP members of Congress that would be much happier if they could marry a dude and smoke some reefer.

>> ^rougy:
1) If the weed is stronger, that means you smoke less of it.


Agreed. The less smoke I have to inhale for any level of effect, the better. The worst thing that happens if you smoke too much potent weed is that you get too high to smoke any more.

Hey! At 4:16 that Drug Czar gets cottonmouth! I call shenanigans.

oh shit, didn't understand the video correctly. DOH!

The fact that it's stronger is a good thing. It means you don't smoke as much to get high. Why would that be a bad thing?

>> ^dag:
^That would be amazing. I would forgive him for Kindergarten Cop.


"EET'S NOTTA TOOMAH!"

>> ^rottenseed:
The fact that it's stronger is a good thing. It means you don't smoke as much to get high. Why would that be a bad thing?


Good point. Actually, that's the best argument I've heard against that. The less you smoke, the less damage to your lungs.

I wouldn't call that "owned". Alot of uneducated people will think his points valid, even though most of them aren't. Oh well...

BTW, get over the lung damage issue; buy a vape.

Legalise and tax it people make me want to puke blood. It's my fucking money you're bribing the fascists with, "oh please sir, please let us have our rights back, we'll pay you."

I hope that when cannabis is eventually decriminalised, all you people who agree with me that prohibition is a human rights violation will join me in calling for the deaths of all the cops who enforced these immoral laws.

>> ^gorillaman:
Legalise and tax it people make me want to puke blood. It's my fucking money you're bribing the fascists with, "oh please sir, please let us have our rights back, we'll pay you."

I don't care if they tax it up the wazoo, once it's legal the price should go down, so it's not like pot-heads will be going broke.

I would be a little miffed if they maintained laws restricting people from growing their own.


I hope that when cannabis is eventually decriminalised, all you people who agree with me that prohibition is a human rights violation will join me in calling for the deaths of all the cops who enforced these immoral laws.


Wow, bit much don't ya think? How about while we're at it we hang every soldier that went to Iraq?

Don't you suppose it's time to just simply stop punishing people for drugs altogether?

This is an important video.

Vaporizers take care of any health issue (not to mention edible products)... the fact alcohol is legal takes care of the rest of the arguments.

it's one of those beyond non-issues... truly a poor match for its assigned schedule, and proven to be able to exist without causing detriment to societies, in europe and elsewhere




"i feel up. really up."

It's comical how the same people who complain about Fox can watch this clip and declare victory. This host is almost as bad as stuff I've seen from Fox.

Anyway, here's what I got from the interview:
- Not sure about violence. Yes, a lot of it stems from prohibition, and logic dictates that legalizing pot would make most of that go away, but it's hard to ignore the 60-70% correlation with violent offenders - wouldn't the criminals doing this for profit want to be clean, and leave the drug usage to the customers?

- Legalizing would increase use. (California's "medicinal" shops)

- Increased use brings increased costs associated with health care and addiction which would offset any tax benefits.

I'm not saying Walters is the victor, but it's far from a slam dunk for the legalization camp.

>> ^dag:
^That would be amazing. I would forgive him for Kindergarten Cop.


take it back. it a hilarious staple in his career. "WHO IS YOUR DADDY AND WHAT DOES HE DO?" grew up on that shit

is it my turn to toss in?
good.
lets take mr walters point by point.
1.he is from the hudson institute-(neo-con think tank)deduct 50 points right there.
2.taxable income questionable?ok,i agree here.there is no actual data as of yet.
3.weed is the number ONE reason for drug treatment.
what?where is the former drug czar getting his numbers?
the number ONE abused and treated addictive drug is legal prescription painkillers.even if we used illegal drugs, pot is fourth.(data from A.M.A)
4.weed is responsible for violence and deaths among dealers.
no..its creating a black market that leads to violence and deaths.
its not like a drug dealer can go to the authorities and bitch about another dealer creeping into his turf.this is just bad logic.you can apply the same sentence and just add:coke dealers,pimps,gambling,fights...
when you create a black market,the only way those who RUN that black market can protect their investment is usually through violence,which may lead to deaths,sometimes innocent.
5.mr walters keeps using the term "drugs".
while not wrong,its not entirely accurate."drugs" is an umbrella term which includes ALL drugs i.e :coke,meth,x,heroin etc.
to conflate these very dissimilar narcotics is dishonest and misleading.
6.again mr walters conflates "drugs" with violent behavior.
"many of the arrests found weed on the person"
and?using circular logic to make a point is still circular logic.
so if i got arrested with a playboy in my possesion that would mean im a sexual deviant?thats just weak.
6.marijuana dependency?
first off,doesnt exist.at least not in the way mr walters is portraying it.
THC is fat soluble,which means it takes at LEAST 3 weeks for HALF the THC to leave your body.you have to smoke a tremendous amount,consistently for a very long time to feel any adverse affects if you stop smoking.even then the effects are mild.
7.0.3% is the population percentage in jail for possesion of weed..
thats an outright lie.
that figure is way higher,some as low as 20% and as high as 65%(couldnt get a solid number)but considering that private jails are now the number 9th largest lobby,and are the biggest funders of keeping weed illegal.
well..you tell me what that looks like.
8.more conflation about number of people who use "drugs".
the fact is,a certain amount of the population will use drugs.
its predictable and steady.this number coincides with weed smokers.
i believe the number is 23%,but im not sure and forgot the studies name.
but its around there.

one final note.
some have mentioned it here already,and i totally agree.
if you do something in your own home,harm noone,not even yourself.
how can it be deemed illegal?
even the constitution backs up the dissilution of this ill-thought,inane,archaic and totally useless law.
the man who demonized weed was a man named henry anslinger.
who used the "demon weed" for political purposes,and he did a damn fine job of it.
that was in the late 30's and early 40's.
time to huck this piece of irrelevant legislation out the door.
thank you..and good night.

"cute Cheech and Chong characters from old time movies..."

Well, I'm glad your facts are recent and relevant sir.

Legalizing aside... just how far will it reduce the fight on marijuana? Sure, now we have official companies shipping it in by official means, paying the high taxes and charging the high taxes to their customers. What prevents the current illegal routes from trumping the officials by selling their non taxed and cheaper stuff?

So now instead of fighting an illegal drug, we are fighting the illegal selling of it and chasing people down for tax evasion. Different fight...same money spent on doing it.

Should this be tagged 1sttube?

Excellent points enoch. Especially 2, 5 and 7. Some of the things he said were very misleading but when you put together the facts like that and actually see them written down, the whole thing seems so clear. Sigh...

... wait a minute. What were we talking about?

Prohibition always work out great.

Anyone notice that Anderson Cooper looks stoned in the preview image?

BTW, "War over Weed"? A war? Do I have to fight in that?

Pro-weed guy won that debate without resorting to czarcasm!