Your video, Hell Hath Frozen Over: Pat Robertson on Decriminalizing Pot, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Dude.. dude... that's the pot.
>> ^JesseoftheNorth:

My mind = blown

Ha! Shuac got ya! BURN!

>> ^shuac:

Prop 19, the ballet initiative that would've decriminalized marijuana in California...
I would've preferred a ballroom dance initiative or maybe square dancing. But ballet? I dunno, something about ballet rubs me the wrong way. As a dance form, it's far too inaccessible and un-participatory. Know what I mean?

Prop 19, the ballet initiative that would've decriminalized marijuana in California...

I would've preferred a ballroom dance initiative or maybe square dancing. But ballet? I dunno, something about ballet rubs me the wrong way. As a dance form, it's far too inaccessible and un-participatory. Know what I mean?

>> ^TickTock:

This is horrible - isn't this shit exactly the problem with legalizing. People I know actually believe this shit. You'd think the Simpson's writers would know better. Maybe Fox's influence...?


There's actually an undertone in this episode that makes you believe the writers support legalization/decriminalization. For example, when Lisa says something to the effect of "Stop doing drugs so you can yell at us again....wait maybe I don't know what I want", and then the reference near the end where Moe is talking to Carl, and Carl is explaining to him he got alcohol poisoning and nearly died - insinuating there isn't that issue with marijuana. Those are just a couple of references that make it clear the writers are pro-legalization.

>> ^hPOD:

Nobody said that they were going to arrest anyone for how they vote, they said they would continue to arrest them EVEN IF the law to decriminalize passes.

The title of the VideoSift post is "California Voter Intimidation - The Federal Government", the title of the YouTube video that's embedded is "The Feds are intimidating people into voting No to Prop 19".

The flack from Reason has a comment in his first reply saying "We've got Obama threatening to lock people up if they even think about voting for it", and "it's an appalling, appalling use of force to intimidate people before they vote", and the follow-up question boils down to "Do you think the rise in opposition is because of this voter intimidation?". Reason guy says no, but doesn't challenge the premise of the question.

Nobody said that they were going to arrest anyone for how they vote, they said they would continue to arrest them EVEN IF the law to decriminalize passes.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
Where's our fighters for Democratic justice on this topic? @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://netrunner.videosift.com" title="member since August 5th, 2006" class="profilelink"><strong style="color: rgb(0, 0, 205);">NetRunner, @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/dystopianfuturetoday" title="member since January 9th, 2007" class="profilelink"><strong style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">dystopianfuturetoday, I'm calling you out.
On what, exactly? The title & intro are outright false -- nobody's threatening to arrest anyone for how they vote.
On legalization of marijuana, I'm in favor, so it can't be that.
I guess it's the usual thing where you think any time a Democratic politician does something other than flout the laws and Constitution in pursuit of some extreme straw-man liberal policy platform you've cooked up, you think you've scored some sort of victory over liberalism generally, and me specifically.
Guess what! I'm pro-Prop 19, but I think the DOJ has no choice but to continue to enforce the Federal laws. The executive shouldn't get to just say "we disagree with the laws, so we're not enforcing them". If the President could do that, what limits are there on his powers, exactly?
I'm thinking if Prop 19 passes, the conflict between Federal and state laws will make legalization into a front-page national debate...and I think that'd be a great thing! I'm hoping at the end of the debate we wind up with the Federal ban on marijuana is lifted.

There is intelligent conversation and suggestion, and then there is this. Alcohol is legal, but we don't sell it in schools. Try to use a degree of thought when making a point. While I acknowledge what you attempted to do here, by making a point in the extreme, it falls flat as we live in a society of laws and unless we ignore that, the point you attempted to make is...well, pointless. Decriminalizing drugs and allowing them to be sold in schools is apples and oranges. Infinite liberty is another way of saying total anarchy. We don't live in anarchy, so suggestions that require anarchistic society mean nothing and add nothing to the conversation. Laws exist, such as age limits on alcohol, the legalization of drugs would and could work quite the same. At least then, it's quality controlled.

It's been my experience, throughout my life before I was 21, that it was ALWAYS easier to get illegal drugs than it was to get alcohol.

This isn't a conversation about health care, so I ignored that entire part of the post -- as well as everyone else who touched on health care here. Stay on topic.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/California-Voter-Intimidation-The-Federal-Government#comment-1089059'>^blankfist</a>:<br />@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since November 15th, 2006" href="http://videosift.com/member/campionidelmondo"><STRONG style="COLOR: #2180e2">campionidelmondo</STRONG></A>, I agree with you 100%. That's why I dislike welfare such as universal healthcare and any other system that negates personal responsibility and replaces it with safety nets. <BR><BR>We want open borders? I do. But we must end welfare and government intervention in the health industry, because people will never want to pay for those coming into the country.<BR><BR>We want drugs to be legalized? I do. But we must stop thinking healthcare is the entire country's financial burden, otherwise people will want to tell us what we can or cannot put into your body. <BR><BR>And so on. Where's our fighters for Democratic justice on this topic? @<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since August 5th, 2006" href="http://netrunner.videosift.com/"><STRONG style="COLOR: #0000cd">NetRunner</STRONG></A>, @<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 9th, 2007" href="http://videosift.com/member/dystopianfuturetoday"><STRONG style="COLOR: #000000">dystopianfuturetoday</STRONG></A>, I'm calling you out. <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smile.gif"><BR></em>
So, my question is this. Do you think American hospitals should turn away the dying who cannot afford to pay the doctor's bill? Because if they do not turn them away, I suffer in healthcare premiums...and I also suffer a "fat tax" from fat people. Heck, my job has banned smoking because of the "tax cut" to healthcare we receive.
I am fine with letting people die, so long as those who do not want Obamacare or Universal Healthcare admit their end goal needs to be---no universal healthcare in any shape whatsoever. Treating the near-dead who cannot afford the procedure is definitely Universal Healthcare, but the burden falls on the private sector to soak up the costs and pass it on to the consumer who can pay.
And what about Meth being legalized. Why stop there? Why not allow it to be sold in schools? Why just make it legal? We should free it up completely. Let’s allow it to be sold in schools and theaters and open prostitution—even if the whore has Aids she should be allowed to ply her trade. I am not being sarcastic here—I want your opinion on the matter of infinite liberty.
Meth is far different than any other drugs out there. I see it every day. I pay taxes on the crimes Meth-heads do to get in jail, like stealing and such… Ah, taxation…

>> ^quantumushroom:

The whole world is watching this vote.

Ok let's not get carried away here. This vote isn't gonna change anything. CA should start with decriminalization first. They're not gonna go from locking people up for smoking a joint to completely legalizing it...and they don't need to either. Let's not forget that weed is illegal in Holland and many other countries, but it's still alot better than in the US and not as big a tax burden on the general population.

Imagine my surprise when I misread the title as "Schwarzenegger signs California bill decriminalizing Cannibals".

No. If you break the law and later the law changes, you still broke the law.

There's a good chance you'll be out early or have your sentence lightened, especially in a case like this where one of the primary arguments is, "it's ridiculous that we put people in prison over shit like this", but they have no obligation to release you or give you a break or anything else.

>> ^djsunkid:

So wait, now that pot is decriminalized, do they have to let a whole bunch of people out of prison? How does that work?

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Thank you.

From the video: "The governor opposes a proposition on the November ballot that would decriminalize Marijuana."

This is not decriminalization.>> ^bamdrew:

Not "decriminalized"; description should say:
'Penalty for carrying up to 1 ounce of pot reduced from misdemeanor to infraction; continues a maximum fine of $100, but with no jury trial'
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20018327-503544.html
"The new law does not change the penalties for possession. Currently, carrying up to an ounce of marijuana is punishable by a fine of up to $100; no jail time or probation can be ordered. One key difference, however, is that until now a defendant has been entitled to a jury trial and a defense attorney. By downgrading possession to an infraction, that will no longer be the case.
"In this time of drastic budget cuts, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement, and the courts cannot afford to expend limited resources prosecuting a crime that carries the same punishment as a traffic ticket," Schwarzenegger wrote in a signing statement."
So its all about not spending money on trials and attorneys when folks have small amounts of pot. Not a lot has changed. Hope that clears things up a little.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

I don't smoke. Never have. But I really can't wait for the day were weed is completely decriminalized. Not only do we spend WAY too much money fighting it, but Mexican drug violence has been spilling over the border. Legal weed in US = more people growing it here = less cartels trying to cart it across the border = less violence.


It is so fucking fun to grow, the hobbies people will have when that purple hazed sunset bestows itself on us, it will be a fine day.

I don't smoke. Never have. But I really can't wait for the day were weed is completely decriminalized. Not only do we spend WAY too much money fighting it, but Mexican drug violence has been spilling over the border. Legal weed in US = more people growing it here = less cartels trying to cart it across the border = less violence.