>> ^spoco2:

Does no one else find it a little sad that people find smoking weed so central to their lives that they feel compelled to cheer on people doing it in movies?
Surely once it gets to the point where one of the things you identify yourself as is a smoker of weed, you are letting it take up too much of your life?
Do people who drink really watching someone else on screen drink and go 'Fuck yeah man, he's drinking! I drink too! Fuck yeah, I LOVE him!'


I agree with the guy below you in that it has to do with the legality and the social perception of it. Look at any group that partakes in something that straddles the line of socially acceptable or legal and you'll find a group that feels a kinship toward each other. Particularly so if the person identifies themself as such outwardly.

I'd imagine people that say "yeah man smoke it up famous people" are people who willingly identify themselves as regular smokers or "pot heads" or "stoners." For such people this is popular culture and iconic scenes saying "yo man smoking is fine or fun or at least not some horribly illegal activity" to which they say "hell yeah I agree!"

Also for me I like the fact that it brings into question the perception that many people who are more radically against it hold. For many weed is just a lighter drug thats a step or two further than alcohol but for many it's a social cancer and the beginnings of harder crimes and drugs.

For me the common use of it in popular culture and on shows that tend to be on FX, Showtime, HBO, etc. just goes to show it for what it is...a fairly benign form of intoxication that is as close to large scale acceptability as anything besides alcohol has been. It shows it's not that different from people whom get intoxicated from alcohol on a semi-common basis. I would argue that many of my professional friends and colleagues have just as damaging results from their social drinking as I do from smoking and I'd be the first to say that my personal use is greater than theirs.

As a stoner, I'd be surprised to see these same attitudes and emotions surrounding it's use persist if it was legalized or decriminalized as that would take away the social aspect of "we chose to dismiss the law/society and partake in this activity we both enjoy" but it would take many years if not a generation or two for the old ideas to fall off.

@chingalera yes, he would decriminalize the use of drugs while commenting on videosift!

>> ^petpeeved:

De-criminalize all drugs in the United States. Make them available and cheap with a prescription from an MD. along with mandatory attendance at a drug counselor. Voila, no more drug lords, no more massacres.
I'd also be willing to venture that the same people who are using drugs now, will be the ones using them after decriminalization while the ones not currently using, won't turn into druggies just because they can access them legally.


Yah I wonder why they won't do the ONE thing the drug lords DON'T want, which is to make drugs legal. The thing that upsets me the most about this is that because an essentially harmless plant has been made ilegal, thousands upon thousands of people die every year, for what? Nothing...

De-criminalize all drugs in the United States. Make them available and cheap with a prescription from an MD. along with mandatory attendance at a drug counselor. Voila, no more drug lords, no more massacres.

I'd also be willing to venture that the same people who are using drugs now, will be the ones using them after decriminalization while the ones not currently using, won't turn into druggies just because they can access them legally.

>> ^Quboid:

Phrases like "big government" or "small government" don't belong in any serious discussion with the possible exception of extreme communism and libertarianism.

Good thing I was just making a joke then.

Is this a good time to point out that government health care pretty much guarantees no drug decriminalization for the foreseeable future? That's one that yanks me in both directions: I support decriminalization and I was also for the public option.

Although it's counter-intuitive the case of Portugal suggests that you are less likely to see people overdosing in front of you under legalization than prohibition. Does this alter your views?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization
>> ^jmd:

Looks like cops and a dose of Mr Obvious.
The war on drugs is because a significant part of the population does not want drugs in their country. Now is it having a huge impact on us because of our poverty rates? yea.. if anything it is a holocaust on the dollar bill. The more we spend on drug wars, the more people that get poorer. There isn't a GOOD ending to this scenario.. either we stop fighting it or it will eventually makes us broke.. how ever...
Still doesn't stop the fact that we don't want these types of drugs around, or the people that use them. Find a different country if you want to shoot up. A country I can't go around without seeing people overdosing in front of me is not a country I wan't to live in.

As usual, this clip and the article's headline confuse decriminalization with legalization. They are not the same.

>> ^renatojj:

@VoodooV I think "they" bash mostly socialist policies coming from Europe, but decriminalizing drugs would not qualify as socialism, quite the opposite, it's freedom of choice, personal responsability.


No, they bash things from Europe after being told that they're socialist policies. To determine whether or not they actually are socialist you have to look at logic and facts, but as looking at logic and facts is its self socialist/atheist (same thing), then questioning Fox/God/GOP/Limbaugh is socialist. And you don't want to be a socialist, do you? No. Then shut up and believe what you're told.

@VoodooV I think "they" bash mostly socialist policies coming from Europe, but decriminalizing drugs would not qualify as socialism, quite the opposite, it's freedom of choice, personal responsability.

Your video, What Happened When Portugal Decriminalized Drugs? -- TYT, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Billo used to say he was for decriminalizing pot.

Fucking Hypocrite.

I did not watch the video, but the answer is NO.

He will not legalize or decriminalize or do anything productive for the cause.

He is a swindler like everyone else who says they will do something about it. He has proven that very much with the raids in California within the last month ( and months prior). He talks the talk but doesn't have any interest in walking the walk.

Just wait until his second term starts. It wouldn't be the best idea to start raving about decriminalizing marijuana when you're trying to get re-elected in the United States. After he gets elected you never know what he'll do...

>> ^lsue:

Well I have to say that I disagree with you regarding your stance on late term abortions. I don't believe it should be criminal (for either doctor or patient) to undertake a medical procedure which concerns your own health and well-being. The point of the removal of laws against abortion is to decriminalize, not to encourage late term abortions or make them commonplace. What good would criminalization do?
But regardless of this disagreement, I felt that your first comment describing Canada's lack of abortion legislation "right up until the last second before birth" largely simplifies a complex issue and undermines the regulations which exist to get women the proper care when they need it (early in their pregnancy). This is why I replied.. I didn't mean to provoke an argument.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> Criminal laws on/against abortion are a federal matter though. And Canada has for some time now very clearly established that there is NO LAW against abortions. Current Canadian federal law in ALL provinces and territories makes all abortion, even up to 9 months, perfectly and completely legal.



But criminal law is an enormous part of the entire debate. Currently in Canada, it is perfectly and 100% legal to kill a fetus 1 hour before going in for a c-section. It is equally and completely 100% illegal, and considered one of the highest crimes in the nation to kill that exact same baby 2 hours later once the c-section has been completed. I say that's madness and more than just a little bit troubling.

I think you are far to quick to dismiss that situation as irrelevant or unimportant.

Well I have to say that I disagree with you regarding your stance on late term abortions. I don't believe it should be criminal (for either doctor or patient) to undertake a medical procedure which concerns your own health and well-being. The point of the removal of laws against abortion is to decriminalize, not to encourage late term abortions or make them commonplace. What good would criminalization do?

But regardless of this disagreement, I felt that your first comment describing Canada's lack of abortion legislation "right up until the last second before birth" largely simplifies a complex issue and undermines the regulations which exist to get women the proper care when they need it (early in their pregnancy). This is why I replied.. I didn't mean to provoke an argument.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> Criminal laws on/against abortion are a federal matter though. And Canada has for some time now very clearly established that there is NO LAW against abortions. Current Canadian federal law in ALL provinces and territories makes all abortion, even up to 9 months, perfectly and completely legal.