@Jinx
@enoch
@VoodooV

Fair point on acceptance, I guess seeing people on TV smoke it and continue to be productive members of society has its benefits in dispelling the fear around it. Not the best comparison but kind of like how the Cosby Show, Eddie Murphy in 48 Hrs helped bridge racial tolerance in the 80s by exposing whites to black people on TV and in movies.

Totally with you guys on the hypocrisy of policy, and the libertarian argument.

I don't know how much pharmaceuticals actually care about pot legalization. I mean at this point the likes of Pfizer don't do that much actual research. They buy up other drug companies (Allergan is the recent big example) as well as benefiting from government funded basic research.

If anything what they've become specialized in is getting the drugs approved and adhering to regulation (which they probably helped draft and make complicated to keep their advantage). So if anything they should be well placed to be the first to sell pot based drugs in scale when they get fully legalized.

Prisons and law enforcement is a different issue, they do lose out a lot.

He was actually pretty even handed and a major point of his talk was that pot legalization was not going to play out like gay marriage, it was hardly cheer leading.
You agree with the stupidity of the way pot is currently handled under the law and then in your next breath you quote the standard anti pot party line. So I'm not sure what you're saying here, are you genuinely of two minds on the issue?

Congratulations! Your comment on glenn beck talks about pot legalization and looks foolish has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Pot-Legal-in-2-States-Drug-Czars-Panic-TYT

*related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Dude-Abides-And-So-Can-You

Pot Legal in 2 States, Drug Czars Panic -- TYT has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

"The Dude" Abides [And So Can You] has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

Addressing Cenk's question of why Obama is so hard-right on the issue of pot legalization, I agree with Bill Maher's take: Obama does not wish to go down in history as the president that legalized pot. It would tend to advance the stereotype of black people as being big pot smokers. In Obama's mind, it's enough being the first black president as well as the first president to ever address health care in a meaningful way. Federal pot legalization is an issue he's happy to let a future president tackle.

And the degree to which he's opposed pot legalization (by raiding more head shops than Bush II) is simply meant to undercut that stereotype. Like a "see how black I'm not" kind of thing.

Four reasons I want pot legalized:
1) Don't want a beer gut or a charred liver
2) No hangovers
3) Cheaper than booze
4) Nobody has ever died from cannabis overdose

To be fair, within the same response she also expressed some support for legalizing small amounts for possession. At least it's a step in softening existing drug laws in most states.

It would be cool if the secretary of state were for legalization, but I don't think anyone can expect we're there yet. It will take a sustained and gradual shift in public attitude. That seems to be what's happening, and maybe in a decade it won't be political suicide for an administration to support pot legalization.

Interview text:
http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2011/January/20110125162820su0.454414.html&distid=ucs

Wasn't angry. Capitals and other formatting just used for effect. I apologize if I came off that way.

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
You lost me completely. I understand the difference between legal and illegal. There is no meaningful distinction between something that has been decriminalized and legal. People use "decriminalized" to still place the moral bad sign on something while advocating it's non-criminal status; a way of labeling something bad and yet having it be legal. The phrase is all about having your moral cake, and eating it too. Didn't mean to excite your anger there, was just asking what you saw as a difference, if any, between something that is decriminalized, and something that is legal, because for me, it is semantically the same.

>> ^curiousity:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/GeeSussFreeK" title="member since August 1st, 2008" class="profilelink">GeeSussFreeK
This is bad in two ways: (1) the can be cut with harmful (varying degrees) substances to increase overall profit and (2) this can greatly affect the strength of the substance - which leads to accidental overdoses.


I'd like to see someone cut by buds with anything without me noticing it.

Love it when the replies get all messed up like this...

>> ^curiousity:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/GeeSussFreeK" title="member since August 1st, 2008" class="profilelink">GeeSussFreeK
It is still illegal when it is decriminalized; it is typically that the punishment moves from the criminal justice system to a one that typically focuses on harm reduction for the individual caught. In a way it is like being taken to civil court instead of criminal court - you could have some punishment, but the risk of going to jail is gone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_liberalization#Drug_decriminalization

Article about how Portugal's decriminalization works:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug
-decriminalization


Interesting! You see, that is a misconception I had about decriminalization, that it was in essence removing all consequence from said action. Didn't realize it just changed it to a fine instead of time. Still less than ideal, and even more prone to abuse I would think...but a move in the right direction.

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

You lost me completely. I understand the difference between legal and illegal. There is no meaningful distinction between something that has been decriminalized and legal. People use "decriminalized" to still place the moral bad sign on something while advocating it's non-criminal status; a way of labeling something bad and yet having it be legal. The phrase is all about having your moral cake, and eating it too. Didn't mean to excite your anger there, was just asking what you saw as a difference, if any, between something that is decriminalized, and something that is legal, because for me, it is semantically the same.


>> ^Payback:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I understand the political difference, in the world of real things, I don't understand there to be any difference. What do you see as the big difference?


No big difference? Illegal is NOTHING like criminal, but nor is it LEGAL.
Would you want to walk beside, or ride a bike along, a street after speeding was deemed legal?
How about driving in a city that legalized running red lights and stop signs?
How about investing when the SEC legalizes misleading advertising for brokerages? skip that, already done...
How about eating store-bought food after the Food and Drug administration legalizes the use of the myriad substances they've banned throughout the years as poisonous or carcenogenic?
HUGE difference between legal and illegal. It's not as big a difference as between legal and criminal but, it's still a real, marked difference.
Mr. Robertson is just one of those people who has admitted that parking in a handicapped space doesn't deserve 5-7 years in prison.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I understand the political difference, in the world of real things, I don't understand there to be any difference. What do you see as the big difference?



No big difference? Illegal is NOTHING like criminal, but nor is it LEGAL.

Would you want to walk beside, or ride a bike along, a street after speeding was deemed legal?
How about driving in a city that legalized running red lights and stop signs?
How about investing when the SEC legalizes misleading advertising for brokerages? skip that, already done...
How about eating store-bought food after the Food and Drug administration legalizes the use of the myriad substances they've banned throughout the years as poisonous or carcenogenic?

HUGE difference between legal and illegal. It's not as big a difference as between legal and criminal but, it's still a real, marked difference.

Mr. Robertson is just one of those people who has admitted that parking in a handicapped space doesn't deserve 5-7 years in prison.

>> ^Payback:

To be fair, Robertson never said he was for legalizing pot, just decriminalizing it. BIG difference.


I understand the political difference, in the world of real things, I don't understand there to be any difference. What do you see as the big difference?