I think Maher's cheer leading goes a bit overboard. Yes, criminalizing it or even banning it is ridiculous. But fact is, for some people it becomes a bad habit. Any mind altering drug, think alcohol, can be abused to escapism and avoiding problems. We don't know the long term effects of it either so you kind of have to accept you're a test dummy if you use it.

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?

I'm genuinely curious. Why won't support for legalization play out like gay marriage? If anything it will go faster.

pot has been legal for a long time before it became illegal. It's only illegal because of corporate interest and a decades long fear campaign against it.

Meanwhile homosexuality gaining acceptance is pretty astounding considering for how long it has been rejected and ostracized.

Now of course, homosexuality acceptance is about human beings and marijuana legalization is about a plant so I'll grant you a difference there. But once it's shown that the states that did legalize it aren't falling into chaos and lawlessness, the fear mongering is going to die a quick death.

@00Scud00

I don't think they're mutually exclusive views. Giving pot users a criminal record or incarcerating them is terrible social policy but I don't think it's something he should so unabashedly encourage. I've watched him for a while and he tends to glorify it on the show as something cool and trendy rather than just be for decriminalization.

@RedSky
Does he really glorify it any more than we already glorify drinking or smoking (smoking to a lesser extent). Advertising still tells us that it's not really a party unless you're getting hammered, depending on what you're drinking you are hipper, sexier, or just plain more fun. I see most glorification of pot as just a response to the over the top demonization of pot, so just decriminalize it already and eventually it will all reach equilibrium.
@VoodooV
Like he said, it's the corporate interests that will make the difference. They might pay lip service to social conservative causes like abortion, gay rights, etc but the only thing they really care about is the bottom line.
Gay marriage was a total non issue to them, but big pharma, law enforcement, the military industrial complex, tobacco, the prison industrial complex, and many others have a vested interest in keeping pot illegal. They will spend millions or even billions to keep the status quo. Once people saw gay marriage as an issue of civil rights it got a huge boost, but the legalization of marijuana is still seen by many as just a cause for stoners, pot heads and junkies, so nobody is really going to care.

@00Scud00

Well I mean that's kind of like the torture "they did it to us" argument. Point is you don't have to promote it like alcohol while pointing out the harm its legal treatment does. I mean do you really doubt there are people who abuse pot and are encouraged by Maher's segments? You don't have to give up your own sense of right and wrong just to promote a cause and win the battle of ideas against the 'other'.

I doubt many people who abuse pot are doing or continue to do it just because Bill Maher said it was cool. For me, much of this is about consistency, alcohol is demonstrably worse than pot in almost every way and yet we not only allow it, but embrace it. The logical inconsistency of it all damn near makes my head explode.

@00Scud00

I don't disagree that alcohol and tobacco policy is hypocritical and yes alcohol is worse, but that still doesn't change the fact that pot can be abused and if you have a megaphone, making it sound cool doesn't help.

Also, I would say promoting using it alongside legalization actually worsens arguments for decriminalization in general because rather than focusing on it how it ruins lives and job prospects, detractors can just paint you as someone who wants to get high. I think those who don't use pot are better advocates.

yeah, but unless you're going to go to the level of attempting to ban alcohol and cigarettes and all the other things that are demonstrably harmful when overdone, there's nothing wrong with what Bill is doing here.

The problem is, Maher is pretty much one of the more vocal spokespeople for legalized marijuana. He's only reinforcing the people who were already supportive. Obviously by the reaction of the Jeb supporter lady, she wasn't convinced or swayed.

One of the things that helped legalization gain strides was the recession. Even conservatives were considering legalizing and taxing it if only to help the budget. Now that the recession is effectively over. That steals some of the urgency away and now they can go back to being against it for ideological reasons, where pragmatism isn't needed as much.

So we need to start publicizing the financial benefits of legalization. It's my understanding that Colorado has been getting tons of new revenue because of legalization, but for some reason, that's not advertised more. Or showing things that dispel the usual myths about marijuana that people have been clinging to for decades.

Detractors gonna detract.

You know, you try and please all the people and you will just undermine your own position. I disagree with Maher that it is all about money, I think pot has an image problem too - you know the stereotypes. I don't think the way to confront that is to hide recreational pot use as if it was a thing to be ashamed of. I think some really don't think it is possible to smoke pot and, you know, have a job or be a contributing member of society. Isn't it about time to dispel that myth?

@RedSky

here is what i don't get.
how is it the governments business what i ingest in my own body for whatever reason?

may be it is for the relief of pain.
may be it is to alleviate stress or mental anguish,and even,in some cases,mental illnesses.
or maybe i just want to get high.

i realize you have already addressed the hypocrisy and horrible execution of,what basically comes down to a social issue,but how is this the governments business?

the science is in and weed has been proven to be fairly harmless,even in abusive situations.

the biggest problem america faces today,which includes booze and smokes,is prescription pain medication.which is basically heroin addiction,but since pain pills do not hold the stigma of heroin,it is not been addressed in any substantive way.oh..this country is arresting people in droves for selling and carrying but almost nary a PEEP in the form of education.

so why is government stepping into my business?
something i engage in at home,bother nobody and keep to myself.yet i am still deemed a criminal.yet my crime is a victimless crime.

if i drive my car,or operate heavy machinery while high,that is a different story and the law should be applied exactly as it is with booze for the exact same reasons.

the state should get out of my house and stop telling me which intoxicants are "state approved",because,quite frankly..i dont give it a shit.

this archaic and destructive social policy needs to go the way of the do-do.it serves no purpose any longer,and the massive propaganda campaign that was initiated by henry anslinger at the behest of big textile in the fucking 40's should not be given even the remotest credibility by todays standards.

people like their hooch.no matter what form it takes and the government has zero business dictating which "hooch" we choose.

The gov't will always have varying degrees of "business" when it comes to things like this. And it will always change, because of varying interests. Private industry is largely responsible for why marijuana is illegal now. So you can't really treat gov't as this outside, independent authority, because it's going to respond according to enough voters or through lobbyists who are, effectively, us. Gov't is just caught in the middle between those various forces.

Shit changes though. Just look at cigarette smoking. Cigarettes used to be pretty harmless, until business got ahold of it and added all sorts of shit to it. Not only that, but it really wasn't that long ago that you pretty much had to smoke if you wanted to be socially accepted. Now the tables have turned. Smokers are pretty much shamed now. If you want to blame gov't for that, fine, but again, as I said before, we are the gov't. either through votes or through lobbyist influence.

You can look back at past gov't decisions and make judgements, sure, but that's hindsight. There's always going to be this dynamic of "Gov't should regulate X, but gov't shouldn't regulate Y" and every person has a funny way of evaluating such things and they don't always reflect reality, but some do.

But even when something is legalized like marijuana, there's always going to be some sort of regulation, like now, it's being regulated through taxation. Cigarette taxation is also a thing. A bartender acts like a regulator when they cut you off from drinking. Don't like it? don't drink there then.

@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.

@VoodooV
i hear ya man,social norms and levels of acceptability.
and i really dont have an issue with government regulations.which could address purity,level of THC,safety issues.

My opinion is any natural "drug" should be legal. Any substance that is found in nature, with minimal processing should be absolutely 100% legal, no doubt about it.

The irony of this is that there are still great legal natural "drugs" out there. They still allow San Pedro (mescaline), you can still easily buy Morning Glory (LSA similar to LSD), you can still buy plants to create ayahuasca and extract DMT, you can still buy Yopo seeds and snort that shit (5 MEO DMT) and obviously everyone knows about Salvia.

The only reason I can think of that these haven't been scheduled is due to the fact that they never became very popular/rampant in popular culture.

And now they have more to deal with - due to the banning of weed and stuff people want like MDMA - everyday dangerous new analogs (far more dangerous than the real stuff) come out which are "legal" until banned. They ought to just let people do what they want to do and let the "free market" sort it out like the capitalist bullshit they propagate everywhere else. There are successful working models out there to guide the little boy blue.

Much like crack, it's an easy way to keep US prisons full of poor black folk who rely on overworked public defenders after getting busted holding...

And while it's illegal, various law enforcement agencies get to inflate their budgets to deal with the war on drugs.

All comes down to money.