A conversation about California’s Prop 19, which would legalize marijuana in the state, took an interesting turn on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher Friday night when guest Zach Galifianakis lit up a joint. “It’s a tricky thing politically to jump on that bandwagon ’cause I think that maybe people see it as taboo still,” Galifianakis said before pulling out his lighter. A rep for Galifianakis, however, was less certain when contacted by EW, saying, “I believe it was a prop.”)
In the meantime recent study claims alcohol more dangerous than heroin or crack. Is this the beginning of a new prohibition?
Ha!
This is the same d-bag that has a problem with Mel Gibson having a two minute cameo in one of his adolescent movies. But, he didn’t seem to have a problem working with convicted rapist Mike Tyson. Hollyweird.
“In the meantime recent study claims alcohol more dangerous than heroin or crack. Is this the beginning of a new prohibition?” – Remember who brought on the original prohibition … Progressives. Fortunately tomorrow they are about to lose their lock on power.
Naw … that is just tobacco. LOL.
This video is probably getting more views due to Dvorak Uncensored than it did on Maher’s pitiful show.
Hey Pedro–been feeding your donkey??????
Progressive: Defined: Anyone I don’t like, as in: I saw a progressive yesterday starting to jaywalk and another progressive was driving too fast in their car and the progressives didn’t time the traffic lights correctly-so there was almost a traffic accident. Fortunately, there was a selfless Republican in the crowd who yelled just in time. Thank God for Republicans!!! Is that about it dismal? Ha, Ha. Whadda dope.
New pole just in: people who sit on poles are polled. Move along.
“Alcohol more dangerous …” – probably means higher taxes on the old alki !!!
Considering all the carnage and property damage from drunk driving, “It’s a good thing” !
#3
Actually it was conservative religious temperance movement types.
Not progressives.
People that were seeing the drug use in the US exploding with liquor being its number one offender.
Cursor_
Meh, who cares. A guy lighting up a joint on tv, or smoking joints all day long in his house won’t destroy this country only that person.
What is a danger to this country is runaway government spending, and neo-lib policies. Let the guy smoke himself into oblivion as far as I care, as long as he is not hurting anyone else it shouldn’t be an issue.
Where was this filmed? Even if it were a prop he’s probably in NY or CA, where it’s illegal to smoke (tobacco) indoors. So maybe an e-cig wrapped in rolling paper? But I agree it’s as phony as Maher’s laugh track.
It is a scientifically proven fact that marijuana is a ‘gateway’ drug that leads to people going to college and becoming a lawyer, or even worse, a journalist ….
According to Maher, it was a clove cig. I smoke one or two myself once a week or so when I steal one from a friend.
Federal Law Prevails..
#2 Bobkat,
The answer to your question is simple: Tyson did not offended the Jews.
#3 and #9
The umph to pass the Volstead Act came from women, who were in a panic about their men coming back from the war with a taste for liquor, and who were on a roll, getting the right to vote just a year later.
Oh, and Volstead was a Republican!
Wow, a sweaty, unfunny doper. Great stuff!
This isn’t helping the cause. Two-step back-pedaling isn’t helping the cause. Sometimes an asshole is just an asshole.
Personally, I don’t want to be in a room with someone smoking tobacco or weed. Your drug enters my system against my consent. That’s not an issue with alcohol. Also, I drink alcohol but have never been tipsy, buzzed or drunk, but I doubt anyone has smoked marijuana without getting high. Please enlighten me if otherwise.
I have no problem with people using marijuana by eating it or whatever, as long as they stay off the roads when high, just as people who drink alcohol to get a buzz on should stay off the roads (but they don’t).
#11,
Goldbug, NY actually has a clause in the law that allows smoking on stage for theatrical purposes. I have no idea if CA law has such a clause.
Besides, it was obviously a protest act, and last time I checked true protest did not care too much for niceties.
spsffan, quit posting all those pesky facts.
GOOD FOR HIM! Let’s get back to rationality and fact based science on this issue and not magic and superstition. Alcohol is VASTLY more dangerous by orders of magnitude. Compare the number of driving deaths due to alcohol vs marijuana. Compare domestic violence fueled by alcohol compared to violence fueled by “only” marijuana. Compare shootings and bar fights fueled by alcohol compared to fights broken up by the cops caused only by marijuana.
Anything that alters you (an intoxicant) will have an impact on your body, but marijuana is simply HUNDREDS of times safer than vodka, scotch and gin. And lets not even get into cigarettes which are KNOWN to directly cause cancer at a rate nearly infinitely higher than marijuana (which isn’t carcinogenic but some studies have indicated a risk from inhaling in smoke form, but at thousands of times less of a risk than tobacco).
There just is no science or rational reason for the government to say ONE PERSON can go to CostCo and legally buy crate of Merlot, keg of beer, 5 bottles of gin, and a cartoon of cigarettes, but not have a joint on them. That’s irrational. That’s superstition. That’s not fact based. That’s not reality based. That’s F**KING stupid.
P.S. Where are the “small government” libertarians on this issue? Shouldn’t Palin and the Tea Party be on this…it’s extra government regulation and spending on something that doesn’t need it…they should be on board with the science community. The main stream Democratic and Republican parties are just as bad on this issue.
For that matter, where are all the “state’s rights” defenders here? What is it, the states can only have rights on fascist legislation?
Alcohol kills more people because it’s more easily detected and, because of its legality, more prevalent. If there was an easy test to determine a person’s intoxication under marijuana then the numbers might be different.
Driving intoxicated at any time is stupid. And it doesn’t matter is they are stoned on booze, legal pain killers, or cough syrup.
I don’t encourage or recommend smoking anything. But what I’d like to say is that, the Tobacco industry succeeded in defeating a legal alternative to their product. Legalizing MJ, would likely have reduced its use, with those who used it because of the thrill of a forbidden thing. And of course, others would try it, and likely (for the most part) reject it. And a small percentage, would continue to use MJ. But I doubt there would be this huge MJ usage onslaught. However the Tobacco industry is just paranoid enough to believe their own hype, that it would kill cigarette sales. If they can control and profit the use of MJ weed. They’re not gonna allow anyone else to profit from it either. That’s what the whole controversy really was about. But the media refused to mention it. That’s how Tobacco-Wipped they are.
Isn’t this the same punk whose panties were in a wad over being in a movie with a Mel Gibson cameo? What a 1st Amendment defender!