Your 4/20 Film List, Better Almost Late Than Never...

First posted July 08, this list holds up, and Pineapple Express seems appropriately listed at #10. Here's the list pulled out of the old post, to make it easy on you:

1. Big Lebowski (nothing more to be said, really)

2. Cheech & Chong's Next Movie (by far, the best of the C&C films, if you want a truly surreal experience, though, the bowdlerized version they showed on broadcast Fox has to be one of the top ones. They managed to elide all mentions of drug use from a Cheech & Chong film, and somehow transformed the huge bag of pot that Cheech's cousin Red was carrying from pot into diamonds. The sheer audacity and stupidity of creating a version of a Cheech & Chong film that has somehow magically become a non-druggie film just boggles the mind. I doubt you could find this version anymore, I'm sure the DVD version is the original, and I doubt Fox, or anyone else would ever broadcast it again, so, if you saw it, you know exactly what I'm talking about, and if you haven't seen it, then you don't know what you're missing)

3. Dazed and Confused (More about the end of high school than about getting high, and Rickey mentions two people who really didn't have big roles in the film, where the biggest star of the film was clearly Abraham Lincoln head)

4. Friday (seriously, any stoner comedy list that doesn't have this classic included, is very, very misguided, or at least very, very white)

5. Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle (More about the American Dream, than about getting high, but the NPH stuff saves this from being stupid and lame, instead of stupid and awesome)

6. Zardoz (I know you may object to calling this a stoner comedy, but seriously, this film is hilarious, and everyone in it had to have been high as a kite while making it, plus Sean Connery in big red diapers)

7. Topper (Alcohol is a drug, dammit, and this film is damn funny, and seeing ghosts seems pretty trippy to me, so I'm calling this a stoner comedy, and if you don't like it, tough)

8. Pulp Fiction (The first and only 'heroin comedy' ever) UPDATE: Bill in the comments reminds me that Pulp Fiction isn't the first or only 'heroin comedy' as Liquid Sky exists (I just didn't remember it, and when I did remember it, remembered not liking it much), also this review makes a case for Trainspotting being a 'heroin comedy', but I'd classify it more as a drama with occasional comic and absurdist elements.

9. Head (The Monkees film, this film is trippier than it has any right to be, and despite being as dated as hell, has some pretty absurd moments that approach being actually kind of funny)

10. Pineapple Express (This film tentatively holds a space in the top ten, Franco and Rogen together again seems like brilliant casting, and I don't see how this film could possibly go wrong). Turns out it does deserve a spot here, it's a pleasingly goofy, yet strangely violent picture that brings together a lot of talent for a lot of silliness. Franco and Rogen really should do a comedy together on an annual basis, a la Hope/Crosby or Abbott/Costello.

Bonus Pick #11 Smiley Face (that's right, this list goes to 11, and even though the characters in Spinal Tap are likely drug-addled, I'm not counting that as a 'druggie comedy') Anna Faris nails the previously overlooked, hot chick who happens to be a stoner, stereotype that too few comedies explore. She's fantastic in this film, and her misadventure is entertaining.

So, that's my lazy half-assed attempt at acknowledging this ridiculous 4/20 crap. Enjoy.

Your Daily Photo (A Bodacious Day for Buddies of the Bud, or Maybe Not, Edition)

US Attornery General, Eric Holder, claims his Justice Department will back off on prosecution of potheads in states where they've legalized medical marijuana.

This sort of half-assery is not a solution. Sham 'medical' dispensaries, like the one above, are a joke (I don't know for a certainty that the above shop is shady, but given the name, the storefront doctor right next to it, it's location near UCLA, all signs point to shaminess). People who want to get high shouldn't have to commit fraud to do so (in conspiracy with shady doctors). Either stuff should be legal, or not, the 'medical' marijuana loophole is ridiculous.

There's still too large of a grey area, and with that grey area you get selective enforcement. The feds are deferring to states, but even within the states that have legalized the sticky icky, you are going to get politically motivated crackdowns by law enforcement officials who want to burnish their 'law and order' bona fides. The same day the AP reports on AG Holder's new guidelines, there's a story about Los Angeles County District Attorney (and likely 2013 mayoral candidate) Steve Cooley stepping up raids on shops that are suspected of playing a bit loose with the 'medical' aspect of medical marijuana.

Here's what I said on the subject of decriminilization during the election when past statements from then Candidate Obama were making the rounds

I've always found that position asinine. Either something is legal, or not. Decriminilization is a dodge, sets people up for selective prosecution or fines, and makes the job of police and prosecutors more, not less, complicated.

(and if you follow that link, please ignore what I wrote about that Fairey poster, I was very wrong about that one, didn't expect so many to be so eagerly gullible for an Obama-centric cult of personality)

The Ongoing War for Which There is No Political Will to Continue to Fight (Yet it Rages On . . .) WITH Added Bonus Top Ten Stoner Comic Films

Not that war, and not that other war either, no, I'm talking about the War on Pot. Setting aside the larger War on Drugs, the War on Pot coupled with pseudo-legalization of some forms of pot use (and continued criminalization of its commercial cultivation) has created a tremendous tension between local and federal law enforcement in the many states that allow Medical Marijuana.

Prof. Bainbridge notices (by way of commenting on this New Yorker article), and comes out for full legalization (and hints that he may actually inhale from time to time, like probably a good 50-75% of his UCLA colleagues (all departments, not just Law).

(and that statistic is entirely made up, but given the political leanings, the age ranges, and the social classes that make up the faculty, it wouldn't be at all surprising if at least half of the faculty are at least occasional social users of the stuff, if not full on chronic chronic tokers)

So why the hell won't either McCain or Obama come out for full legalization of marijuana at the federal level, along with full amnesty for non-violent offenders currently incarcerated?

Seems like a no-brainer policy position, that actually has widespread support across the political spectrum (for more evidence, at the conservative Michelle Malkin site, in a post about the success the DEA has had transforming themselves into a counter-terrorist organization as well as a drug interdiction agency, a good many commenters advocate for legalizing most drugs, especially pot). Obama used to be sort of for the possibility of thinking about trying on an interim basis a pilot program decriminalizing marijuana (OK, I lied, his position is even slipperier and more namby-pamby than I make it sound).

There's room for either candidate to come forward with a pro-legalization position during the debates, or at the very least a pro - get the federal government out of interdiction of marijuana and leave that particular matter up to the individual states - position. It wouldn't be entirely inconsistent with what either of them have said in the past, and even if it would be portrayed as a 'flip-flop' they could both claim that realities on the ground have changed, the cost of this particular "war" aren't worth it, and the potential windfall that a change in federal policy on this issue could bring far outweigh any possible deleterious social effects caused by an explicitly state's rights stance on marijuana policy.

UPDATE (sort of): Can you update a post that you never got around to posting in the first place? Above was what the original post was supposed to entail, but I got called away before hitting the big orange 'publish post' button, and never got back around to digging up the mentioned links, checking the spelling, and tidying up any poorly worded passages (or at least, poorer than I usually let escape). Below are things added today, July 31st. This post was also partially inspired by this Carrie Rickey list of stoner comedies, which I mostly disagree with. My Stoner top ten would be as follows (and thanks to Bill at So Quoted for jogging my memory with this post):

1. Big Lebowski (nothing more to be said, really)

2. Cheech & Chong's Next Movie (by far, the best of the C&C films, if you want a truly surreal experience, though, the bowdlerized version they showed on broadcast Fox has to be one of the top ones. They managed to elide all mentions of drug use from a Cheech & Chong film, and somehow transformed the huge bag of pot that Cheech's cousin Red was carrying from pot into diamonds. The sheer audacity and stupidity of creating a version of a Cheech & Chong film that has somehow magically become a non-druggie film just boggles the mind. I doubt you could find this version anymore, I'm sure the DVD version is the original, and I doubt Fox, or anyone else would ever broadcast it again, so, if you saw it, you know exactly what I'm talking about, and if you haven't seen it, then you don't know what you're missing)

3. Dazed and Confused (More about the end of high school than about getting high, and Rickey mentions two people who really didn't have big roles in the film, where the biggest star of the film was clearly Abraham Lincoln head)

4. Friday (seriously, any stoner comedy list that doesn't have this classic included, is very, very misguided, or at least very, very white)

5. Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle (More about the American Dream, than about getting high, but the NPH stuff saves this from being stupid and lame, instead of stupid and awesome)

6. Zardoz (I know you may object to calling this a stoner comedy, but seriously, this film is hilarious, and everyone in it had to have been high as a kite while making it, plus Sean Connery in big red diapers)

7. Topper (Alcohol is a drug, dammit, and this film is damn funny, and seeing ghosts seems pretty trippy to me, so I'm calling this a stoner comedy, and if you don't like it, tough)

8. Pulp Fiction (The first and only 'heroin comedy' ever) UPDATE: Bill in the comments reminds me that Pulp Fiction isn't the first or only 'heroin comedy' as Liquid Sky exists (I just didn't remember it, and when I did remember it, remembered not liking it much), also this review makes a case for Trainspotting being a 'heroin comedy', but I'd classify it more as a drama with occasional comic and absurdist elements.

9. Head (The Monkees film, this film is trippier than it has any right to be, and despite being as dated as hell, has some pretty absurd moments that approach being actually kind of funny)

10. Pineapple Express (This film tentatively holds a space in the top ten, Franco and Rogen together again seems like brilliant casting, and I don't see how this film could possibly go wrong)

UPDATE, TOO:

Meant to link the video clip (above) of Obama talking about the possibility of decriminalization, along with the post where I first mentioned it (no jokes about short-term memory problems, please). Of course, the only time this came up in a debate last fall,

above, he "mistakenly" raised his hand to indicate he opposed decriminalization of marijuana (that's a pattern that seems to repeat itself with The Presumptive One), yet he's been very quiet on the subject since, and besides denying changing his position on the issue, has not made any firm commitments as to how he would fight to legalize the ganja as President, or even propose legislation as a Senator (which he could have done for the past 3 and a half years, yet never seems to get around to doing, guess he's too busy doing curls, playing basketball, and running for President).

The Audacity of Dope (Part 712)

(via Drudge)

The Washington Times has dug up a video clip of Sen. Obama speaking to a crowd of college kids back in 2004, and he weakly assents to the possibility that marijuana should be decriminalized (but not legalized).

I've always found that position asinine. Either something is legal, or not. Decriminilization is a dodge, sets people up for selective prosecution or fines, and makes the job of police and prosecutors more, not less, complicated.

But why is this post, The Audacity of Dope (Part 712)? Googling the exact phrase, "the audacity of dope" turns up 711 hits. Hopefully after this post hits blogger, this will be added to the list. Also, the posters above comes from the post that currently sits atop that search. It's good design, but probably not helpful to Obama. It's far too reminiscent of communist agitprop posters(see the blog, A Soviet Poster A Day, for examples), with a vague hint of that famous Che image. The artist in question (manifesto here) probably thinks that's a good thing, and hopes the kind of progress The Obama (he will wash away our sins) will lead us to will be an eventual workers' paradise.

I made some obvious changes to the above photo, I think my version works better on many levels...

Word of the Day (Not Thinking Things Through Edition)

Gobsmacking

Though I favor legalizing the stuff, I must admit that habitual use seems to have an adverse effect on decision making.

Just Cause You're A Criminal Mastermind Doesn't Mean You Can't Be Incredibly Stupid

Propane + High Wattage Lighting = Inevitable Results

A more serious discussion about the seeming proliferation of these suburban 'grow houses' would seem to be in order. Most pot users with access to even a small garden or window planter could grow a significant amount of their personal supply on their own land using good old fashioned solar power. Instead you have criminals buying houses in the suburbs and either stealing electricity off the grid (either from neigbhors or straight off the powerlines, either way, extremely dangerous), or as seems possible from the above story, using propane generators to power lights so as not to tip off law enforcement about their facilities.

Criminalizing pot has only profited criminals, and made everyone else less safe in the process.

Besides that, these hydroponic facilities must have grotesque 'carbon footprints' compared to what similarly sized operations of pot being grown in open fields would have.

So legalize weed, not only to take money away from criminals, not only to make neighborhoods safer, not only cause marijuana sales could add to the government's coffers instead of draining them, but do it for the planet.

Legal weed would be 'greener' weed, and 'greener' is alwasy better, right?


UPDATE:


The irony of doing a pot story on 4/20 is completely lost on me.

How To Convince the Political Class That "The War On Drugs" Must End

It has been beyond obvious that the "War on Drugs" is a bad idea. But it seems impossible to convince very many politicians in either major party at any level to do much about it.

Drug addiction is an awful thing. People do stupid, dangerous and harmful things on drugs and to get the money to fuel their addictions. But criminalization has exasperated rather than mitigated those problems.

So how do you frame the argument against this war to convince politicians to oppose the ongoing war?

Libertarian argument:
This one is a no brainer, libertarians are already against 'the war'. Too bad there are so few libertarians in office.

"Family Values" Social conservative argument:
Drugs are evil, yes, that's undeniable. But the illegality of the drugs themselves punishes people for their very human failings in a manner that is unchristian, unfair, and unamerican. Love the sinner, hate the sin. It's bad enough they sin against their own body, don't make it a crime, also.

"Nanny State" big government liberals argument:
An unregulated market is a dangerous market. Without government oversight, the relative safety and purity of the various things people choose to put in themselves is far too variable. If we legalize drugs, we reduce the 'cool factor' associated with illicit drugs, and we can make sure that the dosages are better controlled. Besides, sin taxes are terrific sources of revenue, and taxing marijuana (while eliminating the wasteful spending on interdiction) alone could fund universal health care as well as many green initiatives.

"Moderate" middle-of-the-road argument:
The 'war' has been wasteful in human terms and in resources. You can dislike drugs personally (or like them), but you can't deny that a certain percentage of people are prone to drug seeking, and will do so no matter what the law says, just as even if every drug under the sun is perfectly legal, the majority of people will either reject them outright, or find a way to balance their drug use with their functioning in their private life, just as they do with alcohol, which is just as toxic, and in many cases, far more toxic than illegal drugs. Punish behaviors, not substances.

So, what would happen to a Bill Richardson, who despite a decent pile of cash, still trails the others substantially, if he took this position early and hit it hard during the primaries? It would add a great deal of heat to his campaign, that's for sure. If you're going to lose anyway, at least lose with a great issue.

Same goes for a Mike Huckabee on the Republican side. He has no chance, none, not even a slim chance. But, if he pushed a sensible plan for first decriminalization and then legalization of illicit drugs, he could find a way to draw in new voters, as well as energize a hidden voting bloc that may decide that this is an issue that could get them to the polls.

Another person who could take advantage of an audacious position on this matter, is Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He's hinted at an independent campaign for president. He could blow $100-200 million dollars of his own money on a vanity campaign and still be rolling in dough. Just as Perot had one main position, anti-NAFTA, and managed to garner a significant number of votes (but no pluralities in any states necessary to get electoral votes), Bloomberg could do well if he staked out a radical position on this issue. As Mayor of New York City, he more than anyone should know what a waste the drug war is, he could use that position to highlight the difference between himself and either of the major party candidates (just as Perot's populist rhetoric on trade attracted voters despite all the other problems with his campaign).

This is mostly a response to Reader I Am's post over at Done With Mirrors (which in of itself is a response to the Huff in HuffPo's post prodding Dem's to attack this issue). It's a good post, well worth reading, and she links to this blast from the past at National Review. Even if William F. Buckley is unwilling to admit he copied me regarding a 'green inquisition' I'm willing to acknowledge he's been way out in front on this particular issue. Speaking of that National Review symposium, way back then Arianna was still a Republican, I wonder if she was at that particular symposium?

And lest it seem I'm advocating Arianna Huffington's position on this matter, making this issue mainly about racial politics is cynical, untruthful, divisive, and harmful. Just as those that feared welfare reform would hurt 'people of color' disproportionately and were wrong, as far as the war on drugs go, it sucks for all Americans, not just 'people of color'. When alcohol was illegal, you could have argued that prohibition was a 'war on Italians and other catholics and recent immigrants' but that would be a gross oversimplification ignoring many realities (and ignoring that a large percentage of the folks involved in the illicit booze trade were indeed Italians, recent immigrants and other catholics, like say the pater familias of a prominent political family). Same goes for calling the current prohibition, a "war on people of color" the way Arianna does. Just cause people of color are disproportionately effected, doesn't mean they are being disproportionately targeted (for political reasons) as would seem to be Huffington's not so implicit suggestion.

The Real Governator Wouldn't Propose Ineffectual Half Measures

If Gov. Schwarzenegger is truly serious about augmenting state revenue generation without raising taxes, a little half-measure like easing the rules on Indian Casinos is a half (and half-assed) measure, at best.

Go all the way, Governator.

Legalized gaming in the state of California makes sense. Let cities zone it out of existence if they choose on a local and individual basis, but in leave it up to each jurisdiction. This ridiculous monopoly enjoyed by a minuscule number of "Indians" (most Indian gaming concerns are run by big corporations on behalf of very, very small bands of Indians) serves a narrow number of interests, whereas broader legalized gaming could produce a tremendous windfall at a fairly minor social cost (folks prone to gambling addictions already have ready access to feed their addiction, greater access to legal gaming choices won't change that).

Obviously, Nevadans would fight tooth and nail to prevent this from happening, isn't that reason enough to go ahead and do it?

And while we're legalizing stuff that does do harm to some people while entertaining many more, Marijuana is a huge cash crop in California, and as a legal crop would be even bigger (while generating positive revenue for the state, instead of costing the state money in law enforcement and eradication efforts). Fight the big battle with the Federal government over antiquated drug laws, stand up for states' rights. California has the resources and standing to challenge previous rulings on a federalized drug policy.