Comcast First to Air Medical Marijuana Ad

Latest example of our rapidly changing times when it comes to marijuana: Comcast accepted and has begun airing an ad for medical marijuana. The ad is by MarijuanaDoctors and will be seen on a variety of channels between 10 pm and 5 am.

The commercial draws a parallel between a “shady” street dealer attempting to push “unsafe” sushi to unsuspecting buyers, and medical marijuana patients being forced to obtain their medication in a similar fashion. MarijuanaDoctors.com draws this parallel in an attempt to prove the severity of consulting physicians in order to obtain medical marijuana for terminal & debilitating medical conditions where the doctor may recommend that the benefits of medical marijuana outweigh the risks of in order to improve a patients overall health.

You can view the ad below: [More...]

Among the channels the ad will appear on: A&E, AMC, FOX, CNBC, CNN, COMEDY CENTRAL BRAVO, DISCOVERY, ESPN, FX, FOOD NETWORK, HGTV, and HISTORY.

I think the ad is clever and funny, but I think this ad that NORML entered in a contest to have shown during the Superbowl (but didn't win, although it was the most popular in early voting) is more effective. The guy in the marijuanadoctors.com ad was so sleazy, I was glad when it was over. I had no desire to see it again. The NORML ad, on the other hand, had me nodding in agreement with each quickly made point. I think it has the potential to move people to action.

That said, I think just the fact that the marjuanadoctors.com ad is airing is a huge accomplishment. It's also a welcome indicator that it's a brave new world out there for legalization.

< Capetown Police Brutality Captured on Video | Friday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Govt controled vice (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by ragebot on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 08:11:43 AM EST
    can't offer the same service as private vice.

    Classic example is gambling.  While govt run lotteries are available nation wide there is still plenty of non govt gambling.  One big reason is non govt gambling offers gambling on credit, something govt does and will not do.

    Same goes for pot.  There are many folks who buy a pound sell 15 oz bags and keep the last one for personal use.  No way the govt will provide that service.

    I am mostly a libertarian who would like to see fewer laws, not more; and is happy to see laws repealed, including laws against pot.  But I am under no illusion that legalizing pot will stop folks from selling it on the side.

    Why would that be a problem? (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 08:28:10 AM EST
    There are many folks who buy a pound sell 15 oz bags and keep the last one for personal use.  No way the govt will provide that service.

    My roomates and I will chip in together for a bulk package of razor blades from Costco, and we'll chip in together on bulk pot for a better price.  What's the big deal?  As long as it's purchased legally somewhere along the line, some taxes are being paid.

    Unless you're talking about selling homegrown, in which case how is that different than a roadside fruit stand selling their homegrown fruit?  If they're not licensed or collecting taxes they are subject to prosecution, that won't change.

    "Off the books" dealings exist in every business, it's nothing unique to marijuana.

    PS...You can legally gamble on the arm, every legal casino I've ever been in offers credit card cash advances and/or a line of credit if you qualify.


    About 20 yr ago I did a lot of work (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by scribe on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 12:05:59 PM EST
    for a number of casinos, filing and prosecuting the suits against gamblers who'd signed a marker that bounced.  5k here, 10k there, they wanted to keep playing and signed that marker.

    We had a literal wall of side-pull file drawers full of files, each about an inch thick (b/c that's all the thicker a default judgment suit wound up being) in favor of casinos.  Some debtor sold his house - boom, we'd collect when the judgment search turned up our judgment.  Some weeks we'd get one, some we'd get ten or twenty.  Bread and butter work.  

    The county courts where casinos are situated are all judgment factories.  And that's b/c the casinos allow gambling on credit.


    And, the car dealers (none / 0) (#15)
    by NYShooter on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 12:45:48 PM EST
    who allow car purchases on credit?

    When I was (none / 0) (#16)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 01:44:10 PM EST
    in law school a long time ago, a classmate from Las Vegas offered in Contracts class that until recently (back then) gaming debts were considered immoral and unenforceable under the law.  So, I asked how do the casinos enforce their debts.

    Ha, ha.  Anyway making debts legal is better than the drugs wars we have now.


    All good... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 03:09:01 PM EST
    certainly no advertising necessary here...the sacrament advertises itself in my eyes! ;)

    That being said, since advertising for hard liquor is back on the tube, and beer has always been on the tube...marijuana can be on the tube.


    I am for equal treatment (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 04:57:29 PM EST
    I would ban advertising on t.v. for all of it.

    Give the FDA the power to do that.

    Let people be.  But we can do things to discourage addiction and the use of consciousness altering drugs.  And we can do more with alcohol education.  I have to look again but the  Amendment repealing Prohibition gives the government and the states significant regulatory power over the sale of alcohol.

    I would regulate the daylights out of the sale of drugs.  Tax it.  Prohibit advertising.  Still make it a crime to sell to minors.  Publicly discourage their use.  In other words, no public MJ designated smoking areas as they have for tobacco.  In order to that, I suppose it would still be necessary to keep the drugs technically illegal.  But if so, I would make a misdemeanor akin to a jay walking ticket.

    Sorry, K-dog, I am all for the decriminalizing of drugs, but drug and alcohol abuse are a serious scourge.    


    To be sure... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 08:54:30 AM EST
    alcohol and drug addiction and abuse are a legit societal problem...that has little to nothing to do with marijuana.

    No need for a designated outdoor smoking space...I've managed for 20 years designating my own smoking space.

    I could certainly live with a ban on all drug advertising...can we start with the ED drugs and anything that may cause side effects that include rectal bleeding? ;) But big pharma ain't gonna like it, how will we know what ails us without being told by big pharma? lol


    I don't buy that pot (none / 0) (#28)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 12:37:22 PM EST
    is completely non-addictive for everyone. I knew a guy who couldn't go a day without it and practically climbed the walls when he couldn't find any. Just saying.

    And this artificial dichotomy between "psychologically addictive" and "physically addictive" I don't completely buy either: mind and body are part of one system and maybe, as Gregory Bateson used to say, one system of systems. Of course the famous "addictive personality" comes into play here big time..  


    It's not physically addictive... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 12:52:53 PM EST
    like alcohol or heroin...that's just science jondee.

    Of course, it can be habit forming and/or mentally addictive like pretty much anything...television, sex, accumulating wealth, Talkleft, what have you.  I sure as hell have made a habit of it, and I can and will get cranky if I want it and don't/can't have it...but that's a far cry from physical dependence and withdrawal and all that mess.


    science changes all the time, bro (none / 0) (#32)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 01:03:12 PM EST
    I'm not claiming I think it's seriously physically addictive for people, just that it may be for some for heretofore little understood reasons. We also have to take into consideration the tremendous increase in THC content and how DIFFERENT people react to that..

    All that said, I'm also in favor of complete decriminalization. As Dr Tim said, "Just Say Know."


    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 01:10:59 PM EST
    once we're over the decriminalization/legalization hurdle I welcome more study.  Another way the law has f8cked us is it has prevented meaningful study.

    "Just say know"...amen to that.  Everbody is different, to be sure...all I know is what works for me.


    Not for advertising (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 01:48:10 PM EST
    I am for decriminalizing drugs.  No one should go to jail for using or selling drugs.

    But, I am opposed to advertising for them (Sorry, kdog.)  

    Perhaps the biggest scourge we face is drug and alcohol abuse.  Just because we do not put people in jail for these offenses does not mean these substances do not cause tremendous harm.

    We as a society need to learn to live life without conscious altering drugs or excessive alcohol.  Jail doesn't help.  But we can and should prohibit advertising imo.

    Brave new world indeed... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 08:13:28 AM EST
    it's been many rivers to cross to get here, but I think we're just about there...the end of the tyranny and stupidity of marijuana prohibition is at hand man.  

    We got marijuana commercials on tv for goodness sake!  Still hard to believe the progress of the last few years...and the progress is accelerating.

    Have you seen this? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 10:16:23 AM EST
    I had not... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 10:29:40 AM EST
    good for Gupta, better late than never.

    Does he actually practice medicine anymore? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 10:35:55 AM EST
    Only on TV...n/t ;) (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 10:39:25 AM EST
    One article stated he is a noted (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 10:40:51 AM EST

    More business for him (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 12:14:17 PM EST
    This should warm your heart then (none / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 10:15:59 AM EST
    The Republican Party's Pot Problem

    [Mary Katherine]Ham, who frequently spars with the Fox News anchor Bill O'Reilly on the subject, argued that the truly conservative position is to let people make their own choices and to avoid wasting taxpayer dollars enforcing laws that don't seem to work and that often have negative consequences. Even if legalization ends up having unanticipated negative consequences, she said, those should be weighed against the lives no longer ruined by the drug war and the "moral value" of increased freedom.

    Similar views appear to be gaining currency in a Republican Party that has increasingly turned away from the tough-on-crime stance that was once its signature domestic issue. (Remember Willie Horton?) In 2012, the official GOP platform discarded its old war-on-drugs plank in favor of a softer stance, and many in the party support criminal-justice reforms to reduce prison spending and sentencing disparities.

    But CPAC is a gathering that draws much of its attendance from college students and skews libertarian. (Indeed, Dymowski is a Libertarian Party candidate for Maryland attorney general.) Based on that, I wondered if the beating Beach had taken was an anomaly, not representative of the dynamic of the broader conservative movement.

    I put that question to Beach after the panel. But he said no--basically every conversation he has with his fellow conservatives about drugs, he said, turns into a similar browbeating. When Bennett, who also served as George H.W. Bush's drug czar, talks about the issue on the radio, callers are generally 70-30 against his position. "There used to be a strong conservative coalition opposed to drugs, but it's dissipated in the face of mounting public support for legalization," Beach told me. "We're fighting against the tide on this."

    I've often said... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 10:28:38 AM EST
    the support of the drug war by liberals has drove many a young person still defining their ideology to libertarianism, when they would otherwise be liberal or socialist.

    The first party to unite on the right side of the issue will receive a windfall of support, and votes.  The tide has turned...what was once considered political suicide (opposition to the drug war), is now or will very soon be a political necessity.  


    Well (none / 0) (#25)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 11:19:09 AM EST
    One-issue anti-drug law libertarians can be in some ways a little like the one-issue neocons..A little too narrowly focused to to be of much use as a creatively activist citizenry. IMHO.

    I'm trying to be nice and diplomatic here.


    It's a big issue! (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 11:40:19 AM EST
    Hard to look at the big ideological picture when you've had cold steel slapped on ya...that's when politics gets personal.

    I mean it shouldn't even be an issue, if liberals and conservatives would get their heads outta their bums....hopefully it won't be an issue much longer is current trends continue.


    Some of the folks in history (none / 0) (#27)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 12:21:57 PM EST
    who had the che cold steel slapped on them the most were the best at seeing and delineating the big ideological picture. I don't feel like going through the laundry list right now, but I easily could..

    Personally I can't get with folks who wanna get stoned in peace so bad that they're willing to give aid and comfort to those who wanna privatize the public library, cut down the old growth forests, and market expired infant formula and thalidomide to people in the rain forest..


    I can't get with that either... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 12:46:42 PM EST
    which was my original point...why drive people who would otherwise see the big picture to their libertarian doorstep?  The statists are their own worst enemy when they cling to prohibition and the horrors it entails.

    statist.. (none / 0) (#31)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 12:54:52 PM EST
    uh-oh, the ultimate libertarian-objectivist dog whistle. Hawlin' out the big guns are we? ;-)

    One issue on it's own ain't gonna drive someone who's moderately enlightened into the land of every-man-for-himself. I just don't buy it. But that's just me.  


    I'm living proof Brother... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 01:06:58 PM EST
    I didn't know what a libertarian was until I was arrested...then I went searching for somebody, anybody, speaking the truth about drugs and drug policy.  Somebody who did not think I was a degenerate who needs to be chained like them Democrats and Republicans believe.

    Granted, I have half a brain so I didn't buy in to the scorched-earth extremes...but you'd have to be a fool to believe the libertarians aren't onto the straight dope on this issue....and it is the D's and R's that pass and uphold the laws that are the criminals.


    The Chinese used to say (none / 0) (#35)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 11:02:08 PM EST
    that when the wrong person says the right thing it means nothing. I think the libertarians are just hoping self-medicating poor people will kill themselves off with drugs and other aberrant behavior exacerbated by addiction.

    I like Thom Hartman's description of libertarians: (none / 0) (#36)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 11:09:28 PM EST
    "Republicans who want to smoke dope and get laid."

    The other fundamentalists (none / 0) (#37)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 10:46:37 AM EST
    with money taking the place of Jesus.

    It's easy to understand... (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 11:59:55 AM EST
    why conservative lovers of sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll are driven from the Republican party...the religous right.

    What is perplexing is why Democrats have been adamant about driving liberal lovers of sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll out their party...I'm not such a bad guy! ;)


    So start another party.. (none / 0) (#39)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 12:55:19 PM EST
    But hooking up with the libertarians? Please.

    I'm not proposing to her dude! ;) (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 01:18:11 PM EST
    more like simply acknowledging she's got nice cans.

    And it's not like Democrats even wanna hook up..I went ove to the bar to say hi to her, and she threw a drink in my face.


    You are too much sometimes :-) (none / 0) (#41)
    by vml68 on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 02:25:34 PM EST
    Thanks for the laugh. I needed it.

    It's a win-win for GOoPers. They may get voters (none / 0) (#8)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 10:34:53 AM EST
    who wanna get stoned, who will vote for any pro-legalization candidate.  There's the numb to all reason voter, since you have to be stoned to vote for these self righteous prigs.  Then, of course, there's the accidental vote, i.e., stoned voters who accidentally vote Republican.  And finally, there's the too stoned to vote, non vote, which is when their Democratic adversary's voters are too stoned to get off the couch and only GOP voters show up at the polls.

    Does this make any sense?  I hope not.


    Three hardest words for a politician (none / 0) (#14)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 12:24:58 PM EST
    "I was wrong". Some just can't say it, or anything close to it.

    Willie Horton was gotcha journalism, and that kind of wrecks the notion of fair hearing of issues.

    I don't really care where it comes from, but I am ready to support whatever group that genuinely follows a social libertarian, fiscal conservative ideology.

    "terminal and debilitating"??? (none / 0) (#18)
    by gilligan on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 02:20:48 PM EST
    Um, what percentage of those with medical marijuana certificates in California really have "terminal and debilitating conditions"?  

    I'm wondering about pot based vacations (none / 0) (#21)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 08:03:14 AM EST
    Some nice location with outdoor concerts and public transportation.