Drug Policy

Oliver Stone Says It's Time to Legalize Pot Already

|

Oliver Stone's new movie, Savages, may not be all that good, but the auteur behind The Hand and the scribe of 8 Million Ways to Die—and a bunch of excellent movies too—is not just praising California pot but insisting it's time to legalize weed in these United States.

He tells High Times:

If you appreciate California weed, which I have for many years, you'll realize that we're somewhat close to the money when we say that, California has surpassed Thailand, Jamaica, South Sudan, and certainly Mexico as the king and queen of quality weed.  I'm thinking myself of getting into the business, although I suspect there'd be a lot of stress with the Feds changing the rules all the time. Those bastards….

And MTV News reports that Stone has harsh words for President Barack Obama and prohibition:

"I think it's a tragedy what has happened, and I saw it coming 40 years ago, and it keeps going. And of course politicians keep making election promises," Stone told MTV News. "It's an easy subject to win votes on.

"At the same time, a lot of money gets involved, and it's built up into a huge industry in America and in Mexico, where we have criminal justice that has been perverted. We have victimless crimes all over our jails: 50 percent of our jail population is involved with victimless crimes, most of them with drugs. Money gets made by the prisons and the precept will take them private, you know that, and the politicians win votes, the prosecutors, the judges, the bailiffs, everything. It's like the Pentagon: It never stops when you start."

So, what's it going to take to make a real change?

"It would take a bold man," Stone shared. "Obama promised it, but he never delivered. He certainly talked about it. He let us down in a big way on that issue. You know what it's going to take? New leadership. Young people like yourself to get out there and get in front of things and just call a spade a spade. Maybe when some of these old, ignorant bastards die, we can change things."

More, including video of Salma Hayek's unintentionally hilarious explanation of the motivation for her deadly drug queenpin character, here.

NEXT: Fast, Furious, and Bi-Curious? Ron Hart on Eric Holder

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Guess the proles are going to need their SOMA soon.

    A question: Is libertarian support for mass immigration similar to classical liberak support for universal suffrage and public schools?

    1. A question: Is libertarian support for mass immigration similar to classical liberak support for universal suffrage and public schools?

      Similar in what sense?

      1. Similar in that xenophobes find it perfectly acceptable to tell people where they can and cannot travel and work and live, yet then turn around and say they’re for liberty?

        1. because borders just get in the way.

        2. I’m not sure you have to be a xenophobe or against liberty to think that opening the gates of admission to a welfare state might be a poor idea.

          1. So, get rid of the welfare state.

            1. Agreed. But this has not yet been done.

            2. Or ban immigrants from getting welfare. Like, you know, Obamacare did.

              1. Does Obamacare remove the requirement for hospitals that receive public money from having to treat whomever shows up?

                How do you ban an illegal alien parent from using food stamps he gets based on having a citizen child?

                1. You eliminate EMTALA for the first.

                  As for the second, i dont find that a compelling reason to eliminate the freedom of contract or the freedom of movement. The existence of a wrongful state program does not justify further statism.

                  1. So, basically, like Heroic Mulatto said, get rid of the welfare state.

                    Yeah, I think the existence of a wrongful state program can justify further statism in order to ameliorate the harm created by that program. I think it’s pretty similar in that regard to the right-to-work issue that gets discussed a lot here. Ideally, you wouldn’t have the right-to-work laws or the immigration restriction but the labor laws and welfare state have sufficiently screwed the baseline that additional laws that address the underlying issue can make the situation less bad, if decidedly not perfect.

                    It’s not as good as removing the problem program or law by its roots but it’s better than nothing. I’m sure you disagree but I can live with that.

                    1. You really think food stamps cost you so much that justifies limiting those freedoms I mentioned? You have a badly calibrated calculus.

                    2. Not just food stamps but, yeah, I do. There are studies which show that illegal immigrants are a net drain on the economy, in no small part due to social programs, and that, to me, is enough to justify not letting in whoever the hell wants to come in.

                      I don’t think that freedom to travel is the same as freedom to travel and then become a net cost in your new location.

                      I think current immigration policy is wildly, overwhelmingly too restrictive but I don’t think unfettered access to anyone who can make it to here is the answer, either.

                    3. There are also studies that show the net economic impact of illegal immigrants is positive.
                      Here’s one:
                      http://irps.ucsd.edu/assets/037/11124.pdf

                      In either case, everything I’ve seen suggests it’s close one way or the other. In other words, simply not that big of an economic deal.

                2. WIC doesn’t even require an anchor baby.
                  If you can get here with an infant it’s free milk, cheese, beans, juice etc.
                  Food welfare is really a farmer/processor/grocer subsidy.

      2. Backfire spectacularily?

        Classical liberals supported public schools to reduce the influence of the Roman Catholic Church, which they felt was a reactionary institution, and that an educated populace was important for liberalism. What we got now is mandatory statist indocrination centres and government employees holding the public hostage for pay raises and benefits.

        As for universal suffrage, well liberals supported universal (first manhood, then female) as a democratic measure. Problem is it pretty easy for the get support for free stuff and classical liberalism died.

        As for mass immigration, I’ve seen plenty of evidence that current multicultuarlism was created by politicians in order to import voters. Said politicians are not very libertarian.

        1. and by now, we should have plenty of evidence that multiculturalism does not work. The first massive wage of immigration last century had people who came from all over but bought into the notion they were all throwing in with something new, something that would unite them.

          Not so much with the current wave. Lot of folks seem to think immigration means they get to bring the parts the like about home while forgetting the reasons they left. In a sense, it’s like folks moving from CA to anywhere else.

          1. Lot of folks seem to think immigration means they get to bring the parts the like about home while forgetting the reasons they left.

            You mean my wife can’t bring her food, her religion, her music, or her language here? I guess she’s safe because she still hasn’t forgotten that she left because I married her. Don’t call La Migra on us because she prefers rice to bread!

            1. not what I said, and her bringing the things you mentioned are part of what makes this place so cool. My folks were immigrants, too, and they brought some old country. But they also realized they had to assimilate to their new home rather than expect it to be the other way around.

              1. But they also realized they had to assimilate to their new home rather than expect it to be the other way around.

                I teach how to teach ESL. I help people assimilate all the time. However, immigrants are fully within their rights to create as many Chinatowns, Little Italys, Yiddish-speaking Lower East Sides, and barrios as they want.

                1. again, not what I said. And the first wave did much the same thing – every neighborhood was defined by the ethnic group in it.

                  It is when one or more groups start to demand that the rest of us do business in their language, whether it prints multilingual ballots or wants to impose its version of religion-based law.

                  1. demand that the rest of us do business in their language

                    Well, it depends. If that group has the money, then people will accommodate them.

                    whether it prints multilingual ballots

                    Well, at the Federal level we don’t have an official language, so a tax-payer does have the right to request a ballot in their preferred language.

                    wants to impose its version of religion-based law

                    Well, that violates the 1st amendment. That is something immigrants do have to assimilate to.

                    1. Well, at the Federal level we don’t have an official language, so a tax-payer does have the right to request a ballot in their preferred language.

                      Do he have a right to receive a ballot in his preferred language? Is that an equal protection issue, in your opinion? Does he have a right to a ballot in Klingon?

                    2. the lack of an “official” language then proves problematic. Seems someone requesting a ballot in their language could be told ‘no’, but that does not appear to be happening. When govt makes it easier to NOT learn the language, seems that fewer people will, fewer will assimilate, fewer will be able to access economic opportunity. It’s like you and me going overseas; chances are good folks in the other country speak English but I would guess much of hte official paperwork is done in the native language.

                    3. If only we didn’t have to print ballots in 200 languages, then we wouldn’t have a deficit problem. C.c

        2. As for mass immigration, I’ve seen plenty of evidence that current multicultuarlism was created by politicians in order to import voters. Said politicians are not very libertarian.

          Well, yes. Boss Tweed did support the mass immigration of Irishmen, Italians, and Jews to support his Tammany Hall political machine.

          I’ve heard that if an Irishman impregnates an Italian, then offspring is libertarian, but for now such theories are like the myths of Humanzees and Chumans.

        3. For me, at least, free and basically unrestricted immigration is a matter of principle. I should have the right to employ, house or do business with anyone regardless of what country they come from. And since we have not had open immigration for quite some time, it is far from clear that it causes bad results.

          1. your principle, however, is not practiced. Anywhere. In broad terms, countries are defined by borders, language, and culture. A lot of discussion here centers on ways in which the US violates the sovereignty of other nations. Why is saying that unrestricted immigration does the same thing also not true?

            1. Advocating against a sovereign’s rules constitutes a violation of sovereignty?

              1. you are welcome to advocate for no restrictions on immigration. I doubt you will find a large following.

                1. That’s just argumentum ad populum. Do you have a good reason for opposing? Because your appeal to sovereignty was circular.

                  1. Do you have a good reason for opposing?

                    That the employment, housing, or business relationship doesn’t necessarily encompass the entire cost imposed by the immigrant such that parties not involved in the transactions are not insulated from the costs of the transaction.

                  2. for opposing unrestricted immigration? Yes, not the list of which is cost. This is a country, not a theme park. All those public services cost money and I will take ‘no restrictions’ literally, meaning folks come and go as they please and there is no way of keeping track of them. What could go wrong?

                    1. People coming and going as they please?!? The horror!

                    2. good luck with implementing your vision. Of course, you will have to convince the rest of the world, too, not just the US.

                2. It’s not simply no restriction on immigration, but no (or more reasonably few) restrictions on movement or migration. If someone wants to come here from Australia to work for the summer that should not be a hassle. If someone wants to see if they can make a bunch of money working construction for a few years and then go back to Guatemala, great. By having restrictions on migration, the people that migrate are more likely to immigrate because it’s such a PITA to get across the border. Now citizenship is a different issue. We don’t have to allow everyone physically present in the geographical territory to become citizens.

                  1. It’s sort of like the guns argument. Making guns illegal doesn’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It just either keeps them out of the hands of law abiding people or turns law abiding people into criminals. Do you think major criminal or terrorist organization is going to have any difficulty procuring phony documents that would allow unfettered access to the United States? So who exactly are we keeping out?

  2. Again, the correct term is “re-legalize”, as reefer was legal until 1914.

    1. I thought it was FDR’s Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.

  3. “It would take a bold man,” Stone shared. “Obama promised it, but he never delivered. He certainly talked about it.”

    No he didn’t. He just declined to correct people who projected that (and numerous other policy positions) onto him.

  4. The politicos in the UK aren’t much better (especially Louise Mensch): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMgQQXvqDfo

  5. This is the first time that I am aware of that I have every agreed with Oliver Stone on anything. I may need to re-think my position.

    1. blind pigs…broken clocks…

    2. Same here. I kept going back to make sure this was Ollie talking. I wouldn’t change a syllable, he’s spot on.

  6. Stone is right.

    But he’s still a catastrophic douchebag.

  7. You know what it’s going to take? New leadership. Young people like yourself to get out there and get in front of things and just call a spade a spade. Maybe when some of these old, ignorant bastards die, we can change things.”

    Isn’t that cute? He thinks the status quo is going to do something about it.

  8. “Young people like yourself to get out there and get in front of things and just call a spade a spade.”

    RACISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSST

  9. This almost makes up for Alexander. Almost.

    1. Even if it does, he still has to answer for his ass kissing documentary on Castro.

    2. This makes up for anything (Brian DePalma deserves much of the credit too, of course).

      1. Ann Dvorak and Karen Morley are so much hotter than that girl from the Abyss and Michelle Pfeiffer.

        1. Cool story, bro.

          1. No respect for Howard Hawks? Pshaw.

      2. It is a campy violent movie with a bunch of good catch phrases. I am not going to tell you I haven’t watched it. I have. Or that I didn’t enjoy it, I did. But it is not the fucking Godfather or Goodfellas or something. I don’t see how it makes up for a life time of commie boot licking.

        1. And it oozes style. It’s DePalma at his best. Fucking amazing shit.

        2. Thank God I’m not the only person who feels like this. I’ve seen Scarface many times, but it’s not an amazing film. It’s fun as hell and I love quoting lines from it, but I really won’t take it further than that. Hell, GTA: Vice City does Scarface better than Scarface does.

        3. I didn’t like it. I had no sympathy for the main character and I did not like the violence.

    3. Alxeander isn’t Episiarch’s favorite, but he does love any movie about the Greeks of old.

      You know the ones I mean.

      1. I too have known unconventional love. Perhaps you and I…and Djambi, can get together and compare notes sometime.

        1. Only if you dip my bottom in the most sensual oils and lotions.

  10. I suspect there’d be a lot of stress with the Feds changing the rules all the time. Those bastards….

    Of course if someone wants to start a business doing anything but growing weed, Stone will be totally okay with the feds fucking with them.

    We care what this has been says why?

  11. About Oliver Stone:

    Could the world still use his talents? I’m think of a dramatized documentary about Scientology, starring Val Kilmer as David Miscavige, John Brolin as Tom Cruise, and Maggie Gyllenhaal.

    Give it a title only tangentially connected to the plot (something with the initials of a famous person), and you have Oliver’s Stone’s L. Ron!

  12. Maybe when some of these old, ignorant bastards die, we can change things.

    Some of those bastards are younger than you, Ollie. For example: Obama, Holder…

  13. I have been waiting for some of those “old, ignorant bastards” to die since I was in high school… They just keep getting older…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.