Marijuna Commercials. . If WEI] IS EVER I BART WAIT TI] SEE THE. Companies would not legally be allowed to advertise, because they can influence young children. Same with cigarette commercials. Mary Jane
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (334)
[ 334 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
User avatar #23 - pokemasterbaker
Reply +185 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
Companies would not legally be allowed to advertise, because they can influence young children. Same with cigarette commercials.
User avatar #191 to #23 - lynchdude
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
cigarettes are horrible for you, i see alcohol comercials everyday and thats worse for you then weed so i think it would be allowed
#293 to #23 - pokemasterbaker
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
Top 40 in comment section
User avatar #37 to #23 - sandnigglets
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
lol there are cigerette commercials, just maybe not in your country .-.
#50 to #37 - anon id: 776442a3
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
there are no cigarette commercials if u live in the US

#27 to #23 - reaganomix
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
Cigarette companies are not allowed to advertise to kids because they lobbied government to prevent them from advertising. So this might not be true when it comes to marijuana.

Cigarette companies would spend millions of dollars in advertising always trying to spend more than their competition. In order to stop themselves from spending themselves into the ground, the cigarette companies lobbied to stop themselves from advertising and their spending problem was fixed.

It was never really about keeping the kids safe, it was just money.
User avatar #43 to #27 - bmran
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
by this logic every company who use advertisement would spend itself into the ground...
User avatar #166 to #43 - reaganomix
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
Look up Game Theory
User avatar #94 to #27 - deltadeltadelta
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
That's complete nonsense. Cigarette companies were banned from advertising to prevent them from influencing the younger generation with their cancer sticks.
#183 to #94 - reaganomix
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
Utter nonsense

The introduction of the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act in 1970 to ban tobacco advertising cut the costs they would have been spending on advertising. As a result tobacco advertising is an often cited example in Economic Game Theory to demonstrate a practical application of the Prisoner's Dilemma. Companies were not effectively expanding the customer base by advertising on television so much as they were simply trying to attract higher portions of the market of already smoking customers.

We all know that smoking is bad, but what I said is completely true.
#231 to #183 - tie
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
stfu? basically all you just said through something i bet you compy pasted was, Cigarette companies were banned by the government from advertising and they were OK with that because their advertising wasnt misleading kids into smoking but was trying to win over smokers from other brands? so thats why smoking rates increased so much with people and then declined after advertising was banned and the government campaigned against it? are you retarded?
User avatar #243 to #231 - reaganomix
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
Are you retarded? Read the post I made before.

I am having a hard time understand what you are saying because it is so poorly written. The Cigarette companies were okay after the ban because they were not funneling so much money into TV commercials. Smoking rates did not take a massive hit because it was not their goal to bring in new smokers with TV adverts. Their goal was to make smokers choose their brand rather than their competitors. All the major cigarette companies would spend more and more money in hopes of canceling out the money of their competition.

Government didn't decrease decrease the amount of smokers today. Even thinking government can accomplish many things is folly. It was the general public that became aware that smoking was bad. Besides, what is more likely to make someone smoke? Some stupid commercial on TV or peer pressure.

If you don't choose the latter you are retarded
User avatar #252 to #243 - tie
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
your problem is that you think the cigarette companies just mutually decided to stop advertising. that was stopped by the government. i have no love for government but people becoming aware that smoking was bad was not through word of mouth, it was done by government funded ads bringing awareness. Absolutely peer pressure was the cause on a case by case level, but social media (AND NOT JUST ONES FROM COMMERCIALS) but also endorsements in movies and celebrities shaped smoking as a societal norm. thats why baseball players got fined for chewing tobacco on television. because they were being payed by tobacco industries to do it. and thus influencing the kids who idolized them.
User avatar #264 to #252 - reaganomix
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsAeRwU6OJs
Listen to man, he smart, he make you smart.

"Also government funded ads" Citation needed
User avatar #285 to #264 - tie
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
you just sent me to a link with 3,000 views about a guy who has his degree in math and teaches computor sciences. besides you're being defensive. im not a stupid person, everything we've said so far lacks citations, including the video you just sent me to. the tobacco industries fought many lawsuits about advertising and when the FDA finally won and the ad ban was made, the tobacco industries merely just shifted tactics and advertised through other ways. (like movies and celebrity endorsements). its not like the tobacco companies sat in their boardrooms and manipulated the government into placing a ban on their advertising. Think.
User avatar #322 to #285 - reaganomix
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
Citation - A quotation from or reference to a book, paper, or author, esp. in a scholarly work.

This whole thing has been about commercials and TV advertisements. Look at the content, it is not referring to celebrity endorsements or movies and it is talking about marijuana. There are already movies and actors that 'advertise' weed. Pineapple Express and Cheech and Chong

"its not like the tobacco companies sat in their boardrooms and manipulated the government into placing a ban on their advertising."
So when corporations lobby the government and shove money into Pacs they do it just to waste money? No, they use it as a means to an end. They can manipulate government because it is really big.
This is one of the reasons conservatives want to take away things like regulations and some want to make the government smaller so corporations can't manipulate government. Companies use the strength of the government to implement things like tariffs and taxes on foreign goods to reduce competition with outsiders.

The last thing a large corporation wants is competition and capitalism because it implies that they have to compete with others to provide goods cheaper and better. The banning of commercials was a mean to meet this end. Think.

Also why the does view count even matter? www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6GWm0GW7gk

This is an Noble prize winning Economist and it only has 550 views. Think
User avatar #360 to #322 - tie
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
as it turns out im canadian and what is this? however i will say, everything you say is correct except in regards to the tobacco industry. im not disputing how economics work, im saying that the need to ban tobacco ads was based on its influence on people as a carcinogen, and therefore the FDA and government acted, it was simply also in the interest of tobacco companies to just switch advertising tactics instead. im not even talking about weed. im talking about the reason the ads were banned. it wasnt because the tobacco companies asked for it.
User avatar #353 to #264 - bmran
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
i watch the video...
he said nothing about the companies going under because of over advertisement.
he simply described a situation that cancel the dominating strategies of both companies and forced them into a outcome that was somewhat beneficial for both of them.
the fact remains that you are still making out facts.
he even claim that if both companies use advertisement their profit will remain huge.
ps. i have a decent amount of knowledge about game theory so don't be so condescending.
#137 to #23 - qazaibomb
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
then why is alcohol advertised?   
   
not saying it shouldnt be, but people need to be more consistent.
then why is alcohol advertised?

not saying it shouldnt be, but people need to be more consistent.
#57 to #23 - lavanthor
Reply +140 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
#277 to #57 - laundead
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
I like you.
#15 - Skwurll
Reply +41 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
Screen cuts to strips of bacon sizzling.
Screen cuts to close-up of juicy burger
Screen cuts to slow-mo of large breasted woman in revealing clothing, jumping rope, camera centered on breasts.
Screen cuts to same woman, smoking a joint, exhales smoke, says "This is some pretty good ****."
Screen cuts to golden french fries
Screen cuts to pot leaf.

And that's how I imagine it would go.
User avatar #86 to #15 - ViXi
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
Sounds like spike tv at any given point
#114 - shaddz
Reply +30 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
User avatar #59 - Loppytaffy
Reply +21 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
You see cigarette commercials? No? Then Weed wouldn't be advertized either. Just legal...
User avatar #66 to #59 - DrBobsPatient
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
cigarette companies would loose money because people know of the effects of smoking and it would be an anti smoking commercial, even if the tobacco companies made it, whereas with weed commercials, it would promote it because there aren't that many adverse effects to it...
#108 - Ihazfunkitty
Reply +20 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
do you see commercials for cigarettes?

so yeah, that wont happen
User avatar #206 - ishalltroll
Reply +19 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
If weed is ever legalized,
I can't wait to hear of all the pissed off stoners because theres taxes on weed.
User avatar #168 - rhblink
Reply +17 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
You guys are morons. Weed is awesome but you do not want that **** legalized. The government will just tax the **** out of it and put in a bunch of ****** up chemicals in it like they do to the tobacco in cigarettes

Decriminilization is the answer
#170 to #168 - teevanator
Reply -9 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
"Decriminalise not legalise"

wut
User avatar #188 to #170 - iRetaliate
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
Decriminalization is when act is unlawful, but carries little to no penalty

Examples of decriminalized acts would include littering, loitering, unwarranted solicitation, and J-walking.

Legalization is when an act is completely lawful, and may even be promoted by the government.
User avatar #251 to #188 - teevanator
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
Thanks, why are people thumbing me down because I don't know some thing though?
#178 to #170 - tranminh
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
i like it in canada, it's illegal, but it's really not enforced at all

User avatar #176 to #170 - rhblink
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
Thankyou for proving my point on the moron part
User avatar #173 to #170 - whatevsnicktrololo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
There is a difference you know...
User avatar #175 to #173 - teevanator
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
explain to my noobish brain please?
User avatar #184 to #175 - whatevsnicktrololo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
Decriminalisation means you can grow your own weed, but you are not allowed to sell it, which means you are the only one that is allowed to use it... On the other hand, legalisation allows selling, and selling allows taxing..

TL;DR - This one you can only grow, other you can sell(tax).

sorry for my grammar mistakes.
User avatar #193 to #184 - rhblink
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
That would be so perfect


User avatar #179 to #175 - rhblink
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
California, Colorado, etc.
#202 to #168 - anon id: cf8667de
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
Hey dude, the reason it is so expensive now is because it is illegal. LOGIC-ED
User avatar #242 to #168 - Rahmaniac
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
>What the **** are you talking about?

>Taxing marijuana would bring sooo much money to local and state governments.

>The government doesn't regulate the growing of cigarettes. In fact, the government is somewhat against it because increased cigarette use leads to higher healthcare costs. This is why the government has already mandated warning labels on ALL cigarette packs/cartons.

>The use of chemicals is solely dependent on the farmer, not the government.
User avatar #194 to #168 - cjklefty
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
Don't you know a lot of weed has left over fertilizers and pesticides. You don't know who grew it. The grower might have pissed on the buds for all you know.
#180 to #168 - kingmaster
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
yeah let's throw money into the blackmarket for more criminalism and how do you know that your favourite dealer doesn't put nasty chemicals in your weed?
User avatar #392 to #180 - finnjevel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/07/2012) [-]
If it's decriminalized more people would start to grow their own, so hey, what's the problem? You gotta smoke some more, man!
Peace!
User avatar #182 to #180 - rhblink
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
Or we could throw more money to our corrupt government because that makes much more sense right


#122 - hamishchandler
Reply +17 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
#187 - jelliesman
Reply +16 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
something with this guy
#233 - anon id: 0f968d0c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
itd be awesome for weed to be legalized so me and my boyfriend can smoke it freely in front of my parents instead of having to go somewhere else :3

i love my boyfriend for getting me on the stuff, I was a nerdy girl too scared to try anything but now i'm a stoner (and smoker/drinker) for life :D
#236 to #233 - anon id: 0d4235bc
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
nerdy girl > slutty weed alcoholic whore.
User avatar #247 to #233 - kafudamapla
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
I'm gonna go for... Obvious troll is obvious.
User avatar #244 to #233 - thejerseyjenn
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
your boyfriend sounds like a dick for doing that.
#256 to #233 - steavo
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]
Cool story, sounds like a 12 year old wrote it.
#248 to #233 - hazardousblaze
Reply +14 123456789123345869
(04/09/2012) [-]