a reply to: smithjustinb
For a start, the title of the piece is meant to introduce it, but it cannot be taken as a full and in depth description of the contents, and that is
as true for this title, as any other I have read, aside of course from in dry technical journals and scientific primers.
They are not having a discussion about personal use, they are having a discussion about the legal status of pot in a changing legislative landscape,
which are two very different things.
And your limited quote from the T&C page is out of context, and fails to take into account the specificity of the section you quoted from, which is
section 16)e) which states:
16e.) Illicit Activity: Discussion of illicit activities, specifically the use of mind-altering drugs & substances, engaging in computer hacking,
promoting criminal hate, discussing sexual relations with minors, and furtherance of financial schemes and scams are strictly forbidden. You will also
not link to sites or online content that contains discussion or advocacy of such material. Any Post mentioning or advocating personal use of illicit
mind-altering drugs will result in immediate account termination.
...and is clarified in section 16)e) subsection i) as follows:
i) Narcotics and illicit mind-altering substances, legal or otherwise: discussing personal use or personal experiences as the result of such
substances is not allowed in any form.
There is no part of the terms and conditions which states that the political and legal status of pot may not be discussed in any way, for any reason.
Again, no personal use was discussed in the video, and no advocacy was implied by the content within the video. At no time did either Mr Ventura or
his associate state that they believe everyone should smoke some pot. What they did do, was provide information on legislative changes in Washington
D.C., comment on matters pertaining to the states which have already legalised the substance, and the positive affects that has been having on crime
figures, revenue, and the like, and make plain that they personally agreed with the direction in which things were headed legally speaking.
There was no advocacy for recreational use of pot, i.e. they did not recommend that everyone watching the video ought to light one up in solidarity,
they did not advocate for its use, but they did report on, and comment on, the alteration to the legal landscape that these changes represent.
Again, this is a basic comprehension problem more than anything else, coloured, I suspect, by your apparent dislike of the subject matter in its
entirety, as opposed to your having a genuine grievance against the legitimate discussion of a political and legal step change happening in your
nation at the moment. I can assure you, that if you apply the level of reading comprehension that you are displaying now, when you are actually facing
a legal dispute of your own, you are going to get stung like a naked beekeeper.