It may be getting more acceptable, but it’s still far less acceptable than it was in the 70’s, and we survived that.
I remember going to my grade 9 dance in the 70’s, and my friend had a couple of joints. We asked where he got them - “I stole them from my parent’s stash.” These were good middle class families. Different times.
At the dance, the entire Jr high smelled like pot smoke. A few of the obviously high kids got frisked for drugs. Any pot found was confiscated and the kid let go with a warning. And you’ll never guess what the teachers were doing with the confiscated pot… This was back in the era of the ‘boogie van’, and kids had pot leaf emblems on their jackets, pot leaf stickers on their car, etc. Cheech and Chong were at the height of their popularity, making album after album by stoners, for stoners.
So I’m not going to get too worked up about the occasional example of pot smoking in an R-rated movie.
The increasingly benign depiction of Marijuana on TV and movies may also reflect growing acceptance of it in society. Pot use in Canada doubled between 1994 and 2004, and about 17% of Canadians say they’ve used it at least once in the past year (the highest use rate of all industrialized nations… We’re number one! We’re number one!). Among college level adults, usage is over 30%, or slightly less than half of the number of students who drink alcohol.
Interestingly, Canadian use of harder drugs like Meth, Cocaine, and Acid is no higher than the world average, yet our marijuana use is 5 times the world average. That would kind of suggest that those who say it’s a ‘gateway drug’ are full of crap.
The blunt answer (no pun intended) is that it’s profitable for them to do so. It doesn’t hurt their bottom line to portray people casually smoking marijuana. Millions of people do so daily despite the illegality. The tiny percentage of people who would be offended enough to boycott the studio would be outweighed by the number of stoners (and people who don’t mind their portrayal of marijuana use) would enjoy watching the film. That’s simple economics for you.
In a way it’s an unrealistic portrayal of contemporary life that may be intended to suggest a generally worry-free attitude. What AIDS was to free love, employer drug testing has become to the casual use of marijuana. More than anything, that has driven the use of pot completely out of middle class, employed life. That characters in movies can smoke pot and not have to worry about their livelihoods as a result is similar to the way they tend to live in nicer houses and hardly ever have the money worries that actual people do.
I think as a result, IRL, the use of marijuana has pretty much returned to the fringes of society, such as successful performers and artists who need not worry about a job–in fact, rich people generally, on one end, and to the discouraged and criminal classes on the other.
It’s something that people do. The movies that I watch portray people, so it’s not a shock to see someone do drugs, or kill somebody. People do that you know.
I’m a casual user of marijuana and I’ve never had a problem with a drug test. I smoke it at least once a week, and it’s never been a problem. When I was an undergrad I had dozens (literally) of jobs due to my school schedule. After college I’ve had about 5 tests and never had a problem. Maybe it’s just dumb luck.
I’m 33 and I’ve never been unemployed. I have my own house, a nice vehicle, and no real money worries to speak of. I know quite a few people a lot like me who use weed occasionally.
Like a lot of people have already mentioned, practically every movie/TV show involves some sort of criminal activity. Why is this so different?
This is an interesting question from a legal standpoint. The first think I would ask is whether there is any US law that could be used to prevent the depiction of the commission of a criminal act. Offhand, I would say the FCC’s organic statute probably could be construed as authorizing sanctions for such broadcasts on indecency, public safety, or other grounds. I would also look at the DEA statute, the Patriot Act, and host of criminal stats.
So an argument for regulation is there, but, clearly they have chosen, for the most part, to not exercise such authority. So the real question is why haven’t they? If I had to guess I’d say they know they would get hit with a first amendment challenge and they don’t think they would win.
Actually, I bet this has long since been litigated and the government already lost, but I’m too lazy to dig up a cite.
I don’t think it’s as dire as you’re putting it. There are still decent jobs that don’t drug test. “Completely” is a bit of an overstatement on your part.
So, overall, 38% of employers don’t drug test. Seems to me like there’s plenty of room for middle class people to enjoy some herb without losing their job. Those who are so inclined will simply choose to sell their labor to companies that don’t butt into their off-the-clock recreational time.
There are also hardcore stoners that undoubtedly shout “rock on, dude,” when they see such a seen on screen. Movies an television can appeal to audiences with controversy, too. I can’t help but think part of the appeal for some is that they know that some folks will be upset by it, and they want “those people” to be upset. Otherwise known as the Haha-I-Bet-THAT-Pissed-Em-Off factor.
I can’t help but think it is a combination of the portrayal of reality and the filmmakers’ own hope that, by portraying casual marijuana use, it will become more accepted. I’m sure that many casual users are sick and tired of movies portraying the dopey stoner duuuuude, and want to see it decriminalized in the social sense.
Here in Hippie Central, USA, people smoke pot like people in other areas have a beer–openly and casually. I hold a booth at a farmers’ market on Saturdays which is sanctioned by the city, and held in a city park next to the courthouse building and police department. There’s an open plaza in front of the courthouse where people gather and hang out during the market. All day long there are folks sitting on the courthouse steps, smoking up.
When I see media representation of normal people hanging out and having a smoke, it always makes me happy to see a representation of marijuana that’s far closer to reality than scenes out of Reefer Madness.
Boy do I agree with this. 100% Many of me relatives and close friends were raised in Vermont, many still live there, some for generations. I’m happy when something as innocuous as a little weed can be smoked in a town green [ala Burlington Town Green] and the like across the nation. I do admit I hate the smell of tobacco smoke from cigs, but a pipe full of captain black or Humboldt’s finest if fine with me.
I’m much more an urban hippy if there is such a thing. Many of my friends are professionals either in the academic world or the conservation one…
I’m going with the realism theme. In real life, people smoke pot casually and without consequences. People do not, in real life, act silly or behave in any noticeably different way when they smoke pot than when they do not. It’s illegal, yeah, but so is speeding, something that’s shown even more often in movies and television, and something that (unlike pot) is actually dangerous
Indeed. There are a few bars/restaurants in this area that I frequent where people smoke as if they were smoking cigarettes (on their back patios or outdoor areas.) I’ve smoked at both of them. No one even looks twice, staff included.
On the flipside, many people, myself included, find it much more jarring when characters react to a joint the same way they’d react to a brick of cocaine or somesuch.
I think it was comedian Kenny Robinson who said: “Every time I ever bought coke, I wasn’t stoned, I was drunk!”
