I love this movie.  It's one of my favorite comedys.

I believe it is on Netflix instant stream right now but I have yet to see it.  Hopefully, I can get some laughs out of it.  One stoner movie that no one should see... Stone and Ed.  It makes Dude Where's My Car look like film of the year.  I believe Half Baked might be the best stoner movie.

1. She has a decent point but people should have a choice of private or state education at least, especiallly in the poorer nations. My whole problem with private schools, is the fact that they cost money. Even if it's cheap, money is still a sort of barrier to education. sure, it may be better than state education in some cases, but I think a government should provide a service for the neediest, while the better off have a choice between the two.

... and state schools are free, right?

2. I disagree, the flaws of the capitalist system create poverty and unemployment. In a time like this, when the market trully fucked up, we have seen poverty and unemployment only rise! For example US poverty rose from 12.5% in 2007 to 15% in 2011, Average wages have fall from $55,000 to $50,000 in the same time,while unemployment was under 5% in 2007 but is now around 8%, in a country like the United States, there is no where the state caused all that!  Explain how the state created these? (the only time government creates unemployment, is when they lay off public sector workers) And how is the market any better?, they create problems themselves. I would like to know what democratic body you would replace the government with, seriously is there any alternative?

How did the state create all these? Simple, they fucked around with the money supply, causing high inflation, and forcing interest rates down. These generated bubbles, primarily in housing, which burst in the autumn of 2008. They then made it worse through intervention which has caused the crisis to drag out through the past 5 years.

3. Of course, it's better the money goes away from dangerous gangbangers to the state who can help people get a job and fix the infrastructure. Of course, the prison population will go down too, since many are arrested for similiar having drugs, legalising them means they won't go to jail at all, costing the state more. While the taxes raised from pot can be used to help set up family run business', which is great for jobs and the economy. As for your last sentence, do you think that how it is in state prisons. If the talking about the USA still, most prisons are actually private now, which is where the money comes in. They profit from incarcerating people!

Stop using "of course" it's not as obvious as you think. There are far too many people involved with far too many incentives for the prison population to decrease. How many cops, bureaucrats, lawyers,etc... do you think would lose their jobs if drugs were fully legalized? How many prisons closed down? Probably zero, as, instead, they'd just be redeployed in dealing with other crimes. You know the average American commits 3 crimes a day, right? They'll just start enforcing those. And now they have all this lovely drug money to pay for it.

4. Just like communism, a truly capitalist is not really possible. The wealth of corporations can't help but corrupt the government and make it nearly impossible for smaller businesses to compete (really free isn't it!). But even if there was a truly liberal market, profit would still be the motive here, not anyone else. I don't see why they wouldn't pay even less to workers, if there was an anarchic society. As for the envirionment, i doubt they would care that much about it as long as business is strong, since companies can move to somewhere else anyway 

Again, corportations are a product of the state, and not capitalism. So any argument you make against capitalism through corporations is automatically null and void. You're right, profit is the motive... for everybody! Why would workers work when it isn't profitable for them? And why would they stick to employers which don't give them as much profit as others? The only reason that labour mobility is low is because the State makes moving jobs a hard and dangerous time.

As for the environment. During the industrial revolution, property rights were first powerful enough to protect the environment. If a factory opened up near your land, and caused environmental damage, you coud sue them for damages... thus, it became profitable for firms to build their factories so that they operated in a more environmentallr friendly manner. Then, the state got involved... it decided that the "public good" was more important than these silly little property owners, and the courts started ruling in favour of the factory owners. The rest, as they say, is history.

I believe it is on Netflix instant stream right now but I have yet to see it.  Hopefully, I can get some laughs out of it.  One stoner movie that no one should see... Stone and Ed.  It makes Dude Where's My Car look like film of the year.  I believe Half Baked might be the best stoner movie.

1. No, state schools are not free, but like public healthcare, everyone has a bit of their taxes pay towards them. These services are done for the people, instead for the sake of profit. As, it's your taxes that pay for them, rather than money up front, that means the poorest and neediest in society can have access to them.

"Done for the people" Teachers unions say hello... 

You do realise that poor children still go to the worst schools, right? Because the middle class and rich families drive up house prices around good schools. The only difference is, instead of the schools getting the money, it's the property owners that have no involvement in providing the education.

Combine this with the fact that private schools home tutoring provide far greater results at lower costs, it becomes really hard to see how the state is providing a "much needed" service, and even harder to see that they're actually doing a good job of it.

Finally, we still have the issue that the state is providing an education... why do you think the left can count on the youth vote so easily? Maybe because they've just spent over a decade in a pro-socialist propaganda factory? Many teachers are socialist, and the curriculum is extremely pro-Government. Do you not see a problem with this? (Probably not, it seems the schools did their job very well, with you).

2. The US state played a part in the recession because they deregulated the banks, so the banks themselves did very risky deals. For example, loaning houses to those who can't afford them, which was very stupid. But if you are so certain, give some examples of economies recovering from recession without government intervention.

1921.

Also, watch the video... the bank deregulation and other policies were very little to do with what I'm talking about. Central banks is the issue, here.

3. As for the police, they should just get on with their job and arrest true crimenals not drug takers (if they wanted to do that, just let them)! They should not be influenced to arrest someone just to make some extra money. It's not right. And if legalising drugs, means police actually charge more murderers and muggers than before, then good, they are actual criminals. If you think a drug addict is a criminal, please say why?

Never made that claim, please point to where I have.

You know that police have quotas, right? Not for catching muggers, but for handing out speeding tickets, catching people without seatbelts, etc.... because the state makes money out of those. It's these sorts of laws that will be enforced with the drug money, not muggings or murders.

4. You keep on saying corporations are products of the state, well prove it. As for the profit motive, i'm not against it, it's a persons choice to profit but what I don't like is the use of outsourcing so they can sell products at maximum price in the developed world, and pay peanuts to the workers of the developing world. For example, Nike trainers cost at least £60 a pair, but only £1 to make becuase they were made in India, if they made them in the UK, they would cost maybe £10 to £15, they would still profit alot here and give jobs to people too. Let India industrialise like we did, with there own companies. 

Corporations are product of the state. A corporation is a contract between the state and a group of people. Corporate "personhood" is a product of law, not the market.

I'm not going to debate the Nike claim, because there's so many economics fallacies there, that I neither have the time nor the inclination to bother with. If you actually want to learn something (based on your history on this board, I doubt it), read up on productivity and its links to wages.

But how do workers profit? They work for a wage, which isn't negiatated between the boss and workers

If the worker didn't profit, they wouldn't work. They obviously deem the wage to be profitable... or they wouldn't accept it. As for your second statement, it's not, no. Profits aren't negotiated at the micro-level. When you're buying a pair of jeans, do you negotiate the price? No. But negotiation does occur across the macro-level, through the price system. Wages are the same.

5. As for the envirionment, how does a liberal economy protect it without the state. Surely, property rights were given by the government to a business. Even if it does, you are still destoying the habitats and concreting over them to build factories and other buildings. Not only that, but factories give alot of pollution. You could see it in London, 60 years ago and you can see it in Beijing now. 

Government does not give rights. Again, this is another huge topic. Just Youtube for Walter Block on environmentalism, if you want to learn about it.