Describing Weeds as 'theatrical brilliance'/ 'a parody'/ 'witty'/ 'insightful' or 'an exploration of suburban life' doesn't prove that you are intellectually superior to those who don't hold it in such high regard. It just indicates where you set the bar. Which is pretty low apparently. In unrelated news, it annoys me when people who don't understand what the word parody means go around their entire lives calling everything that is even slightly comedic a parody. Look the word up if you're going to use it. Seriously. Get a dictionary. It'll take you one minute.
Weeds was created and written by a woman who spent her career as a staff writer for shows such as Will and Grace, Gilmore Girls, Sex and the City, Mad About You and the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. There is nothing impressive on her resume. Not a single credit. Everything she has written throughout her life is mindless sitcom shit. And then she made a sitcom about marijuana, which is popular simply because there aren't many TV shows that broach the subject. The quality of the writing is no different from her other shows. She didn't magically become a better writer/comedian by changing subject matter. It's the novelty effect. If you fail to realize that or refuse to accept it, that's up to you. Convince yourself that this commercial US television show that exists primarily to capitalize on an untapped market is a work of art. But know that you are being played by a fat middle aged woman who, after spending her life writing easily digestible garbage, saw a market that she could exploit.
The show is really hit and miss for me, with emphasis on the miss. The last episode was above the standard of the rest of the series but overall the show is pretty disappointing. It's filler television. Personally, I'd prefer to call it what it is and reserve terms like 'theatrical brilliance' for artists and productions that consistently warrant such praise.