Top

blog

Stories

 

Marijuana: Amendment 64 rep sees new TV ad as positive alternative to negative campaigning

yes on 64 tv ad.jpg
Videos below.
If you're watching the Democratic National Convention on either MSNBC or CNN, there's a good chance you'll catch of glimpse of Richard Nixon. Why? He's featured in a new ad for Amendment 64, the Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act -- and like the campaign's first commercial, released in May, it takes a soft-sell approach to the issue. See both spots below.

"Our goal is not to attack anyone with this ad," says Betty Aldworth, who's both a spokeswoman for Amendment 64 and the narrator of the new clip, "but rather to encourage voters to think differently about marijuana and marijuana users." She adds her hope that the commercial will stand out because of its contrast to the negative political advertising currently dominating the airwaves.

The first images in the commercial are of Barack Obama hoisting brewskis -- photos juxtaposed with Aldworth-delivered reassurances that "we're not looking to end beer summits at the White House -- or change the way people behave on the campaign trail."

That's followed by a dissolve to a couple cuddling on a sofa and the line, "We just believe adults, in the privacy of their homes, should be allowed to use marijuana instead of alcohol if that's what they prefer."

richard nixon yes on 64.jpg
Richard Nixon's cameo appearance in the Yes on 64 ad.
Then comes Nixon and the statement that "forty years ago, our government launched a war on marijuana unrelated to the actual and limited harms of the substance." Finally, graphics accompany the conclusion that "it's time for a more sensible approach. It's time to regulate marijuana."

This pitch is more on-the-nose than the one at the heart of the May commercial, in which a young woman is seen explaining to her mother via e-mail why her experiences with drinking in college have convinced her to shift to marijuana.

The goal this time around is to "highlight the disconnect between how we treat marijuana and alcohol users in society," Aldowrth says. "Hopefully, it will encourage people to question why we use alcohol so publicly as a way to connect to voters, but it's a crime for adults to use marijuana, which is an objectively less harmful substance than alcohol."

As for the Nixon nod, Aldworth says, "It was under Nixon's administration that many of our current punitive marijuana policies were developed, and where the option to treat marijuana differently was presented and ignored. So it's trying to remind voters that our current marijuana policy is not based on science or social reality. It's based on misconceptions about marijuana and marijuana users."

Does Smart Colorado, the No on 64 campaign, see it that way? Not exactly.

Continue to get the No on 64 response to the commercial, plus both Yes on 64 ads and new polling data about the amendment.



Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
15 comments
Monkey
Monkey

Both pro and anti A64 groups want to "save the children" by maintaining penalties, and criminalizing kids. Both groups say, restrictions will prevent kids from weed. Restrictions don't stop kids from anything. Alcohol and pharmaceuticals are regulated, but kids still heavily abuse them. Weed has been illegal for decades, but kids still heavily abuse it. Regulations and prohibition are the same thing, obstacles, that make it more fun for kids. I think prosecuting young people over a plant is far more destructive than the plant itself, but for some reason, both anti and pro A64 people disagree. Both regulations and prohibition have been proven ineffective when used to prevent young people from using something. Regulations and prohibition are designed to make money and suppress people, not protect or prevent people from harm. When someone claims they can "save the children"  through regulations or continued prohibition, they are lying, and using emotional manipulation to deceive you. With or without A64, Kids will continue to use cannabis, and continue to get in trouble for it, and it appears, both groups want your kids in jail as a demonstration of their control.

RPF2012
RPF2012

What the fuck do the stupid football questions have to do with politics or Amendment 64?  THIS is what is wrong with Americans.  They can't even discuss politics without becoming so stupid that they just curl up in a ball until all the stress dies down.  "Here, maybe if we add some football questions, we can keep people interested."

 

What fucking morons.  People like that annoy the shit out of me.

 

Here let me help you out...

 

** THE WAR ON DRUGS HAS FAILED!  There is no debate, no argument, no disagreement... only failure.

 

** Both political parties have failed.  GOP, Democrats... there is no difference.  Obama/Romney will keep using the TSA, both will not end indefinite detention such as Bradley Manning.  Both will continue to allow drones to fly over American citizens.  Both will continue the wars.  BOTH will drive us deeper in debt.  16 Trillion seems silly compared to what the next 4 years will bring.  Can any of us say $20 trillion by 2016?

 

** Tim Tebow is an egocentric and self-fullfilling asshole -- OH YEAH, and he fucking sucks at football.  I'm so glad that ass-muncher has gone off to one of the most crooked states in the Country.  Maybe he will get butt-raped while he was there so then he would know how all of Denver felt when he was made to be our star quarterback. 

 

** Peyton is no fucking better.  $95 million for like 5 years?   Seriously?  What a piece of shit.  I hope he enjoys all that fucking money while so many people in Denver are stranded on the streets and starving.  Fuck him and fuck the Broncos.  If it were up to me, I'd get rid of both of them -- and then tear that ugly monstrosity that is called a stadium down to the ground.

 

God, how annoying.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

It's OK, but far too bland.  Attacking the prohibitionists and their livelihood is what we are doing, and going against them head-on makes far more sense than dancing around the issue that our government has been entirely committed to disastrous policies on the use of drugs for a lifetime, with the uncomforatble consequence that all kinds of putatively upstanding citizens depend for much of their livelihood on Prohibition.  It's OK to attack Nixon, and it's OK even to attack Anslinger, unknown though he is to many Americans.  Instead of neutered messages to imaginary voters in the middle, consider diversifying -- a high-speed, super compact thumbnail history of Prohibition (of cannabis) can be crammed into thirty seconds, and it might be more effective suasion even of people not in the base.

StillMM2
StillMM2

In before internet rage monkey Donkey Hotay plays his one note song.

 

MarkM: May I assume that you don't ever refer to tomatoes, but instead to Solanum fruit?

MarkM
MarkM

Try using the word "cannabis" instead of the racist, made-up word "marijuana", and we might take you seriously.

 

At least the lying liars didn't use the word "legalization" or "end prohibition" in these ads like they have in others.

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

 @Monkey "Both pro and anti A64 groups want to "save the children" by maintaining penalties, and criminalizing kids."  -- you are insane.

RPF2012
RPF2012

 @Monkey  Because prohibition NEVER works.  It doesn't work with abstinence programs, it doesn't work with alcohol and it doesn't work with drugs.

 

PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK AT ALL!

Juan_Leg
Juan_Leg

 @RPF2012 I hypocritically agree w/ most of what you have written .

ALL PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES ARE WAY OVER PAID . Most , professional team owners make so much the players DEMAND they share the wealth . Especially when it comes at the expense of an athlete's health .

I only wish TEACHERS were recognized and awarded w/ multimillion  dollar salaries based on their student's performance in & out of the classroom .....

Juan_Leg
Juan_Leg

 @MarkM 

Or 'HEMP' ,

as it was referenced when

it's prohibition was first created .....

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

 @MarkM While I usually eschew the use of "marijuana" as pejorative, people actually trying to communicate with the public at large (80% of which does not use cannabis) have to make a choice on how they want to spend their thirty seconds, and trying to use those thirty seconds re-educating the public about the right word to use is not cost-effective.  When your political gaze is not focused on your navel, you start to pick up on the fact that all too many people do not even know what the word "cannabis" means.  I am all in favor of other people replacing the wrong word with the right one in their vocabularies, and I seek to foment that by my usage in both everyday speech and public discourse, but I do not think that it is reasonable to expect the campaign for Amendment 64 to do so, because it is only ancillary to the goal of passing the Amendment.  I think that there are contexts in which the campaign could and should use "cannabis" in preference to "marijuana", but not necessarily in thirty-second spots.  Having said all this, the campaign should consider a message to its base:  a thirty-second exposition of how "marijuana" came to be illegal which asserts the superiority of "cannabis" could have a tremendous effect on political cannabis-users, as well as entertain and inform people somewhat sympathetic to the cause. 

Goby
Goby

 @RobertChase  If you control the language, then you control how people think about it. It's very simple marketing tactic, actually. I'd bet that 80% of the people in the country know that cannabis is marijuana. You'd be surprised. The word has been around for an awful long time. The word "marijuana" was created to demonize cannabis, and its continued use continues the demonization. Pretty simple stuff. 

RobertChase
RobertChase topcommenter

 @Goby I see -- you are laboring under the total misconception that we are in control of something.  What I just wrote about the campaign having a very limited amouont of time to try to educate voters made as much of an impression on you as water on a duck's back.  You demand that the campaign use a word many people do not know to refer to what those of us who use it and are politicized know as "cannabis"; you demand failure.  I am sorry that your grasp of semantics has so far outstripped your understanding of politics.

Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...