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

Monkey

1 Like

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.

RobertChase topcommenter

1 Like

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

michael.roberts moderator editortopcommenter

@Monkey Strong argument, Monkey. Thanks.

RPF2012

2 Like

@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!

Irishsunshine45

@RPF2012 @Monkey http://www.cracked.com/article_20067_5-b.s.-political-arguments-you-hear-every-election-season_p2.html

Check it out, I'm all for regulated legalization, but prohibition on alchohol did help curb drinking rates through the country, by quite a bit

birdicemarkham1

@Irishsunshine45 @RPF2012 @Monkey http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/1T970xx7MqA?autoplay=1&showinfo=0&fulltube=1

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.

Juan_Leg topcommenter

@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 .....

RobertChase topcommenter

1 Like

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

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

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.

Juan_Leg topcommenter

@MarkM

Or 'HEMP' ,

as it was referenced when

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

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

@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 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.