From: Michelle (michelle@barrymenasherealtors.com)
Date: Mon Feb 11 2002 - 15:09:35 MST
Really the only option for airplay on such things has been cable access -
and then you get a couple of Icke-like viewers who become passionate loonies
and take the message to the streets, where hip arty college-age networking
anti-establishment kids hear the message and distill it to whatever is
sensible about it, and then they take it to their peers, who take it to
their peers (and maybe parents and classmates who might be/become scientists
or legislators) and so on until you have a group like NORML being kind of a
powerful voice. It's only taken what? 30 years?
I may be attributing more power to NORML than they're due, since I live in
Oregon. But medical marijuana was a huge step (tho it's still in limbo),
and the advance was a grassroots thing. Maybe movements have gotten louder
and more aggressive (from beatniks to hippies to punks) in pace with the
media getting louder and more agressive. It may be that these days the
establishment clamor is so loud that the anti-establishment must act in big,
attention-getting ways to get any voice at all. And to think, it used to be
that a petition would do the job - isn't that how prohibition got going in
the first place? A nice, polite petition (well, plus the backing of big
business)?
So as far as CoV goes, it's either public access/internet or rioting...
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Roh <billroh@churchofvirus.com>
To: virus@lucifer.com <virus@lucifer.com>
Date: Monday, February 11, 2002 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: virus: Cannabinoid receptors and munchies : reprise
>Ben, your statement "Anti-Drug Laws Support Terrorists"
>
>Is exactly what I thought, to the letter, when I first saw these adds. I
was
>wondering how a person would get those views aired - but decided that one
could
>not get such views aired. I do not think that there is a single
broadcasting
>medium, with any viewership worth mentioning, that would carry such an
>advertisement. Which led me to the whole notion of "What" type of adds
could not
>get aired. I decided that any add that was anti-christian would not be
permitted
>- including adds for a non religious group. For instance, one could
probably get
>away with "Come to our social gathering" but not with "We are having an
atheist
>gathering" or worse "Want an alternative to Christianity? Call the Church
of
>Virus".
>
>I never really thought about it too much, but it is obvious that freedom of
>speech does NOT include pay for advertising services and we would get
>blackballed if we ever tried to advertise in such a medium.
>
>What a bummer
>
>Bill Roh
>
>
>
>
>
>ben wrote:
>
>> What I find sickening yet oddly humourous about the whole thing is that
>> those problems would go away as soon as it was legalized, (which is much
>> easier to do than to entirely stamp out recreational drug use) but you
don't
>> see them promoting that to Joe Public as a possible solution.
>>
>> Maybe that should be the new slogan of the decriminalization camps -
>> "Anti-Drug Laws Support Terrorists"
>>
>> -ben
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Michelle" <michelle@barrymenasherealtors.com>
>> To: <virus@lucifer.com>
>> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 11:04 AM
>> Subject: Re: virus: Cannabinoid receptors and munchies : reprise
>>
>> Anyone else here seen the newest ad campaign against "drugs"? Where kids
>> are shown intermingling phrases like "I like to get high with my friends"
or
>> "I smoke a bit of weed" with phrases like "I help fund terrorists" and "I
>> help bombers get fake passports", ending with "It's my body".
>>
>> It's kind of scary in that it's partially true - but you could say the
same
>> about paying the power bill, for example. Or taxes. Nobody's doing
>> commercials about that. I'm wondering just how well this meme will
take -
>> any predictions? Are even pot smokers to become villainous pariahs, seen
as
>> terrorist-enablers?
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:42 MDT