AdRants reports that NORML is experimenting with grocery store signs that bring the marijuana law reform message to an audience that should be receptive, but at a time when its attention may be elsewhere.
[Thanks to mediageek for the tip.]
Mmmm...Marijuana Law Reform
Comments to "Mmmm...Marijuana Law Reform":
Scenescent | October 6, 2006, 5:58pm | #
Brilliant.Is there any evidence that these signs were actually used in a real supermarket with the consent of the store? And which local NORML chapter is responsible for preparing these signs? Sorry to be skeptical, but this is just strange.
joshua corning | October 6, 2006, 6:05pm | #
wow lets start a campaign to convince pot smokers that pot should be legal...Fucking complete waste of time and money.Hey stoned idiots the people who you have to convince that pot should be legal are the ones who do not use it.
pigwiggle | October 6, 2006, 6:11pm | #
"Hey stoned idiots the people who you have to convince that pot should be legal are the ones who do not use it."Perhaps they are trying to convince snackers they aren't having the fullest possible snacking experience. To this day I remember the first time I ate fried chicken high. Un-fucking-real.
Les | October 6, 2006, 6:13pm | #
Hey stoned idiots the people who you have to convince that pot should be legal are the ones who do not use it.The signs aren't designed to change people's minds about pot. They're designed to recruit pot smokers to work to make it legal, since most pot smokers aren't currently doing that.
Akira MacKenzie | October 6, 2006, 6:33pm | #
Errrr... does anyone besides me notes the irony of putting such ads in the snack section?Akira MacKenzie | October 6, 2006, 6:41pm | #
Oh wait... that's point. See, I've never touch pot and I making oblivious statements.I having a bad day. :(
Akira MacKenzie | October 6, 2006, 6:45pm | #
Edit: Oh wait... that's the point. See, I've never touched pot and I'm making oblivious statements.* * *
I'm REALLY having a bad day. I lost my wallet. Rogus inane comments on the Gay Marriage thread caused me to loose my temper. I've got a migraine.
Sigh.
Mike Laursen | October 6, 2006, 7:00pm | #
wow lets start a campaign to convince pot smokers that pot should be legalI can assure you there are pot smokers out there who think pot should be illegal. I've met a few of them.
Lowdog | October 6, 2006, 7:11pm | #
Mike - oh, totally. A lot of people who use drugs still think they should be illegal. Because only they can handle them...not everybody can.It's very similar to elitist bastards who think they have a right to tell other people what to do because, say, they have a PhD.
joshua corning | October 6, 2006, 8:16pm | #
I can assure you there are pot smokers out there who think pot should be illegal. I've met a few of them.I know...i have also and i think it is mind boggling.
These people really are the stupidist people on the planet and i think it is pot that is doing it.
That said i really do not want my money being spent to imprison these idiots...they are idiots but they are also harmless...which is exactly why they in no way should have anything to do with any campaign to legalilize drugs...harmlessness goes hand in hand with being ineffective.
Tim | October 6, 2006, 9:26pm | #
I think they should put signs near the birth control products section in the drugstore, stating how Pot makes sex better!.How about near the alcohol, Pot, safer than beer, zero calories
I like the signs (I like Tim's even better). But I just don't see a store manager agreeing to allow them in his store. And I definitely object to placing them without approval. Not just on principal, I think a guerrilla campaign would backfire.
dhex | October 7, 2006, 1:35am | #
"A lot of people who use drugs still think they should be illegal. Because only they can handle them...not everybody can."yeah, this attitude is strange. and offensive.
RV | October 7, 2006, 3:53am | #
What we need is a NOROL (National Organization for the Reform of Opium Laws). Opium is better than marijuana. Marijuana smokers are silly and stupid: Daaaah, I forgot what I was talking about man, Ha Ha Ha.Wheras opium is not pschotropic. You don't forget things or get paranoid. And its no more addictive than cannabis.
And while that green leaf looks okay, the red flower is far superior.
kevrob | October 7, 2006, 6:05am | #
Have you ever heard this stoner anti-legalization pitch?They shouldn't legalize pot, `cause if they did it would be sold in stores, and the Feds would regulate it, and the eeeeviiiilll tobacco companies would control the distribution of it. No, seriously, they registered trademarks for marijuana cigarettes back in the `60s, man! And the grass would be all standardized, with chemical preservatives in it, and the growers who raise it now would get shut out by the Giant Corporate Monsters. It'd suck as bad as when Bud, Schlitz and Pabst made all the local breweries disappear. Plus, they'll tax the hell out of legal pot, just to pay for war and other bad stuff.
It makes a certain kind of sense, if one has the right amount of foil lining one's hat. I don't do the doobage, so I have no dog, other than, y'know, personal liberty, in this hunt. I first encountered this "idea" back in the 70s, so it doesn't take into account developments such as the Long Tail theory of marketing. Any economy that can give us American Spirit cigarettes can probably handle boutique brands of wacky weed.
Kevin
James Ard | October 7, 2006, 8:26am | #
Kevin, it wouldn't be the corporate involvement that bothers me, it would be the taxes. I am also against increasing the miniscule packaging costs with mandated warning labels. But since labels are my business, I guess I wouldn't mind a new market to tap.Lowdog, in 28 years I don't remember partying with anyone who believed the masses couldn't handle it. But I don't party with many left-leaning elitists either.
James Ard | October 7, 2006, 8:26am | #
Kevin, it wouldn't be the corporate involvement that bothers me, it would be the taxes. I am also against increasing the miniscule packaging costs with mandated warning labels. But since labels are my business, I guess I wouldn't mind a new market to tap.Lowdog, in 28 years I don't remember partying with anyone who believed the masses couldn't handle it. But I don't party with many left-leaning elitists either.
goldenpig | October 7, 2006, 8:35am | #
It'd suck as bad as when Bud, Schlitz and Pabst made all the local breweries disappear.But now the local breweries are back. So is homebrewing. The 21st century economy supports niche markets very well.
I don't party with many left-leaning elitists
They are less elitist when they are stoned. Pot makes everybody more libertarian.
James Ard | October 7, 2006, 8:54am | #
"The 21st century economy supports niche markets very well".I couldn't agree more. Buying a small quantity of labels used to cost a fortune. For many small food and drink processors the label's would cost more than the ingredients. Now, with digital technology and color laser printers, a hundred labels can be had for as little as a quarter each.
dhex | October 7, 2006, 10:35am | #
"But I don't party with many left-leaning elitists either."i'd found this with both leftists and college republican types.
giant weenies one and all. even if all of the above is true, people going to jail is worse than taxation, period.
James Ard | October 7, 2006, 7:26pm | #
Actually, my elitist sister is all for pot legalization, but she's wholeheartedly against private social security accounts. Apparently she thinks we can handle our dope but not our own retirement accounts.More to the initial post, legalization would probably lower the price, taxes and all.
Additionally, you'd have a hard time legalizing retail sale while keeping home growing prohibited. Those concerned about the quality of corporate brands will have no trouble securing a supply of more trusted manufacture. It is literally a weed, after all.
kevrob | October 8, 2006, 3:44am | #
For the record, I think it would make total sense for homegrowers and small commercial growers to compete in a legal pot market with whatever "big boys" emerged. I have my doubts that brewing or vinting would be the regulatory model followed. I especially expect local government would require special fencing around pot gardens or fields, much as they require fencing around swimming pools. Couldn't have Suzy and Tommy skipping home from school and into Mr. Stoner's garden to scrump some primo weed. "Attractive nuisance" is the legal term, I believe.Kevin
Buckshot | October 8, 2006, 4:31pm | #
James Ardt:"Legalization would probably lower the price, taxes and all."
The semi-legal cannabis clubs in California charge the same ridiculous prices as all the Dealer McDopes out there, but that's because they have to share the same market. Full, all out legalization would lower the price IF market forces determined the price. Good luck. Look at the price of a pack of cigarettes; pennies for the pack, dollars for the taxes. Even after legalization it will probably be cheaper (and emotionaly rewarding) to get it from the underground market, screw the taxman. Country Cowfreak will be able to grow his own, but the city slickers will have to pay. Of course, 30 years ago everyone thought it would be legal in 10 years, so we're still...um...oh yeah, 20 years behind the curve. Legalization? Don't hold your breath (haha).