Posted on 10/14/2005 7:36:14 AM PDT by cryptical
Backers of a Denver ballot measure to legalize marijuana for adults were accused Thursday of exploiting crime fears and deceiving voters.
A pro-pot group, Change the Climate, on Monday plans to unveil three billboards around Denver showing a battered woman with her male abuser behind her and the slogan:
"Reduce family and community violence in Denver. Vote Yes on I-100."
Nowhere does the ad mention that Initiative 100's passage would amend Denver law to make it legal for adults to possess 1 ounce or less of marijuana.
Earlier this week, Denver Councilman Charlie Brown blasted I-100's sponsor, Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation - or SAFER - for campaign signs that declare: "Make Denver SAFER, Voter Yes on I-100."
Brown said the slogan is designed to fool residents into thinking the measure on the Nov. 1 ballot is about highly publicized efforts to combat rising crime and falling arrest rates by boosting police staffing.
He was so furious because the red-and-white signs were illegally scattered in his Observatory Park neighborhood and along street medians that he spent an hour Saturday yanking them out.
Now a political analyst and an activist who fights domestic violence are criticizing the billboard sponsor for using the emotionally charged image of the brutalized woman with a black eye to "distort" the goals of the pot legalization campaign and exploit Denver residents' fear about growing crime and police understaffing.
All political advertisers are "pretty liberal with the truth" as they strive to grab people's attention and deliver the message, said veteran Denver pollster Floyd Ciruli on Thursday. "But this is probably on the very far edge . . . in terms of a political accuracy and honesty.
"They're not even identifying what the issue is at all."
And while the group could make a strong argument for its central claim - that adult marijuana is a safer alternative than violence-fueling alcohol - the billboard's message "is pretty distorting," Ciruli added.
But Change the Climate founder Joe White said the Greenfield, Mass., nonprofit group's Denver billboards reflect dozens of marijuana-reform advertising campaigns it has run from California to Washington, D.C.
He said his group independently spent less than $10,000 to post the billboards in support of the I-100 campaign. One billboard will be at Santa Fe Drive and Alameda Avenue, another will be outside Invesco Field at Mile High and a third will be at 5500 Colorado Blvd.
The goal, White said, is to get political leaders to rethink the wasteful expenditure of $50 billion nationwide to combat nonviolent marijuana users, when many American cities are hard-pressed to fund police, fire, libraries and other social services.
"Our ad is seeking to stimulate debate and raise new ideas for political leaders to consider in an era of extremely tight and almost nonexistent funding for social services," White said Thursday.
But Councilman Brown said the billboard sponsors are using the smoke screen of domestic violence to mislead voters.
"Domestic violence is not on the ballot," Brown said. "Why can't they be grown-up about this issue and be straight with the Denver voters?
"If you want a marijuana initiative, use the 'M' word. Don't hide behind these other issues. Yeah, alcohol causes problems, there's absolutely no doubt. But alcohol is not on the ballot, and alcohol is a legal drug."
White said the group isn't hiding its pro-pot message.
He said the billboard directs people to its Web site where "you'll see (their marijuana reform crusade) front and center."
The head of the Yes-on-100 campaign, SAFER's Mason Tvert, defended the billboard's imagery, even though his group wasn't involved in crafting it.
"The fact of the matter is, if people used marijuana instead of alcohol, fewer crimes, instances of domestic violence, fights and traffic fatalities would occur," he said.
"This is a more honest campaign than any you will ever see."
Randy Saucedo, advocacy director for the Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence, issued a sharp rebuke of the billboards.
"I find it pretty offensive that we're getting some out-of-state types trying to further their goal by masking the tragedy of domestic violence, when the issue has nothing to do with domestic violence," Saucedo said.
"I find it very appalling, especially that they're deceiving the voters of Denver."
Then name one major medical organization that states that pot or heroin has medical use.
American Academy of Family Physicians and the New England Journal of Medicine have both come out in favor of approving medical uses for marijuana.
I have no idea what the American Academy of Family Physicians is endorsing with their statement, "The American Academy of Family Physicians opposes the use of marijuana except under medical supervision and control for specific medical indications."
Hell, that could be for research only.
That's a disagreement, not a lie. You got squat.
You will deny, deny, deny to not cede any ground, won't you? What do you consider a "reputable" organization, if not the New England Journal of Medicine? I mean, it doesn't get a lot more reputable and established than that.
Sounds like they've been taking lessons from the pro-WOD forces.
Faulty logic. If i have zero hand guns on me, I am not in possesion of a gun. It does not make me in possesion of zero guns. Possesion means you have something, if you don't have something you don't have a possesion.
The Wall Street Journal, but that isn't a medical organization either.
The New England Journal of Medicine is a reputable publisher of "new medical research findings, review articles, and editorial opinion". Its "opinion" on medical marijuana is a relevant as the WSJ's.
On the subject of medical marijuana, a reputable organization would be one like the AMA, The American Cancer Society, The National Cancer Institutes, The American Academy of Opthamology, The Multiple Sclerosis Society, The American Lung Association, or The National Institutes of Health.
If you possess 4 guns or less, you're in violation of the law. Zero guns would be a violation.
Uh-huh. What do they mean by "hooked"? Can they be "hooked" but not use it (like an alcoholic that doesn't drink)? What's their definition of a "meth addict"? Is that the same as "hooked"?
What's a "habitual meth user", and is that different than an addict or being "hooked"?
Whoa! Now what do they mean by "methamphetamine abuse"? Is that "habitual"? Or does that mean a whole bunch at once? Does someone who's "hooked" abuse meth, or only addicts do that? Or habitual meth users?
Since this is so clear to you, maybe you can explain it to the rest of us.
You've got LIES, you POS. You'll never be trusted by me.
So do I.
And when the research is done, the studies complete, the drug trials over, and the papers published in peer-review journals, then the drug can go through the FDA approval process resulting in a prescription drug available from a licensed doctor through a licensed pharmacy -- just like every other drug ( including Marinol®).
Unless you can give me a valid reason why we should make an exception for this drug.
Or maybe it's like those old anti-drug spots when that kid is explaining the Founding Fathers: "Dudes, let's like get together and make a country, or something."
I hope they correct it and pass the resolution. We don't need pot criminals in our jails. It is costing too much and generating no benefit.
But it will, Jackboots. Think of all that carbon dioxide tied up in the plants, that can't contribute to the greenhouse effect till it's smoked.
It's certainly more honest than most of the government's anti-marijuana propaganda.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.