Send comments, tips,
and suggestions to:
DrugWarRant
Join us on Pete's couch.
couch

DrugWarRant.com, the longest running single-issue blog devoted to drug policy, is published by the Prohibition Isn't Free Foundation
facebooktwitterrss
May 2010
M T W T F S S
« Apr   Jun »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

Archives

Authors

FDL final voting on marijuana campaign slogan

I think they did a good job of narrowing down the 800 submissions into a reasonably good set of choices for their campaign at FireDogLake

Just Say Now
Just Say No – To Prohibition
Vote Green
Stop Supporting Cartels
Marijuana Never Stole Your 401k
Liberty. Legalize Marijuana
Prohibition; Stupid Then, Stupid Now
Stop Funding Criminals. Legalize Marijuana
Marijuana: Pass it
Prohibition Kills
Campaign for Sensible Cannabis Reform
End Prohibition Again
Legalize Marijuana
Grass is Greener

Go and vote.

It’s nice to have FireDogLake working on this project.

It’s also nice to see some stirrings at other progressive sites, such as this mention by Marcos at Daily Kos, when talking about the Arizona issue:

The drug smuggler infestation (whether white or brown) at the border is at true crisis levels. But the drug issue has nothing to do with the immigration issue. Drug runners aren’t crossing the border looking to get jobs mowing lawns, and demanding to see immigration papers at a Tucson bus stop won’t make a dent in the drug cartels. […]

There are two broken policies here — the immigration system, which desperately needs reform, and the drug war, which is costing people their lives and essentially turning Mexico into a narco state in order to irrationally keep people from smoking freakin’ weed.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

17 comments to FDL final voting on marijuana campaign slogan

  • Just me

    Prohibition; Stupid Then, Stupid Now
    End Prohibition Again
    Those two would be my picks. I have ran into many people who dont know alcohol used to be prohibited, or the carnage that followed prohibitions start. These two would get people thinking and open some eyes as to why its just never going to work …at least to the benefit of society. It works great for crimials and about 5 other groups I can think of…but not the people.

  • kaptinemo

    This is what comes from persistence. I’ve been on these ‘progressive’ websites for the past 6 years at least, reminding them that the police state that they kept moaning and groaning about didn’t spring from the (microcephalic) head of George W. Bush during his tenure but had been growing – with the hearty help of so-called ‘progressives’ – for the past 30 years.

    I and a plethora of others had also been reminding them that cannabists comprise the single largest potential voting bloc in the US. We reminded them in 2004. We reminded them in 2006. We reminded them in 2008. They didn’t want to listen. We had the largest threads on any of their Websites…and they didn’t want to listen.

    Well, now they’ve suddenly ‘discovered’ how drug prohibition is racially motivated, and how the creeping fascist police state that developed to prosecute that prohibition specifically targeted minorities…and is being used to further target them under the rubric of ‘immigration’.

    You know, for people who pride themselves on how ‘advanced’ they are beyond the very people they scorn as not being terribly bright, a lot of the ‘progressive’ ‘leadership’ have got mental retinal blind spots the size of aircraft carriers. Sometimes you just have to keep spelling it out to them…again…and again…and again…

  • kaptinemo

    Oh, and in case there’s any doubt of this, read the part from dKos above what Pete’s posted a link to:

    “The drug smuggler infestation (whether white or brown) at the border is at true crisis levels. But the drug issue has nothing to do with the immigration issue. Drug runners aren’t crossing the border looking to get jobs mowing lawns, and demanding to see immigration papers at a Tucson bus stop won’t make a dent in the drug cartels.”

    See what I mean? Blind spots so huge they could cause solar eclipses if they could be lifted into orbit. They’re just so terrified of dealing with the root problem partly because they had a hand in its’ formulation. Pathetic. And he’s catching Hell in the comments section, for good reason.

  • John Mola

    Cool! Mine has made the cut! “Stop Funding Criminals. Legalize Marijuana.”

    I also like the 3 involving “prohibition.” I think it’s really helpful for people to draw that connection between “then” and “now” to calm some fears.

  • Scott

    “Grass is Greener” is the only one I like, fwiw.

    It’s a simple, friendly, and catchy phrase that positively, quickly, and completely defines the cannabis part of our movement as the road to a better place for society.

    In a respectable and composed way, it suggests leading our society away from the prohibitionists recklessly lying and exercising violence to achieve their own excessive funding.

    While the likes of “Prohibition Kills” are true, in the minds of the still-skeptical people that we’re out to persuade, the natural response can be the likes of “Drugs Kill” too (because that’s what they’ve been taught for decades).

    We’re already seen in a negative light by too many people still. I can see no reason how coming off as finger-pointing complainers will persuade the skeptics, even if our complaints are justified.

    Our presentation style must be a calm, intelligent, and entertaining one, reflecting the fact that we’re working hard to fix the drug-related problems plaguing our society (much of those problems due to prohibition, of course).

    Prohibitionists proclaim that cannabis legalization will lead to disaster.

    I hope everyone in our movement will repeatedly read that last paragraph until it is completely front and center within the drug policy part of their minds. Why?

    That proclamation is the only target that we need to address.

    The reason for that sole focus is if re-legalization would not lead to disaster, there’s no need for prohibition, regardless of any other point made on either side of this issue.

    We know that proclamation assumes that drug prohibition works. I still witness people at times echo this proclamation as it does seem sensible with that assumption in place. After all, they think logically enough, how can legalizing harmful drugs reduce abuse?

    We must politely challenge any prohibitionist at every opportunity, simply asking them to prove their former disaster predictions prior to each penalty reduction related to illicit drugs.

    What penalty reductions? 14 states decriminalized cannabis, 14 states re-legalized medicinal cannabis, Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001, The Netherlands — who fairly recently gave eight prisons to Belgium due to crime reduction — tolerates soft drugs, etc.

    There are ample opportunities for prohibitionists to now prove those disasters happened, and it’s to their benefit to do so. Their problem is those disasters did not happen.

    That last paragraph can also occupy front and center in the drug policy part of our minds.

    When the prohibitionists fail to prove those disasters ever occurred post any penalty reduction, their credibility goes down the toilet. Their necessary argument for keeping prohibition is defeated. It will expedite ‘game over’ for them.

    That ‘sole focus’ strategy was basically given to me by my dad, who spent four decades persuading juries as a civil litigator. He is an expert in the art of persuasion, and his strategy makes perfect sense.

    To help break the aforementioned assumption, I like to add the fact that prohibitionists cannot even create a drug-free prison system, a fact that can instantly cut through any skeptic’s counterargument.

    Our case against the prohibitionists is literally a “slam-dunk”, but we need to focus and express ourselves in a way that the so-called average person can firmly identify with.

    Too many points (even though they’re all valid) can overwhelm our audience and may turn them off.

    In the end, the grass is truly greener.

    Let’s win this thing once and for all!

  • Tony Aroma

    Wow! Three of mine made it to the final round!

    I won’t try to bias the voting, but I think the word “marijuana” should not be used in such a public campaign, as it is a slang term. Like if you were trying to legalize cocaine, you wouldn’t call it “nose candy” or “blow.” If we must, let’s refer to it by it’s proper name, cannabis.

  • Cannabis

    I agree, Tony. It should be cannabis. The word “marijuana” was used on purpose for it’s ability to incite racist sentiments. It still works, so we should not use it.

  • Maria

    Interesting point about the words. I know that marijuana is more familiar with people but it does seem that so are the negative associations with it, ingrained by the recent years of anti-drug sloganeering.

    Marijuana, I do love the word but I also get the feeling that the term isn’t appropriate for such a context. What we are working for, as a whole, isn’t for the use of marijuana. We aren’t fighting for our “right” to smoke a joint. Not really… That’s a perk.

    What we are working for, as a whole, is the normalization of a plant and an end to the absurd immoral tragedy that has gone on long enough because of the politics surrounding this plant. A plant classified as Cannabis. Just my thoughts on words.

  • John Mola

    Yes, I do wish I could re-submit as cannabis instead of marijuana 😛

    Live and learn!

  • […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Weed, Hempsterdam420. Hempsterdam420 said: FDL final voting on <b>marijuana</b> campaign slogan – Drug WarRant http://goo.gl/fb/baypX #mmot #blog […]

  • ezrydn

    Most of those slogans are just “preaching to the choir.” I only saw one that actually targeted John Q. Public.

  • Nick

    I could only wish that I had seen the perfect entry win.
    Incarceration, not prohibition.
    Legalize marijuana.
    Not even on the list.
    Thanks Pete.

  • Chris

    http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10/n340/a07.html?1092
    Detroiters May Vote on Legal Marijuana, Proposal Heads for Ballot

    “Beck, 58, spent five weeks overseeing the collection of many more than the 3,700 signatures needed to get Detroit’s November ballot to include his proposal. It would legalize possession of up to 1 ounce of pot on private property by adults 21 and older.”

    The same thing happened earlier with medical marijuana: Detroit legalized it, then Flint did, then the state did:

    “Aug 6, 2004 … Detroit residents approved a medical marijuana initiative Tuesday by a vote of 59% to 41%”

    “Jul 16, 2009 … The city of Flint, MI, voted to allow patients in need to have access to medical marijuana”

    I hope this works out in Detroit then comes to Flint (where I live).

  • Tony Aroma

    “I could only wish that I had seen the perfect entry win.
    Incarceration, not prohibition.”

    I don’t get it. Is that sarcasm? Has the meaning of “incarceration” changed recently?

  • Amazing, I found your site on google poking around for something completely unrelated- now I’m gonna need to go the old posts. Good bye free time today, but this was a really spectacular find.

  • Tony Aroma

    So what ever happened with this contest? There’s nothing new about it on the FDL site for a while now.

  • I was very happy to seek out this web-site.I wanted to thanks for your time for this wonderful learn!! I undoubtedly having fun with every little little bit of it and I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you blog post.