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
June 2010
M T W T F S S
« May   Jul »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  

Archives

Authors

We own the internet

There’s a lot we don’t control, but the internet is ours.

The “Tax Cannabis in 2010” Facebook page as of Thursday afternoon had 101,386 fans (i.e., people who “like” the page).

The “Public Safety First — Against the Legalization of Marijuana in CA” Facebook page had six fans.

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

18 comments to We own the internet

  • Ned

    Hopefully we’ll own some excellent TV commercials in sept and oct that get the message through to women, especially mothers and teachers. They are a very important voter group and among the most fearful of legal cannabis. They often are swayed by lies about “the wrong message”, “use by minors will increase”, and “deaths from stoned drivers will rise”.
    TV has to refute these lies definitively and non stop.

  • Landis

    There is one absolute, the numbers that support tax, control, regulate and Legalize will continue to rise.

  • heh… now that’s funny! Thanks Pete, you just made my night…

  • DavesNotHere

    I was number 101,504, thanks Pete.

  • KBCraig

    I won’t be a friend. I don’t support the “tax, control, and regulate” model. I support eliminating all the laws referring to, restricting, outlawing, controlling, or otherwise referencing cannabis.

    If you think government has too much control via prohibition, just wait until you see the controls they would impose via taxation and regulation.

  • ezrydn

    Well, Craig,

    You and I both, along with everyone here, know that your specific desire will never happen. Not with all the years of failure that’s occurred first.

    The T/C/R model is much better than the “let’s shoot everyone” model that’s now in place. It’ll be a bit rough to validate why you tax someone and then shoot them, wouldn’t you say?

    Absolutists will never achieve success because it’s insane to think you can get everyone to that mindset at the same moment.

  • damaged justice

    “Absolutists will never achieve success”

    That’s what they said about slavery. Well, two steps forward, one back; emancipating slaves, enslaving free men.

  • permanentilt

    too bad the majority of facebookers don’t vote…..

    heres to hoping they do this year 😀

  • Jon Doe

    Exactly ezrydn. The government will never allow anything to be sold legally in this country without some system taxation and regulation in place.

  • claygooding

    The prohibitionists and supporters there of can list all the politicians and cops that support the continued prohibition of cannabis all they want.
    Luckily,the decision is being made in Nov by the people and not by the bought and paid for politicians.

  • Scott

    We do own the Internet, and kudos to everyone responsible for that achievement.

    However, I am noticing a potentially disturbing trend.

    My focus has been on converting the conservatives dominating the comments section at the Wall Street Journal site to our cause, by wielding (among other facts) the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is solely constitutional due to the politically-left New Deal and the corresponding abuse of the Commerce Clause, an argument that has successfully silenced the prohibitionists there.

    That silence is good, but there may be a reason for concern.

    Recent articles involving our cause (e.g. about the L.A. dispensaries fighting back, and the capture of Jamaican Christopher “Dudus” Coke) have had relatively little in the way of comments and recommendations (the thumbs up button).

    Apparently, the people who frequent the comments section there have lost the argument, so now they simply ignore the discussion.

    We need sufficiently-passionate public support across the political spectrum to help defeat the powers dominating the iron triangle (e.g. “incarceration lobby”), not public denial.

    Being right is never enough. The presentation of being right is also critical.

    We need a presentation style that is respectable from the perspective of those people who make up the mainstream, one that shows no political bias.

    While I understand the reason for promoting “tax, control, and regulate” (that reason being to make us look more reasonable), it is not a wise move.

    Putting aside whether or not our “public servants” have the authority to control any aspect of drug use, the “tax, control, and regulate” mantra is the liberal/progressive mantra in general.

    That mantra continues to position ourselves as a liberal cause, and it is arguably the culture war that is the real reason why there is so much resistance on the conservative side of the political fence against repealing the CSA.

    In other words, we shoot ourselves in the foot by supporting the likes of “tax, control, and regulate”.

    If our public servants are going to engage in that control without negative consequences (as they have done with alcohol), then so be it. But it is not our place to determine how prohibition should end, only that it should end based on all points available.

    Our goal should be to continuously and publicly challenge prohibitionists to prove the CSA is justified (constitutional, effective, non-destructive, and warranted).

    When we defend ourselves against prohibitionist statements, we lose, because the prohibitionists are on the offensive (making them look more credible).

    By going on the offensive in a composed manner against the extremely vulnerable prohibitionist credibility (which is actually zero, despite public perception), we can publicly discredit them while increasing our own credibility in the mainstream.

    We should be mocking them while maintaining professionalism, not responding to their ridiculous arguments. John Walters and his like should be naturally laughed at during mainstream media interviews, supported by a polite dismissal in the form of a request for the comprehensive cost/benefit analysis that gives their stance any credibility, despite having decades to build that analysis.

    Another request should be for them to solidly prove one of their constantly-proclaimed disasters upon any reduction of illicit-drug-related penalties, criticising them when they reply with their weak, easily-manipulated statistics.

    We own the Internet. Now what are we going to do with it to end the CSA? Continue generally preaching to the choir? Sure we are gaining support, and that is truly great, but do you think the average Joe and Jane are going to write to their congressional representatives to a degree seriously threatening that politician’s career?

    We do not own the mainstream media, but we do have some presence there. How long will that last? Is it possible that our presence there will fade if the economy recovers?

    We need to verbally strike, and verbally strike hard at critical vulnerabilities in the prohibitionist camp to publicly paint them as they are; despicable and radical anti-Americans stealing billions annually from the taxpayers to fund their selfish agenda that contains no solid evidence proving societal benefit.

    Again for emphasis, that means going on the offensive in the public mainstream.

  • Ziggy

    While I can’t say “we” own the Internet, becasue I’m not sure who “we” are, I can point out something that drives a lot of people nuts…

    According to popular theory, drug law reformers, read stoners, are supposed to be stupid, lazy, sit on the couch watching tv stuffing their face with food. They’re supposed to be unmotiviated, easy to spot and control.

    What is really getting their ire, is what many of us have known all along. Drug law reformers, maybe read stoners, are motivated, smart, educated people who are rather passionate about their subject. They use computers, they know the internet, the organizers behind them know the internet, and they’re effective at using it.

    What I’ve noticed lately is not so much that the arguments from comments have disappeared, but they’ve changed. Changed from “go back to your couch and smoke your weed and amount to nothing” sort of comments to “I’m sick and tired of all the potheads flodding the comment section, I can’t get an invalid argument in edgewise.”

    Add that to people who think that if you’re in favor or legalaization and you vote or speak up on the internet you’re just trolling (Google, various Change sites…) like they even know what trolling is.

    I guess what I’m saying is, not that we own the Internet. I think we own the argument, and the Internet is making it painfully clear.

  • Chris

    I don’t get how anyone could be against the tax and regulate proposal. Yeah, it may not be what you’re wanting exactly, but it represents progress. And getting what you really want is far less likely to make a direct jump to. The public sees it as legalizing marijuana, period.

  • Reverend Unruh

    The tax and regulate model gives us something no other political argument does, the right to go to our congress critters and demand representation, something we as a group of people have been severely lacking. I think that is the result of a terrible religious prejudice.

    No taxation without representation was the argument for representative democracy in this country in the first place. If it worked for the founding fathers’ tea party, it will work for us.

    Sister Lauren Unruh
    THC Ministry

  • damaged justice

    “Taxation WITH representation ain’t so hot either.”

  • ezrydn

    Has anyone noticed that POTUS has given up on his “use of the internet?” No more polls, no more questions, no more “what’s bothering you?”. Nothing! From noticable involvement to noticable absence. He/They learned!

  • […] I love this little statistic from the “San Francisco Chronicle” highlighted by Pete Guither on DrugWarRant: […]

  • Maria

    We might “own” the internet.. But we sure aren’t producing enough Google adverts…

    The Church of Scientology Foundation for a Drug-Free World banner ads? Really?

    I know these things are revenue generating for website, and I try to keep my adblocker off when visiting my faves… but I just might have to use it on this site. 🙁