This is why we need to come up with newer and better ways for broad subversive messaging and organization. Whenever we give our money to existing media/publishing companies for advertising, we’re just materially enriching the very interests we’re attempting to oppose.

You can vote on Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/d66c0/reddit_wont_run_any_display_ads_for_marijuana/

Just what is the big deal about a Pot ad? I don’t understand why they won’t do it. Is someone leaning on the media? After the election will the media accept pot ads? Do they accept beer ads?

Given the expected drop in advertising during the recession I don’t see how any media company can justify this to stockholders. Its not like Reddit’s people are not for this. In fact a strong stand might harm them.

What’s Myspace’s position on this do they accept pot ads?

Federal marijuana prohibition is a fully unconstitutional religious prohibition based on Exodus 22:18 Thou shall not suffer a witch to live.

Here is a nice book on the issue as world history, I highly recommend it,

Marijuana – The First Twelve Thousand Years
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/history/first12000/abel.htm

Marijuana is completely harmless and a very useful medicine. From FOXN,

Are You Cannabis Deficient?
http://health.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/10/are-you-cannabis-deficient/

That means the argument used to regulate it as interstate commerce is totally bogus.

That is also why even though weed is completely harmless, it is scheduled all wrong, and they refuse to change it. Like including Native Americans in the religion section at Borders Books, it would rip a hole in their space/time/legal argument continuum, granting us equal rights, including the right to keep OUR children and property.

You see when it gets to American Indians, and our religions based on smoking things, the Doctrine of Discovery gives white men the right to take away everything we have.

How else do you think they have gotten away with drug war asset seizures that are completely unconstitutional? There is a legal precedent.

From our constitution,

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF (smoking or growing pot); or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

From my church,

Cultivation and enjoyment of Cannabis sacrament is a fundamental human right provided by God and protected by the first Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It is our opinion that Cannabis is the original sacrament of Hebrew, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Shinto, Buddhist, Rasta and more, and fulfills the prophesies to ‘raise up for them a plant of renown…’

http://www.thc-ministry.org/

Our church was raided, my minister is in jail without bail for nothing more than providing our sacrament to believers in our religion.

Do you think the supreme court is going to rule against the first amendment freedom of religion? Because I don’t. I think we actually have freedom of religion.

Sincerely,

Reverend Lauren Unruh

THC Ministry
Pleasant Hill, California
A Native American Church

They’re afraid this administration is ham-handed enough to see them as conspirators abetting in the promotion of an illegal substance. Blurg!

Ok given that Rahm is running the WH you have made a very valid point.

Might be moving to California after the New Year I’ll have to look this church up. Unless anything keeps me in Wisconsin like a good job/s

Under what grounds can the media refuse to run an ad its factual right how many ads do they run where they won’t guarantee its not a scam? Weight loss schemes, work from home ads, get rich quick schemes, most forms of media have run very questionable ads.
Why are we help to a higher standard? Since we are trying to peacefully change a law using the democratic process should not our ads be politically protected free speech?

Glen Beck can inspire hate crimes and murder with his rants but Hate Speech is protected try to change pot laws peacefully and you get censored? Only in America:(

That’s that on my subscriptions from Conde Nast. BUT…I think their support isn’t needed, and they need your subscription more than you need their tripe. AND REMEMBER TO DO YOUR HOMEWORK….BOYCOTT Target, Best Buy, and all the products made by the KOCH BROTHERS…BRAWNY, DIXIE CUPS..READ THE LABELS AND IF IT SAYS KOCH INDUSTRIES, PUT IT BACK ON THE SHELF. BUT DON’T BE WICKED AND CARELESSLY PLACE IT IN SUCH A WAY THAT OTHERS CAN’T EASILY FIND IT.

Nast prolly strongarmed by beer/booze advertisers.

Jim White has a fresh cross-post ready: Selling Tax Cuts For the Rich: Just Whose Team Is Mark Zandi on, Anyway?

I want to make this clear: I support pot legalization 100%.

Prop. 19 is a Trojan horse. Please, folks, read the damned law before you vote in favor!

Are you a parent? Like to smoke in your own home? You will be voting for your own incarceration and possible loss of your kids.

This law creates new penalties where none existed before!

I thank the stars for the scared old “beatniks” who got me high at age 14. They saved my sanity and giving a joint to a minor was literally a capital offense at the time. At least they wouldn’t be executed under this law, but if you vote for 19, you will be sanctioning with your vote new, harsher penalties for such folks.

That law sucks and I would never vote for it. And mark my words, there will be twice as many pot busts if it passes.

This is an outrage! Also- what a stupid idea to brand the campaign with the leaf. When you’re trying to advance the debate, don’t use the old frame activators. That will be eleventy eight thousand dollars. Good day.

No need to shout. Plus it’s hard to read.

You might want to post those sections of the proposed law to substantiate your assertions.

PS: Link to the full text: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i821_initiative_09-0024_amdt_1-s.pdf

http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-pro-pot-activists-oppose-2010-tax.html

If you can somehow substitute a gun for that demon leaf I’m sure the logo would then be acceptable the corporate overlords.

That letter appears to be proposed amendments to the measure, which is described as being attached as Enclosure B, which is not shown in the link. I have no way of knowing if the proposed amendments to the measure were adopted or not.

Your second link is a blog, which I do not accept as original source material other than for purposes of quoting the author of the blog.

I favor legalization and the end of prohibition, hoping for prisoner amnesty before anything else.

But, you know, it’s expecting a lot to expect or to demand that others should endorse a specific position on a formal ballot issue. How is that different from demanding or expecting that others endorse a particular candidate for elected office?

Governments should prohibit mass production and sales of unhealthy food instead.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Complete_text_of_The_Regulate,_Control_and_Tax_Cannabis_Act_of_2010_%28California%29

From section 11300: 1. “Personal consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis:

1.
1. possession for sale regardless of amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301;
2. consumption in public or in a public place;
3. consumption by the operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft while it is being operated, or that impairs the operator;
4. smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.
(emphasis mine)

Section 4.(a) Every person 18 years of age or over who hires, employs, or uses a minor in transporting, carrying, selling, giving away, preparing for sale, or peddling any marijuana, who unlawfully sells, or offers to sell, any marijuana to a minor, or who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give any marijuana to a minor under 14 years of age, or who induces a minor to use marijuana in violation of law shall be punished by imprisonment in the for a period of three, five, or seven years.

(b) Every person 18 years of age or over who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a minor 14 years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years.

c) Every person 21 years of age or over who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each offense.

(new penalties)

I suggest you read the full text of the law and the blog about the law. The blog is accurate.

Assuming you saw the corporate response when reddit asked the owners:

Edit: We have a statement from Corporate: “As a corporation, Conde Nast does not want to benefit financially from this particular issue.”

This is of course inevitable. They’ll take our advertising money all day long, until they think we can actually change things.

That ought to be a clear indicator to all of us that the major media knows they have the winning hand in this relationship, that their reach into politics vastly surpasses ours, such that they’re able to actively undo all the doing we go after. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t even allow us to project our message at all.

Congratulations to the people at Reddit for at least temporarily weaseling around Condé Nast’s rhetorical justifications. That will soon be corrected I’m sure.

And, PS: The blog itself is well-sourced. No need to quote the blogger – who has excellent credentials, btw.

The penalties you cite under California Health and Safety Code Section 11361 are not all new. Sections (a) and (b), which are the really harsh ones, are already in place. The initiative does add section (c), creating a penalty for giving or selling marijuana to someone who’s between 18 and 21 if you’re older than 21. I don’t personally agree with setting the age limit at 21, but because the drinking age is 21, I understand why the drafters decided to do so.

Here’s a link to the current code: http://law.onecle.com/california/health/11361.html

Clearly, the fix is IN.