Marijuana.com

Lothar121

I would much rather have Rob Kampia, Ethan Nadelmann, or Allen F. St. Pierre represent the reform movement.

__________________

Donate. Write. Make a difference.. Posting Guidelines | Marijuana Policy Project | NORML | DPA | Drug WarRant | Media Awareness Project

 

Mamabudz

And to that list of better choices add: Tommy Chong, Montel Williams, Angel Raich...

Sweet tooth 12

whoever represents our movement we should support 100%

Mamabudz

troublemaker_42

If Satan himself was arrested for marijuana seed charges, would you support him as well? We've got to use DISCRETION on who we support. Putting blind faith in everyone who claims to be part of the "movement" is a very dangerous idea.

 

Buzzby

Of course! Dissent is Treason! Who cares if Marc Emery is a marijuana-worshiping crazy who wants to "allow" old people to "die with dignity" by denying them state-funded medical care? Who wants to eliminate public education? Who is an anti-Semite? He is Our Leader and we should support him 100%!

The leaders of the American legalization movement, mentioned in Lothar121's post, tend to be much more rational and mainstream, and therefore more acceptable to the non-marijuana-smoking public.

I reserve the right to criticize any leader. Marc Emery is not the leader of anything of which I'd be a member.

60 Minutes is a highly professional news program that has a remarkable capacity for exposing the failings of demagogues. I hope Emery's appearance doesn't set the US legalization movement back too many years.

__________________

Lothar121

That is exactly what I'm biting my nails for. You all know that I have said it before; I think what Emery was doing in Canada was somehow working to a degree, but it will not work in America. It will actually be counterproductive.

He will alienate people that do not consume cannabis and could portray us as radical rather than sensible assuming he uses the same tone and rhetoric to make his points. I am crossing my fingers that he will change his tone and articulate himself in a practical way to the American public.

Cassius

How could it set the movement back? Being pro-marijuana, since it is illegal, requires an open mind. Even being on the fence requires an open mind. An open-minded person isn't going to dismiss his arguments for the legalization of marijuana based on his views of public education or anything else other than the arguments he presents for or against legalization. Only a closed-minded person is going to hear him and say, "Oh he seems antisemitical to me, therefore his arguments about cannabis must be hogwash even though I can't think of a rational argument to refute him." And the closed-minded people are ALREADY on the other side of the fence.

Basically what I'm saying is, the people who are for legalization or unsure about it, will adjust their opinions on legalization based on what he says about that subject. They are listening to him to hear what he has to say about marijuana, not because they want to hear him talk. They won't ignore what he says on other subjects, but if they're rational (and it DOES take a rational mind to think about what the world should be like, instead of what it is like) they're not going to dismiss logical arguments on one subject because of who said them.

Whereas the people who are against legalization, if they do listen to his arguments about legalization and other subjects, at worst they're going to think "these other opinions of his shows what a kook he is, therefore my opinion against marijuana is entirely justified" and by the next day they'll have forgotten completely about Mr. Emery. Because their opinions didn't change, because their value set didn't change, because they weren't forced to think deeply about any subject, the experience won't last more than a week and it'll have been no different than if they hadn't listened to the man at all.

So how, exactly, is he going to set back the marijuana movement, even if he begins his interview with, "I believe marijuan should be illegal and we should kill non-Aryan infants to purify the human race"? I suppose the worst that could happen was if he was slightly off-base -- perhaps if he argued for legalization while perpetuating the "lazy stoner" stereotype, arguing the merits of being a couch potato. That might do some damage. But then again, that stereotype already exists and therefore it's going to be the same thing again -- unbiased people will judge his argument on their own merit, and biased people will dismiss him and forget about him.

Cliff's notes version of my argument: The US government and US citizens (my argument is from an American perspective) are BOTH losing the drug war. When you're losing, only unbiased minds are going to join your side of the war anyway. Therefore, it's not TOO inaccurate to say that any publicity is good publicity. QED.

__________________

{ Cassius, Your Humble Narrator }
{ Posting Guidelines | Erowid Drug Information Resource | instantfilehosting.com }

Cassius

EDIT: Answering Lothar's post before mine who seemed to kind of answer my questions:

Is that the crux of the matter? How are you so sure that he will alienate people who are already alienated? It seems more likely to me that they will dismiss him, or simply not even watch the show for fear of their children getting up from bed and hearing his "pro-marijuana propaganda".

Liberty4All

Yes, it's well known that Marc Emery is a libertarian, so it only makes sense that he is against socialism. Not all pro-marijuana advocates are socialists (fortunately).

But what's this about anti-Semitism? Do you have any direct evidence of this?