CA Stations Reject Ad Calling For Pot Legalization
function share_this(num) {
 tit=encodeURIComponent('CA Stations Reject Ad Calling For Pot Legalization');
 site = new Array(5);
 return false;

CA Stations Reject Ad Calling For Pot Legalization
Posted by CN Staff on July 08, 2009 at 05:20:45 PT
By Ryan Grim
Source: Huffington Post
California -- Three television stations in San Francisco and Los Angeles have rejected an ad promoting the legalization and taxation of marijuana, set to run on consenting stations and cable networks in the state beginning Wednesday.Two ABC affiliates joined one NBC station in the decision to reject the spots. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, meanwhile, has called for a debate on legalizing marijuana.
"I think it's time for a debate," he said in May. "And I think that we ought to study very carefully what other countries are doing that have legalized marijuana and other drugs, what affect it had on those countries, and are they happy with that decision."KABC in Los Angeles and KGO and KNTV in San Francisco apparently aren't interested in such a debate. "How can you debate it if they won't air both sides?" wondered Bruce Mirken, a spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, which is behind the ad buy that he called "modest but not trivial."The ad will still be seen on other Bay Area and L.A. stations as well as in San Diego, Fresno, Santa Barbara, Sacramento and elsewhere in the state. "We haven't had any problem with cable, so one way or another we're going ahead," said Mirken.The respective station managers did not return calls requesting an explanation as to why the ads were rejected."Standards rejected the spot. Unfortunately we will not be able to run the creative," wrote Michael Friedman of KNTV, the NBC affiliate in San Francisco, to an MPP representative. Friedman didn't return a call.At KABC in L.A., the ad was rejected for purportedly encouraging marijuana smoking. Mirken spoke to station manager Arnie Kleiner, who didn't return a call from the Huffington Post. "His feeling wasn't that the ad was promoting a change in the law, but that it was promoting marijuana smoking," said Mirken, adding that Kleiner told him, "I'm not going to advocate the smoking of marijuana. Marijuana is illegal."The ad makes the case that it shouldn't be. Instead of criminalizing marijuana, it should be taxed to help ease the state government's budget crisis, says a woman in the spot."The governor and the legislature are ignoring millions of Californians who want to pay taxes," says the woman. "We're marijuana consumers. Instead of being treated like criminals for using a substance safer than alcohol, we want to pay our fair share."State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco has introduced a bill that would legalize, tax and regulate marijuana and there is a possibility voters may be asked to weigh in through a 2010 ballot proposition.Taxing pot could pay for 20,000 teacher salaries per year, the ad claims, by raising $1.3 billion. The source of the revenue figure is Betty Yee, chairwoman of the State Board of Equalization, which oversees taxation.One way to estimate the revenue that could come in the future from pot is to look at the tax stream that's already flowing thanks to legalized medical marijuana. In the fall of 2006, California clarified to its cannabis dispensaries that they were, in fact, responsible for paying its 7.25 percent sales tax, and had been since 2005. (Depending on the jurisdiction, some clubs are also required to add on a bit for local and county taxes.) Some club owners, backed by Americans for Safe Access, an industry advocacy group, had argued that, as quasi-pharmacies, their businesses were exempt, a line of reasoning dismissed by the state. Others, such as Steve DeAngelo, co-owner of Oakland's Harborside Health Center initially opposed the tax but came to support it, arguing that the perennially underfunded state would get addicted to the tax dollars generated by its pot clubs.Harborside is charged an 8.75 percent tax, including the local tack-on. With revenue of around $1 million per month, its annual sales-tax bill comes in at something like $875,000 per year. And that's just one shop. Yee told me that there's no way to break out exactly how much money the state is getting from pot clubs because it doesn't require them to state on their tax forms what product they sell. ("Regardless of legal status, anyone can get a seller's permit," she explained.)However, she did release the tax records of some clubs that had been raided by the federal government, noting that because they employed sizable numbers of people, they also paid state and federal income and payroll taxes. The Compassion Center, licensed by Alameda County, paid $3 million before being shuttered in October 2007 by the DEA. Nature's Medicinal, licensed by Kern Country, paid close to $1 million in 2007, which included $203,000 in state and federal income taxes, $365,000 in payroll taxes, and $427,000 in sales taxes. The Compassion Center employed and provided health benefits to fifty people; Nature's Medicinal twenty-five. (The demise of the latter wasn't universally deplored by the medical-pot community, however: It's alleged affinity for high-powered weaponry didn't jibe with the pacifist vibe the industry espouses.)Focusing merely on the sales tax misses the broader effect on the treasury, as employees in the expanding industry themselves cough up payroll and other taxes. In the case of Nature's Medicinal, sales tax made up 42 percent of total taxes paid.Even if that estimate is wildly overblown, the state is clearly already enjoying the tax money it gets from marijuana: a special notice sent to clubs by the Board of Equalization assured sellers they "may decline to provide information on products sold due to concerns about self-incrimination."A November 2006 report by the City of Oakland's Measure Z Oversight Committee came up with similar figures. It estimated that Californians consume between $870 million and $2 billion in medical marijuana per year, generating sales-tax revenue between $70 million and $120 million. In 2004, when Oakland's clubs were thriving, it took in, according to city records, $2.3 million in taxes on more than $26 million in revenue. As the feds swept through, that dropped, in 2006, to just $477,000 in taxes on $5.5 million in revenue. Two million dollars pulled from an annual city budget of about $900 million isn't exactly spare change.Expanding the taxation from medical marijuana to everyone would yield hundreds of millions of dollars more. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health reports that some two million Californians smoked marijuana in the last month. Given that it's a federal-government survey asking people about illegal behavior, the number could be a gross underestimate.The effort to provide the state government with pot-tax revenue has been a risky one for all involved, but Obama's Justice Department has announced that it will not raid pot clubs that operate within state laws. That wasn't the case under President Bush.Harborside opened the center in October 2006, on a day that three other clubs in the Bay Area were raided. "We had to decide in that moment whether or not we were really serious about this and whether we were willing to risk arrest for it," said DeAngelo. "And we decided we were gonna open our doors. And we did, and we haven't looked back since. The only way I'll stop doing what I'm doing is if they drag me away in chains. And as soon as they let me out, I'll be back doing it again."Source: Huffington Post (NY)Author: Ryan GrimPublished: July 8, 2009Copyright: 2009, LLC Contact: scoop huffingtonpost.comURL: -- Cannabis Archives
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help 

Comment #31 posted by Hope on July 10, 2009 at 13:40:43 PT
Joyce sure is quiet.
There is bound to be a "Joyce" tidal wave, to some degree, in the process of building. Of course there are a lot more mothers these days, perhaps, that would come back with "Stop threatening and arresting and sometimes causing the death and harsh persecution of our children over cannabis use!" Harsh laws and threats obviously cause much more harm than the even frequent use of the plant. Consuming the plant, even in excess, is not likely to kill. Prohibition has caused a lot of deaths. So much grief. A lot of killing. Death? Cannabis use, even among those we would certainly prefer wouldn't, is worse than possible death?Get a grip ladies. Joyce.You really, all of you, really have been the abiding source of more grief than you can imagine in so many people for so long now.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #30 posted by Hope on July 10, 2009 at 12:29:22 PT
Charmed Quark Comment 27
"Is talking about cannabis THAT dangerous?"Of course it is! When we talk... the truth comes out, something prohibitionists have managed to avoid for far too long. All the vigils. All the letters. All the web based conversation. It was breaking down that wall of silence where it could be talked about. It had to be. The suffering and destruction of humanity and society caused by the prohibitions had become absolutely completely, outrageously, unbearable for many of us.Getting through all those barriers finally led us to here... to now. To that Today Show segment yesterday.Finally!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #29 posted by FoM on July 10, 2009 at 10:58:06 PT
Related Article From The Huffington Post
California TV Stations "Just Say No" To Drug Policy AdJuly 8, 2009URL:
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #28 posted by runruff on July 09, 2009 at 06:10:29 PT
Rehab for fun and profit!
On that URL from #4, here is the scam; On the left side of the article it is all about scare tactics. Just look at all the horror show this guy puts up there? Then on the other side of the page is a list of rehab business ads. Here is your old time snake oil salesman only with federal lies to back him. He will not likely be tared and feathered as he should!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #27 posted by charmed quark on July 09, 2009 at 06:02:40 PT
Is talking about cannabis THAT dangerous?
It's just amazing to me - A Republican governor says a dialog is needed about legalizing marijuana and it is STILL considered too controversial to discuss by a couple of TV stations. I don't know what to think.I guess those decades of anti-marijuana propaganda by the government really did work. Apparently they induced brain damage in some TV executives.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #26 posted by runruff on July 08, 2009 at 19:37:46 PT
From #4
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #25 posted by FoM on July 08, 2009 at 19:01:01 PT
Related Article From The LA Times
Some TV Stations Refuse to Air Marijuana-Tax Advertisement***The commercial produced by a pro-marijuana advocacy group will appear about 200 times across California in the next week, but not on KTLA or KABC.By Eric Bailey and Catherine Saillant July 8, 2009URL:,0,6958260.story
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #24 posted by observer on July 08, 2009 at 14:08:06 PT
Silencing the Voices of Dissent
KABC, KGO, and KNTV have plenty of space and time to demonize and scapegoat cannabis users in manifold ways. Plenty of time for anti-pot propaganda, you can bet on that. But when we try to PAY for airtime (not like the freebie PSA slots given to prohibitionists), what happens?
KABC in Los Angeles and KGO and KNTV in San Francisco refuse to air the ad. Same old. From something I wrote a few years back on very similar attempts to buy TV time to tell our side...
In Oregon, radio stations that played hours of government messages demonising drug users refused to run a short ad paid for by a couple questioning government drug laws. "Portland's KUFO-FM . . . turned them down. KUFO wasn't alone in such thinking. Jeff and Tracy, both 39, have also been turned down by Portland's KNRK-FM, KGON-FM, KKRZ-FM, KKCW-FM and KEX-AM, and by stations in Seattle and Bend."[91] Attempts by the couple to advertise on buses and in local papers were also turned down as 'unsuitable for publication.' Noted one attorney of the police harassment of one questioning marijuana laws: "There's little question in my mind that Ms. Wolfe's activism and outspoken approach to this issue focused attention on her . . . I believe that these charges would not be pending but for her vocal support for the reform of marijuana laws."[92] The situation was the same in British Columbia. Noting the candidates who questioned drug laws were banned from debates, even one paper was moved to comment on the "Undemocratic" exclusion of candidates for their political views as "media-controlled news."[93] ___91. John Schrag, "We're Here. We're High. Get Used To Us.", Willamette Week, Jun. 27, 200192. Karen Mouradjian, "Tokin' Trouble", The Metro Times, May. 22, 200193. Hubert Beyer, "Excluding MJ Party Undemocratic", Trail Daily Times, May. 9, 2001
p.300, Drug War Propaganda,
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #23 posted by BGreen on July 08, 2009 at 13:29:22 PT
runruff just posted the same link you did in post #4, except he added an extraneous comma at the end which makes it an invalid URL.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #22 posted by GeoChemist on July 08, 2009 at 12:49:31 PT
the suspense is killing me.......the link (examiner) isn't ready for viewing yet.....I can't wait.....End of line
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #21 posted by runruff on July 08, 2009 at 11:54:09 PT
Blowhard armchair warriors! Been there, done that, burnt the d %n tee-shirt!, John English- Pedestrian Don Quixote sans the lance.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #20 posted by museman on July 08, 2009 at 10:48:31 PT
Here's my take;"Land of the fee, and home of the slave."
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #19 posted by museman on July 08, 2009 at 10:23:59 PT
this says all to me;
"...addicted to the tax dollars ..."And of course that incredibly ludicrous webpage of short-haired-yellow-bellied-son-of-tricky-dicky can be viewed in a 30 second burst of page scroll -to get the entire substance of nothing...Smoking cannabis is a preventative measure for cancer, radiation poisoning, as well as adjustements in chemical balances thrown off by consumerisms of false foods, false 'medical authorities' and false lifestyles removed from natural paths.nice thread....FREE CANNABIS FOR ALL
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #18 posted by josephlacerenza on July 08, 2009 at 10:22:23 PT
Freedom of Speech, Not in this country
I know the government, local, state, or federal can sentence a person to piss testing and the like. But, I had no clue that they could sentence you to no advocacy for something you believe in!!!!!I love 'Merica!!!! Land of the kind of free and home of the murderous brave!!!
Simple Marijuana Bust Leads To Government Banning Free Speech
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #17 posted by Sam Adams on July 08, 2009 at 09:29:00 PT
TV ads
Interesting, they have no problem running beer ads & Smirnoff ads, or political attack ads during campaign season.It's simple, they know MPP doesn't have much money, this will be one small campaign. Big Pharma and Big Booze pay enough to finance the whole network, don't want to pi$$ them off.As for Mr. English, he's looking pretty old and tired in that picture, methinks he won't be bothering us much longer. After all the booze and cigs aren't good for you health.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #16 posted by runruff on July 08, 2009 at 09:05:46 PT
They seem to borrow our reason..........
and pervert it into propaganda? This is not much different than the inflammatory unsubstantiated swill that started this whole prohibition morass!
 Most of us don’t like liars. Lying by omission, by deception, is no less offensive. With hemp, deception’s the rule! Honesty’s the...To see it through unbiased eyes, we need to review painful lessons from our nation’s history. Around the beginning of the 1900’s, America...Marijuana users: Just picture them as lemmings, rushing toward the cliff … “Drugs are modern slavery, just ask any addict! Then ask them....Mr. English is enjoying his moment in the sun at the expense of freedom, health and economy. Who or what is he trying to save? How is it some people seek out the most ignorant leaders to follow? Lemmings follow leaders, antiprohibitionist are liberty lovers and are as easy to herd a yard full of cats! And addiction? I am addicted to my wife, my pets, my garden, a healthy lifestyle. I use cannabis for medicine. I use to use it for to feel good just because [recreational]. I used off and on at will. Mr. English is addicted to something, I wonder what?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #15 posted by Hope on July 08, 2009 at 09:03:58 PT
This matters... Am I supposed to say that if hemp farmers can grow their crops and medical needs people can grow their hemp and have their medicine without fear of being killed or terrorized... it's ok?Not no... but Hell No! It's not ok.You medical users know how 'bad' and 'dangerous' the big bad weed is. You think it's ok for anyone to be humiliated, terrorized, inprisoned or even killed by the government over the weed? Do you?You think people should be abused and mistreated and humiliated over the plant? You think it's ok for people's pets to be be massacred in their homes? You think it should be illegal to have or use the plant if you're not sick or producing hemp for profit? If you do... you're no better than the raiders and killers and the rest of the unreasonable, violent, and cruel prohibitionists.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by BGreen on July 08, 2009 at 09:00:30 PT
Exactly, Hope
I'd like to expand on a hypothesis presented by Dr. Ethan Russo MD, who believed that many of the "functional conditions alleviated by clinical cannabis" may be due to treatment of an underlying "clinical endocannabinoid deficiency (CECD.")We now know that our own production of Anandamide, one of the known endocannabinoids produced by the human body, requires Omega 3 essential fatty acids (EFA's) for this production to take place. Without Omega 3 EFA's Anandamide production ceases.With the full knowledge that the vast majority of Americans don't consume nearly enough Omega 3 EFA's, exacerbated by the ratio imbalance of way too much Omega 6 EFA's compared to Omega 3 EFA's, it's highly plausible to expect a deficiency in endocannabinoids analogous to the deficiency of Omega 3 EFA's.Therefor, with a substantial percentage of the population unable to produce adequate amounts of endocannabinoids, we could conclude that a substantial percentage of the population who are endocannabinoid deficient would benefit from cannabinoid supplementation, i.e. cannabis consumption.It's easy to draw the conclusion from this ground-breaking research by Dr. Russo that a great percentage of cannabis consumption that is dismissed as "recreational" is actually a treatment for clinical endocannabinoid deficiency (CECD.)It could very well be that recreational use really is medical use.Now, as mind blowing as that all is, consider this.Considering the vast array of cannabinoids occurring naturally in the cannabis plant, it would be foolish to assume that the only naturally occurring cannabinoid (endocannabinoid) in the human body is Anandamide.I would argue that there are a great number of as yet undiscovered endocannabinoids that play into this clinical endocannabinoid deficiency (CECD.)The Reverend Bud GreenFootnote:Ethan B. RussoClinical Endocannabinoid Defciency (CECD): 
Can this Concept Explain Therapeutic Benefts of Cannabis in 
Migraine, Fibromyalgia, Irritable Bowel Syndrome and other 
Treatment-Resistant Conditions?Neuroendocrinology Letters Nos.1/2, Feb-Apr Vol.25, 2004
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by FoM on July 08, 2009 at 08:59:34 PT
I never went to Farm-Aid unfortunately. I watch it every year that it has been available. I don't often read anything from the Examiner. I read articles from the San Francisco Examiner. I really am not sure what the is actually.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by GeoChemist on July 08, 2009 at 08:48:31 PT
I know it is a tired argument, especially in the information age. Back then how could one verify anything readily? Now, information can be obtained from credible sources with the click of a mouse. this is what makes that imbecil and his rants so funny and easily picked apart. I have been meaning to ask you: Were you at Farm Aid in 2002?.....End of line
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by HempWorld on July 08, 2009 at 08:45:47 PT
BGreen, Hope, et. al. 
Hempsters are doing the holier than thou thing and have no idea that they are shooting the whole movement and themselves in the foot.And no, hemp in California won't work because it was vetoed twice by Arnie.I think this is going somewhere, especially with the added controversy of stations rejecting the ads. So much for 'free' speech huh? Great development nobody can stop this train!
Legalize All Drugs!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by FoM on July 08, 2009 at 08:40:23 PT
That was fine to post. I read it and it was what I have heard so many times before. He tried to lay a guilt trip on people. I think we have come too far to be shocked by that approach on marijuana.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by Hope on July 08, 2009 at 08:25:26 PT
I pretty much feel the same way.The battle is heating up. I'm poised for the fight. Problem is... so many people I've supported or attempted to support in various battles in this long and ongoing war against us all aren't going to do a thing to keep our common enemy from doing everything they can to take us out. They even ally with our enemies.It's not ok to let them take us, the "All arounders", out. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by BGreen on July 08, 2009 at 08:17:33 PT
Nope, the hemp route won't work
I'm really tired of fighting for the legalization of hemp just to have the largest supporters of hemp disparage the hell out of cannabis with higher cannabinoid contents.We've received ZERO help from the biggest proponents of legalized hemp and a great deal of "pot bad/hemp good" propaganda in the mean time.My take on this is that the only way to get full legalization for hemp AND cannabis is to get cannabis fully legalized. Hemp will be legal by default because cannabis prohibition would no longer exist in any form.I can still legally wear hemp and eat hemp so until the potential American hemp farmers stop trashing cannabis to get their way, they aren't going to get anymore of my help.I'm finished with them because they act no better than the ONDCP.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by anunlikelyally on July 08, 2009 at 08:03:40 PT:
Legalization? No. Ok, let's try hemp again...
With Oregon poised to join Montana, North Dakota, and Vermont in the legalization of industrial hemp, Californians should be pushing for hemp rather than outright legalization. Politically, it's more palatable. And if the Governator is saying that there should be open debate about outright legalization of cannabis, perhaps this is a golden opportunity for him to redress his veto of hemp legalization in 2006. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by BGreen on July 08, 2009 at 07:56:09 PT
re: post #4
I've never seen that garbage before but a cursory look was enough.I've LIVED through the lies of people like john english for 34 years. I've had enough of old $h!+s like him and all of the young $h!+s who think like him (or rather don't think at all.)The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by BGreen on July 08, 2009 at 07:48:39 PT
I'll bet they ALL run ads for Enbrel
Look at the side effects: Serious side effects include: serious infections including TB; nervous system problems, such as multiple sclerosis, seizures, or inflammation of the nerves of the eyes; rare reports of serious blood problems (some fatal); heart failure, including new heart failure or worsening of heart failure you already have; allergic reactions; immune reactions, including a lupus-like syndrome and lymphoma (a type of cancer). People with rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis may have a higher chance for getting lymphoma.There's not a single damn station in this country that refuses to advertise this horrible, toxic substance that can CAUSE Tuberculosis AND Multiple Sclerosis AND Cancer AND DEATH!The word "hypocrite" has become a meaningless cliche thanks to the war on cannabis.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by GeoChemist on July 08, 2009 at 07:43:46 PT
Runruff, Sam Adams, Museman, BGreen, et al.
Have any of you ever read John English's commentary? It is the funniest/saddest propaganda I have ever laid my eyes on. I posted the link. FoM, if this is unacceptable I apologize.....End of line
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by runruff on July 08, 2009 at 07:23:50 PT
It all started with yellow journalism!
William Randolph Hearst's giant ego and Henry Anslinger's Pea-brain and here we are today!Boycott these stations. they want to protect their biggest sponsors, Oil, alcohol, and the investors that invest in brown products instead of green products! It was the desire to make more money that started this prohibition and it will be the desire to make more money that will get us out! Greed is a motivator!I hope we whomp them in the polls! I hope the people will rise up once again and tell the control freaks, who are driven to profit from controlling others peoples lives, that we the people have yet another idea; Stop your lying to get your way! Lies for money, blood for money, don't forget that these armchair profiteers will stop at nothing for a buck!I say we go all renaissance on their ass!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by FoM on July 08, 2009 at 05:54:50 PT
From The San Francisco Chronicle's Political Blog
New Ad Says Pot Smokers "Happy To Be Taxed'' -- Can They Help With CA's Budget Crunch?July 8, 2009URL:
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by FoM on July 08, 2009 at 05:29:13 PT
AP: Group To Air 'Legalize It' Ads In Calif.
July 8, 2009URL:
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment