Public Relations
"I'm Tired Of Being A Criminal": Can Cannabis Break Crushing Cop Countermeasures In Coup For Cooped Up Cancer Crusaders?
[This story was originally published in the 4/25/08 issue of The Weekly Report.]
The medical marijuana bill (SF 345/HF 655) has been generating a great deal of public debate. With television ads, editorials and opinion pieces, gravely dissimilar claims about the legislation are being circulated. PIM has checked into the language of the bill, examined claims in the debate, and studied the public relations strategies employed by both sides. A House vote on the bill is expected next week, and the result on the board promises to be surprising.
The Minnesota bill is quite restricted and specific, compared to the 12 other states that have legalized the use of medical marijuana. It regulates every stage of usage: Patients would be required to hold a unique registration card for a fee of $100, which would exempt them from arrest and prosecution for possession or use; the card is valid for one year; patients are limited to 2.5 ounces of cannabis per two-week period. The marijuana would come exclusively from registered, vetted organizations. Patients would need to have defined debilitating diseases, which are named in the bill (including multiple sclerosis, cancers, and certain severe injuries) as well as conditions the Commissioner of Health deems acceptable.
Letters published in major papers that oppose the movement for medical marijuana, often authored by law enforcement officers and county attorneys, predict dire consequences that seem unrelated to the actual bill. For example, Nicholas O'Hara, a Ramsey County inspector, framed the legislation as a part of "the fight against drug abuse," implying that medical legalization would increase violent crimes, child abuse and, of course, the traditional "gateway" bridge-to-other-drugs claim. He also claimed that teen pot smoking has increased in the medical marijuana states, while the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) says this is provably false.
James Backstrom, Dakota County attorney, writes to the Star Tribune with similar concerns. He claims that medical marijuana would "clearly lead to the perception that marijuana is harmless" and the same old doom and gloom about violent crime. Neal Levine, MPP's state campaign director, shot back that the Minnesota Nurses Association, the Minnesota Public Health Association and the Minnesota AIDS Project all support the bill, and nearly 3,000 medical professionals have signed a statement in its favor.
Arguably, these letters miss the point of the legislation and only address vague hypothetical scenarios, while ignoring the bill's language and experiences in the other states. The only way opponents can frame the debate is by deliberately ignoring when marijuana entered the medical lexicon in ancient Greece and China: for them, reality begins in 1937, and everything outside the last century is strictly out-of-bounds. [Consult the 1972 report of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse for more background. The report concluded: "Marihuana should be accorded the medical status it once had in this country as a legitimate prescription item."]
In a PR coup for bill proponents, the Strib and Pioneer Press editorialized in favor of it, focusing on strong bipartisan support and the paramount importance of providing effective medical care to Minnesotans. Hoping to seal the deal, MPP has made a six-figure ad buy on local TV, with stories from real Minnesotans. The first featuring chronic pain sufferer Lynn Rubenstein Nicholson of Minneapolis, is also on YouTube. She concludes, "I'm tired of being a criminal."
Battling rebellious state legislatures, the federal government is intervening via advertising in Michigan. With cash from the Department of Justice, the Drug Free America Foundation produced an ad campaign promoting TrueCompassion.org, which falsely claims that "every major health organization rejects smoked marijuana," while in fact national groups like the American College of Physicians, the American Nurses Association and many others actually support medical marijuana reform.
On Almanac at the Capitol [video], Rep. Chris DeLaForest (R-Andover) said the MN bill puts licensed doctors and patients in control, which is in agreement with his Republican principles. He squared off with Police Officer Association chief Bill Gillespie, who claimed erroneously that it has "narcotic" chemical components. Mainly it's a "terrible message" to send to the public, Gillespie said. Reducing the numbers of harmless, sick people among the 700,000+ annual marijuana arrests nationwide was another benefit for DeLaForest. Gillespie said that "marijuana cures nothing," and people should take the less effective THC-laden Marinol pills anyway. Gillespie said that "funny scrips" empower people to grow and sell marijuana in other states, even though nothing in the Minnesota bill allows anyone besides registered growers to grow. "This thing is an idea... The hardest thing in law enforcement is to fight an idea, anywhere in the world. We cannot, will not, agree to this idea," he said. DeLaForest added that it permits the smallest amount nationwide, and explicitly requires upholding the federal policies of the FDA and DEA.
While Gillespie assured Almanac viewers that GOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty intends to veto the bill, the governor might want to take note of his friend U.S. Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) hedged statements. When McCain launched his presidential campaign on April 25, 2007, he said that "I will let states decide that issue," though he has also provided the usual Republican anti-drug hawk messages, as well.
The reality is that marijuana has been known for well over a thousand years to relieve certain types of pain, and the Legislature has crafted a tight, bipartisan bill that is congruent with federal law. If we can create jobs by generating biodiesel and ethanol from industrial hemp, then Minnesota will once more be making proper use of this versatile plant.
The medical marijuana bill (SF 345/HF 655) has been generating a great deal of public debate. With television ads, editorials and opinion pieces, gravely dissimilar claims about the legislation are being circulated. PIM has checked into the language of the bill, examined claims in the debate, and studied the public relations strategies employed by both sides. A House vote on the bill is expected next week, and the result on the board promises to be surprising.
The Minnesota bill is quite restricted and specific, compared to the 12 other states that have legalized the use of medical marijuana. It regulates every stage of usage: Patients would be required to hold a unique registration card for a fee of $100, which would exempt them from arrest and prosecution for possession or use; the card is valid for one year; patients are limited to 2.5 ounces of cannabis per two-week period. The marijuana would come exclusively from registered, vetted organizations. Patients would need to have defined debilitating diseases, which are named in the bill (including multiple sclerosis, cancers, and certain severe injuries) as well as conditions the Commissioner of Health deems acceptable.
Letters published in major papers that oppose the movement for medical marijuana, often authored by law enforcement officers and county attorneys, predict dire consequences that seem unrelated to the actual bill. For example, Nicholas O'Hara, a Ramsey County inspector, framed the legislation as a part of "the fight against drug abuse," implying that medical legalization would increase violent crimes, child abuse and, of course, the traditional "gateway" bridge-to-other-drugs claim. He also claimed that teen pot smoking has increased in the medical marijuana states, while the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) says this is provably false.
James Backstrom, Dakota County attorney, writes to the Star Tribune with similar concerns. He claims that medical marijuana would "clearly lead to the perception that marijuana is harmless" and the same old doom and gloom about violent crime. Neal Levine, MPP's state campaign director, shot back that the Minnesota Nurses Association, the Minnesota Public Health Association and the Minnesota AIDS Project all support the bill, and nearly 3,000 medical professionals have signed a statement in its favor.
Arguably, these letters miss the point of the legislation and only address vague hypothetical scenarios, while ignoring the bill's language and experiences in the other states. The only way opponents can frame the debate is by deliberately ignoring when marijuana entered the medical lexicon in ancient Greece and China: for them, reality begins in 1937, and everything outside the last century is strictly out-of-bounds. [Consult the 1972 report of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse for more background. The report concluded: "Marihuana should be accorded the medical status it once had in this country as a legitimate prescription item."]
In a PR coup for bill proponents, the Strib and Pioneer Press editorialized in favor of it, focusing on strong bipartisan support and the paramount importance of providing effective medical care to Minnesotans. Hoping to seal the deal, MPP has made a six-figure ad buy on local TV, with stories from real Minnesotans. The first featuring chronic pain sufferer Lynn Rubenstein Nicholson of Minneapolis, is also on YouTube. She concludes, "I'm tired of being a criminal."
Battling rebellious state legislatures, the federal government is intervening via advertising in Michigan. With cash from the Department of Justice, the Drug Free America Foundation produced an ad campaign promoting TrueCompassion.org, which falsely claims that "every major health organization rejects smoked marijuana," while in fact national groups like the American College of Physicians, the American Nurses Association and many others actually support medical marijuana reform.
On Almanac at the Capitol [video], Rep. Chris DeLaForest (R-Andover) said the MN bill puts licensed doctors and patients in control, which is in agreement with his Republican principles. He squared off with Police Officer Association chief Bill Gillespie, who claimed erroneously that it has "narcotic" chemical components. Mainly it's a "terrible message" to send to the public, Gillespie said. Reducing the numbers of harmless, sick people among the 700,000+ annual marijuana arrests nationwide was another benefit for DeLaForest. Gillespie said that "marijuana cures nothing," and people should take the less effective THC-laden Marinol pills anyway. Gillespie said that "funny scrips" empower people to grow and sell marijuana in other states, even though nothing in the Minnesota bill allows anyone besides registered growers to grow. "This thing is an idea... The hardest thing in law enforcement is to fight an idea, anywhere in the world. We cannot, will not, agree to this idea," he said. DeLaForest added that it permits the smallest amount nationwide, and explicitly requires upholding the federal policies of the FDA and DEA.
While Gillespie assured Almanac viewers that GOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty intends to veto the bill, the governor might want to take note of his friend U.S. Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) hedged statements. When McCain launched his presidential campaign on April 25, 2007, he said that "I will let states decide that issue," though he has also provided the usual Republican anti-drug hawk messages, as well.
The reality is that marijuana has been known for well over a thousand years to relieve certain types of pain, and the Legislature has crafted a tight, bipartisan bill that is congruent with federal law. If we can create jobs by generating biodiesel and ethanol from industrial hemp, then Minnesota will once more be making proper use of this versatile plant.
Fox News caught altering Franken Wikipedia entries; Diebold & others edit Wiki to advance PR 'reality'
Wired magazine reported yesterday that CalTech graduate student Virgil Griffith matched every one of the millions of 'anonymous edits' on the popular reference website Wikipedia to the organizations where the edits originated. Every anonymous Wiki edit created an IP address record, and he simply matched those IP addresses to available lists of who controls them. He quickly discovered that everyone from the Central Intelligence Agency to the New York Times and the Church of Scientology have anonymously changed entries, generally to quietly promote their respective organizations' agendas and PR interests, or else delete embarrassing material. (You can try Griffith's lookup system yourself!)
The Minnesota angle is that someone on the Fox News Channel computer network (working from IP 12.167.224.228) changed several entries about U.S. Senate candidate Al Franken, back when he was hosting a show on the Air America network. Staff at the Franken campaign told PIM, "We are beginning to suspect the Fox News Channel has something of a bias when it comes to Al."
Originally, Franken's entry said:
Reflecting later on the lawsuit during an interview on the [[National Public Radio]] program ''[[Fresh Air]]'' on [[September 3]], [[2003]], Franken said that Fox's case against him was "literally laughed out of court" and that "wholly (holy) without merit" is a good characterization of Fox News itself.
The Fox staffer changed it (here's the exact revision):
Reflecting later on the lawsuit during an interview on the liberal [[National Public Radio]] program ''[[Fresh Air]]'' on [[September 3]], [[2003]], Franken said that Fox's case against him was the best thing to happen to his book sales.
The Brit Hume Wiki entry once contained:
Many groups and commentators, including [[Media Matters for America]], and liberal broadcasters [[Al Franken]], and [[Keith Olbermann]], have claimed that Hume distorted Roosevelt’s views.
but the same Fox terminal changed it to
Many groups and commentators, including [[Media Matters for America]], and liberal broadcasters [[Al Franken]], and [[Keith Olbermann]], have claimed that Hume distorted Roosevelt’s views in an attempt to ride Mr. Hume’s coat tails in the ratings race as Mr. Hume hosts the highest rated political program on cable television.
More fun stuff below the fold...
SuperRondo? MnDOT, NASCO, and I-35 NAFTA Superhighway plans
- UPDATE December 14, 2007: More documents from MnDOT were released in November, shedding further light on how NASCO is set up, its federal contract, and the effect of Minnesota's Lockheed office on earmarks. See PIM Exclusive: SuperRondo II: New NASCO NAFTA Superhighway Docs Released From MnDOT.
- The new batch of documents combines the MnDOT documents first described here in July, and the new releases. Download the 60 MB ZIP PDF pack here.
St. Paul's Rondo Days festival is right around the corner on July 21st. Rondo, of course, was the primarily black neighborhood obliterated when I-94 was built and blasted through, a route selected because of the neighborhood's lack of political clout. Deploying the "Stops-4-Us" message, the University Avenue Community Coalition plans to raise awareness about the potential damage to their neighborhoods because of the proposed Central Corridor light rail project, which they fear will remove parking, disrupt commerce and fail to offer enough stops for their community. The federal government wants fewer stops on the Corridor to reduce trip time, or else federal funds will be jeopardized. As one UACC organizer said to PIM, this federal policy has effectively removed transit stops from other urban communities around the nation.
On a much larger scale, proposals are now being drawn up for large transportation networks across America piggybacking on the interstate highway system. PIM has obtained documents from the Minnesota Department of Transportation about proposals to create major international transportation corridors along I-35 and I-94. The documents were obtained from MnDOT via the Minnesota Data Practices Act by local lawyer Nathan Hansen and posted on his blog and law firm's website. We have packaged the PDFs into a 66 MB ZIP archive available here through PIM's website.
The major group coordinating this effort is North America's Supercorridor Coalition, or NASCO. The MnDOT files include many strategic public relations emails among NASCO, lobbyists, government employees across the country, in Canada and Mexico, as well as grant applications specifying the exact nature of NASCO projects. Many emails among MnDOT personnel are also included. These documents formed the basis for a report by Jerome Corsi at WorldNetDaily, which also discussed MnDOT's views of U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman's (R) position on the matter. (Officially, he doesn't have one). The documents confirm that MnDOT agreed to join NASCO for a specially discounted price of $15,000, money that perhaps could have been better spent patching I-35W's potholes.
Morning Reports
