cannabisnews.com: Small Town Jots: Pot Spots Too Hot Small Town Jots: Pot Spots Too Hot Posted by CN Staff on October 01, 2002 at 07:18:29 PT By David Koon Source: Arkansas Times We advertise everything in America: soap, shoes, swing sets, beer and bad whiskey. There are advertisements for things to make you look younger, thinner, richer, better tanned. Turn to the right page in the phone book, and you can even find love, at least for as long as your Visa holds out. If you can make it, perform it, mix it up, grow it, or think about it long enough to jot it down in written form, some publication in this country will advertise it for you to sell. As anyone in the newspaper biz can tell you, nobody ever bought space to report on a city council meeting. Nonetheless, at some small Arkansas newspapers, there's been a big brouhaha lately over, of all things, cash-on-the-barrelhead advertising. Specifically, advertising by the Arkansas Alliance for Medical Marijuana. According to Alliance director Denele Campbell, the idea was simple: With a bill to legalize medical marijuana coming up for discussion in an interim legislative committee, the Alliance would work up a series of 4-inch square ads, each outlining the plight of an Arkansas patient who said they needed medical marijuana to survive. The ads would then be placed in the hometown papers of legislators on the Joint Public Health Committee. "People think they know everything about marijuana," Campbell said. "They don't believe it is a legitimate medicine … It's a lack of information. Our whole objective is to get the facts out there." If the Alliance for Medical Marijuana ads had touted a bakery, shoe store, or greasy spoon diner, there is every chance in the world they would have run with little or no problem. But, as Campbell pointed out, things get complicated in Arkansas when you mention the "M-word." Though many small-town daily and weekly papers took the ads without question, some flatly refused. Campbell was able to talk some initially-reticent papers, like the Malvern Daily Record, into running the ads, but others, like The Newport Daily Independent and the Paragould Daily Press, wouldn't budge. (The Jonesboro Sun, which like the Paragould paper is owned by Paxton Media Group of Paducah, Ky., eventually did agree to run the ads). In many cases, Campbell said, the spots made it through the layout process with minimal problems, only to be axed unexpectedly once upper management got a whiff of the content. "It never dawned on me that anybody would refuse to run the ads," Campbell said. "They aren't very controversial. It's basically a small photograph of a person, and then about five or six sentences that tell their medical history. … It's not like we were buying half a page, though I don't know if that would have made a difference." When Campbell called The Newport Daily Independent to ask why the ads were cut and to talk management into reconsidering, she was referred to "Suzanne," whose last name wasn't disclosed to her. "I told Suzanne our primary objective was to raise this issue in the community, so that when their representative is sitting in Little Rock about to vote on this proposal, they have some kind of feedback from their constituency," Campbell said. "All she would say was there is a committee that makes decisions about what runs in the Newport paper, and the committee had decided not to run the ad." The Newport paper is owned by Liberty Group Publishing, headquartered in Northbrook, Ill. Reached for comment, Suzanne, who turned out to be Daily Independent publisher Suzanne Reed, wasn't forthcoming as to why her paper refused to run the ads. "I don't think you can assume anything about why the ads were refused unless you know the facts, and I'm not going to tell you them," Reed said. "We rejected it, and I don't have to tell you why we rejected it. … I'm telling you that we're not going to tell you why, and you'd better not jump to conclusions about why we did or did not." Campbell said she thought it was "scary" that a newspaper, rather than informing about an issue, would decide to keep it out of print. "It's even more scary that their elected representative is expected to make a decision about this issue and the paper feels no obligation to educate the constituency. I find that very offensive. ... I feel like these newspaper publishers need to know they can't sit in their smug corners and make this kind of decision and not have some kind of reaction. There's a bigger world out there." Note: Newspapers jerk ads on eve of state vote on medical marijuana. Source: Arkansas Times (AR)Author: David KoonPublished: September 20, 2002 Copyright: 2002 Arkansas Times Limited PartnershipContact: arktimes arktimes.comWebsite: http://www.arktimes.com/Related Article & Web Site:ARDPArkhttp://www.ardpark.org/Group Works To Legalize Medicinal Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14303.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #3 posted by freddybigbee on October 01, 2002 at 11:34:17 PT: Non-News Right on, Morgan.I've been amazed over the past few years at how little coverage cannabis gets in newspapers, other than the "Joe Blow busted" stories where the cops talk about how "significant" their latest bust is; like it's always the one that's going to turn the corner on this problem at long last.There's a definite silent treatment going on, and it does indeed raise the question if there isn't an even bigger skeleton in the closet somehow related to the humble herb. I suppose the fact that cannabis shrinks tumers might be a significant story, should it somehow make it into the main-stream papers. Or the fact that cannabis relieves arthritis, migraine headaches, glaucoma, MS, chronic muscle-tension related diseases of all kinds, etc. etc. etc. Nope, no story there... [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Morgan on October 01, 2002 at 11:10:34 PT What are they hiding? "I don't think you can assume anything about why the ads were refused unless you know the facts, and I'm not going to tell you them," Reed said. "We rejected it, and I don't have to tell you why we rejected it. … I'm telling you that we're not going to tell you why, and you'd better not jump to conclusions about why we did or did not." Gosh, Suzanne... a simple 'no comment' would have sufficed. Instead we get a panicky diatribe. One can almost smell the desperate flop sweat coming off this woman. In most all these posts I get a feeling of desperation coming from the antis. It's like we're the police, and we've been searching their house for evidence of a crime. We notice things that don't fit their story... clues to an even bigger crime than the one we're on to...but no smoking gun...yet. And we're searching deeper into the house, and are approaching that locked closet in the basement. And they're standing in front of it...sweating like a pig, and saying things in a high whiney voice like..."I don't think you can assume anything about why the ads were refused unless you know the facts, and I'm not going to tell you them," Reed said. "We rejected it, and I don't have to tell you why we rejected it. … I'm telling you that we're not going to tell you why, and you'd better not jump to conclusions about why we did or did not." Nothing fishy here. Nope. Nope. Move along now people. Nothing here to see. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by afterburner on October 01, 2002 at 09:55:29 PT: The public has a right to know I guess Freedom of the Press exists only in WE THE PEOPLE. The first amendment is used to cover pornography and other dubious causes, but when citizens try to inform the public about the facts on medical marijuana, suddenly a curtain falls and a smoke screen goes up. We are the media. If you want to know the truth, come to the Internet. If you want to be spoon-fed violence and propaganda, come to the mass media.Prove me wrong! [ Post Comment ] Post Comment