Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Censored on TV: Why Are Some Stations Keeping Pot in the Closet?

By Bruce Mirken, AlterNet. Posted July 17, 2009.


Pot has lots of medicinal and financial benefits, but TV stations still do everything they can to avoid mentioning it.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Atheism and Diversity: Is It Wrong For Atheists To Convert Believers?
Greta Christina

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Don't Fear the Deficit Bogeyman
John Miller

DrugReporter:
The War on Weed: Marijuana Is Basically Harmless -- The Monumentally Stupid Drug War Is Not
Jim Hightower

Environment:
White House Garden Won't Make Up for Obama's Nomination of Pesticide Lobbyist for US Chief Agriculture Negotiator
Jill Richardson

Food:
Don't Be Scared of Food: Are We Being Needlessly Hysterical About Food Safety?
David E. Gumpert

Health and Wellness:
47,000 Women Could Die As a Result of the New Mammogram Guidelines
George Lakoff

Immigration:
Lou Dobbs, Eyeing Public Office, Endorses Policy He's Long Spun as "Amnesty for Illegals"
Joshua Holland

Media and Technology:
The Memory Scrub About Why Ft. Hood Happened Is Almost Complete ... If It Weren't for Archives
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
Disney Apocalypse: Why 2012 Sucks
Alexander Zaitchik

Politics:
White House's Ties to Health Care Industry Deeper Than Visitor Records Show
Daniela Perdomo

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Why Can't We Look Away From Sarah Palin?
Vanessa Richmond

Rights and Liberties:
Whatever Happened to the CIA Black Sites?
David Corn

Sex and Relationships:
Hot Mormon Muffins and Models for Jesus: What's With All the Sexy Christians?
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Poseidon's Financial Shell Game: Why Is a Private Desalination Plant Asking for Public Money?
Peter Gleick

World:
Is Obama Following in the Footsteps of Bill Clinton?
Jeff Cohen

More stories by Bruce Mirken

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Earlier this month, the organization I work for, the Marijuana Policy Project, inadvertently stirred up a hornet's nest with what we thought was a pretty straightforward TV commercial. That our modest little ad proved too hot to handle for such Los Angeles-area stations as KNBC, KABC, KTLA, KTTV and KCOP (plus a couple stations in San Francisco) says more about socially acceptable attitudes regarding marijuana than about the ad (or the drug) itself.

After a series of images depicting spending cuts expected as a result of California’s budget crisis, Nadene Herndon of Fair Oaks (near Sacramento) looks at the camera and says: “Sacramento says huge cuts to schools, health care and police are inevitable due to California’s budget crisis. Even our state parks could be closed. But the governor and legislature are ignoring millions of Californians who want to pay taxes.

“We're marijuana consumers. Instead of being treated like criminals for using a safe substance, we want to pay our fair share. Taxes from California's marijuana industry could pay the salaries of 20,000 teachers. Isn’t it time?”

The spot concludes with a slide reading, “Tax and Regulate Marijuana. ControlMarijuana.org.”

That’s it. Nothing in the spot urged people to light up, and there were no images of marijuana or marijuana use at all. Yet over half a dozen major-market TV stations, including the NBC and ABC affiliates in LA and San Francisco, flatly refused to air it. The general manager of KABC insisted to me in an oddly heated phone conversation that the commercial advocates marijuana use, and he wasn’t going to advocate illegal activity on his station.

The ad — which you can watch at http://www.mpp.org/states/california/ we-want-to-pay-our-fair-share.html — did nothing of the sort. But what it did do was apparently just as disturbing. It showed in concrete terms that the millions of Americans who use marijuana (nearly 15 million in a typical month, according to government surveys that likely underestimate its true prevalence) are ordinary folks — responsible, hard-working and entirely normal.

This is a group of people that may well include your barber, your accountant, your lawyer, the checker at your favorite grocery store, your kid’s teacher and a respectable proportion of your friends, neighbors and relatives. But most of them don’t talk about it — just like gays and lesbians didn’t talk about their orientation back in the 1960s, when gay sex was illegal in every state.

The official mythology, of course, is that marijuana consumers are “drug abusers” who lead sad, dysfunctional lives. They’ve walked through the dreaded “gateway” to a life of addiction and despair.

Those myths are stated overtly in official propaganda and reinforced far more subtly in the stock footage you see on television news whenever there’s a marijuana story. Because all those lawyers, accountants, etc., would be committing professional suicide if they let themselves be photographed smoking marijuana, the stock images they use always show straggly-looking stoners who look like they just wandered out of a Grateful Dead concert. That such stereotypes represent a tiny and atypical minority of marijuana users is society’s dirty little secret — 2009’s equivalent of Oscar Wilde’s “love that dare not speak its name.”

That a legal, regulated, taxed marijuana industry could generate a billion dollars or more in revenue for our cash-strapped state is just one small reason to end the folly of marijuana prohibition. A far more important reason is that prohibition doesn’t make a damn bit of sense. It gives us the worst of all possible worlds — a drug that's widely used and universally available, but produced and sold with none of the common-sense controls we have for beer, wine and liquor.

But arguably the most important reason is people like Nadene — ordinary, hard-working Americans who have made the perfectly rational choice to unwind at the end of the day with a substance that is, by any objective standard, far safer than alcohol: Marijuana is less addictive, massively less toxic, and — unlike booze — it doesn't make people aggressive and violent. And whether anyone likes it or not, those folks are starting to come out of the closet.

Recognizing that reality requires letting go of some familiar myths.  

And some TV stations, we now know, aren’t ready to do that.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: marijuana, tv, censorship, medical marijuana

Bruce Mirken is communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

You've chosen to turn comments off for the entire site. Would you like to turn them back on?
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement