Melanie Jerome: No more pot photos

Advertisement

I’m writing in regards to the front-page photo in Saturday’s edition of the paper. I realize that medical marijuana is a hot topic, but there has been multiple front-page photos of marijuana plants and I find them as tasteless as the Aloha’s radio ads. I’m a mother of two children, and even though it is legal I don’t want my children to be subject to having to have marijuana ads and photos smeared into their faces daily.

Melanie Jerome

Oak Creek

Comments

hereandthere 2 years, 12 months ago

No problem with the multitude of pictures of alcohol found daily in the Pilot? It's dripping off the walls in here folks. And once again we pull out the children card. How about this, get yourself informed, and then, teach your kids.

0

1999 2 years, 12 months ago

What about all of the alchohol pics and adds?

does that bother you?

come on melanie. have some conversations with your kids and quick sticking your head in the sand.

0

1999 2 years, 12 months ago

What do you think it does to them?

what do you think they are thinking/

what are the ramifications of your kids seeing MJ plants?

do they know what it is?

How does knowledge it harm them?

0

Richard Hagins 2 years, 12 months ago

I wasn't sure if I was picking up a copy of "High Times" or the "Steamboat Today."

0

Eric J. Bowman 2 years, 12 months ago

"No problem with the multitude of pictures of alcohol found daily in the Pilot?" "What about all of the alchohol pics and adds?"

Uhhh, I didn't realize alcohol was still a federal crime?

"what are the ramifications of your kids seeing MJ plants? do they know what it is? How does knowledge it harm them?"

So you're saying Melanie has no right to raise her kids as she sees fit, since you disagree with her? Lots of presumptuous responses to a citizen who dared voice an opinion WITH HER NAME ON IT from the anonymous a-hole contingent around here, who aren't afraid to disagree with anyone as long as they're provided the cover of not having to say who they are. That's just weak and pathetic.

0

jk 2 years, 12 months ago

Eric, To start your wishy washy stance on mmj is hard enough to swallow. In one breath you claim you are all for mmj as the states constitution allows, then in the next breath you throw out your federal crime argument. You also keep trying to champion this kids issue having never raised any kids of your own. So to start off with if someone is following the state law why do you have an issue if they are transplanting their plants in the front yard of their residence? By your own admission they are ok as long as they are only dealing within the parameters of the state law! And second having no experience in the raising of kids please stop using them in your arguments, as you have no idea what is right or wrong for them! Finally your resorting to name calling does not help your effort.

0

freerider 2 years, 12 months ago

hey Bowman do you even have a clue why pot is illegal ??

Any idea at all ??

Or just cuz they said so is good enough for you ??

well ?? do you ??

0

freerider 2 years, 12 months ago

Melanie same question

do you have any idea why pot is illegal ??

listen up sister , if you worry about your kids and pot then what you should really be afraid of is that fact that gangs and cartels are getting filthy rich off this farce

guess what the cartels buy with drug money ?? got a clue ??

guns , wmd's , and more gang members ...be afraid of reality ...be very afrid

0

freerider 2 years, 12 months ago

Hey Bowman

glad you brought up weak and pathetic ....which would be you

with that statement you manage to dodge the real issue and puke out a weak and pathetic response

0

kathy foos 2 years, 12 months ago

Listen up freerider......its an opinion that she has and she can speak it.Its not like she wants to get rid of a dispensary ,how does it feel to have someone say" listen up"?

0

1999 2 years, 12 months ago

Good Grief Eric..get a grip.

melanie is welcome to her opinion as I am welcome to mine. I simply asked a few questions.

please point out to me line by line your accusations...for instance...where did I say she had no choice in the way she raises her kids?

seriously doc... get a grip.

0

1999 2 years, 12 months ago

I would seriously like to know

what she thinks will happen to her kids if they see a newspaper with a picture of MJ on the cover.

how old they are?

0

exduffer 2 years, 12 months ago

I can't wait until there is a controversy about the new strip club in town.

0

mmjPatient22 2 years, 12 months ago

A rough draft of the moratorium on the how the strip clubs are allowed to advertise dictates that; (1) they are prohibited from using metaphors of the female body, or any part of the female body, and they are also prohibited from depicting the female form in any way. (2) they may not use the words "gentlemen(s)" or "strip" in the name.

Also, and this is strictly hearsay, it's rumored that the girls will be under Muslim Law, concerning dress code and amount of skin that's allowed to be exposed. This will be an "all ankles" only venue.

0

mmjPatient22 2 years, 12 months ago

Oh well hell, I guess I'll give a stab at my version of an "on topic" response. So, here goes;

Let's really try to get to the truth here. The obvious question has to be, "what is so darned offensive about the appearance of cannabis?"

I can understand that it might not be hyper-critical to cover every single local cannabis story or qualm, especially as the cover story, with a real-life picture. That doesn't mean I object to it, merely that I fail to see the necessity of it all. That being said, and understanding that the medical marijuana industry is fairly young in this state(and the nation), it wouldn't be completely unreasonable to assume that there would be an increase in coverage of stories related to cannabis and the medical marijuana industry. Whether it's in the Pilot, the Denver Post, the local news channel on radio/TV, etc..., people are hearing/seeing more&more about it because of the simple fact that cannabis is being chosen by more&more people in our communities. People are waking up to the lies, and the truth is finally coming into the light of the mainstream media. There are, obviously, many people that remain belligerently abhorrent of the truth about cannabis and they'll refute every bit of it until the bitter end.

Being raised by people that were(are) vehemently opposed to cannabis and "all of the evils that it would most certainly lead its victims towards," I can understand one of the reasons that a large group of prohibitionists choose to uphold their "righteous" fight against this vile devil's lettuce. The wind beneath their particular wings was(is) none other than the Lord Himself. For those that believe this is their firm ground upon which to stand, let me know and I'll get you a list of scriptures that completely invalidate the religious argument for prohibiting cannabis. I'm not taking up the whole religious debate, merely the cannabis facet of it.

0

Eric J. Bowman 2 years, 12 months ago

"In one breath you claim you are all for mmj as the states constitution allows, then in the next breath you throw out your federal crime argument."

If the goal is for pot to no longer be a federal crime, then does the current situation where CO MMJ law is rampantly and conspicuously violated, promote or detract from that goal? My position is that it detracts, and is the biggest obstacle to federal decriminalization -- the main hypothetical argument against amendment 20 as a ballot measure was that giving an inch would cause a mile to be taken; seeing just that come to pass in the minority of states which decriminalized MMJ, prevents the majority of states from decriminalizing, prevents the relisting of cannabis federally as Schedule II. Today's vocabulary word is, "counterproductive."

"You also keep trying to champion this kids issue having never raised any kids of your own."

But I am an Uncle, who knows full well the views of his Brother and Sister-in-Law. I'm championing the right of parents to raise their kids how they see fit, including doing their best to shield them from drugs -- again, even in Holland where pot's long been decriminalized, this right is recognized. The appalling failure of the pro-pot zealots to recognize this right, is yet another example of the sort of counterproductive behavior which guarantees cannabis stays on Schedule I (which I feel is a perfectly legitimate debate regardless of one's parental status). Some days it's just damn embarrassing to be on the decriminalization side.

0

Eric J. Bowman 2 years, 12 months ago

"So to start off with if someone is following the state law why do you have an issue if they are transplanting their plants in the front yard of their residence?"

Because that isn't following state law, which (and this holds true for every state with MMJ) requires that MMJ activity be kept from the full view of the public. You may also note the clauses in there stating that permits may be denied if MMJ goes against the morals of the neighborhood; so a licensed operation carrying on its activities in full view of the public and generating complaints, can expect not to have that license renewed.

Now, I've never visited a dispensary, but supposedly this point is satisfied by requiring visitors to show their patient card before they can even see the product; you can't just wander in off the street and take a look at the "medicine". Lots of folks who support decriminalization, only do so on the condition that use be restricted to the privacy of users' homes. Honestly, before being shouted down on the issue here (not that I put any stock in anonymous character smears), I had no idea that was even controversial. It's amazing that such animosity can be generated by suggesting that folks show some respect for their neighbors...

"I would seriously like to know what she thinks will happen to her kids if they see a newspaper with a picture of MJ on the cover."

Even if pot were to be fully legalized, parents would still want to raise their kids not to get high, and that's still the majority of what pot is all about. Regardless of how safe it is compared to alcohol, its legitimate medical uses etc., not everyone wants to raise their kids to be stoners -- glamor shots of grow-rooms on the front page of the paper are counterproductive to such efforts, as is moving boatloads of plants around town in plain view, Aloha's etc. Failing to respect this right has led to the current backlash, which is counterproductive to legalization, or even further decriminalization for medical use.

0

hereandthere 2 years, 12 months ago

For someone who has no respect for anonymous bloggers, this guy (who is as anonymous to me as MMJ, YVB, 1999, etc.), sure has no problem carrying on a debate with the same anonymous bloggers. Lame point! As for respect of neighbors, could it possibly be that all that the pro MMJ folks are wanting is to be shown respect in their choice of dealing with their own medical problems with out having to wade thru all the non-sense that the bigots are throwing out there. The current backlash will most likely lead to increased efforts for complete legalization. The tide has turned, whether the bigots like it or not. Intelligent people are recognizing the futility and waste that the insane "war on drugs" have fostered on our community. We expect more of our public officials (Wiggins, Rae) then to grandstand on further laws to make it harder for people to get their medications. How great it would be if these two would really try to tackle the far more dangerous and costly problem in our comminity,that being the irresponsible use of alcohol.

0

kathy foos 2 years, 12 months ago

The advertising and newspaper exposure is what this writer is saying needs to be reigned in.the newspaper would not be a leader in that respect,they want to make money anyway they can.People who use it for medicine and follow all of the laws,don't need the advertising they know where to get it or grow it,They don"t need to be pandered by Cheech and Chong on the radio,these ads are offensive to patients also.They talk of sodas and sweets with the MMJ.why wouldn't that influence a child hearing the ad?Its meant to influence everyone ,it exposes everyone potentially.If there is trouble with the ads,or anything,blame the ones that just have to take it a little bit too far,just push.The newspaper and radio are main culprits making money off the weed.. Sheriff Wiggen's , is that a federal offense?MMJ patients don't need front page weed pictures and Cheech and Chong jokes.They need privacy and to follow the rules that the voters of Colorado set forth.These people are exploiting the MMJ patients to make money on adds selling weed,.I don't think patients need to be reminded of the pot shops 10 times a day,they know where they can get what legally and exposure is over kill ,respect the drug is illegal to anyone not registered and under doctors care,the rest of the public is not involved in the MMJ.Why should people that aren't involved have to hear it and explain it to their children all of the time?Because the newspaper is exploiting it for money and the radio is also.,not the patients that are following the laws.

0

SMRFF 2 years, 12 months ago

Here's a link to a great editorial on MMJ uses and myths. I wasn't sure which article to post this in, so I just went for the most current. For all of you who are afraid this new MMJ movement is polluting America's youth, please note the third to last paragraph in the editorial -

http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/projo_20040326_26ctelder.22fed4.html

I keep seeing people get all in a tizzy because a certain person's opinion is being knocked or refuted. Yes, everyone has a right to express his or her opinion, but we also have the right to refute, criticize, make fun of, argue with, etc, that person's opinion if he or she provides no facts or empirical evidence to support said opinion.

Just from observing the discussions under MMJ related articles in the Pilot, it seems as though many of the proponents for MMJ and even full legalization are able to provide a plethora of evidence to support their claims, yet opponents have simply spouted off opinions based solely on false perceptions purveyed by the likes of Wiggins and Rae.

0

Bill Dalzell 2 years, 12 months ago

I think you are spot on Melanie. I also think most of the public feels the same way. (Pilot bloggers aside). I am in full favor of the current laws, but feel that the Pilot's continuing insistence to put pictures of plants on the front cover is over the top and a bit embarrassing. Marijuana is not the same as alcohol. Some day it may be, but right or wrong, it is most definitely not the same right now. It is a bit narrow minded to pretend it is. It is not that far off from an add saying come on down to Steamboat Medical and get your Oxycodone, it will make you feel groovy.

I also feel that industry leaders should jump on this, and strongly urge the Pilot not to continue their ways. I guarantee you, that putting this stuff in detractors faces, will only create more controversy. Like I said, I am in favor of the medical MMJ laws and feel the ads are in poor taste. How do you think the rest of the people feel? Don't shoot yourselves in the foot guys, reel in the ads and the papers sensationalistic marijuana covers, it will help you in the long run.

0

Eric J. Bowman 2 years, 12 months ago

"For someone who has no respect for anonymous bloggers, this guy (who is as anonymous to me as MMJ, YVB, 1999, etc.), sure has no problem carrying on a debate with the same anonymous bloggers."

I have no problem with anonymous commenters, only those who use their anonymity as a shield for deliberate rudeness. There are plenty of valid reasons to post anonymously, hurling insults isn't one of them. I respond to interesting points, regardless of who makes them, or the rudeness of the context.

"I keep seeing people get all in a tizzy because a certain person's opinion is being knocked or refuted. Yes, everyone has a right to express his or her opinion, but we also have the right to refute, criticize, make fun of, argue with, etc, that person's opinion..."

Of course. But all too often on this forum (particularly on this issue), it isn't a person's opinion that's being refuted; instead, ad hominems target the person stating the opinion, and that's what I object to, particularly from those who refuse to attach their name to their insults.

"...it seems as though many of the proponents for MMJ and even full legalization are able to provide a plethora of evidence to support their claims..."

Yes, they do like to change the subject. The question at hand, though, is what limits are appropriate? I've seen no "evidence" supporting the notion that nobody should have anything to complain about as regards newspaper photos, radio ads, full-public-view activities, etc., only opinions that everyone needs to light(en) up. Pointing out that marijuana is a psychoactive drug mostly used for gettin' high doesn't result in "evidence" to the contrary being presented, just accusations of brainwashing by propaganda and local law enforcement.

0

Eric J. Bowman 2 years, 12 months ago

"I can't wait until there is a controversy about the new strip club in town."

It'll be entertaining to follow, that's for sure. I grew up in Ft. Collins, we once had a bachelor party at The Hunt Club -- the world's lamest strip joint, due to town regulations. The girl dances a number in her bikini, the music stops, the girl unceremoniously removes her top, and dances another number topless. No tips in the G-string, lap dancing, VIP rooms, topless waitresses etc.

Then along came Debbie Duz Donuts, and all hell broke loose... Geraldo Rivera even came to town to sensationalize the controversy.

0

SMRFF 2 years, 12 months ago

Alright, please forgive my naivete, but all this strip club talk is a farce, correct? Or, is a local nudy bar an actual possibility?

0

freerider 2 years, 12 months ago

Hey Sun

listen up

baaaaabaaaaaa baaaaaaa baaaaa

0

freerider 2 years, 12 months ago

So Eric

still waiting ...do you have any idea why pot is illegal ??

or Sun

since you are a know it all why don't you answer

0

mmjPatient22 2 years, 12 months ago

SMRFF-

There's probably not a snowball's chance in hell that this town will ever get any sort of "adult" entertainment. We're mostly all joking about that.

0

SMRFF 2 years, 12 months ago

Bummer. I was hoping for one simply because it would piss off all of the conservative, religious folk who secretly have a passion for sinful beauties in the raw. You know, like America's politicians.

0

exduffer 2 years, 12 months ago

I just wanted to see the pictures from the inside of the strip club on the front page

0

mmjPatient22 2 years, 12 months ago

free-

I don't think that we're dealing with the kind of people that are interested in the "why" of why things are the way they are.

Now, maybe if you could formulate some sort of "said so" or "just because" kind of argument about it, maybe you'd have the kind of success that the prohibitionists enjoy.

0

Cooke 2 years, 12 months ago

Eric states: "I have no problem with anonymous commenters, only those who use their anonymity as a shield for deliberate rudeness. There are plenty of valid reasons to post anonymously, (sic) hurling insults isn't one of them. I respond to interesting points, regardless of who makes them, or the rudeness of the context."

I have to say, the rest of the comments on here are just the same people it always is, spouting the same arguments they always do. However, I Eric’s comment above hits the mark. I’m not calling for an end to anonymity; it seems to serve some well, especially with sensitive subjects. But perhaps civility would lead to a little more open mindedness. Maybe anonymity should come with some increased responsibility…

0

Taken4m 2 years, 11 months ago

Thank you, Melanie. The advertisement lists of product available in Delicious Cookies and Edibles sound like a trip to Fuzzywig's. A Golden Ticket the size of a child's fist may be Retro to us, but to a child looks as enticing as the back of a cereal box. Medical? Let's pull out the thesaurus for a Special at the Proctologist's office!

0

mmjPatient22 2 years, 11 months ago

So here's what I see. I see a bunch fed-up cannabis users asking very blunt, to the point, direct, no BS questions. We're an inquisitive bunch, I guess. But what we're all really after here is a little reason and explanation. Personally, I don't quite understand why the prohibition of cannabis is allowed to keep draining the American public of their tax-dollars and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. What great successes does the war against cannabis have to show for itself? Where are the piles of data that prove that the war on drugs has been making a difference, ya know, by eliminating drug use and existence? Haven't seen that yet.

What else I see here is that the only defense that most of the prohibitionists have is that some of operate anonymously on here, as if that somehow instantaneously invalidated all of our arguments or the mountains of facts that we present. There are no hidden truths about just how evil cannabis really is. There aren't even any attempts at showing any sort of data that supports their arguments.

You're right YVB....Boring.....

0

Kevin Chapman 2 years, 11 months ago

Your influence as a parent is much stronger than some picture in a newspaper.

0

jk 2 years, 11 months ago

" I'm championing the right of parents to raise their kids how they see fit, including doing their best to shield them from drugs "

It seems to me, through censorship, you are championing the right of parents to allow others to raise their children for them. No parent who actually is willing to be one, should have a problem with pictures in the paper or people moving plants around. If these small issues don't raise a constructive conversation between parents and their children, then they are headed down a winding road of trouble. Frustratingly this type of parenting seems to be commonplace in this day and age, and especially in this town! So enjoy being an Uncle it's nothing like being a parent!!

0

jk 2 years, 11 months ago

" I’m not calling for an end to anonymity; it seems to serve some well, especially with sensitive subjects. But perhaps civility would lead to a little more open mindedness. Maybe anonymity should come with some increased responsibility…"

Cooke I guess I will point out the fact that the first person on this forum to start name calling was Eric. So I guess your theory is blown?

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.