In case u didnt hear, denver has banned all outdoor advertising for medical marijuana dispensaries. before this the city had sign twirlers signs reading 20$ 8ths. it was beautiful imho.
thats a thing o the past now... here are some news stories about it:
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_21358387/outdoor-advertising-medical-marijuana-banned-denver
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/22/us-usa-marijuana-colorado-idUSBRE87L02N20120822
i like how in the reuters story debbie ortega councilpunkass said "we did it to protect the children" so much bullshit is able to be turned to law by "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!
My issue comes when i learn that a few dispensaries actually supported this, i was amazed. to me its an infringement on the rights of patients in colorado, not to mention a free speech issue for the businesses themselves.
here is an article about how dispensaries that supported the ban dont want to be known,
http://http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2012/08/marijuana_ad_ban_membership.php?page=2
they know the industry at large AND patients disagree with broad bans on speech and advertising that targets us directly. it just seems wrong to me...
I kno that some dispensaries may support the ban just to narrow the market and hopefully increase their own market share.
one of my fav. denver dispensaries actually supports the ban... and helped it pass. when i called them out on it, this was the response:
" Why MMIG supported this effort It became clear early on that Councilwoman Ortega had the votes to pass a ban on outdoor advertising within 1,000 feet of schools, day cares, and parks. While some medical marijuana groups quickly jumped on board to support the 1,000 foot restrictions, we had major problems with this proposal. Here are the main reasons we supported the citywide proposal.
1. More Fair for Businesses: About 80% of the medical marijuana businesses in Denver fall within 1,000 feet of schools, day cares, and parks. See the specially designed Denver map here. In other words, 20% of the businesses would be allowed to continue advertising directly outside their store via sign flipping, sandwich board, and billboards, while the other 80% could not. For instance, on S. Colorado Blvd, one business would have sign flippers and sandwich boards while six neighboring competitors down the street could not. In downtown Denver, 5 businesses would have an advertising advantage over their 15 neighboring competitors. The citywide proposal prevents this windfall, and creates a fair rule for everyone. 2. More Fair for Neighborhoods: The 1000 foot proposal would cause an influx of medical marijuana advertisements into those Denver neighborhoods not near schools, daycares, or parks. This would increase opposition to medical marijuana in certain areas. The citywide proposal affects all neighborhoods equally. 3. Enforcement is Manageable: Enforcing the 1000 foot restriction would have been difficult and costly for the city, requiring city employees to get out the measuring tape for every advertising complaint. We all prefer that the Department of Excise and Licenses spend their time on licensing. Enforcement of the citywide ordinance requires fewer resources. 4. Increases Industry Viability: Fort Collins, Los Angeles, Longmont, Grand Junction, Oakland, San Francisco . . . It's becoming increasingly clear that the viability of this industry depends in large part on community support. This industry could be wiped out by the local, state, or federal government, or by the community. With several options on the table, the Council came up with a targeted solution to a particular community concern. By solving this problem, we've addressed the community concern, and reduced the need for more drastic action. And, we've taken away a main rallying cry of our opposition.
What does the Ordinance Do? You can access the approved ordinance here.
Please consider watching the Denver City Council hearing on this ordinance from August 13th - click here for a link. The Council discussed the ordinance for nearly 2-hours. They clarified several issues with the City Attorney and Tom Downey with the Department of Excise and Licenses.
1. This ordinance is targeted at medical marijuana businesses, not patients --- In other words, patients can still wear MMJ T-shirts and other merchandise with mmj business logos. This is because patients are not wearing the merchandise to promote the sale of the product. Check out the hearing at 3:13:00; 3:25:00
2. Merchandising is not advertising. Businesses can still sell merchandise. However, businesses can't, for example, pay people to sit in front of their store wearing merchandise. Hearing at 3:13:00; 3:25:00
3. Advertising Still Allowed -- The council made clear that this ordinance was targeted at outdoor advertising such as via sign spinners and billboards. Other forms of allowable advertising include online, radio and television, direct mail, and print publications. See Hearing at 3:16:00.
4. Material Provided in Lobby of Medical Marijuana Center Okay: This is not a public place. See Hearing at 3:15:00.
5. Penalties: Tom Downey made it clear that his goal is compliance, not shutting businesses down. He stated that 1st time offenders would not have their licenses pulled. See hearing at 3:32:00.
6. Licenses will not be lost on 1st offenses: Downey: "I can't imagine that we would ever revoke someones license for a 1st time offense." Downey indicated that the goal of his office is compliance, not punishing anybody. He will continually reach out to the industry to educate people on what is and is not allowed. Hearing at 3:33:00.
Is this ordinance a slippery slope? No. Councilwoman Kniech stated that this ordinance isn't a slippery slope. Instead, the ordinance finds the right balance in protecting the public interest and the interests of the medical marijuana industry. See hearing at 3:52:00.
Councilman Nevitt went on to indicate that the City of Denver has embraced the medical marijuana industry, and that this ordinance shows that the Council takes the medical marijuana community very seriously, and is being as expansive and permissive as possible. See hearing at 4:05:00."
after receiving this response i poked them with a first amendment stick.... saying that ads count as speech, and giving up our rights just seems wrong, so they responded thusly:
"As business owners in the MMJ industry we are looked at as criminals from the FEDS. Sure states have giving us the rights, but until a national change occurs we collectively need to find ways to convince the government at a national level to give states more control or rights. Until than we as individuals do not have the same rights as everyday business owners. Our freedom of speech is not the same since we are not considered a illegal business under federal law. With that being said wouldn't you want to get on board with national advertising trends that is being accepted at an acceptable level of tolerance. Example: If 97% of the public are not registered for cannabis via a Redcard, and 97% didn't want to see sign spinners or billboards (just like other Controlled Substances), but wanted to keep the MMJ industry without taunting the FEDS, (just like Cali) than we feel it is in our best interest to play ball with what is being accepted on a national level. We as individuals do have freedom of rights and can carry that into our businesses, but not when your business is considered illegal. Picking the battle now to say hey FEDS we are going to fight for our individual rights as business owners is not the proper approach, but instead what can we do as an industry to have a national understanding of how we should act under federal laws. We had to take our billboard down last week. We sit in between 4 centers trapped by a railroad so you can image it was not our first choice either, but we are smart enough to know we need to do whatever we can to stay in business and be able to serve our patients needs. Did this help you out?"
i responded:
""Picking the battle now to say hey FEDS we are going to fight for our individual rights as business owners is not the proper approach, but instead what can we do as an industry to have a national understanding of how we should act under federal laws" under federal law u should stop operating, not stop advertising outside. i get what ur saying, but it seems wrong to me for the entire industry to give up its RIGHT to speak freely to your customers, who happen to be patients who need your product not people who want it. I feel that "playing ball with what is being accepted on a national level" is impossible for colorado. We are setting the tone here not following it, by giving up outdoor advertising rights, we set the tone for other businesses in other legal mmj states to lose those rights to advertise before they are given a chance to decide for themselves, am i wrong?
"Example: If 97% of the public are not registered for cannabis via a Redcard, and 97% didn't want to see sign spinners or billboards (just like other Controlled Substances)" Consider gambling: federally illegal, but advertised outside the state to a very small percentage of society that does gamble, which is technically federally illegal, much like cannabis."
then i yielded and explained i didnt want to pick a fight just have a discussion....
does anyone care besides me?
any colorado peeps want 2 weigh in?
thats a thing o the past now... here are some news stories about it:
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_21358387/outdoor-advertising-medical-marijuana-banned-denver
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/22/us-usa-marijuana-colorado-idUSBRE87L02N20120822
i like how in the reuters story debbie ortega councilpunkass said "we did it to protect the children" so much bullshit is able to be turned to law by "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!
My issue comes when i learn that a few dispensaries actually supported this, i was amazed. to me its an infringement on the rights of patients in colorado, not to mention a free speech issue for the businesses themselves.
here is an article about how dispensaries that supported the ban dont want to be known,
http://http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2012/08/marijuana_ad_ban_membership.php?page=2
they know the industry at large AND patients disagree with broad bans on speech and advertising that targets us directly. it just seems wrong to me...
I kno that some dispensaries may support the ban just to narrow the market and hopefully increase their own market share.
one of my fav. denver dispensaries actually supports the ban... and helped it pass. when i called them out on it, this was the response:
" Why MMIG supported this effort It became clear early on that Councilwoman Ortega had the votes to pass a ban on outdoor advertising within 1,000 feet of schools, day cares, and parks. While some medical marijuana groups quickly jumped on board to support the 1,000 foot restrictions, we had major problems with this proposal. Here are the main reasons we supported the citywide proposal.
1. More Fair for Businesses: About 80% of the medical marijuana businesses in Denver fall within 1,000 feet of schools, day cares, and parks. See the specially designed Denver map here. In other words, 20% of the businesses would be allowed to continue advertising directly outside their store via sign flipping, sandwich board, and billboards, while the other 80% could not. For instance, on S. Colorado Blvd, one business would have sign flippers and sandwich boards while six neighboring competitors down the street could not. In downtown Denver, 5 businesses would have an advertising advantage over their 15 neighboring competitors. The citywide proposal prevents this windfall, and creates a fair rule for everyone. 2. More Fair for Neighborhoods: The 1000 foot proposal would cause an influx of medical marijuana advertisements into those Denver neighborhoods not near schools, daycares, or parks. This would increase opposition to medical marijuana in certain areas. The citywide proposal affects all neighborhoods equally. 3. Enforcement is Manageable: Enforcing the 1000 foot restriction would have been difficult and costly for the city, requiring city employees to get out the measuring tape for every advertising complaint. We all prefer that the Department of Excise and Licenses spend their time on licensing. Enforcement of the citywide ordinance requires fewer resources. 4. Increases Industry Viability: Fort Collins, Los Angeles, Longmont, Grand Junction, Oakland, San Francisco . . . It's becoming increasingly clear that the viability of this industry depends in large part on community support. This industry could be wiped out by the local, state, or federal government, or by the community. With several options on the table, the Council came up with a targeted solution to a particular community concern. By solving this problem, we've addressed the community concern, and reduced the need for more drastic action. And, we've taken away a main rallying cry of our opposition.
What does the Ordinance Do? You can access the approved ordinance here.
Please consider watching the Denver City Council hearing on this ordinance from August 13th - click here for a link. The Council discussed the ordinance for nearly 2-hours. They clarified several issues with the City Attorney and Tom Downey with the Department of Excise and Licenses.
1. This ordinance is targeted at medical marijuana businesses, not patients --- In other words, patients can still wear MMJ T-shirts and other merchandise with mmj business logos. This is because patients are not wearing the merchandise to promote the sale of the product. Check out the hearing at 3:13:00; 3:25:00
2. Merchandising is not advertising. Businesses can still sell merchandise. However, businesses can't, for example, pay people to sit in front of their store wearing merchandise. Hearing at 3:13:00; 3:25:00
3. Advertising Still Allowed -- The council made clear that this ordinance was targeted at outdoor advertising such as via sign spinners and billboards. Other forms of allowable advertising include online, radio and television, direct mail, and print publications. See Hearing at 3:16:00.
4. Material Provided in Lobby of Medical Marijuana Center Okay: This is not a public place. See Hearing at 3:15:00.
5. Penalties: Tom Downey made it clear that his goal is compliance, not shutting businesses down. He stated that 1st time offenders would not have their licenses pulled. See hearing at 3:32:00.
6. Licenses will not be lost on 1st offenses: Downey: "I can't imagine that we would ever revoke someones license for a 1st time offense." Downey indicated that the goal of his office is compliance, not punishing anybody. He will continually reach out to the industry to educate people on what is and is not allowed. Hearing at 3:33:00.
Is this ordinance a slippery slope? No. Councilwoman Kniech stated that this ordinance isn't a slippery slope. Instead, the ordinance finds the right balance in protecting the public interest and the interests of the medical marijuana industry. See hearing at 3:52:00.
Councilman Nevitt went on to indicate that the City of Denver has embraced the medical marijuana industry, and that this ordinance shows that the Council takes the medical marijuana community very seriously, and is being as expansive and permissive as possible. See hearing at 4:05:00."
after receiving this response i poked them with a first amendment stick.... saying that ads count as speech, and giving up our rights just seems wrong, so they responded thusly:
"As business owners in the MMJ industry we are looked at as criminals from the FEDS. Sure states have giving us the rights, but until a national change occurs we collectively need to find ways to convince the government at a national level to give states more control or rights. Until than we as individuals do not have the same rights as everyday business owners. Our freedom of speech is not the same since we are not considered a illegal business under federal law. With that being said wouldn't you want to get on board with national advertising trends that is being accepted at an acceptable level of tolerance. Example: If 97% of the public are not registered for cannabis via a Redcard, and 97% didn't want to see sign spinners or billboards (just like other Controlled Substances), but wanted to keep the MMJ industry without taunting the FEDS, (just like Cali) than we feel it is in our best interest to play ball with what is being accepted on a national level. We as individuals do have freedom of rights and can carry that into our businesses, but not when your business is considered illegal. Picking the battle now to say hey FEDS we are going to fight for our individual rights as business owners is not the proper approach, but instead what can we do as an industry to have a national understanding of how we should act under federal laws. We had to take our billboard down last week. We sit in between 4 centers trapped by a railroad so you can image it was not our first choice either, but we are smart enough to know we need to do whatever we can to stay in business and be able to serve our patients needs. Did this help you out?"
i responded:
""Picking the battle now to say hey FEDS we are going to fight for our individual rights as business owners is not the proper approach, but instead what can we do as an industry to have a national understanding of how we should act under federal laws" under federal law u should stop operating, not stop advertising outside. i get what ur saying, but it seems wrong to me for the entire industry to give up its RIGHT to speak freely to your customers, who happen to be patients who need your product not people who want it. I feel that "playing ball with what is being accepted on a national level" is impossible for colorado. We are setting the tone here not following it, by giving up outdoor advertising rights, we set the tone for other businesses in other legal mmj states to lose those rights to advertise before they are given a chance to decide for themselves, am i wrong?
"Example: If 97% of the public are not registered for cannabis via a Redcard, and 97% didn't want to see sign spinners or billboards (just like other Controlled Substances)" Consider gambling: federally illegal, but advertised outside the state to a very small percentage of society that does gamble, which is technically federally illegal, much like cannabis."
then i yielded and explained i didnt want to pick a fight just have a discussion....
does anyone care besides me?
any colorado peeps want 2 weigh in?
