Coalition runs full-page New York Times ad to dispute pro-marijuana editorial
A coalition of groups is running a full-page ad in The New York Times this weekend, advocating against the maturing movement to legalize marijuana.
The ad was prompted by the newspaper's editorial board advocating for an end to the federal ban on the drug.
The ad features a businessman with the pasted-on head of a hippie, a visual metaphor for what the groups warn is the disconnected perception and reality when it comes to legalization.
“The legalization of marijuana means ushering in an entirely new group of corporations whose primary source of revenue is a highly habit-forming product,” the ad reads. “Sounds a lot like another industry we just put in its place. Many facts are being ignored by this and other news organizations. Go to GrasslsNotGreener.com to see why so many major medical associations oppose marijuana legalization.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Shootings, slayings surge during Memorial Day weekend in Chicago, Baltimore
- Oregon proposal would outlaw sneak photos up women’s skirts
- IRS says hackers stole tax info from 100,000
- Cleveland agrees to overhaul police under settlement with Justice Department
- Texas man charged with helping friend’s bid to join ISIS
- Boston doles out justice to terrorist Tsarnaev in form of death penalty
- Technology enhances view of Manhattan
- S.C. beach town prepares for biker influx
- Phone threats put scare into international flights
- 12 missing after flooding in Texas sweeps away vacation home
- Ex-coal boss Blankenship wants July trial delayed to January