2 ms·

The drug war is offensive and I am clearly stating that I no longer want to passively accept the status quo. I am also stating that NORML's brand is ineffectiv

The drug war is offensive and I am clearly stating that I no longer want to passively accept the status quo. I am also stating that NORML's brand is ineffective and I am looking for a brand I can donate to and possibly volunteer with without a negative impact to my career. Until NORML changes their entire brand, their effectiveness will be limited. They do rally hippies which is a positive, but they won't get serious business people who cannot afford reputation risk no matter the cause. If the people in NORML were serious, they would drop the pot leaf and start talking about civil liberties over "legalization".

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
I think this is a great response and I hope more people pay attention to it. What many of us think of as a triviality is actually an issue that can harm a person's career, and thus limit support from those people. Whether the issue is real or not (and I have no doubt that it is), the mere perception is enough to prevent some people from supporting a worthy cause.
pstuart 13y ago
The fact that you see a cannabis leaf and think "hippy" says way more about you then NORML. They're advocating for freedom to consume the plant after all, using that highly identifiable leaf makes it very clear what they are supporting. > reputation risk Do you really think donating to NORML could damage your career? Buffer it with donations to EFF,ACLU,etc. and it's unimpeachable political speech.
- wtvanhest 13y ago
  It is clear that you are not reading what I am writing or are applying huge biases which do not allow you to fully understand my point. My point is that I don't get the chance to argue why I made a donation to NORML if my name just appears on a company wide list. People see it, they make assumptions. NORML's failure to see how their branding is weak for large donor support is a huge problem for that organization succeeding in its goal. This can be applied to as low as conversation among friends or as high as a politician who must choose whether to A) Support individual freedom and civil liberties or B) support drug addicts and criminal, burn out hippies in a drug induced free for all. If you cannot see how NORML's image aligns anyone who supports it with the later, you should really take a step back and ask yourself the following: Do you put your affiliation with that on a resume? What are the impacts of that? If you are in tech on the west coast, you may get away with it. If you are in a serious business on the east coast, you will have trouble getting hired. Change from NORML to a hypothetical organization called: "Organization For the Reduction of Human Rights Violations on US Soil." Now instead of your resume getting thrown away, you get to talk about how people are dying in prison who should instead be productive members of society. The point is, I don't care about NORML, I care about trying to figure out a way to get this country out of this mess and I believe that NORML is branded incorrectly to achieve that goal.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

I think this is a great response and I hope more people pay attention to it. What many of us think of as a triviality is actually an issue that can harm a person's career, and thus limit support from those people. Whether the issue is real or not (and I have no doubt that it is), the mere perception is enough to prevent some people from supporting a worthy cause.

pstuart 13y ago

The fact that you see a cannabis leaf and think "hippy" says way more about you then NORML. They're advocating for freedom to consume the plant after all, using that highly identifiable leaf makes it very clear what they are supporting. > reputation risk Do you really think donating to NORML could damage your career? Buffer it with donations to EFF,ACLU,etc. and it's unimpeachable political speech.

wtvanhest 13y ago
It is clear that you are not reading what I am writing or are applying huge biases which do not allow you to fully understand my point. My point is that I don't get the chance to argue why I made a donation to NORML if my name just appears on a company wide list. People see it, they make assumptions. NORML's failure to see how their branding is weak for large donor support is a huge problem for that organization succeeding in its goal. This can be applied to as low as conversation among friends or as high as a politician who must choose whether to A) Support individual freedom and civil liberties or B) support drug addicts and criminal, burn out hippies in a drug induced free for all. If you cannot see how NORML's image aligns anyone who supports it with the later, you should really take a step back and ask yourself the following: Do you put your affiliation with that on a resume? What are the impacts of that? If you are in tech on the west coast, you may get away with it. If you are in a serious business on the east coast, you will have trouble getting hired. Change from NORML to a hypothetical organization called: "Organization For the Reduction of Human Rights Violations on US Soil." Now instead of your resume getting thrown away, you get to talk about how people are dying in prison who should instead be productive members of society. The point is, I don't care about NORML, I care about trying to figure out a way to get this country out of this mess and I believe that NORML is branded incorrectly to achieve that goal.