The Four Marketing Categories Of Cannabis
#1 - `Current' Users - All products have levels of users that are considered `current users' - often defined by `how often' someone uses a `category'. Examples of this can vary from near 100% daily users of water or toilet paper - down to considering a person who uses cannabis once a year being a `current' user. If someone has NOT used something for a considerable amount of time - they generally are considered a `trier-rejector' - a category of marketing you will see defined below.
Concerning Cannabis - as you probably know - there is everything from multi-time daily users to the person who is only an occasional user with friends. These occasional users can be as little as once every couple years - even decades. But, as we all know too, the `marketing' to `users' - what is totally normal for legal products - doesn't really exist for cannabis - at all. Indeed, interestingly, about the only `marketing' to users are PSA's such as `this is your brain on drugs' - attempting to make usage seem dangerous. The funny part of that - of course - is that the users KNOW that it isn't. The commercials do little to discourage usage do to being off target to most users experience. Indeed, while the on the surface effort is to appeal to users to STOP - the real targets are the other three categories.
However, the day may come when cannabis will be marketed in a manner similar to beer and alcohol. THEN, we will see the `positives' about the product that are NEVER allowed to be even mentioned in our prohibition supported by the shameful media. What can be said when a marijuana leaf IMAGE is pixeled out on TV, as it is or was on MTV - or the `policy' that NBC had in place for years about NO positives being shown or mentioned associated with drug use. Indeed, these policies of prohibition are used to distort perceptions in the other three categories - the ones the media must keep `under wraps' if the politicians desire to use the drug issue as being `tough on crime' image is to persist.
So, lets look at the other marketing groups for cannabis:
#2 - `Aware Non-Triers' - Arguably, this may be the largest `market' grouping of cannabis - as it is likely that slightly more than 50% of the adult population has never broken the law by inhaling. It is this category the media is most interested in selling it's BS about marijuana as these folks don't have the experience to refute a word the media says. Therefore, almost nothing is or has been off-limits -- "pot smokers are lazy" - "pot smokers are dangerous drivers" - "pot causes lethargy" - "pot is a gateway drug" - etc. etc. etc. The list is endless.
The goal -- keep these sheeple following the standard "we need to lock them up" positioning - to keep the prison system running - to keep the lawyers happy - to keep the beer companies happy - ETC. Indeed, this is the most important marketing group to the big media because if THIS group ever starts to doubt the word of the government on this issue - all is lost for the old time powerbrokers.
#3 - `Trier-Rejectors' --- This grouping is ALMOST the size of the Aware Non-Trier group --- this group includes all the `old time users' of the 60's and 70's (and probably 80's and 90's too) who once used the product - but - in becoming an adult (and losing their connections) decided it would be best to follow the law - and not risk a `record' (the vast majority of previous users, of course, didn't get busted). It's this group who is directly targeted with the `the marijuana these days isn't your fathers (your) marijuana' - desperately hoping these folks NEVER use it again (even if they don't support the prohibition strongly).
#4 - `Non-Aware, Non-Users' ---- This is almost non-existent as a marketing group as nearly all adults in America are aware of marijuana in some manner.
Here's some more pot links:
http://www.ukcia.org/ A website dedicated to the issue of cannabis law reform
"the findings by a pharmacology team from the University of Adelaide and Transport SA showed drivers who had smoked marijuana were marginally less likely to have an accident than those who were drug-free." http://www.ukcia.org/research/driving4.html The pansy media doesn't talk much about this - do they?
And, as usual, I want to leave you with some diversion from the endless BS of the policy makers: