Aug 10, 2015

If CCVH says so, it must be so!

Perhaps California Cannabis Voice Humboldt should have retained consultant Richard Marks to do their PR. If you can get through their latest lengthy press release ( that only LOCO ran) and manage to dig yourself out of the lengthy self praise love fest that CCVH heaps on itself in its press release, and still have a brain cell left to absorb anything, read on.

Not liking the public backlash that led to the parting of Marks and CCVH, and seeing that not every one is fawning despite their oh so slick presentations at the BOS and courthouse press conference, CCVH takes Dan of NEC to task!


Two excerpts from CCVH's press release on Lost Coast Outpost:


"These meetings have been advertised in multiple local media outlets such as the Lost Coast OutpostNorth Coast JournalTimes-StandardThe Red-Headed BlackbeltEmerald Magazine; on local radio stations such as KWPT, KHUM, and KMUD; and not to mention in our weekly newsletters and on our social media platforms as well. These have all been meetings advertised to the public and open to the public. There have been no cover charges, no membership needed to attend, to comment, or to join in."

"We have constantly reached out, as is now clear, to local organizations, individuals, public entities and agencies, and legislators; the vast majority of whom are far removed from being involved in the cannabis industry. We have been far from insular in our outreach, as is also now clear, and therefore find insinuations that we have avoided public input to be completely without any merit whatsoever."

Yes, CCVH has been very inclusive. They send press releases and advertise on media sources that have a lot of pot advertisers and pro pot crowd. Way to skew those numbers. The TS editorial on the ordinance sounded exactly like what CCVH's Luke Bruner said. Of all these media sources, except LOCO's Ryan Burns, where are the investigative articles on CCVH?

If this was a logging ordinance, the same media sources would be bending backwards raising questions. The fact that these media sources are not so vocal, giving any detractors luke warm support speaks volumes.

CCVH's claim that they have included people who are far removed from the cannabis industry? Who would that be?

Politicians they are wooing with the carrot of a possible voting constituency, media that depend on ad revenue from the "cannabis industry", businesses or consultants or people involved directly or indirectly in the "cannabis industry."

CCVH is all for input as long as you agree with them. And if you dare to expose their agenda, they will respond via selected press, saying well we have a plan and you don't! Therefore, this should be passed. Conveniently leaving out, that they have financial incentive to invest into this ordinance.

2 comments:

  1. I think we are on the same side on this one (so far).

    I found it interesting that CCVH chose to not question any of NEC's concerns about the ecological issues in CCVH's proposed ordinance but simply had a (well-mannered to be sure) hissy-fit about how NEC has been unfair to them by criticizing their process. CCVH attempted to deflect all of NEC's well-studied questions into a supposed personal attack by NEC's leader.

    Of course CCVH promises to respond to other issues later... but isn't it interesting that of all the points raised by the environmentalists, this is the first issue of concern that CCVH chose to take on. Sounds like deflection to me.

    Your last paragraph, Mr. Chiv, hits the essential issue right on it's pointy little noggin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MOLA, I am still waiting for their answer on how many lawyers are a part of CCVH, how medical, recreational, small mom and pop growers following laws will benefit from this ordinance and what they plan to do about abuses against women in the cannabis industry.

      Glad we agree on this one.

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.