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 Outpost, North Coast Journal, Times-Standard, The Red-Headed Blackbelt, Emerald 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.