Also Unacceptable: Images of Lox or Barbecue Pits

At The Huffington Post, Ryan Grim reports that Facebook, after initially accepting ads from Just Say Now, the marijuana legalization campaign, has decided they violate its ban on "smoking products" because they feature an image of Cannabis sativa. "The image of a pot leaf is classified with all smoking products and therefore is not acceptable under our policies," a Facebook spokesman informed the group. Grim notes that "Facebook's ad rules...only ban promotion of 'tobacco products,' not smoking in general," and adds:

Since the 1970s, shops selling marijuana paraphernalia have sought ways around the law by disingenuously claiming their products are "for tobacco use only." The Just Say Now campaign is arguing the exact opposite: No, really, it's for marijuana, not tobacco.

I noted the launch of Just Say Now a few weeks ago.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Binky||

    Facebook ... has decided they violate its ban on "smoking products"

    If I find just one mention of The Mask on Faceback, so help me ...!

  • Warty||

    Wait a minute. I thought "states' rights" was code for racism. What gives?

  • ||

    The Just Say Now campaign is arguing the exact opposite: No, really, it's for marijuana, not tobacco.

    Claiming a marijuana plant is not intended to promote tobacco use doesn't strike me as disingenuous.

  • ||

    Where did Grim say the claim was disingenuous?

  • Warty||

    Don't sass Tulpa. His powers of missing the point are far greater than you could ever imagine.

  • ||

    Yes, I do miss the point a lot. Especially when the point doesn't make any sense.

  • Zeb||

    Who the fuck smokes leaf? I thought Facebook was supposed to be run by cool people.

  • ||

    So if the logo was nug porn it would be cool. Good call.

  • Nelson Muntz||

    Ha ha!

  • ||

    Kodos to face book for standing up for the health and safety of America's children.

  • waffles||

    I agree, it is bold and righteous to stand up against the ever-growing, all-powerful, marijuana lobby. Somebody ought to make a law to make that stuff illegal!

  • Gunter||

    I could so fuck you right now.

  • WWJGD||

    http://www.wowhead.com/item=29.....:id=174248

    What the hell is facebook going to do with this?

  • WWJGD||

  • Jeffersonian||

    My sweet chaquita, what are you up to?

  • ||

    Oh, juanita. How I love you so. Forget the others. You mean nothing to them.

  • Warty||

    +1 to Google for the drugfreeworld.com ad on the side.

  • Fire Tiger||

    +1 to Reason for giving Matt Welch bloodshot eyes in the cruise ad.

  • ¢||

    What gives?

    It's still good!

    Pot's white now, like jazz, and the drive for a pot-only exemption from prohibition is a thinly disguised white-power crusade, which naturally speaks in anti-black code when it thinks it's safely among its own, like on Facebook.

  • DEA Agent||

    Is this a form of Ebonics?

  • ||

    The pro-pot group says face book is censoring their right to recruit illegal drug users. Face book is private property and doesn't have to run the ad. I hope face book provides the identities of those who "like" marijuana so they can get help.

  • ||

    I like the cut of your jib.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Fuck you, juanita.

  • stupid republican||

    hey juanita, im gonna get your fat mexican ass some "help" for those "burritos" you "like" to suck on...oh i'm sorry did that sound intolerant, wake up woman, its not your place to decide for others what is and isn't good for them. Live and let live....

  • ||

    Facebook has some unusual policies. There's a game called Ghost Trappers, whose setting is in Scotland and whose gameplay uses booze to catch ghosts. FB made the developers purge the booze references.

  • -||

    I'm a little behind the times. Isn't Facebook for retards? Or is it too soon? Will Facebook be for retards next year? What will replace it? What's the Next Big Thing? Does anyone know? Now's your chance to be a visionary. Go for it!

  • ||

    Somebody should make some sort of virtual interweb board, where everybody can go like leave messages and shit.

  • Paul||

    I'm a little behind the times. Isn't Facebook for retards?

    Generally, yes.

  • Paul||

    I'm thinking of starting a social-networking site called: www.facepalm.com

    It'll be a site that hotlinks to facebook pages and user can create meta content and commentary on individual facebook pages. It'll be a riot.

  • Paul||

    Fuck! Facepalm is taken. Fucking cybersquatters!

  • IceTrey||

    I made that Libertarian Party pot leaf my desktop background! AWESOME!!!!

  • ||

    Firedoglake is officially the left wing blog I hate the least.

  • SIV||

    I reserve that honor for Barry Ritholtz's blog I just avoid the politics and his regular trolling of libertarians.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    It's Facebook. They have policies nobody really understands and censor stuff apparently at their own discretion. Not surprised. But not the big deal either. IMHO.

  • Paul||

    Marijuana: Meet smoking bans.

    Smoking bans: Meet Marijuana.

    You kids have fun reconciling all that...

  • ||

    Talk about confused policies

    http://apps.facebook.com/mypotfarm/

  • bags||

    So if the logo was nug porn it would be cool. Good call.

  • fendibags||

    Is this a form of Ebonics?

  • scarf||

    I agree, it is bold and righteous to stand up against the ever-growing, all-powerful, marijuana lobby. Somebody ought to make a law to make that stuff illegal

  • the power of one||

    The prior 3 comments are a bot of some sort. Copies previous comments.

  • Liberal Douchebags||

    We're torn on the pot-legalization thing because a) smoking is evil and b) we can't advocate the brutally high tax rates on pot that we want on everything else.

  • ||

    They have created a fear that is based on nothing’’
    World-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us that he’s convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. A shocking interview.

    What do the studies on passive smoking tell us?


    PHILIPPE EVEN. There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic … compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.


    It is an indisputable scientific fact. Anti-tobacco associations report 3 000-6 000 deaths per year in France ...


    I am curious to know their sources. No study has ever produced such a result.


    Many experts argue that passive smoking is also responsible for cardiovascular disease and other asthma attacks. Not you?


    They don’t base it on any solid scientific evidence. Take the case of cardiovascular diseases: the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, there should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms. But this was never done. Regarding chronic bronchitis, although the role of active smoking is undeniable, that of passive smoking is yet to be proven. For asthma, it is indeed a contributing factor ... but not greater than pollen!


    The purpose of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing?


    Absolutely nothing! The psychosis began with the publication of a report by the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the WHO (Editor's note: World Health Organization). The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It's everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything.


    Why would anti-tobacco organizations wave a threat that does not exist?


    The anti-smoking campaigns and higher cigarette prices having failed, they had to find a new way to lower the number of smokers. By waving the threat of passive smoking, they found a tool that really works: social pressure. In good faith, non-smokers felt in danger and started to stand up against smokers. As a result, passive smoking has become a public health problem, paving the way for the Evin Law and the decree banning smoking in public places. The cause may be good, but I do not think it is good to legislate on a lie. And the worst part is that it does not work: since the entry into force of the decree, cigarette sales are rising again.


    Why not speak up earlier?


    As a civil servant, dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was held to confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man.


    Le Parisien

  • lilly zhang||

    here are nice quality burberry scarf for you.

  • burberry scarf||

    our burberry scarf is your best choice,they are nice quality at a good discount,great welcome everyone order from us.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement