We need to NAME the group ...

[CannabisMan]

thats the shit radic only its the 7 & 8th september

[Sheppo]

I like the Cannabis Research Institution of Australia, but I also like STOP.

 

Acronyms are so much better when you can say a word, rather then just stating the letters. if that make sense to anyone else .

[Radic]

i hear you Sheppo

STOP is irey from a activist perspective

seen

gotta love dat

i man have a focuse of credibility

i want the truth to reveal to all

for that to happen we need to be seen as a credible org

IMHO

Cannabis Research Institution of Australia CRIA

does not need to actually do research

we just need to collate all scientific studies that has been done ot date

and promote it as it is -->official cannabis research

IMHO

Cannabis Research Institution of Australia CRIA

deals with

web site, media releases

and fund raising activities and Non Violent Direct Action NVDA to support all the scientific studies that get suppressed because they only found positive results

there may be more activites

thats up too the group to deside

irey guidance

[dalex]

If we're taking the Cannabis Research Institute of Australia, just be careful that our name actually means something legitimate. I mean, I'm guessing we don't have that many scientists, psychologists, social researchers or econometricians with us just yet, so we have to ask what role research has in our institute - I assume were just disseminating/compilig research already produced.

 

Just a note that we're not just after a nice sounding name or one that just tickles our fancy.

[dakratzman]

yeah i agree with dalex... CRIA would be awesome but i think putting anything with cannabis and research in the same breath without any professionals backing it up would be setting us up for a massacre.. they ( or i ) would say that the only thing they research is bongs .. could add unwanted heat and give them a bone to start gnawing at that could kill the whole thing.. why not a different approach without cannabis in it? one that gets people thinking about it in a different light, not confronting but still asks a question and guides people to proper info that lets them "think" they worked it out themselves.. getting the people who dont care about prohibition or the reasons why its enforced would be the people i'd want to target.. no use preaching to the converted or the ignorant, the ignorant follow the "smart" australia and if they were even discussing it, i think would be a major step.

 

i suppose its what tactics / campaign we will be using.. do we go the 1960's "NO WAR" style or the 2000+ "YES WE CAN" mind attack.. hmm

Edited August 6, 2009 by dakratzman

[Radic]

seen

IMHO

thats the very reason why many scientists, psychologists, social researchers or econometricians are not with us yet

no credible org they feel that they can add their support too

seen

lest we forget

we do have Dr Lester Grinspoon, Dr Bob Melamede, Joan Bello, to name but a few

there are many more who will soon jump ship

when they have a credible org to submit their findings too

 

irey guidance

[dakratzman]

^^ nice.. wonder how hard it would be to conduct a medical trial .. then we would have heaps of local, quality evidence and more gp's etc ready to testify to back it up.

[Radic]

seen

IMHO

Cannabis Research Institution of Australia CRIA

does not need to actually do research

we just need to collate all scientific studies that has been done ot date

and promote it as it is -->official cannabis research

irey guidance

[bloodshot_eyes]

At the end of the day, I think the name just has to be accurate to what we are really about and I would be happy with most of the names mentioned so far. A name is only a name. I do now think that we do not need to rush into anything. I wonder though, how are we going to choose this name fairly? The only fair way is to cast a vote but it is difficult to do so accurately online. Any ideas?

[MadamePandora]

I am going to make a new topic with all the suggestions in it tonight.

 

Each person will be asked to vote their top 3 names in order of preference. If they put down more than 3 only the first 3 will be counted. If they put down less than 3 then I will only include the names they put down.

 

They will be tallied up and the winning name with the most votes will be posted. Since each person's name appears in their replies, there can't be double voting. I can't do it as a poll because there are too many names to put up for the poll system to cope with.