One of the activists recently asked about the idea of wearing masks during our petition drive . . . an old but untested idea I've had for many years.  I think it may be an interesting method of attracting media attention.  Here is an explanation (below) and perhaps we can further discuss this at future NORML Meetings. 

It's funny you mention the masks because, while I have always thought it a good idea, I have never followed through and purchased a mask.  I am thinking of getting a George Washington mask before the DEMF this weekend.  As I said in the last e-mail the purposes of the masks are many:

* To ridicule the hypocrites who have used illicit drugs themselves but still feel compelled to put you in jail for doing the same thing. (e.g. Bush, Clinton)
* To make the public aware of the advocates and users of Cannabis  (e.g. Washington, Jefferson, Shakespeare, Louis Armstrong, John Lennon, Paul McCartney)
* To give those activists, that are afraid to come out publicly, an opportunity to become publicly involved without exposing themselves to public exposure through televized newscasts etc.
* To just have a little fun as we work toward changing the drug laws in this country.

But, if the idea is properly promoted, the most important purpose may be to allow American workers to participate in the Drug Reform Movement under a cloak of anonymity that protects them from both the government and the workplace.

Professor Hemp

Activist Feedback:

Not everyone think that masks are a good idea so I will try to clarify the role that masks might play by replying to some of the activist feedback I have received:

Activist:  I say no to masks.  We are doing a very honorable thing and I am proud to show my face.....
Prof. Hemp: That is great and I commend you for your activism.  But there are a lot of people who have legitimate concerns about showing their faces. One of the most legitimate of those concerns centers on workplace harassment. 

In a typical scenario an activist is sighted by a coworker at a protest or petitioning event. The coworker may see the activist directly or through local television news footage. The activist's activity eventually comes to the attention of conservative management who decide the activist is a "doper" or something equally flattering. Since they can't punish the worker for exercising his/her first amendment rights they begin to develop a "paper trail" on the individual by over scrutinizing the workers behavior. Some of the ways that an activist is "screw-tinized" include the following: 

* S/he gets written up for coming in 5 minutes late from lunch despite the fact that no one else has ever been punished for the same behavior
* S/he suddenly is called in for a "random" drug test which has become an accepted practice of the employer. 

Eventually the worker is terminated "for cause" and the employer never has to admit their bias towards the activist. 

The above examples are probably the most common reasons some activists might prefer to remain anonymous through the use of masks.  Anyone that has done any petitioning knows that many potential signers have similar concerns.   But the idea is not that everyone should wear a mask. The idea is that wearing masks may be right for some activists and may offer a number of additional benefits to our Drug Reform efforts. Some of the benefits of encouraging the wearing of masks include:

* The anonymity of wearing a mask may attract additional "closet activists" to come out and help petition or attend protests against current Drug Policy.
* The "Guerrilla Theater" aspect of masks may attract more news media interest to our cause. The masks might also educate the public to the "hemp heroes and "hemp hypocrites" of the Cannabis Reform movement.

Activist: I hate to be a nay-sayer but I personally am not real keen on the mask idea. I tend to go along with Keith Stroup's message that it's time that we come "out of the closet" and stand up and be counted (paraphrasing, of course). I also agree with George in that since we are asking people to put their signature on the line, I think that masks might tend to make some people more reluctant to sign. We need to be reassuring to people that this is their Constitutionally protected right.
Prof. Hemp:  Of course if you make your living supporting drug reform (e.g. Keith Stroup, President of NORML) you're already "out of the closet" anyway.  And I do encourage, those are that are comfortable with the idea, to go public with their activism.  But many people do work for employers who (they believe) would target them for their Drug Reform activism.  Unfortunately in the "At Will" work environment, that most employees find themselves in today, employers find it very easy to circumvent the employee's Constitutional Rights.   Masks might offer an option that will allow these "closet activists" to become "active activists."  We could sure use all the help we can get for PRA.

The idea that "masks might tend to make some people more reluctant to sign" is a good point that does concern me.  But until we try it, at a few petitioning events, I don't think we know that the masks will have this effect.  If we find that it does, discourage people from signing,  we can encourage people NOT to wear masks for petitioning events.  But the masks may still be a tool that will allow bigger crowds to assemble for any future protests against the Drug War, where petitioning is NOT the order of the day.  In any case,  we need to constantly consider innovative tactics and employ them to our best advantage.  As of today I have yet to see a mask appear at a petitioning event or protest.