The Shotgun Blog
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Marc Emery vs. Gerry Nicholls audio
Here's the audio from the debate Marc and Gerry had on "The World Tonight" with Rob Breakenridge (you can also get the audio from the CHRQ website, but the file size is enormous. I've shrunk it down so it's easier to listen to online).
The idea for this debate--what's the best way to advance freedom--comes from the debate between Marc and Gerry here on the Western Standard, as well as at the Liberty Summer Seminar over this past weekend.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Marc Emery vs. Gerry Nicholls audio:
None - not one - of the major party leaders, not even the Green Party supports this guy.
WHY DO YOU PEOPLE? Take a cue from the others. He's a dead-weight.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-31 12:18:08 AM
Neither do any of the major party leaders support Ezra, and still we stand by him.
I personally don't care what the "major party" leaders support. I'm very surprised to read that you do.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-07-31 7:13:42 AM
So you've erased all the previous comments critical of your pathological addiction to drug pushing criminal false gods and are trying again.
I see it's not working.
Posted by: epsilon | 2008-07-31 10:00:13 AM
ZP: Who cares if he's dead weight? Would you throw all the dead weight in the Gulag? We support him because he's committed no crime against a person or property and the feds want him in prison. That would would scare anyone with 2 or more brain cells.
Epsi: You seem to have a pathological addiction to big government. Your God will ensure you a trip to hell, not to heaven. Keep worshipping, you'll get the predatory gov't you deserve. You lefties just don't get it.
Posted by: Opinion | 2008-07-31 10:11:54 AM
Epsi: Wrong again. We've not erased all the previous comments critical of Marc. Please feel free to look through the Face-Off article comments again, and you'll see that there are more than enough negative comments to satisfy your hatred.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-07-31 10:14:52 AM
Thank you Jaws, hatred duly satisfied.
And Opinion, well, LoL. Aren't you an amusing little creature? (Tickles Opinion behind the ear.)
Posted by: epsilon | 2008-07-31 12:55:04 PM
This punk is a felon, pure and simple. Send him back to the US were they know how to deal with his kind.
Posted by: atric | 2008-07-31 3:38:06 PM
It is rather pathetic to think that these comments represent the dedication some conservatives have for the freedom of the individual.
The red tories are alive and well and are addicted to big government.
Posted by: gmood | 2008-07-31 6:15:27 PM
Alas, it is both amazing and sad, gmood. But don't judge all conservatives on the basis of the pro-big government (as long as Harper is increasing it) and anti-individual liberty (drugs are the new communism) commenters here.
There are actually some great, principled, pro-liberty conservatives out there. I've met them, I've spoken with them, and while they don't like Emery, they love liberty enough to tolerate his peaceful, adult decision to smoke pot.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-07-31 6:45:37 PM
I of course will not judge all conservatives with a general opinion but I can say that those who do support prohibition, support evil, pure and simple.
If some one who purportedly supports freedom comes down on the side of tyranny they are an enabler of evil and should be called on this.
I can understand personal opposition to drug use but to advocate jail for a personal choice is primitive and pre-enlightenment.
Posted by: gmood | 2008-07-31 7:04:46 PM
Freedom of the individual my ass. Our youth and our future are being decimated by drugs and you Llibertarian morons say its ok in the name of freedom. Bullshit.
You disgust me.
Posted by: epsilon | 2008-07-31 7:06:37 PM
Our youth and our future is being decimated by big government, anti-individual liberty policies that you endorse in the name of, uhm, what, exactly? Security? Health? Nanny statism? Bullshit.
You surprise me, epsi.
Especially in the light of knowing that you homeschooled your kids. Like I said before, I admire and endorse homeschoolers. But you should be well aware of the arguments and reasons given by government-run school supporters--that homeschooling leads to intolerance, and harms the children.
Of course they're wrong about that. Homeschooling has, and will continue to have, outstanding results for children, both in terms of their social life, as well as in terms of their academic accomplishments and education.
And, of course, you're wrong to think that legalizing pot will harm children. Exactly the opposite is true. Pot is illegal, and kids get it easier than alcohol.
Please epsi: reconsider your views in light of the facts, the evidence, and the studies. You can continue to despise those who choose to smoke pot, but recognize that they ought to be free to do it, and they ought to recognize that you're free to criticize them for it. But don't send the cops in after the peaceful adult pot smokers.
Hammer those who harm others. Hammer those who want kids to smoke pot. But leave adults be. Let them homeschool their kids. Ooops, I meant: Let them smoke pot.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-07-31 7:22:59 PM
As if I take anything intellectually impaired druggies, drug pushers or their apologists say seriously!
What a laugh!
Posted by: epsilon | 2008-07-31 8:44:15 PM
What is the extension of "intellectually impaired"? Do you mean for this to range over druggies, drug pushers, and apologists, or just over druggies? There's no reason to think that apologists for druggies and drug pushers are intellectually impaired, unless you view it as definitive of intellectual impairment that you hold the view that druggies and drug pushers should not be made criminals. (That view is false).
Separately, you should mark the difference between people who are apologists for druggies and drug pushers, and those who support ending the war on drugs. Many people, including Milton Friedman, are not apologists for druggies or drug pushers, but believe that the war on drugs is a disaster, and should be ended.
It may be true that there is a great deal of overlap between the two different stances, even though our Venn diagram will have non-overlapping bits. And that's important. Because should you, epsi, ever come around to the right and decent view--that the war on drugs should be ended--you could still hang on to your visceral hatred towards anyone who chooses to do drugs or sells them. That's the position many people who tolerate cigarette smokers take--they think cigarettes should not be illegal, but hate smokers and those who sell smokes.
I repeat: Hammer those who harm others. Hammer those who want kids to do something they may not have enough knowledge about. But leave adults free to engage in peaceful activities that harm no one but (maybe) themselves. Give adults the liberty to make dumb decisions, and fight so that they have to take responsibility for those decisions.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-07-31 10:15:03 PM
If anyone is impaired it would be some one who does not understand principles and logic.
You can not win an argument by confirming your inability to debate a topic with childish name calling.
Should the Government require any standard for the prohibition of any activity or can they do what ever they want?
Posted by: gmood | 2008-08-01 6:51:49 AM
Epsi: Stop fantasizing about touching men behind the ears and use your head. It must be scary sitting there ignorant and afraid.
I am a speaker for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) www.leap.cc
We have 100,000 members in the US and 10,000 in Canada. We are all ex or serving judges, prosecutors or cops. Having been on the front lines of the drug war, we see the stupidity and futility of it. We view ignorant, scared fools like you as "useful idiots" for the purpose of growing the gov't.
Personally, I think the war on men who want to touch men, as you do, would be a more worthy cause, but it would be senseless and futile too.
Posted by: Opinion | 2008-08-01 9:47:32 AM
I do not support the legalization of hard drugs. Pot is not a hard drug. I think we should simply decriminalize it as was done for the baby killers. Don't ask don't tell. Just let it be.
If we legalized pot, then the government would be obligated to control it. We do not want that. Like the Internet and abortion, some things cannot be controlled. Why waste time and money trying.
Even if the guv tried to distribute pot. It would be low quality and expensive. Most will continue to grow, buy and sell. Also, since the USA will never allow pot to be decriminalized, there will still be a huge illegal export business and that would continue the criminal element.
However, with decriminalization of pot, those who are going to smoke it will not not be criminalized and will have a better chance to remain productive tax paying citizens who will be allowed to travel freely to our great trading partner's domain.
The trade in pot is a wealth-creator since it is a crop. IE money that grows on plants. This money, though untaxed, will continue to support tens of thousands of Canadians who might otherwise be on welfare or working for next to nothing and ultimately taxed onto welfare. Canada's social services have already proved that when there is not much to be gained by working, welfare will do just fine.
The pot trade, in effect, can be considered welfare without the high cost of government bureaucracy. That is not a bad thing.
I am aware that Marc Emery has paid tax on his pot income, but I think he was misguided. We can see that his efforts were not appreciated. Why bother.
Government is nothing but a giant protection racket. You pay them through taxation to protect you from them. Even the Mafia used a flat tax system of about 20% and they actually protected their/your turf.
Canada is an insane asylum in that it fall neatly into the definition of insanity whereby "one continues to do the same things over and over while expecting different results".
When was the last time any government solved a problem?
We need a lot less of them in our lives and our businesses.
Posted by: John West | 2008-08-01 5:32:53 PM
Right on, John. That's pretty sensible, but if you go to www.leap.cc you'll find that your view of hard drugs isn't what you think it is.
All you do by having a war on any drug is make the trade in it violent. Consumption actually drops when it is legalized.
So, legalize heroin and you get less violence and less consumption. LEAP is not a naive group of fools like the Conservatives on here. It is an organization of 100,000 ex prosecutors, judges and cops. I am a member.
Peace and freedom count on study and wisdom. Socialism needs ignorant sheep. Look at what LEAP says, then look at some of the epsi/ZP statements. There's your comparison.
Posted by: Opinion | 2008-08-01 5:58:53 PM
Opinion: Epsi is a lady, not a man. Common mistake on here (I thought I'd remedy this misunderstanding on your behalf, epsi. Hope you don't mind).
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-08-01 6:52:10 PM
If you've ever been able to shop for something on Sunday then you have Marc Emery to thank.
Cannabis is a matter of individual choice and, like alcohol only becomes society's concern if others are directly harmed.
I'll do any drug I want, anytime I want, and it should only become your concern if I threaten another's peace and safety.
Alcohol and drugs, alcoholics and drug-addicts ... every time your hear this artificial dichotomy,understand that the source must be confused since alcohol is very much a drug and should require no separate mention. Why are alcohol users treated as "sick"(alcoholic) and users of other drugs labeled as "addicts"? Failure to classify substances correctly has resulted in a double-standard.
Posted by: david bourgeois | 2008-08-05 2:29:43 AM
As if I take anything intellectually impaired druggies, drug pushers or their apologists say seriously!
epsilon, do you take the Canadian Senate seriously? It's referred to as the house of sober second thought.
Canada should legalize marijuana use for anyone over 16 and offer amnesty for those convicted of pot possession, a Senate committee recommended Wednesday.
The committee would like to see Ottawa regulate cannabis and allow for its sale in much the same way that beer and wine are sold.
"Scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that cannabis is substantially less harmful than alcohol and should be treated not as a criminal issue but as a social and public health issue," Senator Pierre Nolin, the committee chair, told a news conference Wednesday morning.
Nolin said using marijuana should be a "personal choice" that does not lead to criminal conviction.
Posted by: Binary Logic | 2008-08-09 1:53:23 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.