Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Can Harper be trusted on guns? | Main | Filibuster: Get your buttons! »

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Marc Emery: This is your government on drugs

Western Standard columnist and "Prince of Pot" Marc Emery, who is facing extradition to the United States for selling marijuana seeds to Americans over the internet, was deeply involved in today's decision by Dana Larsen to resign as an NDP candidate in a West Vancouver riding. Emery doesn't think it's a "resignation" at all. He thinks Larsen was "sacked."

He says so in his latest piece exclusively for the Western Standard. Entitled "This is your government on drugs," Emery eviscerates politicians for their hypocrisy: Just about all of them, he argues, either have smoked pot, done other drugs, or are drunks.

He calls them out by name: "Let us remember," writes Emery, "that premiers Mike Harris, Ralph Klein, Glen Clark all smoked pot in university. Prime Ministers Trudeau and Campbell smoked pot in university and later (Kim Campbell, despite being the Justice Minister in the Mulroney cabinet, said she believed her pot use was "legal"). PQ leader Andre Boisclair snorted cocaine for years, including as an MLA.

I have more revelations of Members of Parliament, leaders of established parties in Ottawa now, who smoked pot while in office. I know MPs whose wives have smoked pot for medical reasons and otherwise. Young Mr. Trudeau, who is running for office in Quebec today, smoked pot for years, sometimes with me. The current Premier of Yukon, Dennis Fenti, has several convictions for selling heroin in the 70s!"

The NDP has a bit of a double-standard too, since, as Emery points out, Ontario NDP MPP Cheri DiNovo--recently elected in a by-election in 2007--admitted to smuggling LSD and other drugs in Bibles. Here's a video of DiNovo admitting it:

In spite of this, Dana Larsen, not Harris, Klein, DiNovo, or P. E. Trudeau, got the hook. And Justin Trudeau probably won't have to face any kind of questioning for smoking pot with Emery on several occasions (Emery tells me, over the phone, that he was with Trudeau once in front of journalists, when the journalists asked Trudeau to smoke a joint for the cameras. Emery handed him a joint, and walked away to spare Trudeau the scandal of being photographed with the Prince of Pot.)

Emery ends with a flourish, "Everyone takes drugs, illegal and otherwise. That is why the drug war is anti-human, and morally indefensible. Prohibition must be repealed because it creates property crime, gangs, prostitution. Prohibition punishes people for addictions or curiosity. Prohibition makes lucrative profits possible that lure thousands of teenagers into the illegal drug market every month.

Prohibition is the evil, and these shameful politics only make the terrible effects of prohibition more lasting and permanent."

Read the rest.

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on September 17, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e2010534ad87a5970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Marc Emery: This is your government on drugs:

Comments

"Let us remember," writes Emery, "that premiers Mike Harris, Ralph Klein, Glen Clark all smoked pot in university. Prime Ministers Trudeau and Campbell smoked pot in university

The difference is that they grew up, you pot smoking dope! Somebody tell me again why the Western Standard is supporting this infantile pothead? Seriously...does being a libertarian mean you have no clues?

Posted by: Markalta | 2008-09-17 11:21:05 PM


Marc Emery has been a tireless advocate for freedom. He fought the unions in London when they went on strike by picking up peoples garbage in his van.

He fought censors by selling censored books and CDs in his City Lights bookstore (advertising this fact every time).

He has championed ending the disastrous war on drugs, and is internationally recognized for this fact.

The Western Standard stands by Marc Emery. He is an incredible and tireless advocate for liberty. Sure, he smokes a lot of pot, but I don't give a damn. That should be his right, as an adult, in a free country.

Pot will be legal, it is only a matter of time. And when it's legal, we will look back on the prohibition on marijuana like we look back on the prohibition on alcohol.

We're on the right side of this issue, Markalta. And Marc is spearheading it.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-09-18 12:56:00 AM


I knew there was another reason why I like Justin Trudeau. Hope the good people in his riding elect him.

Posted by: Cool | 2008-09-18 5:19:44 AM


He's The Prince of Ganga man, of ganga he's a fan.
He'll fight to the finish, till the drug war's diminished, He's the Prince of Ganga man.
The Prince went across the land, spreading info hand to hand, the truth about ganga and the lies of the drug war, for that cause he took a stand. Some didn't support the way, that The Prince tried to change the day, until pot is accepted the way that it should be, he'll fight till his dying day.
He called for his people to climb up a steeple,
And take a ganga stand.
The Prince he got some seeds, for our medicinal needs. Then he told all his people "Come Down From the Steeple, it's time to plant some seeds.
His people all loved him so, they planted his seeds to and fro. They planted his seeds for medicinal needs, and attempted to overgrow.
It took all that the Prince had you know,
to get things changed so we can grow, some medical pot for the ailments we've got.
Now the laws can no longer say no.

Posted by: Chummy Anthony | 2008-09-18 6:04:28 AM


"Let us remember," writes Emery, "that premiers Mike Harris, Ralph Klein, Glen Clark all smoked pot in university."

I question the accuracy of this statement because Ralph Klein is a grade school dropout. He was a student at Athabasca University, but not until late into his premiership.

Posted by: Doug Howell | 2008-09-18 6:40:41 AM


The difference is that they grew up, you pot smoking dope! Somebody tell me again why the Western Standard is supporting this infantile pothead? Seriously...does being a libertarian mean you have no clues?

Posted by: Markalta | 17-Sep-08 11:21:05 PM

I see that being very narrowly focused still works for you. Being a Libertarian means many things and the right to choose what you put into your own body is actually a small part of a very big picture. I notice that you actually seem to know very little at all about Libertaianism.
Or if you do, you are unable to find flaws in the bigger picture, which is why you pick at nickel/dime items.

Posted by: JC | 2008-09-18 7:02:29 AM


Somebody should tell this dope that "everyone else is doing it" is the answer a fourth-grader would give and is not an excuse. Also, the fact that he "suspects" they smoked dope doesn't even come close to proving it. This guy has proven himself to be a delusional narcissist and is unconvincing even when he has stats of some sort to back himself up. Pot's will likely remain illegal for a long time to come unless it gets some better spokesmen than this weedy specimen.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-18 7:25:19 AM


JC, what does it say about pot smokers who continue to buy pot despite the fact that it's still illegal, and thus generate organized crime? They'd rather the shootings continue than alter their lifestyle. Whether pot should be legal or not is irrelevant for the moment; these people are willing to have their dope floated to them on lakes of blood. They're not in a position to moralize about anything.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-18 7:28:24 AM


"The Western Standard stands by Marc Emery. He is an incredible and tireless advocate for liberty. Sure, he smokes a lot of pot, but I don't give a damn. That should be his right, as an adult, in a free country."

I am very sorry to hear that.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-09-18 7:36:56 AM


I find the very people who emotionally and vehemently denounce pot smoking are the very people who would benifit from a toke once in a while.

Is pot smoking healthy?......of course not. But neither is beer, cheeseburgers, cigars or gambling. But I have the freedom to choose these products without fear of prosecution.

But the big one...the KING of hypocritical logic...is this.

If it is so vital to keep weed illegal to save society, then why are you not marching the streets to make evil and destructive alcohol illegal too? A little selective indignation at work I'd say.

Our governments are simply the largest drug dealers in the country. But I guess if they're your dealer, it's fine and dandy.

Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2008-09-18 8:03:44 AM


So, JC, you're telling us that the Western Standard stands or does not stand on a given issue based on what you do or don't "give a damn" about? Is "we're on the right side" the most rigorous, scholarly argument you can muster? This is sappy, sentimental schmaltz. Not one fact in the whole pathetic argument.

The man is defending a public servant whose idea of public service was to pump himself full of illegal drugs and then drive while stoned. Apparently someone forgot to tell him that this matter has already been researched by professional scientists, who concluded that driving in an altered state of consciousness is a bad idea, period. You're on the right side, though, you bet.

A bit of advice, JC: Never, ever, EVER throw your hat in the ring with a narcissist, and be wary of charismatic, telegenic celebrity types. Be very wary. Because the last time we voted for someone like that we wound up with Trudeau.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-18 8:05:51 AM


"I am very sorry to hear that."

So true Zeb, and one of the reasons this blog has become a former shadow of itself and most of the pertinent posters have either moved on, or simply ignore it.

Shame really.

Posted by: deepblue | 2008-09-18 8:09:34 AM


Canadian Observer wrote: “I find the very people who emotionally and vehemently denounce pot smoking are the very people who would benifit from a toke once in a while.”

I find that you are a hypocritical liberal bloodsucker who likely denounces blood for oil, but is perfectly happy with blood for pot.

Canadian Observer wrote: “Is pot smoking healthy?......of course not. But neither is beer, cheeseburgers, cigars or gambling. But I have the freedom to choose these products without fear of prosecution.”

These products can all be consumed without significantly altering your consciousness. Granted, beer in abundance will alter it, but at least its effects are predictable and quickly metabolized to zero. Marijuana, on the other hand, is fat-soluble and can pour into your system any time you start burning fat, for weeks afterward. Let me ask you this. Most pro-pot advocates agree that drugs like heroin and cocaine should be kept illegal, but why? What are the criteria that determine whether a substance should be legal or not?

Canadian Observer wrote: “But the big one...the KING of hypocritical logic...is this.”

Only if you can come up with valid reasons why this drug should be treated differently than the others, C.O. It’s not enough for you to simply say it. As for hypocrisy, see above.


Canadian Observer wrote: “If it is so vital to keep weed illegal to save society, then why are you not marching the streets to make evil and destructive alcohol illegal too?”

It’s not vital; merely wise. Also, neither pot nor alcohol are evil; they are both soulless chemicals with no consciousness. It is not necessary to anthropomorphize them in order to understand them. As for why alcohol is still legal, see above.

Canadian Observer wrote: “A little selective indignation at work I'd say.”

What you say does not matter, unless you can back it up with more than self-righteous rhetoric.

Canadian Observer wrote: “Our governments are simply the largest drug dealers in the country. But I guess if they're your dealer, it's fine and dandy.”

Technically, neither tobacco nor alcohol are drugs. Bitter much?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-18 8:15:55 AM


POT PRINCE EMERY: JUSTIN 'SMOKED POT' WITH ME

There's a good reason Justin Trudeau should never hold public office in Canada. Not that he smoked pot, but that he had the poor judgement to hang around this Emery clown!

So he's done some grandstanding for freedom in his time. Apparently now, he's just a one trick horse! I'm not so hell bent on keeping pot illegal, just disgusted to see an adult put so much time and effort into something so ridiculous.

Just read Cool and Chubby Anthony above for reasons why pot smoking is no "noble cause". A brain is a terrible thing to waste!

Posted by: Markalta | 2008-09-18 8:18:33 AM


Wow. Lot of angry drunks here today!

Posted by: Amused | 2008-09-18 8:38:39 AM


If Morgantaller is entitled to the order of Canada for his fight for freedom to choose. Why isn't Marc Emery entitled to the same stature?

Posted by: Dayton | 2008-09-18 8:42:29 AM


Morgantaler's appointment to the Order was somewhat irregular and politically motivated. All either of these narcissistic running sores are entitled to is a noose.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-18 8:52:27 AM


Shane Said: "These products can all be consumed without significantly altering your consciousness. Granted, beer in abundance will alter it, but at least its effects are predictable and quickly metabolized to zero. Marijuana, on the other hand, is fat-soluble and can pour into your system any time you start burning fat, for weeks afterward. Let me ask you this. Most pro-pot advocates agree that drugs like heroin and cocaine should be kept illegal, but why? What are the criteria that determine whether a substance should be legal or not?"


Marijuana is NOT fat soluble, and does not get 'poured' into your system at any time. Perhaps you are referring to THC, which is fat soluble but cannot be released from fat storage with any observable effects beyond simple blood transmission. You cannot get 'high' except through direct consumption of THC, as has been proven through many tests.

Also, Alchol is metabolized much more slowly than THC. Hence people being drunken fools all night long, whilst the crazy stoner only lasts an hour. Further, it is simply impossible to overdose and kill yourself from consumption of THC, but alcohol has led to many overdose deaths. Again, a function of metabolic rates and absorbtion.

I disagree with your statement that heroin and cocaine should be kept illegal. In fact, they really are already legal in slightly modified forms (hello morphene?, cocaine wash is a regular for nasal surgery). In terms of the black market forms you refer to, they likely are a response to prohibition but not a cause of it.

So I turn your question back at you: what are the criteria that make a substance illegal?

Why are alcohol and tobacco (no longer) illegal?

Posted by: Q | 2008-09-18 9:16:00 AM


"... Its a terrible shame that no one from the cannabis culture or the psychedelic culture will ever be elected to represent the millions and millions of Canadians who are responsible cannabis and psychedelic users...." Quote his majesty, the Prince of Pot

Hand me a kleenex...I feel a spasm of unfairness compassion coming on.. We note the Criminal Underclass have no democratic elected representation in government either -we have no MP srepresenting the incarcerated sector of Canadian society-- not yet...

-" one man-one bunk-one vote" .....set my people free, even if it takes 20 to life to acccomplish this on a case by case basis..Here is awide open new carreer opp for Mr Emery- as Minister of Caged Affairs... We hope he has" a dream " beyond betraying everyone he ever shared a joint with..

maybe Herr Emery. dope dealer to the stars- vice lord to a million teenage wipeheads can change the deal of no votes for prisoners while he's in a US prison for bigtime international drug , .. he'll have more than enough time to work out all the details and report back..And the WS may well present us with another opportunity to watch his squirm as he detoxes

All Hail Der Prince, watch him Brat out many others in the countdown to his extradition hearing in Vancoucer Dec. 01 2008
Somehow, Dana Larsen bing powerwashed away from the NDP ranks was all because of his long association with dope fiend bargain basement freedom monger- his majesty Marc Emery--

Some liberty champ_ he turned out to be, ratting out the winners in a long series of democratic elections-all elections he lost, That's sore loser dept.- And as we can see, desperate people do desperate things.

Posted by: 419 | 2008-09-18 9:39:06 AM


Q,

1. There have been numerous testimonies by pot users of suddenly becoming “spaced out” without warning hours or days after their last hit. One user reported being so struck while behind the wheel. I don’t recall if he had an accident or not, but the lesson is the same. Moreover, the brain is one-third fatty tissue, meaning you have pot on the brain for quite a while after ingestion. And just because you’re not visibly high doesn’t mean you’re not impaired, any more than not slurring your words after drinking is proof that you can drive home safely.

2. The effects last up to THREE hours, not just one. Part of the reason for the rapid onset and comparatively faster metabolizing of THC as opposed to alcohol is that THC is smoked directly into the bloodstream, bypassing the digestive tract, unlike alcohol. And again, the impairment effects of marijuana persist many hours after a detectable “high” has departed, just as a drop in BAC from 0.2 to 0.1 will produce a noticeably more sober drinker but one who is still not yet fit to drive.

3. Nobody gives a crap what you disagree with, Q. Narcotics have legitimate medicinal uses, but are even more damaging than marijuana when misused. That’s why they’re restricted, but still legal with a doctor’s prescription. By 1942, doctors had decided that any medical uses for marijuana were outweighed by its numerous side effects, and not much new information has come to light that should cause them to review that decision. Just a couple generations of self-indulgent morons.

4. I asked you first. The fact that you don’t answer suggests either that you: a) don’t know the answer; or more likely b) know that to answer would betray your argument, hence the clumsy attempt at riposte. Marijuana is outlawed and narcotics restricted because the medical community has decided that the harm done outweighs the good done. And I am more inclined to repose trust in them than in someone with a lifetime pass on the bitter bus who can’t spell “morphine.”

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-18 9:49:43 AM


Shane: "So, JC, you're telling us that the Western Standard stands or does not stand on a given issue based on what you do or don't "give a damn" about? Is "we're on the right side" the most rigorous, scholarly argument you can muster? This is sappy, sentimental schmaltz. Not one fact in the whole pathetic argument."

I think you meant to address that criticism at me, Shane, not JC.

My response: My "not giving a damn" is not the standard. And, clearly, I do give a damn about this issue. I think marijuana should be legal.

"We're on the right side" was not an argument, Shane, it is the conclusion of an argument, which I haven't offered. But I'm happy to offer it, if asked.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-09-18 10:11:35 AM


Shane- It's a shame you have to resort to such hyperbole and name calling. I think it really detracts from your argumentation.

1- Testimonies are certainly not worth the air they are spoken with. Testimonies of UFO's abound, but certainly nobody agrees the world is about to be attacked by Aliens. Scientific studies have affirmitively shown that THC cannot be released from fatty tissues in quantities to effect judgement or impairment. Period. You cannot get 'high' without direct consumption.

2- So we agree that THC is metabolized much more quickly and efficiently than alcohol, and is much safer in terms of ability to overdose. Thanks for your agreement.

3 - In 1942, doctors were working to discover antibiotics and debating the merits of DDT. Do you seriously propose that a decision made in 1942 should be set in stone? How silly. By 2000, doctors were prescribing Marijuana to patients for its curative effects and relative lack of negative side effects, or have you missed the past decade?

4- The answer is because of beauraucratic decisions by government, and has very little to do with the true intentions of the medical community. The fact you cannot describe why certain narcotice are illegal while others are not tells me all I need to know about your viewpoint.

Now, lets summarize Shane's arguments to show how feeble they are:

(1) Testimonies of people being high long after (days, months, years) using pot means scientific studies showing the opposite are wrong.
(2) Effects last much less long than alcohol and cannot cause death but 'side effects are dangerous'.
(3) Doctors in 1942 didnt like pot, and people who use it are 'self-indulgent morons". That's about 35-50% of the general Canadian population.
(4) You can't spell Morphine so you are an idiot.

Well, you've convinced me, Shane!

Posted by: Q | 2008-09-18 10:15:13 AM


Zeb wrote: "I am very sorry to hear that."

deepblue wrote in response: "So true Zeb, and one of the reasons this blog has become a former shadow of itself and most of the pertinent posters have either moved on, or simply ignore it.

Shame really."

I'm not sure what your criteria for counting something as a "shadow" of its former self is. Is the criterion, "the blog no longer agrees with my opinions," or "the blog no longer addresses my pet issues"?

We have this hurdle: We no longer have six figures per year to spend on the Western Standard. Many bloggers were paid staff. We now have three paid staffers, as opposed to more than a dozen.

However, we also have access to our online traffic numbers, and other objective criteria. According to those standards, we are generating more traffic than we've ever generated in the history of this website. The last two weeks have been particularly high water marks for this blog. It's why we're in the top 10 of political blogs in Canada (#6 to be precise).

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-09-18 10:17:19 AM


Hmmm.. seems that every "colourful " Emery missive that the WS posts causes viewers to roll out the heavy ammunition..pro and anti legal recreational drug warfare is almost immediate..

I say why get upset? Do the math- There is little chance that current cannabis prohibition will ever reverse direction- the make it legal camp have yet to provide rational convincing evidence why legalization is a good idea for anyone else but themselves..


Really- does anybody sincerely reasonably expect the drug laws, those addressing cannabis in particular- to really change within the next few decades, if at all ? In formal realiy, not in smokey theory.


The pro pot people are getting shot down. one by one- never to return. Marc Emery is heading off to a US prison- his closest associates are being kicked out of any political pool they wade into, as fast as they are discovered peeing in it..

Maybe, and i stress maybe- the best chance for pro pot people to make any gains in their argument is to wait intill the Prince of Pot is out of the pool, towled dry and tucked in somewhere far away.. & that scenerio is almost certain, especially after his on camera guilty plea and doped up resolve to humliate certain father figure US drug officials in court--& so what?

Too bad, Emerys' retarded stoner antics cost the pro pot movement 20 years of credibility.. and whats even sadder, they will likely herald & cherish his return to society as their wrinkled up old mad dog of marijuana liberty the day after he gets out of prison- so add 20 more years of going- nowhere- fast to the 70 years of cannabis prohibition that just whizzed past and you get-- five- count ' em five- consecutive generations in a row rejecting wipeheadism..

Nice work Mr Emery, you made a hard thing pretty much impossible now.. Your stoner toads like ex NDP candidate Dana Larsen getting the party boot pretty much ensures the pot laws, as written, are here to stay- if they change at all, it will only to make penalties worse.

Posted by: 419 | 2008-09-18 11:00:31 AM


I see there are some posters here who are a little light on information (Shane Matthews for one).

So let's provide you with a little scientific information. I doubt this will make much difference as your type aren't usually persuaded by stupid things like facts and science but here goes:

A little science:
It is estimated that canabis's LD-50 (the lethal dosage for 50% of test animals) is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a canabis smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much canabis as is contained in one canabis cigarette. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of canabis within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.

Posted by: NotJesus | 2008-09-18 11:36:09 AM


You're the one who's light on information, NotJesus (and an apt name that is, too). Your entire post was centred around marijuana's extremely high LD-50 dose, as if that were the only thing that mattered. No mention of its other effects. And if you'd use your brain, you'd realize that the LD-50 for marijuana is a lot lower than 1,500 pounds. Your entire skin would be filled after about 200, leaving no room for anything else.

Your problem is you can't see the pot for the joints.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-18 11:47:57 AM


Does anybody here know the LD-50 for granite?
I bet it's safer than 1: 1,000,000, 000,
but a one inch cube
thrown at normal speed
at somebodys head
( on the outside )
can be fatal
if you don't believe it, try it !

Posted by: 419 | 2008-09-18 12:26:59 PM


It's called LD-50 because the 49 previous laboratory attempts to poison the monkeys with concentrated L(ethal) D(oses) of THC failed to kill them.

It took 50 attempts to find a large enough dose.

Granite is already as concentrated as granite gets.

Posted by: Speller | 2008-09-18 12:34:38 PM


For that matter, 419, just swallow it and let it slice your esophagus open all the way down. And Speller, it's called LD-50 because 50 percent of those receiving that dose will die. Your interpretation means that only 2 percent will die.

The problem is that the stoners focus like a laser on one obscure laboratory statistic to the exclusion of all else, even the obvious. But then, their minds are probably not functioning at their best. Can't imagine why not...

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-18 12:40:00 PM


I read the experiment, Shane.
It took 50 attempts.

The goal of the experiment was to kill the monkeys, which the scientists did, and therefore provide Drug Warriors(TM) with the claim that, "Yes, there is such a thing as overdosing from marijuana!" which of course isn't even a little bit true outside of a laboratory.

Why does a rummy like you, Shane, claim that "stoners" want to focus on an experiment that was commissioned by Drug Warriors to prove that there is a lethal dose level of marijuana?

Posted by: Speller | 2008-09-18 12:52:17 PM


Did you guys not notice that this guy photographed himself driving the Sea to Sky Highway while stoned? It's bad enough to be distracted driving on that highway holding a camera, but doing it while stoned? This guy was a danger to other drivers.

Posted by: Two Cents | 2008-09-18 12:54:16 PM


Agreed- its called LD 50 because it indicates the toxic level
where 50% of the test subjects will die off.

2% figure likely refers to fat content of partially skimmed milk

PS- If I swallow a gram of granite with water,
which can kill by overdose
does that count as cheating.. ?

Posted by: 419 | 2008-09-18 12:59:14 PM


"I am very sorry to hear that."

I am very sorry to hear that.

Posted by: Marc | 2008-09-18 1:07:43 PM


pharmacology shorthand descriptors to express toxidity are international and have been around for many decades..

they are:

MED- Minimum effective dose
ED- effective dose
TD- toxic dose
LD- lethal dose
LS 50- lethal dose to 50% of test subjects

I would be very intertested to learn what report you refer to Conrad Speller, where ethics perverted scientists skillfully performed 49 fake drugs trials with so many monkeys to distort results for the Darth Vader Institute of Dark Science * Buzzspoilers Research Division ...

Untill that time. I am calling your bluff, ( fibber ! )because you never read any such report, as no such report was ever written and no such testing as you described was ever performed..

maybe you confused LS 50 and LSD 50-
please don't confuse WD 40 with TOP 40

Posted by: 419 | 2008-09-18 1:14:13 PM


Who cares about the LD-50? Everyone agrees that THC is a non-lethal narcotic that is much less dangerous than Alcohol in terms of overdose.

I can also agree that Marc Emery is a very poor advocate for marijuana users. Driving while stoned is dangerous and definately should be criminal. His antics do not help his cause, IMHO.

But that doesnt change the fact that current laws define over a quarter of canadians as criminals. That's just shortsighted and wrong. Why is it that alcohol and tabacco are legal, but cause just as much, if not more, societal problems through abuse and misuse? Why is it that we continue to criminalize a mainstream part of the population, and/or decide to look the other way when we all know many responsible marijuana users? Why is it that we ignore doctor's advice that there IS a proper place and use for marijuana in treatment, and thus there is beneficial aspects?

Posted by: Q | 2008-09-18 1:19:48 PM


Yo Q tip;
Who cares about LD 50?
- all those monkeys who died to prove it to wipeheads Marc

Emery is a poor advocate for marijuana users?
- hes the best exambple of how it ruins the human mind

Driving while stobed already IS criminal-
its just better enforced these days

There is a proper place for marijuana in treatment-
its called a health ministers exemption , apply for yours today if you think you deserve one, that is if you can concvince a real doctor that you are terminally ill.

His( Emerys' ) antics do not help his cause- well his stated cause is divine selfishness and wild man abandon with a side order of marijuana liberation so he can vecome wealthy selling a toxic weed to wipehead idiots of the future

: I imagine that he succeeds way better at demonstrating cannabis toxidity than a stack of dead monekeys with their brains cut open.. just watch his YouTube legacy and NOT laugh at his toilet flush broken logic babble and hs suitcase sized mega stoner eyebags ..this is your leader at his LD 50 best !

the only thing he has going for him
is a $75 haircut and a $2000 suit that fits properly
other than that, your felony stained Prince of Pot is just one tragically intoxicated bi ped awating transfer to an American zoo

Ask your Mom why alcohol and tobacco are legal but controlled substances but marijuana is not.. maybe you'll listen to her/ she cuts your allowance cheque. not us

Posted by: 419 | 2008-09-18 1:43:00 PM


Speller wrote: “I read the experiment, Shane. It took 50 attempts.”

I never said it didn’t. I said you were wrong about what LD-50 meant, and you were. Next.

Speller wrote: “The goal of the experiment was to kill the monkeys, which the scientists did, and therefore provide Drug Warriors(TM) with the claim that, ‘Yes, there is such a thing as overdosing from marijuana!’ which of course isn't even a little bit true outside of a laboratory.”

The same can be said for Bisphenol-A. Yet many of those who champion the cause of putting anything they want into their bodies without government interference hailed that ruling as a victory.

Speller wrote: “Why does a rummy like you, Shane, claim that ‘stoners’ want to focus on an experiment that was commissioned by Drug Warriors to prove that there is a lethal dose level of marijuana?”

Stoners often cite the fact that it’s almost impossible to OD on marijuana as proof that it should be legalized, as if LD-50 were the only factor worth considering. Easy, boy, you’re getting twitchy about the eyes. Must be time for your next fix.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-18 2:16:59 PM


Wow 419, what a logical and consistent argument.

Could you please explain why you think over 1/4 of Canadians should be in jail for currently using of marijuana?

Could you please explain why a majority of Canadians have tried or experimented with such a "deadly and toxic", not to mention illegal substance?

Could you please explain why my mother had to suffer through immesurable pain from MS, and I had to break the law simply to get her some relief? Why should I go to jail again?

I don't need to call names or personally insult anyone to make a point. You do a fine job of discrediting yourself all alone.

Cheers.

Posted by: Q | 2008-09-18 2:21:51 PM


Q wrote: “Who cares about the LD-50? Everyone agrees that THC is a non-lethal narcotic that is much less dangerous than Alcohol in terms of overdose.”

Apparently you do, because you’re focusing on that one fact to the exclusion of all else. And no one agrees that marijuana is a narcotic, because it isn’t.

Q wrote: “I can also agree that Marc Emery is a very poor advocate for marijuana users. Driving while stoned is dangerous and definately should be criminal. His antics do not help his cause, IMHO.”

Driving while stoned IS a criminal offence. You only need to be impaired, not drunk; the impairing agent is deliberately left unspecified. It can be marijuana, cocaine, disease, or even sleep deprivation. Anything that compromises your ability to drive safely.

Q wrote: “But that doesnt change the fact that current laws define over a quarter of canadians as criminals. That's just shortsighted and wrong.”

To call a quarter of Canadians criminals because they have tried marijuana once or twice is simply ridiculous. Let’s face it; virtually all of us have done something illegal in our lifetime. That doesn’t mean we all belong in jail. But nor does it mean that we should have no laws.

Q wrote: “Why is it that alcohol and tabacco are legal, but cause just as much, if not more, societal problems through abuse and misuse?”

Stoners keep harping on this same old harangue: “Other people’s shit is legal; why ain’t mine? Why ain’t mine?” To begin with, tobacco does no social damage. And in the second place, both tobacco and alcohol have been accepted for centuries, long before anyone knew what an LD-50 was. Drunkenness is universally despised and, when necessary, punished. But social drinking without serious consequence is both possible and accepted. Marijuana, in general use only since the 1960s, has yet to prove itself benign.

Q wrote: “Why is it that we continue to criminalize a mainstream part of the population, and/or decide to look the other way when we all know many responsible marijuana users?”

I don’t know a single “responsible dope user,” and have no wish to know any. Most of the dope smokers I have known in my life were emotionally immature narcissists.

Q wrote: “Why is it that we ignore doctor's advice that there IS a proper place and use for marijuana in treatment, and thus there is beneficial aspects?”

The AMA delisted marijuana from the American pharmacopeia in 1942 citing numerous side effects. The fact that there are a few maverick physicians out there extolling its virtues doesn’t mean the medical community is sold on its usefulness.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-18 2:39:30 PM


Q wrote: "Could you please explain why my mother had to suffer through immesurable pain from MS, and I had to break the law simply to get her some relief? Why should I go to jail again?"

Could you please explain why you did not avail yourself of the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations, which specifically allow exemptions for people with, among other conditions, multiple sclerosis?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-18 2:49:03 PM


Apparently you do, because you’re focusing on that one fact to the exclusion of all else. And no one agrees that marijuana is a narcotic, because it isn’t.

- Never was focusing on that fact. But glad you have agreed it shouldn't be classified as a narcotic and doesn't contain lethal properties.

Driving while stoned IS a criminal offence. You only need to be impaired, not drunk; the impairing agent is deliberately left unspecified. It can be marijuana, cocaine, disease, or even sleep deprivation. Anything that compromises your ability to drive safely.

- So you also agree that lack of sleep/disease is just as dangerous to driving as marijuana use. Obviously, all are conditions or behaviours that can be responsibly controlled, or abused, dependant upon the individual.

To call a quarter of Canadians criminals because they have tried marijuana once or twice is simply ridiculous. Let’s face it; virtually all of us have done something illegal in our lifetime. That doesn’t mean we all belong in jail. But nor does it mean that we should have no laws.

- But that's exactly what the law does say. Why ignore it? The law should be changed, as you yourself agree the current law is "ridiculous" And your statistics are off, it's around 20% of Canadians who admit to be habitual CURRENT users of Marijuana. Over 40% admit trying it at least once. Over 80% of people under 30 have tried it at least once and, under the law, are criminals. Similar statistics to smoking cigarettes, by the way.

To begin with, tobacco does no social damage.

- Huh? What? How about health care costs? Why is it suddenly illegal to smoke indoors? Why is it illegal to advertise? Obviously, most people would disagree with your statemet.

And in the second place, both tobacco and alcohol have been accepted for centuries, long before anyone knew what an LD-50 was.

- And many cultures have accepted marijuana use for centuries. Also cocaine, magic mushrooms among others. Based upon historical use, marijuana has much in common with alcohol and tobacco. Alcohol was deemed illegal for awhile as well, for many the same reasons as marijuana was criminalized.....

Marijuana, in general use only since the 1960s, has yet to prove itself benign.
- Unfortunately, that statement is false, on its face. How can you argue that a drug, that you admit has been in general use for over 50 years, and used by a quarter of the population, is anything BUT benign? Where are all these degenerates hiding... well, they deliver your mail, do your taxes, go to university, and run in elections.

I don’t know a single “responsible dope user,” and have no wish to know any. Most of the dope smokers I have known in my life were emotionally immature narcissists.
- I would wager then, that your viewpoint is hugely biased against your own personal experience. Look at the statistics. Do you honestly and truly believe that 25% of Canadians are "emotionally immature narcissists"? I mean please. This is a mainstream drug, and a mainstream activity, that whether you want to believe or not, is being used by your neighbors and 1/4 of people you meet. Calling names and using hyperbole is empty and rhetorical in the face of reality.

-The fact that there are a few maverick physicians out there extolling its virtues doesn’t mean the medical community is sold on its usefulness.
The fact that it was delisted in 1942 certainly neither confirms there are no useful properties, and definately no reason for a blanket criminalization of the product.

What benefits do you think the last 60-odd years of criminalization have created? Usage has gone up. Availability has gone up. Prohibition has empowered criminal organizations who fill a huge market demand.

What would be so awful about allowing citizens to go to the drug store and buy a marijuana cigarette from the pharmacist?

Posted by: Q | 2008-09-18 3:12:17 PM


Could you please explain why you did not avail yourself of the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations, which specifically allow exemptions for people with, among other conditions, multiple sclerosis?

Simply because of the utility. Why would I let my mother anguish in pain, possible for months or years, when I could call up a friend and have her feeling better in an hour.

The only downside is that I had to break an outdated law that the majority of Canadians disagree with and disregard anyways.

It's a perfect example of a system that is not working.

Posted by: Q | 2008-09-18 3:14:26 PM


"It's a perfect example of a system that is not working."

I hope this last one will be the one that echoes the most in everyone's mind.


Posted by: Marc | 2008-09-18 3:30:03 PM


Q,

1. Nobody is saying marijuana is lethal. That doesn’t make it desirable. Shitting in the streets and rogering infants isn’t lethal either.

2. I agree that sleep deprivation can impair driving. I never said marijuana was as harmless as lack of sleep. You have committed a logical fallacy, offering A as proof of X.

3. The law says that marijuana is a prohibited substance and those who use are subject to prosecution. However, it is current users, not past users, that concern the police. Little point in pursuing those who have already mended their ways. I never called the law ridiculous. You’re getting desperate, shovelling words into my mouth like a backhoe burning rocket fuel.

4. Health care costs are not social damage. Moreover, since smokers tend to die younger, they do not require the extensive palliative care that longer-lived seniors often need and, believe it or not, actually cost the system LESS.

5. Most cultures have FORBIDDEN marijuana use for centuries, including most Christian cultures and all Islamic cultures. What South American Indians did 500 years ago is not a valid comparison; their culture had nothing in common with ours.

6. Most of the population has been in at least one auto accident; does that mean auto accidents are benign? Tell me, Q, are you even capable of logical thought? Boy, if ever you needed proof of what marijuana does to you…And let’s be frank, you don’t need all your brain cells to run for office, or deliver mail, or even, ironically, go to university.

7. 25% of Canadians emotionally immature narcissists? I’d be surprised if the figure was that low. And the description fits virtually every kid of college age, which is when most of them try it. And 25% of Canadians have TRIED it only. That is not the number of regular users. Certainly by their fifties, most have grown up, even a few long-haired types never quite managed it.

8. The product was restricted in 1937 by the Marijuana Tax Act, but medicinal use was allowed to continue. The AMA delisted in 1942, removing all legitimate reasons for possessing the drug. These were two separate, though ultimately interlocking acts.

9. Marijuana was criminalized in 1942, but this was not a problem until the 1960s, when an entire generation, fuelled by an anger they have never been able to justify, decided the rebellion against social mores was the road to self-fulfilment. If you’re trying to argue that Clintonesque baby boomers constitute some kind of triumph, you’re on shaky ground indeed.

10. The fact remains that all those who purchase marijuana are happy to allow the bloodletting to continue, rather than give up their high. They are an accessory to each and every death. So the truth of the matter is they are far worse than emotionally immature narcissists; they are loudly and proudly accessories to criminal facilitation and murder. What they think the law should be does not alter the ultimate selfishness and vileness of their acts.

11. You have just answered your own question, why should you go to jail. It sounds like you haven’t even attempted to apply for the exemption. You should go to jail because you’re an anarchist with a criminal mentality who thinks the law ought not to apply to him and worse, that there ought to be no law at all. Yes, I think it's safe to say that you're a shining example of why marijuana will remain illegal.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-18 3:47:36 PM


1- Agreed, Marijuana should not be considered illegal because it is lethal.

2- Agreed, Marijuana should not be considered illegal because impairment levels are well within normal human experience and behavior. It is also within law enforcements power to arrest based upon impairment, so marijuana should not be considered illegal because of dangers to motor vehicle operators.

3- All past users were once current users, so your point is moot. You said, and I quote "To call a quarter of Canadians criminals because they have tried marijuana once or twice is simply ridiculous." Either you don't understand the law, or your statement.

4- So your argument is that Marijuana and Tobacco both actually reduce social costs? Is that not then an argument in favor of legalisation? What social cost does marijuana inflict upon the user (or other) that tobacco would not?

5- Either historical relevance matters, or it does not. You cannot honestly be arguing that "only european history matters". FACT: Alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, opium and other drugs have been used by human beings for centuries.

6- I'm asking for your large scale proof that marijuana is a harmful substance in the greater population. We know that a large proportion of citizens use the drug, and have for decades. We know that rates of use are increasing. Where is your evidence that marijuana is any less benign than alcohol, tobacco, or caffiene?

7- So if people try it, and 'grow up', why does it need to be illegal? Last UN commissioned study said 17.8% of canadians admitted using in the last year, and that's only those who admit. The 25% number is realistic, according to the CMA. The fact you view nearly 1/4 of your peers as selfish narcissists says more about you, than them, I think.

10- The fact that you blame end users for taking a utilitarian route, with consequences based upon only the governments decisions, says alot about your viewpoint. All of the 'bloodletting', 'criminal activity' etc. that you go on and on about was the exact same position prohibitionists took against alcohol.

The sad thing is, people like you empowered Al Capone's mob, and still blamed the people who just wanted a drink.

11- Why should I allow my family to live in pain, in order to facilitate a process and law that the majority of Canadians do not agree with?

Posted by: Q | 2008-09-18 4:08:53 PM


Brother Q. Please confirm:
-- you actually have a loving, biological mother with MS or is this an fictional example you provide for drama ?


--- that you actually purchased cannabis on the black market within an hour of looking gave your own Mother some and it brought immediate relief whereas no other remedy worked ?

-- And you went to jail for this single act of mercy= that is- buying inregulated black market cannabis for your ailing Mother suffering from MS??- arrested, trialed and imprisoned..and your Mom, where did she get more medical quality pot from as canada is awash in the stuff

___how long did you serve in jail for this offence? what province was this and when did it happen ? ?

-- how is your Mom right now? you must be sad that your own Mother testified against you in court that you supplied her cannabis-- how much $$ did you spend for this drug and did your Mom pay you back? Did you use any of it yourself?


Posted by: 419 | 2008-09-18 4:40:44 PM


Q,

1., 2. Stop putting words in my mouth. I agreed marijuana wasn’t lethal. I didn’t say it should be legalized. I will tell you when I agree with you. You may not infer my agreement and present it as fact.

3. Not according to the authorities as evinced by their actions. Whom should I believe, them or you?

4. How can marijuana reduce social costs via early death, if it doesn’t kill users like tobacco does? Oh, it was so delightful to watch you skewer yourself on your own argument.

5. Yes, I can, in fact, argue that only European history matters, insofar as our social norms were derived from it and not from pre-Columbian South America. And opium proved such a benefit to 19th-century Chinese society, don’t you agree?

6. No, only a small proportion of Canadians uses marijuana. A larger proportion have TRIED it, the way kids try stupid bike stunts they wouldn’t think of doing once they’ve grown up. Rates of use among the young, by the way, are decreasing. Evidence abounds of marijuana’s harmfulness; you just don’t want to see it, the way a disobedient snowboarder doesn’t want to see the dangers of going out of bounds.

7. Of the 25% of Canadians who have supposedly used marijuana in the last year, what makes you think that many, if any of them are my peers? By the way, I don’t go for the “well, they underreport” crap; either you have hard numbers or you don’t.

8. Kids do lots of illegal things they don’t do once they grow up. That doesn’t mean vandalizing schools and slashing tires should be legalized.

9. The fact that you think the law ought not to apply to you and that you are willing to consort with criminals and contribute to the bloodletting in our streets tells me a lot more about your viewpoint than my respect for the law tells you about mine.

10. I drink alcohol, but if it were outlawed I’d stop. But then, I’m not a self-indulgent narcissist. You make a rash mistake in imagining everyone thinks like you, on the few occasions when you can be said to think at all. Mostly you’re just a reflexively disobedient, bitter scofflaw.

11. You have proof, then, that a majority of Canadians disagree with the government’s decision to allow one to grow marijuana in the face of a demonstrated medical need?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-18 4:44:40 PM


Sophisticated sophists
posting on this thread!

Posted by: Blair T. Longley | 2008-09-18 5:05:20 PM


Let me remind you, Mr. Pot Queen, that killing is also prohibited in Canada. Maybe we should legalize it, tax it, at least then the hitmen would pay income tax... and a fellow could actually get a better deal as more hitmen come out onto the open market. The NDP does have a double standard, as do the the Liberals, and the Greens. I think Trudeau should pay a price for his dabbling... it's just not that hard to stay away from... go ahead offer me some, I'll tell you exactly where to find a hole to stick it.

Posted by: Rob | 2008-09-18 5:17:35 PM


JC, what does it say about pot smokers who continue to buy pot despite the fact that it's still illegal, and thus generate organized crime? They'd rather the shootings continue than alter their lifestyle. Whether pot should be legal or not is irrelevant for the moment; these people are willing to have their dope floated to them on lakes of blood. They're not in a position to moralize about anything.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 18-Sep-08 7:28:24 AM

Shane I don't advocate breaking the law. I do think the law needs to be changed. But my reasons for thinking so and your reasons for not thinking so will forever be on opposite sides of the map, so I won't get into a messy debate about it.

Personally though, I don't believe the government has any real moral standpoint on the subject. I think if they could tax it, it would be legal.

Posted by: JC | 2008-09-18 5:55:00 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.