Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« UK Conservatives to raise prices of cider | Main | Marc Emery's sentence reeks of injustice and mocks our sovereignty: Vancouver Sun »

Sunday, October 11, 2009

NDP on the extradition of Marc Emery

In an email to marijuana legalization advocate Jacob Hunter, NDP leader Jack Layton restates his party’s opposition to the extradition of libertarian publisher and activist Marc Emery.

Here’s the email:

Thank you for your message regarding the extradition of Marc Emery to the United States.

Several years ago, when this matter became public, we voiced our opposition the extradition of Mr. Emery. We believed then, as we do now, that it is wrong to extradite our citizens for an offence that would not - and, in this situation, did not - result in him being charged in Canada.

Emery is currently being held at the North Fraser Pretrial Centre in Port Coquitlam on charges related to selling marijuana seeds. The extradition process is expected to take about a month, and marijuana policy reformers are using this time to petition Conservative Justice Minister Rob Nicholson to reject the U.S. extradition request.

While Layton has proven himself to be an unreliable ally in the movement to repeal Canada's marijuana prohibition, the party's continued opposition to Emery's extradition is welcome news to drug policy reformers.

Posted by Matthew Johnston

Posted by westernstandard on October 11, 2009 | Permalink


the sooner the ndp dissolve into nothing, the better. every vote NOT for the liberals is a vote for harper. getting harper out of power is the number one top priority. jailing harper should be the next priority....

Posted by: Russell Barth | 2009-10-11 4:59:27 AM

Layton is an Easterner and he cares only for the status of those privileged people in southern Ontario.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-10-11 5:51:14 AM

Dear Zeb,

In case you weren't aware, there's another federal leader who's an Eastern Bastard too. In fact he was born and raised in Jack Layton's riding. His name is Stephen Harper, Toronto bred and raised.

So instead of yammering about faux regional nonsense, how about sticking to the subject at hand - the extradition of a Canadian citizen for something that is not a crime in this country. I am curious why you are up in arms about the Eastern elites, but not about the current government surrendering Canadian legal soveriegnty to the US.

Curious, that.

Posted by: Mike | 2009-10-11 6:39:47 AM

Emery has repeatedly, even proudly, broken Canadian drug laws, so the "it's not illegal here" angle doesn't work. His sentences may have been more lenient but his criminal record tells a different story.

He's the least credible person on this subject: he has a direct financial stake in the outcome. Most importantly, he plead guilty - admitting to the crime - in exchange for a lesser sentence.

The fact that Mr. Harper was born in Ontario means nothing. He left for Alberta which is his base. This is intolerable to the Ontarians. Only those of pure 100% white Ontario origins are welcome there. And even then one's conduct must be perfect, not just good or very good, but perfect in order to be accepted. No wonder then that the place is a fascist state.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-10-11 7:08:02 AM

The fact is, it was not illegal here.
When you look into it, selling seeds is not a crime. There was no mention of it in the law. It says selling seeds that won't yeild thc is not illegal, but it omits anything about the seeds that do. Probably because the only way to test and find out is to cultivate marijuana, the very action the law sought to restrict.
So who cultivated emerys' seeds to find out exactly what law he has broken? The judge?
Besides, giving up a canadian to a foreign government for things that we don't consider a crime is not a precedent that we should set, whether you like emery and his cause or not.

If the US wants to keep the product out then they should bring their troops home so they can afford to police their own rules and borders instead of iraq and afghanistan.

Posted by: EndtheFed | 2009-10-11 7:55:35 AM

shane said:
"And even then one's conduct must be perfect, not just good or very good, but perfect in order to be accepted. No wonder then that the place is a fascist state."

The king of generalizations strikes again.

Actually, the couple I met from Ontario were catholic. And their sons smoke weed.
Go figure.

Posted by: EndtheFed | 2009-10-11 7:59:11 AM

What next?


Posted by: Mike is Shane | 2009-10-11 9:34:33 AM

Who is that frumpy gal that heads up Homeland Security? She admitted, admitted mind you, that her agency employs 300,000 personel plus inventory and real estate. Sum budget for an outfit that couldn't find New Orleans, never-the-less do you think they pay undue attention to their friends to the North?

Or do they leave it up to wing-nuts that hideout in bunkers and survivalist encampments?


No. But clearly concerned. Isn't it time we had some direction from the Feds?

Posted by: Digger | 2009-10-11 9:49:57 AM

Matthew, why is it you feel that the playing field in the marijuana legalization debate shifts completely every time someone publishes an opinion in a local paper? There are three or four marijuana threads active on this blog at once. You've got pot on the brain, my friend.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-11 10:28:34 AM

EndFed, you LIE. (Shocker, I know.) I refer you to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, specifically to the following sections:


(1) Except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall import into Canada or export from Canada a substance included in Schedule I, II, III, IV, V or VI.

(2) Except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall possess a substance included in Schedule I, II, III, IV, V or VI for the purpose of exporting it from Canada.

(3) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2)

(a) where the subject-matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule I or II, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE.

What is a Schedule II substance? I'm glad you asked:


(Sections 2, 3, 4 to 7, 10, 29, 55 and 60)
1. Cannabis, its preparations, derivatives and similar synthetic
preparations, including
(1) Cannabis resin
(2) Cannabis (marihuana)
(3) Cannabidiol (2–[3–methyl–6–(1–methylethenyl)–2–cyclohexen–
(4) Cannabinol (3–n–amyl–6,6,9–trimethyl–6–dibenzopyran–
(5) Nabilone ((±)–trans–3–(1,1–dimethylheptyl)–6,6a,
(6) Pyrahexyl (3–n–hexyl–6,6,9–trimethyl–7,8,9, 10–tetrahydro–
(7) Tetrahydrocannabinol (tetrahydro–6,6,9–trimethyl–3–pentyl–
(7.1) 3-(1,2-dimethylheptyl)-7,8,9,10-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-
6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol (DMHP)


(8) Non–viable Cannabis seed, with the exception of its derivatives

(9) Mature Cannabis stalks that do not include leaves, flowers, seeds or branches; and fiber derived from such stalks

In other words, while bare stalks (basically hemp) and non-viable cannabis seeds are not part of Schedule II, cannabis and viable seeds (as opposed to the specifically excepted non-viable seeds) are, in fact, included in Schedule II. There would be no point in specifically excepting non-viable seed if viable seed were also exempt. And the law specifically states that whosoever possesses for the purpose of export ANY substance in Schedule II is liable to IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE.

So you were wrong, Fed. Totally and completely. I'm willing to bet you never even took the time to look up the law for yourself. And keep your anti-American racism to yourself, will you? It further cheapens an already gravely depreciated blogging environment. And it also makes you look more and more like Poseur.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-11 10:48:52 AM

And Fed, Zeb wrote that blog, not I. For you to state otherwise is libel. Are you sure you're not Poseur? You both arrived around the same time. The case against you is grimmer and grimmer. You'd better hope Shane Matthews (Colorado) is in a forgiving mood. And so had you, Matthew. You own the blog on which his name was sullied, and his livelihood and person threatened.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-11 10:51:29 AM

Anti Americanism is not racism, you American Zealot.

Um...yes, it is, if you believe the dictionary and not some spaced-out hemphead with multiple personality disorder.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-11 11:28:39 AM

You really have to do something about the idiots commenting here (e.g. those with sentences as names).

Now the debate here goes nowhere.

Shane, whom I certainly do not always agree with, posted a very relevant extract from Canadian law. Perhaps that could be discussed?

As far as I am concerned, Emery should be jailed here in Canada, for x years, according to the law.

Now, perhaps the law should be changed. If so why? Why not?

The above would make sense to discuss.

(On the other hand, there are SO many much more important issues to discuss (statism, confiscatory taxation, freedom of speech, hate speech laws, forced union membership, forced contribution to NDP, freedom of contract in health care, etc etc), so I don't get this obsession with cannabis. Have a beer, be happy.)

Posted by: Johan i Kanada | 2009-10-11 12:00:54 PM

"Have a beer, be happy."

How incredibly hypocritical of you.

The root reason why legalization is so important is freedom itself. I cannot grow a plant in my backyard because some rich white guy thought his slaves might be attracted to his white women 80 years ago.

Why is it that everyone I know that has tried the substance later in life has had the similar epiphany "is this what all the fuss is about?"

It is because we are discussing a benign substance that drops the ego and aggressive thoughts that do not fuel our modern pirate stance on the world.

Posted by: David | 2009-10-11 12:36:15 PM

Johan, you're right. To the guy doing that, please stop. It's obnoxious.

As for Shane, he’s pointing out the law, which is useful and interesting.

But the legal practice in Canada is not to prosecute marijuana seed sellers, or to prosecute these people very leniently. There are dozens of these businesses operating in the open today, some of them selling to the US and some operating at the direct retail level, not online.

Custom and practice are important when considering legal questions, as custom and practice tends to reflect social attitudes which was how are common law historically evolved. Custom and practice also let people know what they can expect from the law.

I suspect there were no prosecutions in 1968 for consensual sodomy, before that law was repealed in 1969. There was likely no appetite to enforce the law in legal or political circles, or among the public.

If the debate here is that "the law is the law" then I'm not interested in participating. It is almost universally accepted that laws can be unjust and that unjust laws should be ignored and even defied. Where this principle is not accepted, there is tyranny and barbarism.

And there is no moral obligation among those who defy these unjust laws to submit willingly to punishment.

So what's interesting to me is a discussion on whether or not the prohibition on selling marijuana seeds is a just law. Those who simply argue that "the law is the law" are essentially pure statists who do not recognize the Western legal principles and individual rights upon which our society -- and every free society -- was built. (I don't put Shane in this category.)

Justice is more than enforcing a list of prohibitions. It’s unjust to prosecute unregistered firearm owners (I believe that despite the amnesty, arrests are still being made) and it is unjust to prosecute marijuana seed sellers, or hate speech violators, etc. These laws violate the principles of Western justice. These laws – and hundreds more – are unjust.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-10-11 12:53:30 PM

The root reason why legalization is so important is freedom itself. I cannot grow a plant in my backyard because some rich white guy thought his slaves might be attracted to his white women 80 years ago.

This was not an issue in England, where cannabis was outlawed ten years before it was outlawed in the States. There is a durable prejudice among Canadians that the outlawing of cannabis was an American virus that inexplicably spread to the rest of the world, in an age when the U.S. was a bit player internationally (America did not gain its current international preeminence until after World War II).

Why is it that everyone I know that has tried the substance later in life has had the similar epiphany "is this what all the fuss is about?" It is because we are discussing a benign substance that drops the ego and aggressive thoughts that do not fuel our modern pirate stance on the world.

Why is it that you think that everyone you know is everyone who has ever tried pot? Tokers may describe themselves as peace-loving, decent people, but in my experience (and that of many others, including police) they are unhesitatingly confrontational and, when they see fit, violent.

"Modern pirate stance on the world?" What might that mean? More to the point, why should we be (or not be) basing policy upon it?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-11 1:30:15 PM

Wow, Matthew. Having been faced with a stinging rebuke like that, I have little doubt he'll change his ways immediately. I have even less doubt that had others not begun speaking up, you'd have been happy to let it continue—which, to be frank, you have anyway.

The crux of your argument is that the laws against marijuana are unjust, but you don't make a very compelling case for that, because you cannot, short of resorting to some fictitious and certainly subjective "natural law," decide exactly which right is being violated.

And the proper thing to do when faced with an unjust law is to campaign vigorously for its removal. Ignoring it amounts to tolerating it, and disobeying it brands you a criminal. If each man were allowed to ignore any law that what passed for his conscience told him should not apply to his specific circumstances, we'd have legalized murder.

As a hypothetical example, let's say that fellow in Colorado were to decide that your allowing the libel against him on your blog to stand, having been informed of it, constituted a mortal insult to his honour, and he killed you and "the guy doing that" for it. Let us further suppose that he made the defence that he had a "natural" right to destroy those party to such a vicious attack on his name, and about 40% of Americans agreed. Would the law, should the law shield him? Of course not—and your ghost would roam the Earth howling for justice until the end of Time if it did.

Having a cause, or even a case, does not excuse you from the rule of law.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-11 1:47:36 PM

"How hypocritical of [me]"? You're really sharp.

"So what's interesting to me is a discussion on whether or not the prohibition on selling marijuana seeds is a just law."

Ok, and I posit that the law is just, should not change, and that drug pushers should be prosecuted, and maximum prison terms sought.

Furthermore, drug users, who end up ruining their lives (and their families'), and thus can longer function with legal means in society should be locked in a remote hard labour prison, with no access to drugs, and no chance of release intil "clean" for 2 years.

Finally, any prison guard, police, visitor, or anyone else, who is caught smuggling drugs into such a remote prison facility (or any other prison facility), should be sentenced to minumum 10 years in said remote prison facility.


Posted by: Johan i Kanada | 2009-10-11 3:16:34 PM

A Puritanical Prohibitionist comments:

'tokers may describe themselves as peace-loving, decent people, but in my experience(and that of many others, including police) they are unhesitatingly confrontational, and when they see fit, violent.'

Harry J Anslinger described cannabis as ' the most violence- creating drug on the planet.'

Harry J Anslinger also said 'there are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S. and most are Negroes, Hispanics and entertainers, their satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijauna usage. This marijuana usage causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.'

Both the Puritanical Prohibitionist's comments and Harry J Anslinger's statements are ludicrous, have been thoroughly discredited and as such, deserve no response.

Johan i Kanada:

What do you posit for a drunken dump truck operator who kills 5 people, including 3 kids in Calgary?

A Mandatory Minumum??

'I get high with a little help from my friends.'

Stephen dispensationalist Harper.

Puritanical Prohibitionists and Harry J Anslinger are Big Fat Liars.

1890: Queen Victoria is prescribed cannabis for period pains. Her personal doctor claims: 'It is one one of the most valuable medicines we possess.'

God Save the Queen.

Posted by: jeff franklin | 2009-10-11 6:06:29 PM

Both the Puritanical Prohibitionist's comments and Harry J Anslinger's statements are ludicrous, have been thoroughly discredited and as such, deserve no response.

Consider your surrender accepted, Jeff.

1890: Queen Victoria is prescribed cannabis for period pains. Her personal doctor claims: 'It is one one of the most valuable medicines we possess.'

A century ago, many doctors, including Louis XVI's personal physician, said the same of the bleeding fleam. And Queen Victoria was aged 71 in 1890—a little old for period pains!

What do you posit for a drunken dump truck operator who kills 5 people, including 3 kids in Calgary?


Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-11 7:08:12 PM

A Puritanical Prohibitionist writes:

'Consider your surrender accepted.'

An apt response to Puritanical Prohibitionists was spoken some years ago in the city of Bastogne. The Puritanical Prohibitionists of that era share many of the same characteristics as exemplified by the current day Puritanical Prohibitionists.


Posted by: jeff franklin | 2009-10-11 7:44:55 PM

The absence of anything from name-calling in your response must mean that you have no answer to the rebuttals I presented.

You see, I, unlike you, took the time to do a little math and find that the period-pains thing didn't fit with known history. Queen Victoria had many ills, and possibly took cannabis for some of them (along with cocaine for colds and opium for stomach aches), but whatever manner of illnesses she may have had in 1890, menstrual cramps are very unlikely to have been one of them.

That's the trouble with the "pot is medicine" crowd. They think everyone else is as ignorant about medicine as they are. Some claims have merit, but others are completely mythical, and they honestly don't know any better. And it is they who are telling us to get educated.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-11 8:08:29 PM

Uh oh, here come the cutters and pasters. There should be a word limit on these comments like Twitter has.

I wonder if they realize that pasting all that information leads nowhere. People wont get the point if you just drop a bunch of books in front of them. Condensing down to a few accurate well-chosen words will go a long way.

My whole position is this: Marc Emery is pwned!!!!

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-10-11 8:38:40 PM

So we're back to the copy-paste games, are we, Poseur? Hint: Provide links instead of whole articles. First you clog the server by the copying and pasting of whole pro-legalization sites; then you post libellous and criminal calls to action (and are so incredibly stupid and incompetent that you finger the wrong man); and now you clog the server by the copying and pasting of whole pro-legalization sites.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-11 9:07:38 PM

Forget it, Zeb. Matthew has thus far demonstrated all the fire and guts of a leghorn pullet. You read what he wrote: "The guy who's doing this, please stop." It's pathetic. It's like watching a yuppie mom trying to soothe a toddler with a tantrum.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-11 9:11:43 PM

nothing can be left out or you will say there isn't enough evidence.

What you're providing isn't evidence. It's opinion pieces and folk medicine with a few studies thrown in, bulked up with unverifiable bibliographies and sources to make it look impressive. You just surf for sympathetic activist sites and copy and paste everything you find without even reading it.

Seriously, no one is going to believe that you are that good a researcher after you so spectacularly bungled a simple name search and libelled the wrong man in the process. The fact that you are a semi-literate, obsessive, and self-destructive putz does your reputation no good either.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-11 9:32:51 PM

You asked me to attack your ideas and not your person, Lindsay; since this is the proper way to debate anyway, I’m happy to oblige.

The bottom line of this whole war on drugs is that Anslinger and his buddies made a bunch of stuff up, and had the money and the resources to spread it before the people had any clue what was going on.

The bottom line is that cannabis has been illegal in Islamic countries for centuries, and was outlawed in the British Empire ten years before anyone had even heard of Anslinger, and in most of the rest of the world before the United States was anything more than a bit player in the international arena. This is conspiracy-theory garbage.

Now, almost 100 years later, none of us has ever seen what a world where Cannabis is legal is like.

Yet you persist in lecturing us that you know exactly what a world where cannabis is legal WOULD be like, and that it would be a zillion times better.

We are never shown the connection between the demise of our environment and the prohibition of cannabis. Did you know that since we prohibited cannabis sativa we have cut down and killed over half of the world’s forests?

Did you know that since we prohibited cannabis, the world population has quadrupled, and all those people need somewhere to live, and something to live in, and food to eat? The destruction of the Amazonian rainforest, for example, is not intended to provide biomass for building material, paper, or fuel, but to make land available for farming and mining.

Smoking Pot is not even the biggest issue at hand here, and right wingers want to cling to the idea that it’s all about mind altering substances and inebriation. It’s not.

You’re right, it’s not the primary effects of drugs that concern us. It’s what people will do to get more.

Someone has (yet again) mentioned how activists believe that legalizing cannabis will stop gangs in their tracks, and that’s (again) not exactly it. Cannabis legalization would be a way to stop them for a minute as they regroup and move their assets, and would free up so much money for law enforcement to take care of drugs that pose real problems, like crystal meth.

So you admit that they would regroup, transfer assets, and find other profitable criminal enterprise. In other words, not disappear from the scene. In which case what’s the point?

But it doesn’t matter what I say, because these people who refute the truth don’t want their eyes opened.

You mean those people who refuse to see the truth don’t want their eyes opened. To “refute” a truth is to prove it false. And you’re right once again, in that it likely won’t matter what you say, because your arguments are largely the same old counterculture conspiracy carping.

They want to use religion, or morality as a means to be judgmental and spew hateful words. Cannabis activists are people of peace, people of truth, and people of knowledge.

Like the ones who mount cyberstalking campaigns and suborn identity theft, harassment, and “elimination” against their opponents, or in one recent case, those they erroneously identify as their opponents. Right-wingers almost never mention their religion anymore. They don’t have to. Because the left-wingers always bring it up first. Oh, and it’s hard to maintain an image of people of knowledge when your attempts at basic writing reveal a grade-school-level education.

And while this is not the case of ALL of us, you can’t generalize anything.

And why the hell not? Didn’t you just make some very unflattering generalizations about the people who do not believe as you do? Claiming that they use this, and use that, and are judgemental, and spew hateful language? Who has her eyes wide shut now?

There are opportunists everywhere, whether Marc Emery kept all his money like some here believe, or channeled it into legalization like he says he does doesn’t matter.

It does if he’s trying to claim the moral high ground.

What matters in THIS instance, and in THIS case is that the Canadian Government ALSO profited off of Marc Emery’s Direct Seeds. And if they had no problem taking his dirty tax money, they should have no problem keeping him here. They owe him at least that much.

No, they don’t owe him a thing. In fact, since ALL the profits of his seed business were legally the proceeds of crime, they could have legally seized every single penny without even putting him on trial. Why didn’t they? My guess is they decided not to bother. They have probably known for a long time that the U.S. was building a case against him, and their case against him would be stronger, because it would include a smuggling charge that would not apply to a Canadian case.

As for professional bloggers or not, I would hope and pray that anyone who considers themselves a professional writer in any capacity of the term would have the decency to do a half assed research job on the things that legalization would allegedly cause an increase in.

It stands to reason that increased access will result in increased use. That’s logic about as simple as it gets. Yet we see precisely the opposite argued on these threads, that making pot easier to get will result in fewer people using it.

For me, personally, saying that “criminals will find something else to break the law with so we might as well keep it illegal” is not good enough for me.

No one asked you what was good enough for you, though, did they? Did you ever consider asking yourself why? Or did the notion that we might not necessarily want to base policy on your personal opinion never even occur to you in the first place?

Holland has to close down prisons because they’re almost empty. Show me some stats, even a badly designed conservative blog in point form that I can take apart. Give me a fact instead of an opinion.

While neighbouring Belgium, which has similarly liberal laws, has prisons that are full to overflowing. In fact, Holland is having to take some off their hands. Moreover, the presence of “coffee shops” in Amsterdam (which are being closed, by the way, as people are sick of drug tourists) doesn’t mean that Dutch drug laws are soft. Trafficking in narcotics can get you eight years, and marijuana, five. And 60 percent of the marijuana in Holland is black-market pot.

How’s that for evidence?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-11 10:06:07 PM

Is everyone paying attention? Nothing is evidence to Shane, absolutely nothing, other than what he wants us to believe.

I see. So, by rejecting your evidence, I am rejecting it all? That copy-paste marathon of yours includes quite a lot of material, true, but ALL of it? Don't flatter yourself. You're no better at gathering evidence than you are at researching names.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-11 10:07:19 PM

who is a self destructive penis? aren't you online posting from morning to night posing under dozens of names, spreading what is tantamount to hate?

Aren't you trying to get yourself sued, maybe even arrested?

I am for everything you are not, so that makes me far less likely to "self-destruct" than a seething right wing lunatic like you.

Brave words. I've heard them before. Perhaps, if you bribe your cellblock guard, he'll let you carve them on your cell wall.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-11 10:09:30 PM

What Matthew needs to do at this point is cut his losses, ban you, and remove your posts so he can claim to have taken action against you in the unlikely but quite possible even that the bluecoats come rapping on the Standard's door with a warrant. But he seems surprisingly indifferent about...well, just about everything. It's like his spirit is missing.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-11 10:20:15 PM

I won't read what you wrote about incredibly bright Lindsay, but I can imagine you very much enjoyed being a irrational storm trooper monster, with this warm wonderful Canadian women full of the kind of insight you lack.

So bright and full of insight she recycled the same crap that's been said a thousand times before, and then tried to make the whole thing about her fuh-fuh-feelings. I didn't even have to resort to Google to rebut everything she wrote.

I don't doubt for a second smart women frighten you...or any woman for that matter, that comes from no experience, and religious demonization of them.

Just like you didn't doubt for a second you had the right man when you latched onto some poor sod 2,000 kilometres away? I married a smart woman. This silly romantical child is not one.

I can see from how fast you are writng and posting that I got you spinning good, so thank you for that.

Credit that to being able to type 100 words a minute. How's that hunt and peck coming? No wonder you need to resort to cut and paste.

I hoped you enjoyed reading and finding a way to discredit everything posted tonight, I think it supports all of my arguments regarding you being unreasonable.

Look around, nut bag. No one here gives the smallest crap what you think. Several have asked for your posts to be removed. I don't expect Shane Matthews (Coloardo) will have much good to say about your comments either.

my message will catch, in time you will have a harder time sucking people in, unless they are very stupid, or a sucker for punishment.

I'm not the one inviting legal proceedings against myself, bucko. And it's too late now to take back the words. Better hope the Standard comes to its senses and disowns you fast. Otherwise it's open season on them, and therefore you.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-11 10:44:43 PM

Not reading what you wrote monster, nor do I listen to rambling people on the city streets.

You listen to nobody, Poseur, even those sympathetic to your cause and who try to stop you from playing Russian roulette with a clip-loading pistol.

Just because you are articulate does not mean that you are not one insane American nut bar.

It doesn't mean I am, either.

Unlike the others I see right through you.

Only to you is given the sight, eh? How many joints do you smoke before you post here?

what you presented today wash trash, becuase that is not what will be considered legally going forward for Marc.

"Wash trash, becuase..."? I reiterate: How many joints do you smoke before you post here?

I personally don't think the government can step in because Marc cut a deal, to save his friends who by accepting the plea, essentially sold Marc out. If they collectively fought it, then the government could have stepped in, and said dual criminality does not exist.

They could have, but they wouldn't have, because it isn't true, and both sides know it isn't true.

I kind of blame the two employees that allowed marc to fall on the sword for them, when they new what they might be up against going forward. If they said fuggit, our country would have had no choice other than to protect them.

If our country would have had no choice but to protect them, they would not have plead guilty. Why cop a plea if the government will have no choice but to shield you? This makes about as much sense as any of your musings.

The other possibility is that marc as brave, and visionary as he is, said i'll do it alone. Marc's place in history is secure, unlike you who will not be remembered mere moments after your last breath.

At least when I die, they'll know what name to put on the headstone. You probably forgot yours long ago.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-11 11:33:55 PM

You can sure tell when the Emeroids have come to the forum. The topic goes straight out the window and everyone with a counter argument is DEA, American Fascist or better yet all the same poster. This is why the other 50% doesn't smoke weed kids.

It's almost as annoying as that "Is the orange you see the same as the orange I see?"

Sorry to ruin it for you but, yes it is.

Posted by: Robert | 2009-10-12 10:38:48 AM

Please get rid of the morons fake-posting here. There is absolutely no interest left in these threads and their discussions. This blog will die very quickly unless something is done.

Posted by: Johan i Kanada | 2009-10-12 10:48:23 AM

It must be hard to be the only one in the world who understands you, Poseur.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-12 7:25:49 PM

It was a brave man that first eat an oyster

Posted by: Jonathan Swift | 2009-10-12 11:59:19 PM

"Rat Park"?

And does the good professor have an explanation for the addiction that plagued China and the U.S. in the 19th century? Presumably not all Chinese opium eaters were kept in cages. By the way, what does the scientific community as a whole think of his theories?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-13 6:34:07 AM

"Maybe" and seafood. Wow.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-13 6:34:43 AM

Do you mean the alleged epidemic in the US caused by the regulated drug pushers like Bayer and such?

I didn't know Aspirin was so addictive.

Wasn't that so called epidemic already on the decline even before legislation was created?

The generation of Civil War addicts was dying off naturally, yes. However, opium eating, introduced into European and North American cities by the Chinese (who had become addicted to it largely through the machinations of these same Westerners) was on the rise, and China did not get rid of its addiction problem until the Communists stamped it out by exterminating the addicts, said to number over ninety million.

Would addiction to opiates have happened 19th century USA if these DRUG companies were up front with the America consumers, and told them the addiction risks they faced?

Most probably. Everyone today knows how addictive heroin and cocaine are, but use remains endemic even without using either as medicine for legitimate complaints, no? Also, addiction was not as understood in the 19th century as it is today.

It appears all through history science only advance because of a few visionary people and the rest of the so called scientitsts are just collecting a check for going through the motions.

Where is the evidence that this man is such a visionary? Has he performed the equivalent of inventing the electric light bulb? Has he demonstrated success that others can duplicate? Or is it a hoax, like cold fusion?

It is my opinion that scientific consensus, is the root cause of many problems.

It is my opinion that self-delusion is the root cause of many more.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-13 1:20:17 PM

Heavy marijuana use not linked to lung cancer. This post dates health canadas findings in 2005."

Wonderful. Now find me proof that newer studies are always more accurate than older ones.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-13 2:57:23 PM

close tag

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-13 2:57:35 PM

MRS, all those studies have already been posted and debated. They are correlations only, and rather weak ones, at that. They don't PROVE anything.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-13 2:58:29 PM

The close tag was an attempt to fix the italics that have jammed on; it was not directed at you. It obviously didn't work, so I'll try again--close tag.

And no, I won't be a dear; if you want to know exactly where these things were discussed, you can look for yourself. I know they were discussed to death, because I did much of the discussing. And I'm still waiting for some kind of proof that just because a study is newer automatically makes it better.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-13 6:52:53 PM

I'd be happy to find a deer eating leaves; they're easier to bag when they're distracted.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-13 7:42:24 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.