The Shotgun Blog
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Canada's economy and marijuana
This November, in an effort to increase tax revenue, California will hold a referendum on whether or not to legalise the cultivation and use of marijuana. If passed, the change in law would be devastating to the Canadian economy, halting the flow of billions of dollars from the US into Canada and eventually forcing hundreds of thousands into unemployment.
Over the past 20 years, Canada has developed a substantial and highly profitable marijuana industry that is almost completely dependent on the US market. Between 60 and 90% of the marijuana produced domestically is exported to the US via cross-border smuggling operations. It's exactly like the alcohol prohibition of the 1920s, only far more sophisticated and more profitable. The establishment of a legal industry based in the US would likely cripple these exports overnight.
Due to its contraband nature, it's difficult to determine exactly how much marijuana contributes to the Canadian economy, but a number of agencies and economists have estimated that it is in the range of $20bn per year (£12.5bn), making it Canada's single largest agricultural product. The bulk of production is based in British Columbia, where it employs a labour force of 250,000, roughly one in 14 adults. Although strict financial controls are often credited as the source of Canada's economic resilience, it's worth pointing out that marijuana production often insulates communities from larger economic phenomenon.
Shedding Light on Day: "Unreported Crimes" Code for "Cannabis Offences"
There is a perfectly logical - if disgraceful - reason why Canadian Treasury President Stockwell Day (a Conservative MP) yesterday cited "unreported crimes" as the reason for spending $9B on the building of more prisons. I submit that, with the phrase "unreported crimes", Day is implicitly referring to cannabis offenses and other consensual drug-related offenses for which minimum prison sentences will be imposed if Bill S-10 becomes law. The Conservative government's announcement today that it has expanded the range of things constituting "serious crimes" provides additional evidence to that effect
The media yesterday having asked Day to justify that kind of spending while the federal government is claiming to be tackling the deficit, one might have expected Day simply to answer that the prisons were to cope with the effects of the government's Truth in Sentencing Act. Parliamentary Budget officer Kevin Page has already estimated that the cost of implementing that Act alone will be in that range, and the Act passed into law months ago. Yet, with his expression of the government's concern over "unreported crimes" Day implicitly foreshadowed an additional source of pressure on prison resources.
Most reasonable people no doubt share Liberal MP Mark Holland's view that "unreported crimes" cannot be the reason for building prisons, because unreported crimes are crimes for which nobody is charged or imprisoned. However, that assumption overlooks a few things.
The number one reason for not reporting a crime is the belief that the crime in question is not one meriting police involvement or criminal penalties. Millions of Canadians actively cultivate, sell, and possess cannabis despite the threat of fines and imprisonment. Polls in recent years repeatedly indicate that the majority of Canadians want cannabis legalized even for recreational use. And as any fairly social adult will probably have witnessed, police are rarely called to arrest someone who is cultivating, selling, or possessing cannabis. There is, in point of fact, mass civil disobedience, and a benevolent conspiracy of silence, with respect to cannabis offences in Canada. For this reason, cannabis offenses are arguably one of the most frequently occurring - if not the most frequently occurring - "unreported crimes" in Canada.
Day is not necessarily making the absurd suggestion that those whose crimes are not reported will be imprisoned. He is saying that those who are charged with committing a cannabis offence - a widely "unreported crime" - will soon be sent to prison in much greater numbers. The actual purpose of the government's prison expansion plans is to accommodate the anticipated impact of the Conservative government's "National Anti-drug Strategy", when one of its key components - Bill S-10 - passes into law.
As one source painfully acquainted with the effect of the Harper government's Americanesque drug war agenda explains, the number of sexual assaults, homocides, and other violent offences is fairly constant, year after year, as is the number of people convicted of such offenses. Indeed, as the population ages, the number of such crimes will decrease. Even if incarceration durations for such crimes were doubled, that would hardly put a dent in the prison population. Billions of dollars in additional prison funding is not needed for those sorts of offences, but billions in additional funding will be needed to build prisons for the anticipated thousands of non-violent cannabis (and, to a lesser extent, other drug) offenders who Bill S-10 will soon subject to mandatory imprisonment.
To understand what is at stake politically for the Conservatives, a bit of history must be kept in mind. In late 2006, the Harper government attempted to fulfill an election pledge to repeal the recognition of gay marriages. A late 2006 motion to revisit the issue of gay marriage failed, leaving unsatisfied social Conservative yearnings for a war against Canada's changing culture. However, gay marriage was only one of two major cultural changes in Canada that steamed social conservatives in recent years. The other was Canada's changing laws on cannabis.
A 2000 decision in Ontario's Court of Appeal made cannabis a legal medicine (it remains so to this day, though federal and provincial governments have failed to provide adequate safeguards for physicians - who face concerns of losing their licenses to practice should they prescribe cannabis - and to ensure that patients have the cannabis they are prescribed). In 2002, a Senate report recommended that recreational cannabis be legalized, and a House of Commons report released shortly thereafter recommended that imprisonment be replaced with a system of stiffer fines (a recommendation known as "decriminalization"). The Canadian Alliance, then led by Stephen Harper, condemned those proposals on the ground that they would further inflame Canada-US relations at a time when Canada's Liberal government had refused Canadian involvement in America's war against Iraq (Harper's Alliance opposition had indicated that it wanted Canada to join in the war against Iraq). Elections in 2004 and 2006 scuttled the Liberal government's decriminalization plans, and Harper's Conservatives formed a government with the smallest minority in Canada's history.
By October of 2007, the legalization of cannabis was supported by 51% of Canadians (a number that crept up to 53% a year later). However, the Conservative government having let down its social conservative base with respect to gay marriage, it announced it would be launching a "National Anti-drug Strategy".
Conservative MP Tony Clement (the same Tony Clement who is now trying not to smirk as he passes himself off as a libertarian defending long-form census takers from the abuse of government coercion) at that time was Canada's Health Minister. On September 29, 2007, the Canadian Press quoted Clement thusly:
"In the next few days, we're going to be back in the business of an anti-drug strategy," Clement told The Canadian Press. "In that sense, the party's over."
Clement, together with none other than Stockwell Day (who was then Public Safety Minister), attended Prime Minister Harper's October 4, 2007 press conference, wherein his $63M anti-drug strategy was announced. Given that the anti-drug strategy was a significant bone thrown to the Conservative party's religious, social conservative constituency, rather than to the relatively secular majority of Canadians, it should not surprise the reader that the press conference was held at a Salvation Army headquarters (in Winnipeg).
Of the funding there announced, two thirds was to be directed at the social aspect of drugs, including a counter-cultural campaign. Harper explained:
What we are up against, in trying to resolve this problem - what the police are up against, what the people who deal in treatment and prevention are up against - is a culture that, since the 1960s has, at the minimum not encouraged drug use and often romanticized it; romanticized it, or made it cool; made it acceptable. And look, as a father, I don't say all these things blamelessly. My son is listening to my Beatles records and asking me what all these lyrics mean. And, you know, it's just there, it's just out there, I love these records, I'm not putting them away. But, that said, the reality is that there has been a culture that has not fought drug use! And that's what we're all up against! No easy solutions to that but we have seen, in the case of tobacco, a shift in the culture, in a way that has rendered tobacco use less and less socially or culturally acceptable. I think we need to do the same thing - I think we need to do it much more quickly and much more critically - in the area of narcotics.
(Almost two years to the day later - with pot culture icon Marc Emery imprisoned in British Columbia for his romanticizing of cannabis culture - Harper would attend a widely-reported arts gala to play piano and sing the pot-inspired Beatle's tune "I get high, with a little help from my friends". Oh, the sickening hypocrisy.)
On November 20, 2007, the Harper government introduced Bill C-26. Titled An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, the Bill proposed doubling the maximum term of imprisonment for cannabis-related crimes: from 7 years, to 14 years. It also proposed a minimum sentence of 6 months imprisonment for the cultivation of 1 to 200 cannabis plants where the purpose of growing the cannabis was to sell it. Higher mandatory minimums were proposed for greater numbers of plants, or for other aggravating factors. The bill passed second reading on April 18, 2008, but the dissolution of Parliament for the 2008 election killed the bill. Bill C-26 was re-introduced as bill C-15 and passed third reading on June 8, 2009. It was then sent to the Senate.
In late 2009, Liberal Senators outnumbered Conservatives in the upper chamber. On December 3, 2009, the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs adopted a motion by Liberal appointee Senator Serge Joyal wherein the 6-month minimum sentence for growing 5 to 200 cannabis plants (in the absence of aggravating factors) would be removed. Later that day, an infuriated Justice Minister Rob Nicholson appeared on CBC's "Power and Politics" program, and exclaimed:
They've taken the mandatory penalty out, and so we're very unhappy with this...we take this very seriously, and we believe that people should have a mandatory jail time for people who are in the business, in the grow-op business.
Liberal members in the House of Commons having supported Bill C-15, Nicholson accused the Liberal Party of using Liberal Senators do their "dirty work" for them. Show host Evan Solomon asked the Minister a question akin to that put to Stockwell Day just yesterday:
What about the notion that this is going to be very costly. I mean, the government said on one hand 'we don't want to have a huge deficit, we want to control spending costs'. On the other hand, building more prisons and taking more people in is an expensive cost. How do you mitigate that?
I can tell you that we wanna get the message out to people under the National Anti-Drug Strategy. Many people will be seeing advertisements running right now across this country, discouraging people, educating them about the problems of taking drugs in this country. We want to help individuals to get them off of drugs in this country and not to experiment with them.
In other words: imposing mandatory minimums will cause people to stop breaking the law, so fewer people will get imprisoned and the costs of prisons and incarceration will thereby be mitigated. With so many millions of Canadians growing, selling, and possessing marijuana despite its criminality, we are supposed to believe that what is perhaps the most "unreported crime" of all in Canada - cannabis "crime" - will suddenly tail off so much as to offset the effect of mandatory sentences of imprisonment imposed upon people who normally would not be sentenced to any jail time. The Minister's credulity on this issue is almost unbelievable.
The amended Bill C-15 passed third reading in the Senate on December 14, 2009. It then awaited the final step in making a bill a law: royal assent. Section 2 of the Royal Assent Act, 2002 provides:
2. Royal assent to a bill passed by the Houses of Parliament may be signified, during the session in which both Houses pass the bill,
(a) in Parliament assembled; or
(b) by written declaration.
The key words in that section are "during the session". The effect of "prorogation" - wherein the Prime Minister advises the Governor General to end a Parliamentary session - is that all bills that have not received royal assent before prorogation die. On December 30th, 2009, just 16 days following third reading of bill C-15 in the Senate, Parliament was prorogued, killing the bill before it received Royal Assent.
Was the prorogation motivated, at least in part, by government's desire to have C-15 passed into law without the Senate's amendments? In other words: just how much priority is the Harper government placing upon its war on Canada's cannabis culture? Consider three things.
First, it should be noted that the Senate had debated C-15 far more than any other bill in the Senate: 62 hours, 3 minutes. At the time of prorogation, only 2 other bills had passed the stage of third reading in the Senate: C-6 (regulating dangerous consumer products) had been debated for 37 hours, 42 minutes; and Bill S-8 (which implemented a tax-evasion treaty with South American countries) had been debated for 1 hour, 49 minutes.
Second, soon after proroguing Parliament, Stephen Harper appointed five more Conservative Senators. This was enough to give Bill C-15 a good chance of passing third reading in the Senate without amendments.
Third, before the new session of Parliament began, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson was asked whether any of his crime bills would be re-introduced. He was not certain about any except one: Bill C-15, he said, was certain to be re-introduced. Indeed, Bill C-15 has since been re-introduced in the Senate as Bill S-10, in its unamended form. Having already been debated on three days, Bill S-10 has yet to pass second reading in the Senate. With a greater number of Conservatives serving in the upper chamber, it now seems much more likely that mandatory minimum sentences for the tiny fraction of cannabis-using Canadians caught committing what are usually "unreported offenses" will soon be a reality.
Now, quite apart from the issue of prorogation, Nicholson today announced that the government had, on July 13, 2010, passed a new regulation that makes 11 less-serious offences "serious offences". Among them: "trafficking in any substance included in Schedule II in an amount that does not exceed the amount set out for that substance in Schedule VII (subsection 5(4))". Cannabis and hashish are the two Schedule II substances referred to. The new regulation makes trafficking in less than 3kg of either of those substances a "serious offense". The Canada Gazette summary for the regulation explains:
Expanding the availability of the criminal organization provisions creates the possibility that individuals may be subjected to longer periods of incarceration because it makes the use of the criminal organization offences possible. (emphasis added)
In addition to imposing longer periods of incarceration, the change essentially eliminates some of the pesky procedural hoops - also known as "due process in a free and democratic society" - through which police have to jump in order to arrest people for cannabis offenses. Clearly, cannabis, and the Conservatives' war on Canadian culture, continues to be top-of-mind for the Conservative government.
I submit that the evidence strongly supports the conclusion that Harper's anti-cannabis culture war is actually the centrepiece of his entire government agenda for that large percentage of Conservative supporters who see cannabis users - and homosexuals - as plagues on Canadian culture. The money be damned: this back-bone of the Conservative Party sees Canada's popular embrace of legalization as a threat to the 1950's style, clean-livin' Canada of its spare-the-rod-spoil-the-child youth. The so-cons see cannabis cultivators, sellers, and possessors as snakes from whom Godly government must deliver them. If they cannot persuade Canadians to embrace their prohibitionist views, they will continue to demand of the Conservative Party that it lock-up cannabis-tolerant "liberals", and leave them to rot.
I suspect strongly, and angrily, that we are going to need those prisons. However, I am reasonably sure that the majority of Canadians - given an alternative to seeing their children criminalized, marginalized, imprisoned, and otherwise having their lives destroyed so that religious conservatives will keep voting Conservative - would prefer an intervening election.
UPDATE: Well, well, well. Will the "coincidences" never cease? It was reported on Facebook that, at about 5:25 PM today (approximately 2 hours after the above blog was posted to my own site, http://blog.paulmckeever.ca), police again raided Toronto's C.A.L.M. cannabis compassion club. Imagine that: an evening news program in which there will be "proof" that the Harper government "needed" to make the regulatory changes announced earlier today. Makes me wonder if I should charge for soothsaying.
Monday, August 02, 2010
Conrad Black... libertarian?
Conrad Black is finally out of a U.S. prison. His time there appears to have made him a lot less conservative, and a lot more libertarian. At least when it comes to the war on drugs, and to incarceration:
I saw at close range the failure of the U.S. War on Drugs, with absurd sentences, (including 20 years for marijuana offences, although 42% of Americans have used marijuana and it is the greatest cash crop in California.) A trillion dollars have been spent, a million easily replaceable small fry are in prison, and the targeted substances are more available and of better quality than ever, while producing countries such as Colombia and Mexico are in a state of civil war.
And I had the opportunity to see why the United States has six to twelve times as many incarcerated people as other prosperous democracies, (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom), how the prison industry grew, and successfully sought more prisoners, longer sentences, and maximal possibilities of probation violations and a swift return to custody.
Before I got into the maw of the U.S. legal system, I did not realize the country has 47 million people with a criminal record, (most for relatively trivial offenses,) or that prosecutors won more than 90% of their cases. There, at Coleman, I had seen the courage of self-help, the pathos of broken men, the drawn faces of the hopeless, the glazed expression of the heavily medicated, (90% of Americans judged to require confinement for psychiatric reasons are in the prison system), and the nonchalance of those who find prison a comfortable welfare system compared to the skid row that was their former milieu. America’s 2.4 million prisoners, and millions more awaiting trial or on supervised release, are an ostracized, voiceless legion of the walking dead; they are no one’s constituency.
Read the rest of his article entitled, "My Prison Education."
Friday, July 30, 2010
It's not an immigration problem, it's a marijuana-is-illegal problem
As though we needed to be told (again), but keeping marijuana illegal is busy funding gangs and bad guys. Can we legalize pot already? Geez.
Here's Jane Hamsher, from Fire Dog Lake, talking about pot (Ignore the pre-pot talk chatter about "increasing teacher's salaries"):
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
(Video) Part II of Marc Emery documentary, "The Principle of Pot," released today
Paul McKeever, lawyer and leader of the Freedom Party of Ontario, released the second part of his two-part documentary about libertarian publisher and marijuana activist Marc Emery today. The documentary, entitled "The Principle of Pot," argues that Marc Emery, who is facing extradition to face a five-year prison term for selling marijuana seeds over the internet, should not be extradited. McKeever argues that extraditing Emery would violate Canadian law.
The first part of the documentary was released in January of this year. We covered that release here. The documentary is outstanding (all parts are embedded below the fold).
Here is the press release announcing the documentary:
Ontario lawyer Paul McKeever today released the second part of his two-part documentary about the Canadian "Prince of Pot", Marc Emery. Titled "The Principle of Pot", the release of Part 2 is timed to precede and to inform a decision by Canada's federal Justice Minister, Rob Nicholson, about whether or not to approve the extradition of Emery to the United States. If extradited, Emery faces five years of imprisonment in the USA for having sold cannabis seeds. Emery mailed seeds to Americans from Vancouver, Canada, via Canada Post. The Minister's decision is expected by May 10, 2010.
McKeever opposes Emery's extradition, and says extraditing Emery would be a violation of Canada's Extradition Act. "Anyone who watches Part 2 of The Principle of Pot will clearly understand that the USA is seeking Emery's extradition because of the political nature of his cannabis seed campaign", says McKeever. "In my view, even if someone were somehow to doubt that the USA seeks to imprison Emery because of his political influence, Emery's political beliefs and conduct would at the very least result in him being prejudiced in any American court. In either case, the Extradition Act prohibits the Justice Minister from extraditing Emery, and I explain that more fully in The Principle of Pot (Part 2)."
Emery's opponents, and the U.S. authorities who demanded his arrest in Halifax, have attempted to portray Emery as a profit-motivated drug dealer. "The Principle of Pot" demonstrates that Marc Emery was at all times carrying out political campaigns. Part 1 of McKeever's documentary demonstrated that Emery was an individual freedom activist long before getting involved in the marijuana legalization issue. Part 2 goes deep into Emery's marijuana-related activism, explains the surprising origins of his involvement in the marijuana legalization issue, uncovers Emery's widely misunderstood goal, and a gives a rare and revealing look at his behind-the-scenes master strategy and tactics.
Here is the first segment of the second part of the documentary (the remaining parts are below the fold):
NOTE: Anonymous and overly abusive comments may be deleted at the discretion of the author of this post.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Anti-legalization pot growers
David Boaz over at Cato@Liberty
comments on a group of marijuana
growers in California that fear legalization will mean a drop in
prices and a corresponding drop in their own income. This seems to
reinforce the argument that the one thing that criminal organizations
fear the most is legalization (though to be fair these old hippies are
pretty benign criminals). It just goes to show you that economic
interests aren’t always what you would assume them to be.
Mr. Boaz also posted this old Reason video
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Poll question: Should Marc Emery be handed over to the U.S.?
Yesterday, we covered the story of three MPs (Conservative, Liberal and NDP) who presented petitions to the House on Monday in favour of keeping Marc Emery in Canada.
Emery, libertarian publisher and cannabis activist, is facing a five-year stint in a U.S. federal penitentiary for selling viable marijuana seeds to Americans. A Canadian court handed down a $200 fine to a marijuana seed seller convicted of selling millions of marijuana seeds.
The CBC asked their readers this "Question of the Day": "Should Marc Emery be handed over to the U.S.?" The results were fairly surprising. Fully 92 per cent of respondents (1680 votes) said "No," with 7 per cent (132) answering "Yes," and less than 1 per cent (16 votes) saying "Not sure."
Since CBC readers are likely to differ from Western Standard readers, we thought we'd ask the same question, to see what the difference would be. Here it is:
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Conservative, Liberal, and NDP MPs present petitions against the extradition of Marc Emery
Yesterday, MPs Scott Reid (Conservative), Libby Davies (NDP), and Ujjal Dosanjh (Liberal) presented 12,000 petition signatures to the House of Commons insisting that Justice Minister Rob Nicholson should not sign a U.S. extradition request of libertarian publisher and cannabis activist Marc Emery.
Emery, dubbed the "Prince of Pot" by U.S. media, is facing five years in the U.S. on charges related to his selling marijuana seeds to U.S. citizens.
Scott Reid emphasized the fact that, in Canada, judges have consistently ruled that a justified penalty for selling marijuana seeds is a $200 fine. The same crime could result in a sentence of up to life in prison. The extradition treaty with the U.S. includes a provision that refers to punishments that would "shock the conscience" of the average Canadian as a valid, legal reason to refuse an extradition request.
Reid said that it is within the prerogative of the justice minister to "refuse to surrender a person when that surrender could involve unjust or undue or oppressive actions by the country to which he is being extradited."
Reid also emphasized the fact that Health Canada, a government agency, urged Canadians with permission to use medical marijuana, to purchase seeds from Marc Emery if they found government marijuana to be of insufficient quality.
Libby Davies, meanwhile, added that extraditing Emery appears to be in tension with our sovereignty. "People don't understand why Marc Emery should be extradited," she said in the House. "He was never prosecuted in Canada for these crimes, and I think people see it as a question of Canadian sovereignty."
Ujjal Dosanjh echoed the sentiments of Reid and Davies, adding that, in his opinion, there was "inherent unfairness" in the process that might result in Emery being extradited to the U.S.
Here is a video of the three MPs putting forward the petitions:
Monday, January 18, 2010
"The Principle of Pot" -- new documentary about Marc Emery, Prince of Pot, released by Paul McKeever
Paul McKeever, leader of the Freedom Party of Ontario, lawyer, and long-time Objectivist, has released the first part of a two-part documentary about Marc Emery's life at midnight today.
Here's the press release about the documentary:
Just after midnight tonight, Ontario lawyer Paul McKeever will release Part 1 of "The Principle of Pot", his new two-part documentary about the nature and motives of Marc Emery, the media-dubbed Prince of Pot. Part 1 runs 1 hour and 39 minutes. Part 2 will be released at a later date.
The launch is timed to precede a decision by Canada's federal justice minister, Rob Nicholson, about whether or not to approve the extradition of Emery to the United States, where he faces years of imprisonment for having sold cannabis seeds, in Vancouver, Canada, via mail order. The Minister's decision is expected within the next 81 days.
Emery's opponents, and the U.S. authorities who demanded his arrest in Halifax, have attempted to portray Emery as a profit-motivated drug dealer. Part 1 of McKeever's documentary will cover the period up to 1990; a period during which Emery was equally active as an advocate of individual freedom, but whose advocacy of individual freedom did not include campaigns concerning the issue of cannabis prohibition.
Being the result of countless hours of research, interviews, writing and editing, the video includes audio, video and textual information that has never been seen in any profile of Emery. Much of the audio and video having been drawn from the archives of Freedom Party of Ontario (with which Emery was active until 1990), it has never before been seen by the general public or media.
The first part of this documentary is worth watching. Apart from sharing Emery's early pro-liberty activism with the Freedom Party in London, Ontario, the documentary also presents a sympathetic explanation of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, and gives viewers something of a history of the individual liberty movement in Canada.
Here's the first segment, the second, third, and fourth segment are below the fold. We will, of course, post the next part of this documentary as soon as it becomes available:
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Tommy Chong sports Free Marc Emery t-shirt everywhere
Marc Emery, dubbed the "Prince of Pot" by the Seattle Times and popularized by CNN, is out on bail, awaiting his penultimate extradition to the United States to face a five-year prison term for selling marijuana seeds over the internet.
Many Canadians and Americans are outraged by the efforts of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency to extradite Emery. Similarly, many are surprised and dismayed at the failure of the Canadian political establishment to speak out in defense of a fellow Canadian.
Here's Chong on Bill O'Reilly:
And here he is on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon:
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
New Marc Emery documentary: "The P.O.P."
Paul McKeever, lawyer and leader of the Freedom Party of Ontario, has put together a documentary about the political activities of Marc Emery. The documentary will be released very soon, around the same time as the book, "Seeds of Liberty: The Marc Emery story."
Here is the trailer for the forthcoming movie (I admit, I'm really excited about this):
Monday, September 28, 2009
Marc Emery turns himself in to be extradited
Today marks a horrible day for those of us who have worked with, become friends with, appreciated, and looked up to a Canadian hero for individual liberty. Marc Emery, often called the "Prince of Pot," presented himself to the authorities in order to be extradited to the U.S. to face five years in prison for selling marijuana seeds in the mail to Americans.
Marc Emery was a columnist with the Western Standard, and a personal friend to all of us on the editorial board. It is shattering to see pictures of him in newspapers, surrounded by friends and fans, knowing that he's about to spend many years in a prison for a fake "crime." And it is a fake crime.
William Hopper penned a wonderful story for the Western Standard about Emery's extradition back in January of last year entitled "Seeding Sovereignty." And we've debated Emery's activities here on the Shotgun blog many, many, many times.
Instead of recapitulating a lot of the arguments that I've made in the past, I thought I'd post Freedom Party International's press statement. Marc Emery was one of the founders of the Freedom Party (which is not the same as Freedom Party International), and has had a long association with that political party. Here is the statement they issued today:
On behalf of Freedom Party International (FPI), spokespersons Paul McKeever and Robert Metz issued the following statement:
FPI is today calling upon the Canadian and U.S. governments to discard plans to extradite and imprison Canadian citizen Marc Emery.
For his entire adult life, Marc Emery has been a vocal and animated advocate of individual freedom. He has campaigned on a very wide range of issues concerning individual liberty and property rights. He has successfully campaigned to save the taxpayer millions of dollars that would otherwise have been wasted on white elephants; he has challenged the abuses inflicted by garbage collection unions upon the citizenry; he has opposed the now-repealed ban on Sunday Shopping in Ontario (he is the only man ever to have gone to jail for opening his store on Sunday contrary to the law); he has fought censorship, by importing and selling a rap music album by the rap group "The Two Live Crew", and by selling prohibited books in Canada concerning the history of marijuana prohibition. In the 1990s, he chose to focus his efforts on the prohibition of one peaceful activity that so clearly violates the liberty of every individual, and that has resulted in the criminalization and incarceration of millions of people: the manufacture, sale, possession and use of cannabis.
With his decision to oppose cannabis prohibition, Emery has strayed from his previous focus on individual rights. He has instead resorted to provocation and agitation in an attempt to build sympathy for himself and for victims of prohibition, and to provoke anger against politicians, parties, and governments that have advocated cannabis prohibition, or that have done nothing to repeal it. FPI is not a political party per se, but a philosophical organization that advocates rational governance. As such, we reject Emery's emotion-focused strategy and tactics.
However, we stand by and defend Emery on philosophical grounds. A human being's defining feature is his or her capacity to reason. In our view, it is morally right that a human being put his own survival and the pursuit of his own happiness first, and we assert that a person cannot do that if he is not free to act upon the rational conclusions of his own mind. To that end, we assert that the proper role of government is to ensure that no person obtains any values from any other person without that person's consent. We quite agree that it is morally wrong to use marijuana, or any substance, in an attempt to avoid facing reality and dealing with it. However, in a free country, the government does not punish people simply for making foolish or self-destructive decisions so long as those decisions do not involve violations of another person's liberty or property.
In early 2008, U.S. authorities agreed with Emery to a deal in which Emery would serve a five year term for violations of U.S. prohibition laws, but would serve it on Canadian soil. On Canadian soil, he would have been released on parole within a year. However, the Conservative government of Canada refused to agree to the deal. For that reason, Emery is now faced with being imprisoned in a U.S. facility for a full five-year term. FPI condemns the U.S. government's decision to prosecute Emery, and the Conservative government's refusal to agree to the U.S. offer to allow him to stay on Canadian soil. We call upon the Conservative government of Canada to revisit that decision and communicate with U.S. authorities so as to ensure that Emery never has to spend any time in a U.S. facility. We call upon opposition parties in the Canadian House of Commons to demand of the federal Conservatives that they defend the sovereignty -- and thereby, the liberty -- of Canadians by taking all necessary steps to ensure that Emery is not sent to a U.S. prison. We call upon the Obama administration to take all steps necessary to have the charges against Marc Emery dropped. And we call upon governments and legislatures in both countries to put an end to cannabis prohibition."
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Federal Government Sponsors Drug "Research"
I love science, I am a fan of it; good science that is.
The Federal Government is funding research into the relation between smoking marijuana and mental illness.
"Science has shown that cannabis may actually trigger the onset of psychosis and may also intensify the symptoms for those who already have a psychotic illness," (Winnipeg Conservative MP Joy) Smith (Kildonan-St. Paul) said in announcing a grant of more than $550,000 to the Schizophrenia Society of Canada.
The grant of $559,370 is the largest Health Canada has ever provided to the society, he said.
The money is part of Ottawa's $30-million national anti-drug strategy, announced in 2007.
So the Federal Government, which is court ordered to produce medical marijuana in Canada, which has announced a stronger anti-drug strategy in recent years, is funding research into marijuana and it's negative effects, with funds from the national anti-drug strategy...
Do you think the study will be bias at all?
I welcome feedback and I ask for civility in the exchange of comments. Vulgarity is discouraged. Please express yourself creatively with other language. We discuss ideas here, attacks on a person are discouraged.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Marc Emery, the Prince of Pot, will be turning himself in to U.S. authorities in September to serve a 5 year sentence for various charges related to his marijuana activism. That activism consisted of selling marijuana seeds to people through his mail order business from his downtown Vancouver store front.
He was interviewed about his upcoming incarceration, civil disobedience, marijuana laws, and other legalization subjects on this past Saturday's edition of liberty talk show Free Talk Live.
I welcome feedback and I ask for civility in the exchange of comments. Vulgarity is discouraged. Please express yourself creatively with other language. We discuss ideas here, attacks on a person are discouraged.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Government Grow-op Shut Down
The Federal Government has been growing marijuana in an old mine in Flin Flon Manitoba for 9 years for the 300 people that receive the plant from them for medical purposes. The company that has been contracted to grow the pot for Health Canada, Prairie Plant Systems, says that they ceased operation June 30th because they couldn't secure long-term access to the mine since it's owner, Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting, is closing it down in 2012.
The government's marijuana program licenses certified medical users to grow their own pot, to have someone grow it for them or to buy it straight from Health Canada. More than 1,400 Canadians are authorized to possess marijuana for medical purposes.
I find it strange that Health Canada was tasked to grow the pot for medical use. Does Health Canada manufacture Demoral? Morphine? Tylenol 3 or any other pain killers available by perscription? Nope. The drug manufacturers do that, and they do a better job of it. If medical marijuana alone was opened up to drug companies you would have some level of competition at least that may improve the quality of the product; government pot doesn't have a great reputation as far as quality is concerned.
The government says it's okay for them to have a grow op, but anyone else that does so is raided, arrested and possibly shot at. It's hypocritical.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Legalize It - Part 1
Legalize it, all of it.
Let me make very clear that I do not advocate most drug use; I think that using some drugs is generally bad. I have never used “recreational” drugs in my life, ever. I think our society would be better off if many drugs didn’t exist; but they do, and there is a demand for them, so they continue to be manufactured and sold.
Prohibiting and controlling drugs does not stop some people from having the desire for them, that is unlikely to go away; as long as these desires exists there will be a demand and market for them, and some folks will be willing to meet that demand, whether it's legal or not.
Do you believe that you own yourself? If you truly own yourself, then you are free to keep yourself as fit or as fat as you want. If you truly own yourself, then you are free to put into your body what you want, be it apples or marijuana.
The principle here is self-ownership; you own and are in charge of yourself. Because of this, you are responsible for yourself (provided that you have the mental capacity to be) and are free to make good or bad choices, provided that those choices don’t violate the liberties of other people. Using harmful drugs is generally a bad choice in my opinion, but it is one that you have the right to make as it harms yourself directly, just like eating too much fatty food or listening to your Ipod at full volume all day.
Obviously, there are social consequences of using drugs and the possibility of becoming addicted; you may be ostracized from friends and relatives, if you have people financially depended on you they may be negatively affected. There will be indirect effects on people from your actions no matter what you do, these cannot necessarily be controlled or measured, that’s why the focus is on the actions you can control; your own.
It’s harder for the general public to hear the message of “legalize ALL drugs”, it’s not something that is often heard, therefore I will focus on the legalization of marijuana, though the arguments for it’s legalization will apply to other drugs like heroin, cocaine, meth etc.
Though is has been shown that there are medicinal benefits to marijuana, the reason for it’s legalization is still based on the principle of self-ownership, but I will look at some of the common arguments for and against it, while still holding the self-ownership principle as the main reason for why it should be legalized.
- Marijuana was first banned in Canada in 1923 under the Opium and Drug Act. Since 1997 marijuana has been covered by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
- In 2000 over 30,000 Canadians were charged with simple possession of marijuana, according to the Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs.
- Current laws are enforced unevenly across the country.
- Most of those convicted of possession of marijuana do not go to jail, but do receive a criminal record.
Think of the waste that goes into policing drug users. 30,000 people in Canada charged ever year. That means that every one of those people were dealt with by police, then entered into the system, paid fines, court dates, etc. The amount of bureaucracy needed to deal with this is staggering. Now, all of those people have criminal records. They will have a harder time getting a job, crossing borders, finding suitable housing, etc., all because they choose to put something into their body. That is not good for them or good for the rest of society as they may end up drawing on welfare or other socialized programs becasue of the lack of opportunities a criminal record may bring them.
So the point comes up, then why do them? As a non-marijuana user I cannot answer that, other to say that people have been suing this substance for many years, and it's illegal nature has not dettered many of them or halted the drug trade. To some folks the risk is worth it.
Every April 20 at the Legislature here in Winnipeg, you will find thousands of people lighting a blunt in open protest of the illegality of marijuana, yet there aren’t swarms of police coming down to break it up. Yet they will spend time going after people in their homes, on the street, etc. Why this inconsistency? Even the police realize that possessing marijuana is not a serious enough offense to warrant shutting down this peaceful protest. This seems like an inconsistent, hypocritical position.
The problem isn’t the police, it is the law, and the beaurocrats that make the law.
The Government are Drug Dealers
Speaking of hypocritical positions, even though growing, possessing and distributing marijuana is illegal, the Canadian government continues to do it to this day.
Government pot is grown in an abandoned mine in Flin Flon, Manitoba, and used for medicinal marijuana. The use of marijuana for medicinal purposes has been well established, and Health Canada recognizes and approves its use.
Health Canada grants access to marihuana for medical use to those who are suffering from grave and debilitating illnesses.
Yet, you aren’t allowed to grow your own medicine if you so choose, the government has to do it for you and give you a piece of paper that allows you to have it. Why is the goverment in the medicine business? Is there Province of Manitoba brand ibuprophen? No one else is allowed to provide this approved medicine, only the government.
This is another government monopoly like Manitoba Lotteries and MPI, making the bearuocracy larger, demanding tax money to grow pot.
I wonder how someone who is against the legalization of marjiana would feel knowing that they are paying to grow and distribute it.
What would happen if pot was legalized? We can look at history to find out. In the early 1900’s alcohol manufacturing, distribution and possession was made illegal all over North America.
When something is outlawed, it creates a black market for that product or service. When something is in the black market it inherently becomes more dangerous because it needs to be under the radar of law enforcement. It becomes the product of gangs and organized crime, and prices get very high, and violent crime surrounds it. This is what happened with alcohol prohibition; people didn’t stop drinking, they just had to do it underground. Once alcohol prohibition ended, so did the violence and crime surrounding it’s manufacture and distribution. Do we currently see turf wars or gang crime with alcohol distribution? No, it went away when prohibition went away. The same thing would happen if the prohibition against marijuana was ended.
Let’s look at this realistically. If marijuana wasn’t prohibited, how would people get it? Likely the same way people get alcohol and tobacco; large companies will grow and sell it and you can buy it at the corner store. Plus, you will have companies selling “home growing kits” so you can grow your own. You won’t need to buy it on the street under threat of arrest and the prices would be lower because there will be a large, safe supply and legal ways of obtaining it.
If people could choose between a drug store or a thug on the street, where would they be likely to go to buy marijuana?
Arguments Against Legalization
- when illicit drugs are legalized, drug use increases
- marijuana is a gateway drug to harder drugs
- decriminalization would send conflicting messages to young people
- marijuana is harmful
If murder wasn’t on the books as being illegal, would people murder each other? Laws don’t dictate behavior, marijuana is illegal right now yet people still use it, the law doesn’t stop that. If it was legalized, people who were going to do it will still do it, and people who weren’t going to do it won’t. There is a taboo in doing something illegal, and once that taboo is gone, then a small part of the thrill is gone.
(marijuana use)use is reported by 17 per cent of students in grades 7 to 9, about 29 per cent of 15- to 17-year-olds, and almost half of 18- to 19-year-olds
Would arresting 50% of Canadian teens do them any good? How would that help them in life? It won't stop them from using the drug, just put them into the legal system and make it harder to move forward with a productive life.
Let’s look at a place where pot is less restricted, Amsterdam and some of Australia. The usage of marijuana in those areas is actually lower than that of the U.S.
This report shows that the prohibition of marijuana in the United States has not curtailed adolescent marijuana use.
United States The Netherlands Total Population 31.1 [a] 28.5 [b] Young Adults 47.3 [c] 45.5 [d] Older Teens 38.2 [e] 29.5 [f] Younger Teens 13.5 [g] 7.2 [h]
To say that legalizing marijuana would lead to an increase in use is not what the evidence shows.
Evaluating the policy strictly from an empirical perspective, decriminalization has been an unquestionable success, leading to improvements in virtually every relevant category and enabling Portugal to manage drug-related problems (and drug usage rates) far better than most Western nations that continue to treat adult drug consumption as a criminal offense.
You can see the policy forum and presentation of this report at the Cato Institute website.
Also, to call marijuana a “gateway” drug is misleading. Using marijuana does not mean that you will then use, cocaine, heroin or other harmful drugs. It is most of then the first one that people will use because it is the most common and least expensive. Calling marijuana a gateway drug is like calling beer a gateway drink that means you will start misusing alcohol and more potent drinks, it is not necessarily true. Most people first encounter beer, it is less expensive than harder drinks so it is naturally what would be encountered first.
As for sending “conflicting messages” to young people, I say, let them make up their own mind. The message we can send is that some things are good for you, some things are bad, you choose which you’d like to do. In fact, I wouldn’t call marijuana “bad”, no more than I would call having a beer “bad”. I’m going to teach my children to choose for themselves, no conflicting message there.
The argument that marijuana is harmful doesn’t stand up either. Yes, it can cause some harm to the body, but if we were to outlaw things that were harmful then perhaps we should be outlawing salt, butter, etc. By this reasoning, anything harmful to an individual should be prohibited. Well, then here are a few other things that should be banned then.
- 4000 people die per year in Canada in car accidents. – ban cars
- 6,700 deaths from alcohol – ban alcohol
- 33,5000 from tobacco - ban cigarettes
- 732 deaths due to use of illicit drugs – wow, a lot less than cars
- How many deaths from marijuana? 0
- reference Drugs and Drug Policy in Canada
If we truly own ourselves, then we are the ones that choose what we can and can’t put into our bodies. If we choose to harm ourselves with drugs, or salt, or getting fat, then that is also our choice.
I welcome any comments or corrections.Please keep comments on topic and cordial. Insults and ad hominems may result in deleted posts.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Marc Emery’s “Farewell Tour” rolls through Banff: A report by Krista Zoobkoff
Marc Emery’s “Farewell Tour” rolled through Banff, Alberta on Monday for an event hosted by Krista Zoobkoff, Libertarian Party candidate for the riding of Wild Rose in the last federal election.
In a report for the Western Standard, Zoobkoff wrote:
Marc and Jodie Emery made their way to Banff on their second stop in the Marc Emery "Farewell Tour." The event was teetering on shaky ground, as we prayed for the weather to clear up. The event was held at the gazebo in central park at 4:30 p.m. just as the rain stopped. One hundred Emery supporters braved their way to the outdoor venue, making the Banff stop on the Farewell Tour a success.
Emery is being extradited to the United States for his conspiracy to cultivate marijuana. This is a man who is going to lose his freedom for his part in selling cannabis seeds over the border to the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). This was an act that was non-violent and that had no victims. Cannabis seeds don’t contain THC or any other intoxicant.
As a Canadian, I am outraged at the United States, the DEA, the RCMP, and the Conservative government that has not come to the aid of a Canadian citizen. Canada is not going to be safer with Emery behind bars, further showing the incompetence of the Harper government. The Emery extradition has been a burden to taxpayers, leaving Canadians to suffer the loss of a family member and a friend. These are our tax dollars hard at work.
Emery is going to prison and there is nothing we can do about that. Our next fight is going to be to put pressure on the Conservatives to transfer Emery to Canada so he can do his time where he will be safe and have access to his family and friends. So don’t rest just yet and stay informed on what we can do to get him transferred to Canada.
Thanks for the update, Krista.
(Picture: Marc and Jody Emery in Banff, Alberta)
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Monday, May 25, 2009
Marc Emery's extradition hearing delayed "to finalize an agreement with U.S. prosecutors"
This is the interesting part:
Emery’s lawyer, Ian Donaldson, told B.C. Supreme Court Madam Justice Anne Mackenzie he needed more time to finalize an agreement with U.S. prosecutors that would end the need for the hearing.
Donaldson noted that two of Emery’s co-accused have pleaded guilty to their part in a scheme in which marijuana seeds were sold for use in grow-ops south of the border.
He said that since the pleas by Michelle Rainey and Gregory Williams were entered in Seattle last month, he has been in discussions with the U.S. prosecuting counsel.
“He and I have a general framework capable of resolving the case for Mr. Emery.”
Donaldson said that under the agreement, Emery would consent to be committed for extradition on one of the three criminal counts he faces. He noted that the Canadian authorities are opposed to such a move.
Friday, May 08, 2009
California considers legalizing marijuana
There's positive news on the war on drugs coming from south of the border, where California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signalled his willingness to debate the issue of legalizing marijuana:
As California struggles to find cash, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Tuesday it's time to study whether to legalize and tax marijuana for recreational use.…
"Well, I think it's not time for (legalization), but I think it's time for a debate," Schwarzenegger said. "I think all of those ideas of creating extra revenues, I'm always for an open debate on it. And I think we ought to study very carefully what other countries are doing that have legalized marijuana and other drugs, what effect did it have on those countries?"
Fortunately, there's a growing body of evidence that experiments in decriminalization and legalization have produced positive results. The Cato institute recently took a look at Portugal's experience with decriminalization and found it to be quite good:
The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.
"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."
Another study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry offers an evaluation of various marijuana policy regimes and makes the case for decriminalization:
The Dutch experience, together with those of a few other countries with more modest policy changes, provides a moderately good empirical case that removal of criminal prohibitions on cannabis possession (decriminalization) will not increase the prevalence of marijuana or any other illicit drug; the argument for decriminalization is thus strong.…
Our judgement, based on review of the research literature, is that at present the primary harms of marijuana use (including those borne by non-users) come from criminalization: expensive and intrusive enforcement, inequality, shock to the conscience from disproportionate sentence and a substantial (though generally non-violent) black market.
Likewise, a study published in the American Journal of Public Health compared marijuana use in Amsterdam and San Francisco and found very little difference in the rate of cannabis use, despite big differences in how the two cities regulate the drug:
If drug policies are a potent influence on user behavior, there should not be such strong similarities across such different drug control regimes. Our findings do not support claims that criminalization reduces cannabis use and that decriminalization increases cannabis use. Moreover, Dutch decriminalization does not appear to be associated with greater use of other illicit drugs relative to drug use in San Francisco, nor does criminalization in San Francisco appear to be associated with less use of other illicit drugs relative to their use in Amsterdam. Indeed, to judge from the lifetime prevalence of other illicit drug use, the reverse may be the case.
If only we could get our politicians talking seriously about legalizing marijuana. Besides issues of freedom and liberty, there are many economic reasons why Canada should get serious about reforming our outdated drug laws. If Canada were to adopt the illicit drug policies of the Netherlands, the costs associated with prohibition would be marginalized in the areas of policing, judicial processes, and health services. If the sale of marijuana were to be legalized in Canada, the respective costs associated with policing would decrease due to the fact that Canadian society would not ensue the corresponding costs of arresting people for the consumption and distribution of the drug. Likewise, the judicial system would not incur the costs of prosecuting and incarcerating individuals for marijuana related transgressions. Furthermore, the corresponding tax revenue that would be accumulated through the legalized sale of marijuana could be used to enhance education and rehabilitation programs that would effectively marginalize the negative externalities associated with illicit drug use.
Update: It's been brought to my attention that a new poll shows that 52% of Americans support legalizing marijuana. While this is promising, there has also been some criticism of how the poll was conducted. More from Reason Magazine.
Update 2: Rob Breakenridge has a great column in the Calgary Herald, which compares coffee to marijuana and highlights the ridiculousness of keeping a plant illegal:
As federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson puts it, coffee is "the currency that is used to bring other more serious drugs into the country."
Accordingly, the government has tabled legislation to, among other things, impose one-year mandatory jail time for selling coffee.
Oops . . . did I say coffee? How embarrassing. Of course, it's quite ridiculous to suggest that we would criminalize the sale or consumption of coffee. Oh sure, prohibiting the sale of coffee would immediately make it the purview of organized crime, thus making it a "currency" of sorts. No doubt such criminal elements would employ violent tactics in obtaining and protecting supply and territory.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Another good drug war article
And here's an excerpt:
Prohibition creates violence because it drives the drug market underground. This means buyers and sellers cannot resolve their disputes with lawsuits, arbitration or advertising, so they resort to violence instead.
Violence was common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after.
Violence is the norm in illicit gambling markets but not in legal ones. Violence is routine when prostitution is banned but not when it's permitted. Violence results from policies that create black markets, not from the characteristics of the good or activity in question.
The only way to reduce violence, therefore, is to legalize drugs. Fortuitously, legalization is the right policy for a slew of other reasons...
h/t: Steve, who says: "Either you have drugs and violence on the streets, or just drugs. Seems like an obvious choice."
I'll second that.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Cato study: Decriminalization of drugs in Portugal an "unambiguous success"
In 2001, Portugal decided to make a dramatic U-turn when it comes to drug policy. Alone in the European Union, Portugal decided to try decriminalization of drugs as a strategy to deal with the negative outcomes of illicit drug use. They did not merely decriminalize marijuana, they decriminalized all drugs. Without exception.
Glenn Greenwald has taken a look at the numbers and reports, in a new Cato Institute study, on the outcomes of Portugal's new policy direction. The results, according to him, are positive. And not merely positive, but very positive. Decriminalization in Portugal is working, it is an "unambiguous success," as Greenwald puts it.
Greenwald will be at the Cato Institute today to discuss his reports. At 12 p.m. Eastern Time, you can watch his presentation by clicking here.
In the meantime, here is the summary he presents to his own readers:
...Drug policy is being more openly debated than ever before in the U.S. (Time 's Joe Klein just wrote a column advocating marijuana legalization [CNN's Jack Cafferty also recently wrote a piece entitled "The War on Drugs is insane."]), and the unambiguous success of Portugal's 2001 decriminalization -- which is what enabled the Portuguese Government to address their exploding drug problems in the 1990s and to achieve far better results than virtually every other Western country -- provides a compelling empirical basis for understanding the profound failures of the American approach.
And, for more intrepid researchers, here is the study itself:
Friday, March 06, 2009
The Economist: legalization "least bad" way to deal with failed drug prohibition
Pat Buchanan, writing about "The Drug War's (Other) Afghanistan," by which he means the violence-drenched state of Mexico, asks "Which is the greater evil? Legalized narcotics for America’s young or a failed state of 110 million on our southern border?"
The Economist newspaper has an answer; they argue that the lesser evil, for drug producing and drug consuming states alike, is legalization:
Next week ministers from around the world gather in Vienna to set international drug policy for the next decade. Like first-world-war generals, many will claim that all that is needed is more of the same. In fact the war on drugs has been a disaster, creating failed states in the developing world even as addiction has flourished in the rich world. By any sensible measure, this 100-year struggle has been illiberal, murderous and pointless. That is why The Economist continues to believe that the least bad policy is to legalise drugs.
“Least bad” does not mean good. Legalisation, though clearly better for producer countries, would bring (different) risks to consumer countries. As we outline below, many vulnerable drug-takers would suffer. But in our view, more would gain.
Read the rest.
(h/t Mark Frauenfelder)
Monday, February 16, 2009
California to free 55,000 inmates because of budget woes
California, suffering from a major budget deficit, may be forced to release a third of their prison population by 2012. According to The Independent:
Federal judges ruled last week that California's 33 adult jails have become so overcrowded that they violate the constitutional rights of inmates, subjecting them to "cruel and unusual" punishment that is causing at least one death a month. Just over a third of the state's 158,000 prisoners must be set free by 2012 to ensure that basic healthcare is provided to those who remain behind, the judges said. The majority will go through early release and parole schemes.
Critics are concerned that this move will endanger the public, and California's attorney general, Jerry Brown, has already said that the state plans on appealing the ruling to the Supreme Court.
One suggestion that California may take seriously is to ease the war on drugs, especially when it comes to the war on marijuana. By not incarcerating pot smokers, releasing non-violent marijuana-related "criminals," and essentially decriminalizing marijuana, the state would immediately see significant savings.
An analysis by California NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) suggests that the state of California could save between 1.5 to 2.5 billion dollars per year merely by legalizing marijuana. According to the analysis, California could realize the following revenues and savings:
- An excise tax of $1 per half-gram joint of marijuana would raise about $1 billion per year, as much as the current excise tax on cigarettes.
- Retail sales on the legal market would range from $3 - $5 billion, generating another $250 - 400 million in sales taxes.
- Legalization would save over $156 million in law enforcement costs for arrest, prosecution, trial and imprisonment of marijuana offenders. Intrusive CAMP helicopter surveillance would also be eliminated.
- Based on experience with the cigarette tax, total revenues of $1.5 - $2.5 billion might be realized.
- Based on experience with the wine industry, the total economic activity generated by legal marijuana could be nearly three times as great as retail sales, around $8 - $13 billion. Amsterdam-style coffeehouses would generate jobs and tourism. If the marijuana industry were just one-third the size of the wine industry, it would generate 50,000 jobs and $1.4 billion in wages, along with additional income and business tax revenues for the state.
- Industrial hemp could also become a major business, comparable to the $3.4 billion cotton industry in California.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Reefer Madness: The Southern Avenger on Michael Phelps
Our favourite paleoconservative vlogger Jack Hunter (aka The Southern Avenger) shares his thoughts on Michael Phelps and marijuana -- and he's absolutely shocked that "a 23-year-old Olympic gold medalist worth millions of dollars with celebrity to match" likes to party with the ganja:
More Western Standard coverage of Phelps and the debate over marijuana here and here.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
States' rights Obama tunes down the War on Drugs
Good news. One of the hopes of marijuana reformers, libertarians and decentralist conservatives in an Obama presidency looks like it will be fulfilled. No, DEA raids on medical marijuana dispensaries are still continuing, but the White House is promising that, in accordance with Obama's campaign promises, its not for very long. The Washington Times reports:
The White House said it expects those kinds of raids to end once Mr. Obama nominates someone to take charge of DEA, which is still run by Bush administration holdovers.
“The president believes that federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws, and as he continues to appoint senior leadership to fill out the ranks of the federal government, he expects them to review their policies with that in mind," White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said.
Read the rest.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Andrew Stuttaford on the dangers of marijuana and the sensibleness of the drug war
In the meantime, I merely note that this broken wreck of a man's failure to win any more than a pathetic fourteen Olympic gold medals (so far) is a terrifying warning of the horrific damage that cannabis can do to someone's health—and a powerful reminder of just how sensible the drug laws really are.
Destroying society, one gold medal at a time.
And speaking of the dangerous link between winning gold medals and marijuana:
Oh, and here's reason's Radley Balko on the "apology" Phelps should have given:
Here’s a crazy thought: If I can smoke a little dope and go on to win 14 Olympic gold medals, maybe pot smokers aren’t doomed to lives of couch surfing and video games, as our moronic government would have us believe. In fact, the list of successful pot smokers includes not just world class athletes like me, Howard, Williams, and others, it includes Nobel Prize winners, Pulitzer Prize winners, the last three U.S. presidents, several Supreme Court justices, and luminaries and success stories from all sectors of business and the arts, sciences, and humanities.
h/t Fr33 Agents (There's more reaction links from the libertysphere on that site. Worth a look.)
Saturday, January 31, 2009
"For us, the Holocaust survivors, our moral obligation is to legalize it"
This is incredible:
The Chicago Tribune reports on the curious statement of support for the pro-legalization Green Leaf party in Israel:
Even in the world of politics and its strange bedfellows, this coalition is odder than most.
On Tuesday, a party representing Israeli Holocaust survivors joined forces with the pro-marijuana Green Leaf party for a run at Israel's parliament. The new party launched its campaign in a near-empty, underground, graffiti-filled nightclub in south Tel Aviv, pledging to pursue two primary goals: to financially assist elderly Holocaust survivors and to legalize the consumption of cannabis.
While most of the attention in the run-up to Israel's Feb. 10 general election is focused on its three major parties — Likud, Kadima and Labor — and their high-profile candidates for prime minister, many Israelis are considering voting for the smaller, and quirkier, of the 34 parties officially registered.
Parties need to win just 2.5 percent of the vote, or roughly 70,000 votes, to win a seat in the notoriously fractious parliament.
The Green Leaf Party is on the verge of breaking through, and actually earning possibly two seats in the Knesset. That was the finding of pollsters before this new support from a group representing Holocaust survivors. The San Francisco Chronicle reported on the pollsters findings:
Some pollsters say Green Leaf — buoyed by support from young, urban, secular Israelis — could win two seats in the 120-member Knesset in the March 28 election, leading the charge of small parties.
The ultraliberal party, whose platform includes legalizing marijuana, gambling and prostitution, was twice before on the verge of gaining access to the halls of power. In 2003, it was just 7,000 votes short of a place in parliament. This time, [Boaz] Wachtel promises to break through.
"If I didn't think we had a chance of getting into the Knesset, I wouldn't be wasting my time," he said.
h/t: Hit & Run
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Southern Avenger: The war on drugs is a war on common sense
Jack Hunter, aka The Southern Avenger, my favourite video commentator, has been busy lately. I posted his commentary on the direction the GOP should go in (namely, whether they should pick Bobby Jindal for leader, or Mark Sanford) yesterday.
Today, I'm posting his recent explanation of why the war on drugs is an absolutely waste of time, waste of money, and waste of dignity, and freedom. I agree with Hunter on all of those things. The war on drugs is quite possibly the most devastating and, frankly, stupid, bundle of government policies in the U.S. (and Canada).
Western Standard columnist and libertarian publisher Marc Emery is in the middle of a three-part series of columns entitled "Creeping Jackboots" (part one, part two) on the effects of drug prohibition on our liberties, our safety, and our wallets. That's worth checking out as well.
Here's the video:
Friday, December 05, 2008
Celebrate Repeal Day with a small victory: US Supreme Court won’t challenge state medical marijuana laws
It’s Repeal Day!
Today marks the anniversary of the December 5, 1933 repeal of alcohol prohibition in America.
While the war on other-drugs stills rages with similar results and consequences, we should celebrate the small victories in drug policy reform.
Americans for Safe Access reported this week that the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to review a landmark decision in which California state courts found that its medical marijuana law was not preempted by federal law. The state appellate court decision from November 28, 2007, ruled that "it is not the job of the local police to enforce the federal drug laws."
This move by the Supreme Court should mean that the federal government will no longer obstruct marijuana law reform initiatives like those seen in Michigan and Massachusetts in the last U.S. federal election.
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Bureaucrash reminds Americans that they're #1! (At incarcerating their citizens)
While alcohol is no longer prohibited, other things still are. Puritanical and paternalistic prohibitionists are always busy looking for ways to restrict our liberties, and to make decisions for adults about how they should live their lives.
The most glaring, and disastrous, example of this is the continuing war on drugs in the U.S. and Canada. So vile and outrageous is this war, that it has helped lead to incarceration rates in the U.S. that far surpass those in dictatorships like Communist China (#26), Communist Cuba (#3), or secret police states like the Russian federation (#2). Fully 738 of every 100,000 citizens are locked up in the U.S. (Compare that to the estimated 838 per 100,000 rate during the GULAG of the Soviet Union).
With less than five per cent of the world's population, the U.S. has 23 per cent of the world's prison population.
Now you can send a little message by getting yourself a newly-designed "End the Drug War" t-shirt from the good folks at Bureaucrash for US$17.76 (yup, 17.76...). Pete and the gang at Bureaucrash: Put together a t-shirt that can work for Canadians as well, please. We've got a war on drugs too, and we like t-shirts with solid pro-liberty messages as well.
Monday, December 01, 2008
Marc Emery: Creeping jackboots part two
Matthew Johnston, publisher of the Western Standard, has made it clear that, at least until the end of February, he's a "single issue non-voter." That single issue is preventing the extradition of our mutual friend, libertarian publisher and Western Standard columnist Marc Emery. I'm happy to be on-side with this single-minded activist pursuit.
Over the next several months, Matthew, myself, and the more liberty-minded members of the Western Standard community will be agitating for a political resolution to the threat of extradition being faced by Emery. If there is a positive spin that can be put on this NDP-Bloc-Liberal coalition, it really is the fact that preventing the unjust, shameful, and shocking extradition of Emery is made a little bit more likely.
But while we're focusing on Emery's personal travails, Emery isn't sitting idly by and lamenting his condition. He's steeled himself to the possibility of extradition, and he's agreed, as all civilly disobedient peaceful protesters do, to go to the U.S. and face the possibility of life in prison should Canada's government decide to send him south for the "crime" of selling marijuana seeds. Even so, he's also busy writing a great deal about the slow and steady growth of the anti-marijuana industry in Canada, and why the attempt to obliterate that culture is both ominous in itself, and something the rest of us should resist, whether or not we smoke pot, care to, or even like it.
In part two of Emery's three-part series entitled "Creeping Jackboots," Emery sheds light on the use of seizure and confiscation laws that are being used more and more often in Canada to impoverish and humiliate a significant number of our fellow Canadians.
The use of these laws is, occasionally, so absurd and outlandish, that it really does deserve to be called jackbooted thuggery. Take the most recent example that Emery sent my way. The short story is that a black man's X-Box was "confiscated" (read: stolen) because his car smelled of pot. The longer version you can watch here via CNN:
Here's an excerpt from Emery's column:
Civil forfeiture laws were instituted in Canada under pressure from United States drug war fanatics who insisted Canada was a supplier of illegal drugs to the U.S. In the U.S., forfeiture laws frequently pay the salaries of law enforcement, and keep police departments solvent. Couples have committed suicide over losing their homes to forfeiture; others have decided to go out with guns blazing (Rainbow Farm in Michigan). U.S. police have shot people dead in raids aimed solely at seizing homes and property because of marijuana. Seizing the homes and property of the marijuana culture has become a multi-billion dollar industry complete with its own resale catalogues and auction network.
Civil forfeiture creates a criminal mentality in police. There are cases where police who need power tools or a TV have seized them from victims’ homes during raids. In BC, there is a report of Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) officers taking Robert Bateman paintings off the wall of a home they had raided. In New Brunswick, RCMP have seized microwaves from homes and called movers to take out all the household furniture. As the economy worsens, seizures allow police, politicians and their government agencies to continue enriching themselves and increase their budgets, firepower and manpower.
Could the Coalition for Canada save Canadian publisher Marc Emery from a lifetime in a US prison?
In some ways, and at least until the end of February 2009, I consider myself a single issue non-voter...an activist publisher with a single, overriding personal agenda -- to stop the extradition of Canadian publisher, free market drug policy reformer, marijuana seed distributor and friend, Marc Emery.
Why is this a priority for me?
Well, taxes are likely to stay within a fairly narrow range regardless of who is in power and what we do as activist writers and opinion leaders (that's you, Western Standard readers). The left is worse than the right on taxes, no doubt, but only marginally so. Even the left understands the law of diminishing returns, which reminds them that they can’t raise taxes too much before revenues actually begin to fall. (Think of the state as a highly evolved parasite. It usually knows not to kill its host.)
The size of government will also ebb and flow superficially according to whatever is politically expedient and, to a lesser degree, the prevailing ideology. We can’t ignore that the Harper Conservatives increased the size of government, which will ultimately make future tax cuts more unlikely and deficits harder to avoid.
And nobody in a position of authority is advocating for limiting the scope of government. I can’t think of any serious move in recent history to eliminate entirely a specific function of government. (Correct me if I'm wrong here.)
So while we should not abandon these big fights for lower taxes, smaller government and more economic liberty -- in fact, we should steel ourselves to re-fight and re-win the battle of ideas in the realm of free market economics -- there is no immediacy here. It’s a medium and long term project, even in the face of a global financial crisis.
Where I see the need for real immediacy and real opportunity to "make a difference" is in the scheduled extradition hearing of Emery. If it hasn't been postponed again, Emery faces an extradition hearing in February 2009 for DEA charges related to selling marijuana seeds to the US.
Emery is the publisher of Cannabis Culture magazine and a marijuana policy reformer. His marijuana seed business financed his activism, which attracted the attention of the DEA who wanted to cut the flow of money to the marijuana decriminalization movement. Politically motivated DEA agents arrested Emery in Canada and now want him extradited to the US to face a possible lifetime in jail. The punishment in Canada for the “crime” of selling marijuana seeds -- when it is in fact punished -- is a small fine.
There are a number of good reasons to oppose the extradition of Emery. First, there is the issue of Canadian sovereignty. Canadians have chosen, before the Harper Conservatives took over, to take a liberal approach to drug policy. In this political climate, Emery operated his seed business openly, paid his taxes and even helped Health Canada connect medical marijuana users with his reputable marijuana seed distribution company – Marc Emery Seeds.
Second, there is the injustice and failure of drug prohibition. Canadians understand that drug prohibition has been a failure, and there is little appetite for a US-style war on drugs. From every corner of the political spectrum, there is opposition to marijuana prohibition in particular.
NDP leader Jack Layton, Green Party leader Elizabeth May, junior Liberal MP Justin Trudeau, former Canadian Alliance MP turned Liberal Keith Martin, Conservative MP Scott Reid, senior Conservative cabinet minister and former Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day -- the list of politicians who think the current marijuana laws are unjust and unworkable is extensive. Extraditing Emery in this environment would not reflect public opinion or the collective views of those who make up the official political culture in Ottawa.
The life of a man who has dedicated his career to advancing liberty hangs in the balance, and it is one of those fights that can be won. In fact, the current disorder in parliament and scramble for power could end in Emery’s favour.
The Coalition for Canada (CFC) is the possible Bloc-Liberal-NDP coalition that hopes to form a coalition minority government to overthrow the Harper Conservatives. If successful, this coalition will set back the movement to reduce the size and scope of government – but, let’s be honest, that movement has not faired well under Harper or any other national leader. The coalition might be useful, however, in blocking the extradition of Emery and repudiating the Harper Conservative’s vicious and ill-considered drug war agenda.
In an interview with Emery today, he said “Keith Martin as Health Minister and Libby Davies in Justice would be great news for medical marijuana legalization.” Emery also said the coalition would likely “reduced penalties for other pot offences, and certainly bring an end to my extradition proceedings.” (I'm sure the guys in charge of "black ops" for the Conservatives will attempt use this comment from Emery to move public opinion against the CFC by suggesting they have ties to radicals.)
I will not go as far as to welcome a Coalition for Canada government, not even for Emery. But should this coalition of socialists be foisted on Canadians, I’ll hope for a happy ending for my friend Emery and for the repudiation of a misguided drug war surge strategy being advanced by the Harper Conservatives.
There will be little else to hope for.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Heroin, yes; marijuana, no
Interesting story from Switzerland:
Swiss voters have backed a change in health policy that would provide prescription heroin to addicts.
Final results from the national referendum showed 68% of voters supported the plan.
The policy is described as one of last resort - prescribing addicts with the very drug that caused their problems in the first place - but supporters say it works, and Swiss voters appear to have agreed, the BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Berne says.
At the same time, Swiss voters rejected a plan to decriminalize marijuana.
Recent studies suggesting that long-term use of the drug may be more harmful than previously thought looked likely to encourage a "No" to decriminalisation.
Early results showed only 36.8% of those voting supported decriminalising cannabis, the Associated Press (AP) news agency said.
If only marijuana was as addictive as heroin!
No, not really.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Conrad Black thinks war on drugs is money "squandered"
Western Standard publisher Matthew Johnston posted about Conrad Black's surprisingly radical piece in the Times Online earlier today.
There's almost a temptation to conclude that Black's become something of a libertarian while going through his ordeal. You might call it the libertarian "scared-straight" program -- for the thoughtful, prison might be the ultimate conversion tool.
What I thought warranted a separate treatment was Black's apparent disapproval of the war on drugs. Here's the relevant excerpt:
The US is now a carceral state that imprisons eight to 12 times more people (2.5m) per capita than the UK, Canada, Australia, France, Germany or Japan. US justice has become a command economy based on the avarice of private prison companies, a gigantic prison service industry and politically influential correctional officers’ unions that agitate for an unlimited increase in the number of prosecutions and the length of sentences. The entire “war on drugs”, by contrast, is a classic illustration of supply-side economics: a trillion taxpayers’ dollars squandered and 1m small fry imprisoned at a cost of $50 billion a year; as supply of and demand for illegal drugs have increased, prices have fallen and product quality has improved.
Unless I'm misinterpreting him, it looks to me like Black thinks money spent on the war on drugs is money "squandered." That in spite of blowing through ridiculous sums of money, there is just about nothing to show for it.
Conrad Black understands what Milton Friedman said so long ago: "The war on drugs is a failure because it is a socialist enterprise." It always amazes me that there are still so-called conservatives who manage to somehow reconcile opposition to social engineering and big government, with the ultimate social engineering and big government program: the war on drugs (of course, the more subtle, intelligent, and thoughtful conservatives have long ago abandoned the war as anything other than an out-and-out socialist program) .
Separately, it's worth mentioning Pierre Lemieux's "three witches" column from the Western Standard in this connection. Published on Feb. 13, 2006, Lemieux compares Bruce Montague, Marc Emery, and Conrad Black. He dubs them the "three witches" that the state is determined to burn.
Here's an excerpt:
Yet there are crucial similarities. The three men are attacked for crimes that did not exist a few decades or even a few years ago, before the state defined them as crimes. All three defended some aspects of our traditional liberties: Bruce Montague has fought the wicked gun controls directed against peaceful citizens; Marc Emery has campaigned for the right of adults to consume what they want; and Conrad Black, despite his association with liberticidal establishment figures, has given a voice to libertarians in the newspapers he bought or created.
The state is going after these men with its full force and enormous resources. They are all liable to spend several years in jail--decades in jail for the two who are prosecuted by the U.S. government. Their travel is restricted by court order; two of the men (Montague and Emery) even had to hand in their passports. Black and Montague have had property seized or frozen before judgment. Black and Montague have been explicitly forbidden to have guns (as was Emery, but under a previous minor conviction), probably because guns are the ultimate symbol of the free man. Associates or friends of Black and Emery, and Montague's wife, have also been prosecuted. This is the state in all its glory.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Marc Emery extradition poll
Here's a poll we put together:
Vote away (if you want to post this poll on your own blog or website, here's the link for that).
As for our "official" position: The Western Standard strongly opposes the extradition of libertarian publisher and Western Standard columnist, Marc Emery.
Monday, November 17, 2008
(Video) History of marijuana and why it's illegal
Here's a pretty good documentary about marijuana prohibition entitled "The Union: The business behind getting high." Since we've posted plenty of columns by Marc Emery recently, and since many of our commenters are hostile to rethinking the war on marijuana, a documentary explaining some of the arguments in favour of marijuana legalization (not decriminalization) is just the thing to keep the discussion going.
Here's part one. Parts two through 11 are below the fold. The documentary is fairly comprehensive, and it is pleasant to watch. I'd be curious to read feedback and responses to the documentary in the comments.
(UPDATED with link)
Saturday, October 25, 2008
reason's Nick Gillespie on what a sensible drug policy would look like
UPDATE: Go below the fold for the video. It's too wide, and I don't know how to make it more narrow.
h/t Hit & Run
John Frary: Reconsidering the war on drugs
We're big fans of professor John Frary, the Republican challenger in the second district of Maine. We've posted an overview of his campaign here, his campaign videos here, and even conducted an interview with him, where we discovered that he was already familiar with the Western Standard. He said he checks us out "quite regularly" and that we give him "much satisfaction."
We're happy to say that his campaign is one we've been following, and it's given us much satisfaction as well. In no small part, it's because Frary shares some gut-level pro-liberty positions with us at the WS.
So we've decided to publish Frary's opinion piece wherein he says Mainers, and the rest of us, need to reconsider the war on drugs.
The economics of the drug trade are clear. Demand remains undiminished. The cost of production remains low. Arrest a horde of producers, smugglers, wholesalers and retailers and all that can happen is that the profit margins go up. That is what must take place when supply diminishes while demand remains steady. Higher profits brings more recruits into the trade.
More: When the flow of one drug is reduced, alternative drugs seem always to spring up to take its place. I suppose you could round up the millions of users and execute them, but I think the public might be a little hesitant to resort to such extreme measures. I know I am.
Frary's not the only conservative to have re-thought and re-examined the war on drugs only to decide that it isn't worth the struggle. He mentions a few:
I'm in some very good company with prominent conservatives in questioning this policy -- Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley, to name just two. And this year the drug enforcement people are upset because they are finding fewer plants in northern Maine. It seems that the number of helicopters available to search is down, because they have been transferred to Afghanistan."
Personally, I prefer pursuing Osama Bin Laden to pursuing some Maine organic farmer.
You can read the whole column here. Frary promises us that he'll send us more of his writings in the future, and we promised him that we'd publish it. (And if you're reading this, and you're from Maine -- Vote for John Frary already. It'll make a bunch of liberty-loving Canadians happy.)
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Who owns you, Michael Coren?
I listened to part of the show today on 1010 CFRB Toronto called Two Bald Guys With Strong Opinions.
Today's show was two guys arguing for and against CCTV cameras on public property. It was my first time listening in, and I was driving so I couldn't call in and the phone number was not mentioned. I don't know whether the hosts just pick a side for the sake of the show, or whether Michael Coren was really taking the point of view of the surveillance statist. I'm going to assume he means it.
He put one caller on the spot (who brought up the Patriot Act) by insisting he name one government program that government had actually taken advantage of. The guy choked up, maybe a little nervous. But Michael had, in the previous three minutes, brought up human rights abuses by the HRCs (freedom of speech and expression, after all, is a human right). In light of this, why doesn't Michael name us one government program that hasn't failed or been abused by government in some way?
It was surprising and sad when Michael characterized libertarians as people who don't fully believe in the rule of law. In reality, all libertarians know that freedom is impossible without the rule of law protecting the rights of individuals. Maybe Michael just doesn't know enough about libertarian political philosophy. Here you go, Michael, why not learn about it from an easy-to-read and easy-to-understand source: Wikipedia. Or an even shorter version from Cato's David Boaz here.
Coren is in favour of the use of CCTV cameras. He's even in favour of using them to catch people for consensual crimes -- he said they should be used to catch drug dealers. In practice, that means users too. His argument is essentially an argument for a surveillance society that will help prop up the failed war on drugs.
I hear they now have loudspeakers on some of these cameras in the UK so that bureaucrats can bark orders at people if they throw a candy wrapper on the ground.
These cameras have been abused already to spy on people inside their own homes. Take a look at this, Michael. How many of these cases go unreported?
The thing that Michael needs to know is that in Canada we love our civil liberties and we don't want one camera per 14 people like in the UK. But adopting other countries' bad ideas is something governments do best. So maybe ours will adopt CCTV cameras with Michael's endorsement.
I heard a guy call in and say "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide." Michael did not disagree. I heard that line from a Mountie who wanted to search my car. He said if I don't allow him to search my car, then that means I have something to hide. It was because of this illogic that I refused the search. The mounties don't have a right to search my car unless they suspect that there's something illegal going on. And refusing a search is not a reason to think that something illegal is going on. It's reason to think that I don't want some stranger looking through my stuff. It's also reason to think that I like freedom from tyranny.
I heard this same newspeak from Michael. He said that CCTV cameras on government property liberate us. That is like saying war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.
This is the London, England that Michael Coren wants for Winnipeg, Calgary, Toronto and so on.
So Michael Coren, who owns you?
Posted by Lindy Vopnfjord on October 23, 2008 in Canadian Conservative Politics, Canadian libertarian politics, Canadian Politics, Freedom of expression, Marijuana reform, Media, U.S. politics | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBack