Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Pushing the limits of free speech on American TV | Main | New cartoon at the WS »

Friday, January 25, 2008

Greens on Emery

Just got wind of this press release. The Green Party, including all the people running in the by-elections, has come out to ask Justice Minister Rob Nicholson to intervene in the Marc Emery case.

We wrote (sympathetically) about the Emery case in "Seeding Sovereignty."
Our cartoonist, J.J. McCullough, saw things differently.

Here is the press release from the 21st:

21.01.2008
Green Party calls on Nicholson to intervene in Emery extradition

VANCOUVER – Dan Grice, the Green Party candidate in the Vancouver-Quadra by-election, is condemning Justice Minister Rob Nicholson’s refusal to intervene in the Marc Emery extradition case.

“We need to ensure the independence of the Canadian justice system,” said Mr. Grice. “Our citizens have the right to be protected and punished according to our legal standards, not those of other governments. This case is a clear infringement of Canadian sovereignty and sets a dangerous precedent. Minister Nicholson’s willingness to abandon a Canadian whom we are unwilling to charge ourselves is disturbing.”

Vancouver resident Marc Emery and two of his employees have been facing extradition to the United States for mailing cannabis seeds across the border, where draconian legislation could have forced them to spend life in prison. Mr. Emery is set to agree to serve a five year sentence on the condition that his employees, including one who has Crohn’s disease and uses medicinal marijuana for her condition, are not charged. Selling cannabis seeds is typically considered a summary offense in Canada and Mr. Emery has not been charged domestically.

Canadian law enforcement officials have been aware of Mr. Emery’s activities for years yet have chosen not to penalize him. By turning a blind eye to his activities, Canada has implicitly acknowledged that our marijuana laws are nothing short of ridiculous,” said Green Party leader Elizabeth May. “The United States’ ideologically-motivated pursuit of Mr. Emery has gone far enough. We should either enforce our laws, or change them. Justice is not served when actions are penalized only when requested by another country.”

Mr. Grice added that the Green Party would heed the call of the Canadian Senate’s 2002 Special Committee on Drugs by legalizing the adult use of marijuana and taxing the substance at a rate similar to tobacco.

--30--
 

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on January 25, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e550087e948834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Greens on Emery:

Comments

Dan

"If you don't think CO2 is causing massive problems with our global situation, then ultimately I have no doubt that you will not support the Green Party. But then again, I'm quite confident that I have both more scientist and economists supporting my party than are supporting whichever party you support."

I don't. My scientific background in both physics (including planetary geology) and computer modelling declines your assumptions.

Enjoy your belief system while you still can.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-01-26 7:23:01 PM


Dan wrote: “Entirely not true. A huge portion of our candidates are economists and are policies are almost identical to the report filed by the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy. Listen to me interview Mark Jaccard here:”

There are a couple of embarrassing flaws with your point, Dan. You’re entirely took quick to point us to an interview YOU took with a “climate-change economist,” which is a bit self-serving. And the fact that your candidates are “economists” isn’t reassuring. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is loaded with economists, and look at their loopy views.

Dan wrote: “For an understanding of the economic policy we are pushing. Carbon pricing has been endorsed by Preston Manning and Mike Harris (although he was useless when he was in power), TD Chief Economist Don Dummond and many others.”

We already pay carbon taxes, Dan. It’s called the gas tax. It was levied for no reason at all and gets dumped into general revenue—a blatant cash grab. Unless you plan to use the money to build giant collectors to actually suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere, carbon pricing amounts to nothing more than another nanny-state cash grab. People won’t vote for that, Dan.

Dan wrote: “We believe in what is known as True Cost Accounting, which mean we have to provide a real market value for resource deletion as well as health costs.”

Great. That just means you’re going to become even less competitive against countries that couldn’t care less. There go the last of Canada’s resource and manufacturing jobs.

Dan wrote: “We propose shifting taxes off of income (we can't completely do it) and on to pollution and resources. Ultimately, we feel that for too long oil and energy has been underpriced and as such we've failed to use other measures economically.”

Dan, you should avoid using phrases like “we believe” and “we feel.” It makes you sound weak and gives the impression there is nothing more to your argument than personal conviction. The fact of the matter is that the right price for oil is whatever the market says it is. If you’re an economist, you should understand that.”

Dan wrote: “For those in ALberta, realize that it takes almost 750 cubic feet of natural gas to produce a barrel of oil, and as such you are killing your natural gas reserves to produce oil because we don't have alternative measures to run on. Plus you are redirecting all of your water sources which is causing a massive problem in lack of underground water supplies. However, ultimately you could have an option to use resource depletion and pollution pricing rather than strict per barrel royalties to drive oil companies to increase your efficiency.”

Ah, once again those greedy, short-sighted Albertans have been singled out for a special scolding. Not only is five cubic feet of natural gas per barrel of oil not a bad deal once you consider that natural gas is gaseous and the oil a much denser liquid, but natural gas is renewable and water is recyclable. If you were interested in practicality and sustainability, you’d lean on them to use synthetic NG and purify and replace the water they draw. But no, you’d rather tax them to punish them for their evil ways and let them continue. You know what a carbon tax really is? A sin tax.

Dan wrote: “If you don't think CO2 is causing massive problems with our global situation, then ultimately I have no doubt that you will not support the Green Party. But then again, I'm quite confident that I have both more scientist and economists supporting my party than are supporting whichever party you support.”

I’d rather be governed by the first hundred names in the phone book than by a bunch of academics and self-styled “experts,” Dan. If they were really as good at what they do as you suggest they’d already be doing it and making millions in the process. The fact that they haven’t found backers and likely haven’t even looked, as well as their activist agenda by going the political route, suggests to me they haven’t the faintest idea what they’re talking about. Our society is NOT a giant chemical set with which they can experiment for their own amusement.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-27 10:45:29 AM


Dan wrote: “For an understanding of the economic policy we are pushing. Carbon pricing has been endorsed by Preston Manning and Mike Harris (although he was useless when he was in power), TD Chief Economist Don Dummond and many others.”

Shane: he referred to Manning, Harris and a bank economist because they are known conservatives. That way, other conservatives might be remiss to criticize their carbon tax idea. Fortunately, it won't work.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-01-27 11:19:31 AM


I gathered. :-)

And yes, it won't work. I can smell a tax grab at 50 parsecs, and I should. As a lifelong resident of Canada, I've had lots of practice.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-27 11:47:38 AM


P.S. I should have said, "five cubic feet of natural gas per GALLON of oil." My oopsie. My point still stands.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-27 12:08:34 PM


Think of the number of single parent families or two parent families for that matter working multiple low-income jobs that have to:

1. Drive kids to daycare or caregiver.
2. Drive to job.
3. Drive home and pick up child.
4. Drive to second job
5. Drive kids to sports/cutural/educational functions
6. Pick up kids.
7. Return from second or part time job.

Who is this Carbon tax benefitting?

Certainly not the average Canadian.
We need LOWER energy prices not higher prices.

What the hell is the matter with people?

And industry, to be internationally competitive needs LOWER prices to offset currency appreciation, stay competitive and preserve jobs and our industrial tax base.

The greenie leftoids are out to imnpoverish those of us that are under the geeatest financial pressures whether we are citizens or corporations.

Epsi

Posted by: epsilon | 2008-01-27 12:20:11 PM


"Dan, you should avoid using phrases like “we believe” and “we feel.” It makes you sound weak and gives the impression there is nothing more to your argument than personal conviction. "

- You're right on this one.

"The fact of the matter is that the right price for oil is whatever the market says it is. If you’re an economist, you should understand that.”

- You're wrong on this one. Price does not include externalities that government, not the market will be responsible for.

Posted by: Dan Grice | 2008-01-27 12:29:51 PM


Wrong Dan.

The price of oil includes punishing taxes and royalties. These taxes are exploitative and opportunistic. And now they want to punish us even further with a Carbon Tax. This Carbon Tax revenue will go to ridiculous and unproductive projects and deliver zero to negative value.

Epsi

Posted by: epsilon | 2008-01-27 12:33:16 PM


epsi, as it needs to be pointed out endlessly to these leftist class warfare a**holes, these "evil corporations" are made up mostly of citizens.

Posted by: deepblue | 2008-01-27 12:38:56 PM


Agreed. These retired Professor emeriti and failed political windbags should examine their pension funds and see just who is footing the bill for them while they contine to blow smoke.

Hypcorites all.

Epsi

Posted by: epsilon | 2008-01-27 12:41:26 PM


This obvious tax grab will keep the Greens out of office, thank god, much like it has the Dippers.

Their obvious indifference to Ontario's exemption to Kyoto has also rendered the Greens ineffective. They're corrupt, willing to bend to the whims of the corporate and union establishment who own and run Ontario and control the Liebral and Dipper parties. The Greens are, therefore, a joke.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-01-27 1:32:50 PM


Shane wrote: "The fact of the matter is that the right price for oil is whatever the market says it is. If you’re an economist, you should understand that.”

Dan replied: "You're wrong on this one. Price does not include externalities that government, not the market will be responsible for."

By nature the market includes all factors, including politics. Ask a Soviet-era Russian if command economies work better than market ones.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-27 1:50:04 PM


To meet our CO2 reductions (which a majority of Canadian do want to do) you have a wide variety of various plans. Sector regulation as proposed by the Conservatives with no clearly defined disincentive for those who miss their targets.

A carbon auctioning and cap and trade system as proposed the Liberals and the NDP which will create a massive carbon trading bureaucracy and will result in a huge accounting, regulation, and consistency problem for regulation, or a Green Party proposal that puts a direct, stable, price on emissions and is proposed to be revenue neutral (for the most part, as we do propose transferring some of the fuel tax component to municipalities and the hope is that that will offset property tax increases and some it will likely go to fixing crumbling infrastructure) but we don't want to see a huge tax grab, we want to an overall adjustment of the tax base to reduce income and payroll taxes.

Of all the solutions, you will see that ours take the least micromanaging and is also one of the most predictable for companies to plan their long term investments on.

Something is going to happen, inevitably because Canadians do want to see action on this regardless of whether the WS readers would prefer otherwise..

Posted by: Dan Grice | 2008-01-27 3:26:40 PM


And I don't consider my self a leftist. One other thought for your readers, as though we propose a national carbon tax, Alberta's government would have been smarter to introduce a carbon tax as an alternative for raising the royalties on oil.

This would have pushed oil companies to invest in sequestration technology and better manufacturing processes. Rather, by increasing royalties based on output rather than manufacturing process they've given the tar sands producers and excuse not to upgrade and invest in cleaner technology.

Posted by: Dan Grice | 2008-01-27 3:33:04 PM


If you seek a national carbon tax, why did the Green Party support giving Ontario's auto industry an exemption to Kyoto?

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-01-27 3:48:03 PM


Dan, Canadians are only interested in the IDEA of reducing CO2 because it’s the “in” thing, because if they don’t support it publicly they’ll look like troglodytes, and because they understand on some level that environmental stewardship involves maximum use of resources with minimum waste, which includes pollution. However, these same Canadians explode in paroxysms of outrage if gas goes up by a nickel a litre, or if transit rates go up, or if property taxes go up, or if expenses of ANY kind go up. They also don’t see why we should be subject to restrictions other countries aren’t, if this is supposed to be a global effort.

The price of oil is governed by market forces (which include politics), like any other commodity. As oil becomes rarer, it will become more expensive, and then the pressure to find a replacement will really be on. However, even if every last drop of petroleum is burned, it will do little in the long term but promote the growth of plants. Because that carbon that is now back in Earth’s atmosphere was taken from it by prehistoric plants in the first place.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-27 4:26:15 PM


Dan wrote: “And I don't consider my self a leftist.”

No, you’re a “progressive.”

Dan wrote: “One other thought for your readers, as though we propose a national carbon tax, Alberta's government would have been smarter to introduce a carbon tax as an alternative for raising the royalties on oil.”

And smarter still to leave well enough alone. The moment I heard the government’s petulant declaration that “it’s still a better deal than you’re getting anywhere else; at least we’re not stealing your property like in Venezuela,” I knew this new administration was trouble. Politicians are supposed to be professional administrators, not fifth-graders fighting over hockey cards.

Dan wrote: “This would have pushed oil companies to invest in sequestration technology and better manufacturing processes. Rather, by increasing royalties based on output rather than manufacturing process they've given the tar sands producers and excuse not to upgrade and invest in cleaner technology.”

All this nanny-state talk and you don’t consider yourself a Leftist. You're not a centrist and you're certainly no Rightist, so that leaves...?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-27 4:31:11 PM


Zebulon Pike wrote: "If you seek a national carbon tax, why did the Green Party support giving Ontario's auto industry an exemption to Kyoto?"

Because even Greens know the formula for success in Canada is to "forget the West and take the rest." If there were ever a referendum for B.C. to secede from that crew I'd put my name on it like a shot.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-27 4:35:23 PM


Leftist, rightist? Surely the terms are futile in modern political sense.

We're putting a fair price on an externality, something Milton Friedman recognized as a role of government. How does this result in a nanny state? Conservative legislation such as bill C-26 puts us in a Nanny state. Correcting market failures via additive pricing schemes is not.

Posted by: Dan Grice | 2008-01-27 4:52:54 PM


Left or right, proper roles for government, blah blah blah.

I just want to know why the Green Party has given in to corruption and violations of basic rights, specifically, the right to be treated fairly. I think Shane is right: they know one of the main elements in Canadian politics - forget the west.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-01-27 5:19:31 PM


I do think it is time for the west to go it's own way. Manitoba to B.C. and the Yukon. Manitoba is on the brink of becoming one of the largest distributors of electricity and Sask and Alberta have the obvious. The entire west would thrive, while the east would wonder why the money isn't coming in. The arctic ocean in Manitoba and the pacific in BC. We may actually thrive as a democracy, instead of dragged through the socialist mud by the east.
We are much to vast a nation to have the same ideology.

Posted by: SICKof East | 2008-01-27 5:47:44 PM


Better idea: expel Ontario.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-01-27 6:09:26 PM


Dan wrote: “Leftist, rightist? Surely the terms are futile in modern political sense.”

In my experience, those who object most strenuously to being pigeonholed are those to whom it is most easily done. Having seen their existence thus reduced to a sound bite, they then attempt to usurp the terms of the debate: you mayn’t use this word, you mayn’t use that word. They think it makes them look hip and trendy, but it really just makes them look petty and thin-skinned.

Dan wrote: “We're putting a fair price on an externality, something Milton Friedman recognized as a role of government. How does this result in a nanny state?”

Again, “we.” You speak as if you were the premier authority on the subject and, for that matter, in power already. If so many people agree with Green policies, why have they failed to win even a single seat? “Putting a fair price on externalities” results in a nanny state because it operates under the principle that the people need to be saved from themselves.

Dan wrote: “Conservative legislation such as bill C-26 puts us in a Nanny state. Correcting market failures via additive pricing schemes is not.”

Bill C-26 all but decriminalizes possession of minor amounts of marijuana and punishes drug traffickers and drug smugglers. The great majority of pot grown in Canada is destined for export and those countries are rightly concerned that we are not doing enough to stop it from leaving Canada. This will be true even Canada legalizes pot completely, and I have yet to see a single person attempt to address this issue. Perhaps they fear to.

Mark Emery is a smuggler. He didn’t just sell pot locally; he exported it illegally to another country. No one argues that the smuggling of firearms—which are legal products in both Canada and the U.S.—is a crime, so why are they willing to turn a blind eye to the illegal smuggling of another product?

What’s that smell? No, it’s not a doobie. It is the stink of hypocrisy.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-27 7:44:24 PM


A Canadian man has been imprisoned in India for entering without a visa. He's been sentenced to three years.

Where's the Green Party's outrage?

Oh yeah, they only care about bashing America! Add this to their foul stench of hypocrisy.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-01-27 7:50:16 PM


I've lived in Vancouver all of my life. Most of you would be easterners to me!

-D

Posted by: Dan Grice | 2008-01-28 1:07:01 AM


And you would be an Easterner to ME, Dan. I was born in Vancouver but grew up in Nanaimo.

Now, are you going to address my point about how most pot is destined for export and the criminal element would thus continue to flourish even if pot were legalized in Canada, or not? He who would be king ought not to shrink from the truth, don't you agree?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-28 7:30:05 AM


hey Dan...
Perhaps you should start looking at a map, and how the seats are distributed aross the four western provinces, federally. Conservatives dominate all three prairie provinces and half of BC. See the bigger picture. Western half and eastern half of this country are very very different. Oh, and by the way...you are a leftist. Please read your own writings.

Posted by: SICKofEast | 2008-01-28 8:09:37 AM


The only folks that take the Green Party seriously are the NDP.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=d5406b12-4e96-4642-9666-9c3a72f4f077

Posted by: bocanut | 2008-01-28 12:31:24 PM


The issue with Marc Emery is that regardless of whether you agree with his actions, he has never set foot in the United States. If he is guilty of a crime, then he should be tried and punished under Canadian law and not American law. If our laws are not sufficient, then our government should change the laws (which they are trying to). Marc is being tried for a crime which has not been seen as illegal in this Canada (distributing cannabis seeds) and is routinely treated provided with a fine.

Had Conrad Black only committed his fraud in Canada, I would oppose his facing sentence in the US.

Our legal system defines our rights according to the nation in which we happen. When we have citizens go abroad, they are subject to another nations laws even though we demand our governments act to ensure our citizens our protected in a just way.

This issue is a sovereignty issue. And while I oppose the war on drugs as a waste or our resources and pointless act of government intervention without justification, even if you don't share the same mind set as me, and you feel cannabis is dangerous and should be outlawed, you should still agree that it should be our justice system that sets the standards and not the US.

This isn't a matter about being anti-american, only anti-DEA. Heck, California just opened up medical marijuana vending machines.

Posted by: Dan Grice | 2008-01-28 12:37:08 PM


Dan,

If I am standing in White Rock and shoot a guy in Bellingham, I can be legally extradited to face murder charges in the US. And vice versa.

This example illustrates how potheads think that they are above the law. Potheads want medical marijuana but do not want to pay for the vast amount of medical research needed to get FDA approval. They think that marijuana should be grandfathered in. They think marijuana is "special" and that anything to do with marijuana should be exempt from the normal course of justice or regulatory law. Whether it be drug pushers like Emery or dopers pushing for "medical use"

I have no problem with medical use, but it must receive FDA approval first.

Similarly, I am fighting to keep drugs out of our schools, off our streets and fighting to keep gangs out of our neighbourhoods. The last thing we need is this Emery pushing drugs on our youth.

Lock the bastard up. He is a national embarassment.

Epsi

Posted by: Epsilon | 2008-01-28 1:51:37 PM


Then do it within our laws.

Posted by: Dan Grice | 2008-01-28 2:49:43 PM


What?

He committed a crime in the US! The fact that he was based in Canada is irrelevant to the fact that the crime occurred in US jurisdiction. And we have extradition treaties. This is nothing unusual.

Lock the bastard up.

EPsi

Posted by: Epsilon | 2008-01-28 2:59:15 PM


I love this blog. As soon as I want to crack down on polluters threatening global security and our future, people are up and arms.

But as soon as pot comes up, the law and order crowd comes out trying to extradite a man for selling seeds to war veterans and cancer patients.

The economist has an article on how over 40% of people working on the oil sands were regular drug users.

http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9410672

No real connection to the thread..

VoteGrice.com

Posted by: Dan Grice | 2008-01-28 3:57:49 PM


Dan wrote: “The issue with Marc Emery is that regardless of whether you agree with his actions, he has never set foot in the United States. If he is guilty of a crime, then he should be tried and punished under Canadian law and not American law. If our laws are not sufficient, then our government should change the laws (which they are trying to). Marc is being tried for a crime which has not been seen as illegal in this Canada (distributing cannabis seeds) and is routinely treated provided with a fine.”

Apparently the candidates for your party are no better at law than they are at science, Dan. The fact that he used the postal service or couriers to do the dirty deed does not absolve him of smuggling. If he had contracted an American hit man to rub someone out on American soil without leaving Canada himself, he would still be liable to extradition under the terms of the treaty. The fact that you think the law SHOULD say something else is immaterial.

Dan wrote: “Had Conrad Black only committed his fraud in Canada, I would oppose his facing sentence in the US.”

Had Conrad Black committed his fraud only in Canada, the U.S. would have no interest in him.

Dan wrote: “Our legal system defines our rights according to the nation in which we happen. When we have citizens go abroad, they are subject to another nations laws even though we demand our governments act to ensure our citizens our protected in a just way.”

Again, irrelevant. Emery caused criminal acts to occur in the United States and the American request for his extradition contains no error in law.

Dan wrote: “This issue is a sovereignty issue.”

For you, perhaps. But not at law. And while I can’t speak for others, I will never vote for any candidate who argues that the law ought not to matter. There lies the true road to fascism.

Dan wrote: “And while I oppose the war on drugs as a waste or our resources and pointless act of government intervention without justification, even if you don't share the same mind set as me, and you feel cannabis is dangerous and should be outlawed, you should still agree that it should be our justice system that sets the standards and not the US.”

I will say what I should and should not agree to, Dan. I have not ceded that authority to you. And our justice system has no jurisdiction in America, only an extradition treaty with her.

Dan wrote: “This isn't a matter about being anti-american…”

You LIE.

Dan wrote: “…only anti-DEA. Heck, California just opened up medical marijuana vending machines.”

Your idea of serious discourse is to cite the example of Hollyweird as the sole source of sober, rational thought? Really, Dan. For a man who proudly trumpets the scientific and scholarly backing his party supposedly has, you demonstrate a surprising lack of intellectual rigour.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-28 4:00:13 PM


Dan wrote: “I love this blog. As soon as I want to crack down on polluters threatening global security and our future, people are up and arms.”

As soon as “you” want to crack down on them? Hail, Leader! Dan, has it occurred to you the that the reason more folks don’t vote for you is that you come across as a petulant and narcissistic brat in need of a good gobsmacking?

Dan wrote: “But as soon as pot comes up, the law and order crowd comes out trying to extradite a man for selling seeds to war veterans and cancer patients.”

Cut the hand-wringing. He sold to anyone who bought.

Dan wrote: “The economist has an article on how over 40% of people working on the oil sands were regular drug users.”

Oh, wow. The economist had an article. And it puts the whole idea of drug abuse into a very negative light, strongly correlating it with accidents, brawling, and crime. I also can’t help but wonder if this is a veiled jab at Albertans, whom the eco-warriors in B.C. and Ontario seem to have a special hate-on for. However, they lap up the products of the oil sands even more greedily than the Albertans themselves.

Once again, the stink of hypocrisy.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-28 4:51:53 PM


P.S. The article said that 40% of people TESTED POSITIVE. That's not the same thing as being a regular user. It also said that the 40% figure was the estimate of a single doctor. I'm not denying the problem exists, but you should avoid cherry-picking your data like that.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-28 6:34:07 PM


The medical marijuana crowd don't want to comply with the regulatory hurdles required of a prescription drug either. They want it grandfathered in. They don't think they need to follow the rules that everyone else has to required to get a medication approved.

Probably because they know that it would never be approved as a drug in its raw form, and they would not be able to toke up using some flimsy medical excuse like "war veterans with cancer" Give me a break!

Epsi

Posted by: epsilon | 2008-01-28 6:37:29 PM


Emery should have realized that his citizenship did not grant him immunity from the law, no matter what the country. He received a sweetheart deal - just 5 years instead of what could have been a life sentence. It's the best he could ever hope for. His attempts to portray himself as a hero failed before they ever began.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-01-28 6:42:30 PM


Emery did a radio interview about a week ago, and listening to him made me very reluctant to support his particular situation. He openly advocated giving pot to highschool kids.

I believe that pot is less harmful than booze, and should be decriminalized for many reasons. I also believe that kids should be shielded from it, just like booze and tobacco. I understand now why he's being treated so harshly. He's a dangerous influence on kids.

Posted by: dp | 2008-01-28 6:52:00 PM


Emery's a scared man. He's afraid that he'll be sent to jail for breaking US law. Well, he's right! I hope he likes his cell for the next five years because that is where he will be.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-01-28 8:36:53 PM


obc: what gets me is that he thought that he could break US law and expect the Cdn gov't to protect him. He should have known that all they would do is make sure he wouldn't face the death penalty - which wouldn't have applied in this case anyway. He's an ass who will get what he deserves. No amount of moralizing can save him.

The best part: his criminal record will prevent him from getting a good job or being able to travel abroad. Well done, loser. The only people more pathetic than him are those who follow him. As that great sage of our time, Obi-wan Kenobi, once said:

Who's the more foolish: The fool, or the fool who follows him?

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-01-28 9:30:53 PM


Everyone loves Obi-wan Kenobi!

Posted by: epsilon | 2008-01-28 9:37:00 PM


How about the idea that any law that punishes peaceful & honest behaviour is an unjust law and deserves neither respect nor obedience?

And this from obc:

>>>Bill C-26 all but decriminalizes possession of minor amounts of marijuana and punishes drug traffickers and drug smugglers. The great majority of pot grown in Canada is destined for export and those countries are rightly concerned that we are not doing enough to stop it from leaving Canada. This will be true even Canada legalizes pot completely, and I have yet to see a single person attempt to address this issue. Perhaps they fear to.

Mark Emery is a smuggler. He didn’t just sell pot locally; he exported it illegally to another country. No one argues that the smuggling of firearms—which are legal products in both Canada and the U.S.—is a crime, so why are they willing to turn a blind eye to the illegal smuggling of another product?

What’s that smell? No, it’s not a doobie. It is the stink of hypocrisy.

The great majority of pot is not for export as the crashing US dollar stopped our exports a year ago. Not more than one pot smuggler has been busted at the border in 2 months, three years ago, a pot smuggler was busted every day. The US has ramped up its own production bigtime as a grass roots response the mortgage crisis --- Americans are having cash crunches and marijuana production is quick and requires no special training.

Americans produce 60% of their own pot and get 37% from Mexico, the remaining 3% s from Canada, Jamaica, Colombia, Costa Rica, Belize.

Bill C-26 does not ease up penalties for possession. That we are nearly decriminalized in Canada for possessing joints is absurd, there are 1,500,000 Canadians with criminal convictions for pot, and I myself went to jail on a three month sentence for passing one joint.

Smuggling is not immoral or wrong. Smuggling is an economic relationship between two individuals that a government is trying to disrupt. The state as no legitimate prerogative to interfere in peaceful, consenting, honest relationships...within or without these political borders...period.

Why should Canadians be concerned if 250,000 people in Canada earn a living from cannabis production, and in doing so, produce some for export? The Americans already produce 30 times the amount they import from Canada, what exactly is the moral sin here that justifies any punishment or imprisonment?

Posted by: Marc Emery | 2008-01-28 10:35:01 PM


You broke the law,quit your whining and do your time like a man.

Posted by: bocanut | 2008-01-28 10:46:26 PM


Thank goodness there are people like Marc Emery and Ezra Levant prepared to openly challenge unjust laws. They both have my respect and admiration.

"The war on drugs is a failure because it is a socialist enterprise," Milton Friedman

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-01-28 10:59:35 PM


Big difference between Emery and Ezra.


Posted by: bocanut | 2008-01-28 11:13:20 PM


Filth like Emery encourages drug use in high schools.

Go to hell you devil.

Epsi

Posted by: epsilon | 2008-01-28 11:20:28 PM


What's the difference?

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-01-28 11:22:59 PM


Marc Emery wrote: “How about the idea that any law that punishes peaceful & honest behaviour is an unjust law and deserves neither respect nor obedience?”

Jaywalking is peaceful and honest behaviour. So is taking a crap on the sidewalk. One is still dangerous and the other still disgusting. So how about this: Get the law changed by peaceful and honest work and not by becoming a criminal as an act of protest?

Marc Emery quoted: “From OBC: Bill C-26 all but decriminalizes possession of minor amounts of marijuana and punishes drug traffickers and drug smugglers…Mark Emery is a smuggler…What’s that smell? No, it’s not a doobie. It is the stink of hypocrisy.”

That was from me, Your Royal “High”-ness. Apparently you’ve violated the number-one rule for drug smugglers everywhere—don’t get high on your own supply.

Marc Emery wrote: “The great majority of pot is not for export as the crashing US dollar stopped our exports a year ago. Not more than one pot smuggler has been busted at the border in 2 months, three years ago, a pot smuggler was busted every day. The US has ramped up its own production bigtime as a grass roots response the mortgage crisis --- Americans are having cash crunches and marijuana production is quick and requires no special training. Americans produce 60% of their own pot and get 37% from Mexico, the remaining 3% s from Canada, Jamaica, Colombia, Costa Rica, Belize.”

B.C. alone grows far more pot than it can consume. The dope goes south and the guns come north. You and your ilk are an accessory to all of that, my boy, and to the violence and rampant property crime that plague our cities. And no matter what you do today, you HAVE exported pot to the U.S., which is the basis of the charges against you.

Marc Emery wrote: “Bill C-26 does not ease up penalties for possession. That we are nearly decriminalized in Canada for possessing joints is absurd, there are 1,500,000 Canadians with criminal convictions for pot.”

Past convictions are not an indicator of what is in pending legislation. In this Universe, effect FOLLOWS cause. I’ve complained about it, but…

Marc Emery wrote: “And I myself went to jail on a three month sentence for passing one joint.”

After a long and very public history of flouting the law and being let off.

Marc Emery wrote: “Smuggling is not immoral or wrong. Smuggling is an economic relationship between two individuals that a government is trying to disrupt. The state as no legitimate prerogative to interfere in peaceful, consenting, honest relationships...within or without these political borders...period.”

Oh, yes, it is, oh, no, it isn’t, and oh, yes, it does. You’re starting to sound like Al Capone. Which is appropriate, I guess.

Marc Emery wrote: “Why should Canadians be concerned if 250,000 people in Canada earn a living from cannabis production, and in doing so, produce some for export?”

Why should Canadians be concerned that you are being punished for breaking an American law? For that matter, why should they agree to foot the bill for locking you up in a Canadian prison when so many American ones are available?

Marc Emery wrote: “The Americans already produce 30 times the amount they import from Canada, what exactly is the moral sin here that justifies any punishment or imprisonment?”

The law is about protection of individual rights and property, not morality. You have no Constitutional right to get high. Society has judged that the harm done by drugs exceeds the good done. Perhaps at some future date that belief, and the laws stemming therefrom, will be reviewed. In the meantime, no right is violated.

You can whine all you like—your bluff has been called, and now you’ll get to be the martyr you always wanted to be. Enjoy your new “castle,” O Prince.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-28 11:48:30 PM


I want to second Matthew's sentiment: Thank goodness there are people like Marc and Ezra to fight against insane and unjust laws, like bullshit speech-squelching tribunals, and the bullshit war on drugs which does more harm than good.

Go to heaven, you saints.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-01-29 12:00:49 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.