Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« R. v. Yoshida: The Tale of the Parking Lot | Main | Another surprise in Pakistan »

Thursday, February 21, 2008

WStv: Marc Emery addresses Western Standard readers

UPDATE: Jacob Sullum at Reason magazine has posted about our videos of Emery here.

------------

Conservative opposition to the war on drugs has been building for over a decade.

It began in earnest with a Fraser Institute publication in June 1998 titled “Reassessing the War on Drugs.” This publication was a collection of essays on the failure of drug prohibition and included polling data that showed “only one in ten Canadians is staunchly against seeing marijuana use removed from the list of criminal code offences.” The Fraser Institute challenged its fiscal and law-and-order conservative supporters to seriously rethink the war on drugs, with Institute scholars like Patrick Basham leading this charge.

In May 2000, Stockwell Day joined the discussion. During his successful "Freedom Train" leadership campaign, Day told the Vancouver Sun that marijuana users should not go to jail:  “if you’re talking about simple possession, no, that should not be jail.” Day became the first leader of the Canadian Alliance and is now Minister of Public Safety with the Harper government.

In October 2001, Scott Reid made a powerful case for ending drug prohibition in the journal Policy Options. Scott Reid is the Member of Parliament for Lanark-Carleton and part of Harper’s brain trust.

The tag line on Reid’s article reads: “The views expressed here are not necessarily those of the Canadian Alliance Party.” And his views are still officially not those of the Conservative Party, although support for moderate drug liberalization is shared by many conservative-minded MPs.

Regular readers of the Shotgun blog may recall Peter Jaworski’s post about prominent conservatives who oppose the war on drugs. The list includes Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman and National Review founder William F. Buckley.

All of this is to say that conservative opposition to the war on drugs does exist. But while conservatives have tested the waters of drug liberalization, few are ready to dive into the deep end in support of marijuana legalization advocate Marc Emery. Vancouver’s "Prince of Pot," Emery is still facing the possibility of extradition to the United States to face drug charges for selling marijuana seeds. He was arrested in Canada by the U.S. DEA and, if extradited and convicted, could spend a lifetime in a U.S. prison. We covered Emery's case in "Seeding Sovereignty," a feature-length article by Western Standard reporter William Hopper.

The legal case against Emery's extradition should be strong. The Canadian government allowed Emery to operate openly. He paid taxes on his illegal seed business. Health Canada directed medical marijuana patients  to purchase seeds from him. He often ran for public office. Is this the kind of person Canadians, even conservative Canadians, want to see spend a lifetime in a U.S. prison? Probably not, but Emery’s uncompromising views and public, non-violent civil disobedience scares away conservative sympathizers. Emery is also not just philosophically committed to drug legalization; he promotes the drug culture with his magazine Cannabis Culture and his popular on-line video website POT.TV. This is too much for cultural conservatives, even those convinced of the failure of drug prohibition.

But like it or not, Marc Emery is at the centre of the debate over the legalization of marijuana in Canada, which is why we invited him to create a broadcast message specifically for Western Standard readers. Many will be impressed by Emery’s commitment to liberty and free market ideas. Others will no doubt be shocked by Jodie Emery's open marijuana use. Emery is a hero to many libertarians and drug peaceniks, but can he win the hearts and minds of conservatives?

This is Marc Emery in his own words, unbound:

Parts Two and Three below the fold

Part Two:

Part Three:

Posted by westernstandard on February 21, 2008 in Marc Emery, WStv | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e55061b82c8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference WStv: Marc Emery addresses Western Standard readers:

Comments

Conrad,

Marijuana is not legal in Canada, but neither is the Canadian government making War on it's own people over it.

Does that help?

Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-22 3:58:29 PM


You people are so stupid. Drugs are illegal because they are BAD for YOU!!!!! AND they are BAD for YOU because they are ILLEGAL!!!!! Any three year old could understand this logic. Why is it so hard for YOU????? Oh right, BECAUSE drugs ROTTED your BRAINS!!!!! So stupid.

Posted by: Joe | 2008-02-22 4:00:27 PM


Conrad,

Every person who has decided not to or has not yet had children is a naive irresponsible child themselves?

Are you also in support of laws against rusty nails and thorny plants? After all, your child might possibly be exposed to both those things and get a nasty scrape.

Posted by: lavaman | 2008-02-22 4:12:50 PM


Uh, Joe, I can't make heads or tails out of your comment. I can't tell whether you support continuing the war on drugs, or ending it.

A rule of thumb: When you are busy calling people stupid, uneducated, and/or illiterate, make sure that your post is grammatical, contains no spelling errors, and is coherent and clear.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-02-22 4:13:14 PM


Can't protect them forever lavaman. One of my boys got his nose broken last weekend, and he's fighting the same kid again in two weeks. Everyone has a different assessment of risk.

Nothing makes me as angry as these perverts with pit bulls. To me it's a completely unnecessary hazard to young children.

To someone else maybe the biggest fear is drug dealers, or homosexuals. Plenty of people don't want their kids to ride their bikes in traffic.

Smoking a joint is certainly not something I'd put on the scariest moments list.

Posted by: dp | 2008-02-22 4:22:56 PM


Conrad,

I'm 43 years old, I have 3 sons ranging in age from 15 - 22 years old. My career in IT has exceeded ALL my expectations and in fact, I've implemented/deployed software and did the training at NASA HQ in Washington, DC because I'm very good at what I do.

I was a very consistent pot smoker (daily) while I went to university and achieved/maintained a 3.7 GPA while raising 3 young boys as a single mother and then got into the workforce.

For 30 years on pot, I (as a single mother):
raised 3 boys who are now either students or tax payers (and 2 of them now vote)
Bought a house and a car
Excelled in school and career
Kept physically fit by weight lifting 3 days a week and I jog 2 (sometimes 3) days a week

A very good friend of mine, a very successful real estate agent, got onto that crack cocaine and in 3 years:
Lost his job
Lost his houses
Spent his RSP's and other savings
and also landed another $20,000 in debt. Thank god he is in recovery now and is re-earning what he spent.

My ex husband who has spent his whole adult life on alcohol:
Can't keep a job
Can't keep a promise
Can't pay his child support
Has been charged with 13 counts of DUI, impersonation and fraud and spent time in jail
Has since racked up some more charges that he refuses to deal with (and in fact, used my brother's ID on an assault charge that my brother keeps getting picked up for)
Doesn't think alcohol is a problem (perhaps because it's socially accepted?)

I lost my father, grandfather and 3 uncles to lung cancer... all smoked cigarettes their whole adult lives.

I know a thalidimide baby

I've since quit smoking pot and am grateful for the clarity of mind and my memory is definitely recovering. I'm sure I damaged my lungs and perhaps my liver (due more to fertilizers than the marijuana itself), but none of the damage was irreversible (like cirrhosis of the liver caused by too much alcohol or prescription medication consumption)

Marijuana is addictive. I went through a withdrawal. My boys will testify to that one!! It kept me in an "isolated box" and numbed pain that I seemed to lack the ability to deal with. But I think that's what doctors are also doing with their antidepressants... I am in a 12 step group that helps me learn to deal with painful life events more effectively.

I know one thing: If I ever get MS or Cancer, I REFUSE to get onto the pain medication as prescribed by a doctor but will choose to eat pot (as opposed to smoke it). It is a very effective pain medication, a muscle relaxant, and it can help (along with therapy) depression if prescribed properly.

I say get rid of the prohibition that makes money for the mafia, the gangs and the grow-ops and put taxes on it because as with alcohol prohibition... it DOESN'T work!!

Was I a criminal because I possessed pot? Yet, I paid taxes in the upper tax bracket? hmmmmm....

Posted by: Dawn | 2008-02-22 4:28:48 PM


I'm amazed at the hypocracy.

Guns are just tools and a responsible user hurts no one. But, the herb will automatically destroy families?

People have the natural right to carry firearms and smoke or inject drugs. I don't care which. Can those downtown Vancouver hookers hurt others than themselves? Yes.

Can a gun owner hurt others? Yes.

Can a skydiver hurt his family if he dies? Yes.

So, the neo-con uses "Oh my God, what about the children" in the same way the lefties do. It's just that the subject is different. These half wits say that the herb makes you stupid, but they can't even see that people need to be held accountable for crimes against people and property. What makes them stupid? Bad genes? Maybe we should incarcerate their mothers for conspiracy to promote stupidity.

If a guy breaks into a house while he's high on drugs and assaults the inhabitants with a firearm, the left would cry about guns, the right would cry about drugs. Both would want to protect the children. Neither of these stupid bastards would understand that the offence of B&E and assault should be punished for what it is. The tools and state of mind shouldn't even be an issue.

Are the conservatives different than the libertarians? That's an under-stated question. We (libertarians) believe in freedom. The Neo-cons (fake conservatives) believe in power and control. They are big gov't fools and we bear no relation in ideology to them whatsoever.

dp: The empirical evidence gathered by myself states that driving on marijuana is not as hazerdous as alcohol. It's nothing to do with bottled courage. My hand eye coordination is good enough to play football and fight Muay Thai while I smoke. I'd never try it after a few beers. The whole drunk driving garbage is another issue that I won't speak to now.

Mr. O'Neill: I'm a bit surprised that you don't understand freedom. The elderly have a right to keep their life long savings to take care of themselves later in life. To confuse a babysitting service as an instrument of freedom is absurb. Now you're on record as a Chretien/Trudeau "Cradle to graver." It's amazing how the left and right both agree on big gov't. If it wasn't for the guns/drug issues they'd be campaigning for each other.

Dawn: I think the thalidimide crack was below the belt. Redneck Ryder is forced to hunt and peck with his head. The trauma is obvious.

Janet: I still love you, sight unseen.

Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-22 4:48:56 PM


Joe | 22-Feb-08 4:00:27 PM,

Excellent textbook example of circular reasoning.

Kinda like the geologist who says he knows the rocks are YaY old because the paleontologist says the fossils in the rocks are YaY old, and then you go to the paleontologist and ask him how he knows the age of the fossils, and the paleontologist says he knows the fossils are YaY old because the geologist said the rocks are YaY old.

Very scientific.

And your delivery was a tour de force!

You really sounded like a true-to-life fascist Drug Warrior.

Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-22 4:57:50 PM


great post veteran. I agree with the driving issue, but didn't think it would play very well here. Don't know if I'd try Muay Thai after smoking, but I'm positive I wouldn't after drinking. I once had a sparring partner that out weighed me by 30 pounds, and the only time I ever landed good shots was when he had whiskey breath.

As for blaming guns for armed robbery, I totally agree that the robber is to blame, not guns or drugs.

Posted by: dp | 2008-02-22 4:59:30 PM


Speller: Who are you talking to and what are you talking about? Are you on drugs?

Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-22 5:13:01 PM


I must say I don't understand the idea that Canada should violate its commitment under a binding treaty just because Parliament is too lazy to amend Canadian laws to match Canadian practice.

The extradition treaty specifies that, in order to be extradited to the U.S. for an act, the act must be a crime in both Canada and the U.S., and punishable by more than a year in prison under both Canadian and U.S. law.

So, the very day that Parliament declares that dealing in marijuana is no big deal by reducing the maximum term of imprisonment to a year or less, no one will be extraditable from Canada for the offense. But as long as Canadian law says, as it does now, that marijuana is a big deal in Canada, then the U.S. has a perfect right under the treaty to demand the extradition of Mr. Emery and others like him.

All Parliament has to do is amend Canadian law to match Canadian practice, and the whole thing goes away. The fact that Parliament does not is an indication that Parliament considers the sentence Mr. Emery is facing to be just, or at least not so unjust to be worth changing Canadian law. Which, on the face of it, would undermine any claim that the sentence "shocks the conscience" of Canada.

The result is that any argument that the Minister of Justice should refuse the extradition is an argument that the Government should simultaneously ignore the will of Parliament as expressed in the laws of Canada and violate the international law of treaties.

If you don't like the trouble Mr. Emery is in, go yell at your MP to change Canadian law. Because it is Canadian law that is threatening him.

Posted by: Lunatic | 2008-02-22 5:26:58 PM


Veteran, right on the money. When I was younger I was a lefty. Then I turned to the right socially and fiscally, and still am for myself. But, my phylosphy is more of a free market individualist. In other words, what I choose for my own life is good for me but I would never dream of imposing that on anyone else. Nor do I accept anyone imposing their beliefs on me. Maybe that makes me a libertarian.

Posted by: TM | 2008-02-22 5:37:24 PM


Lunatic,

Canada is a signatory of the United Nations Single Convention Treaty on Narcotics.
http://www.incb.org/incb/convention_1961.html

This treaty is what is being observed with the extradition of people like Marc Emery.

The Treaty cannot be amended, superseded, or rescinded unless all 108 original signers agree to do so unanimously.

When the "Greatest Generation" undertakes something legal, they fix it so their wisdom cannot be undone by future generations.

Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-22 5:37:33 PM


I would like to apologize for my previous post. I get a little aggressive without any alcohol and, you know, it's just been one of those days. Thankfully I just had a few drinks and, boy, I feel a lot better. Glad alcohol is legal. Hate to think what I might do if it were not.

Posted by: Joe | 2008-02-22 5:39:31 PM


Joe,

LOL!

Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-22 5:41:20 PM


Lunatic:

And that will accomplish what, exactly? Please don't say that the voter is powerful enough to "instruct" an MP.

It's tantamount to:

riiiiing, "hello Mr. Bush?"

"Yes"

"My brother was killed in Iraq and now my other brother is going. Can we pull out before the other hero in my family gets blasted for his invasion? Or...I won't vote for you!!!"

"Ooooh you won't vote for me. Well then, we'll be out by 6 pm."
THE END

Voters don't hold power. They are unwitting rubes with the illusion of power.

I think the Marc Emery thing should be argued on a moral basis. The legal basis is a joke. Idiots make the laws that seldom line up with morals.

Marc Emery hurt no one. He is going to prison. If that doesn't alarm you, you need a head massage.

Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-22 5:44:16 PM


TM: Jesus, a man who believes in harming no one and protecting himself. You may be a libertarian/decent person.

Speller: All UN members and global socialists must hang!!!

Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-22 5:48:16 PM


>"Speller: All UN members and global socialists must hang!!!
Veteran | 22-Feb-08 5:48:16 PM

Hangins to good fer'um.

I say the should be shot, strangled, burned to a crisp, and then BURIED ALIVE!

Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-22 5:52:23 PM


Joe: You've really grasped things. Everything the gov't makes illegal is bad for us. Gov't knows best. If people are better off getting loaded onto trains for re-location, then we should trust that they know what they're doing. They have our best interests in mind.

If you ever get the ability for independant thought, it means the chip fell out of your brain. Get it replaced. Tell them you need a "pea" size.

Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-22 5:54:19 PM


Veteran,

I think your posts are very articulate and pretty much on the money. I think the media has done a great job of making the "pot heads" of the world appear like stupid stoners when in fact, one can live a very productive and active life with (often superior) brains in tact.

The media has also done a bang up job of making alcohol look romantic with nice beaches, pretty girls and lots of fun. Frankly, I'm neither "against" pot or alcohol but have my own experiences with both to draw from. Pot does not turn "normal" people into "beavis or butt head" and alcohol is FAAARR from the glamour media portrays.

As for my boys, I'm much less worried about pot then them getting into vehicles with young drivers who have had too much liquid courage. (I lost high school friends to accidents while not just tipsy, but stinking drunk they could barely walk and my ex husband rolled the vehicle with my 3 boys in it after drinking a bottle of whiskey) I'm also concerned with crystal meth, crack cocaine, and unprotected sex. I'm not sure the government can do much to help me with these concerns, but I have done my best to discuss these issues with my boys and so far, all is well.

I'm on Marc Emery's side for 3 reasons:
1) the "war on pot" is ridiculous and we need an outsoken, intelligent spokesman for the cause
2) extradition to the states is crap. How much of the US deficit spending was spent on "capturing" Marc Emery?
3) I know Marc also spends tons of money in the political arena both in Canada and the US. I also know he has effectively gotten some of the young, apathetic youth out to the voting polls, again, on both sides of the border. Regardless of what he's fighting for, if he can get our "unconcerned" youth voting for SOMETHING educated, then I'm all behind him.

Posted by: Dawn | 2008-02-22 6:15:57 PM


Dawn: You seem like a great parent. I'm not a parent, but if I ever have kids I'm going to teach them NOT to vote. Voting for "lesser evils" and endorsing people to have power over us is coming to a disaster. Don't endorse any of the fools who run for power over you. None of them deserve it.

Teach your kids that an aggressive act is wrong and that consistent thought holds that if murder is wrong, then gov't can't do it and call it war.

If stealing is wrong, then gov't can't do it and call it taxation.

And, people have the right to destroy themselves with guns, drugs etc. Having the gov't destroy people because other people are afraid of them is wrong. A bad ACT deserves punishment. An act that could lead to a bad act is not a crime. It is an insecurity. I was a cop and a soldier. Most of my arrests involved people who never harmed people or property. I attacked freedom and I'm ashamed of it. But, a lot of fools were scared senseless of the brown people, so like an idiot, I went so other pathetic human beings could feel secure and powerful from the comfort of their living rooms.

Tell your kids to be someone who doesn't need a truncheon/firearm/gov't paycheck to live. It would be shameful. And, teach them NOT to endorse power mongers by voting.

Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-22 6:54:22 PM


Veteran,

"Everything the gov't makes illegal is bad for us. Gov't knows best. If people are better off getting loaded onto trains for re-location, then we should trust that they know what they're doing. They have our best interests in mind. "

You mean like banning indoor cigarette smoking in public places, 3 wheeled ATVs, lawn jarts, speech that offends the overly-sensitive (read...whomever you wish), private medical practice, pitbulls, those who refuse to wear seatbelts or motorcycle helmets.

etc., etc., etc.

Are any of these on your list?

How about laws against hiring scab workers?

Forcing a smoke detector on every floor?

CPP, EI, etc.?


Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-02-22 6:55:12 PM


It's good to have you back, Waterdog.

Veteran uses a lot of universal absolute adverbs in his postulations.

Keep it simple.
Veteran doesn't understand irony or sarcasm or get it when he is mocked.

Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-22 7:02:39 PM


Is marijuana, "cannabis sativa hemp", legal in Canada? That is yet to be officially recognized or accepted, but is certainly possible.

There are many legal cases from recent years (and months) to suggest that the laws against cannabis are of no force and effect. One only has to visit www.ThePotLawHasFallen.ca to see the collection of court decisions that have led many to believe cannabis is, indeed, legal in Canada.

In my opinion, the extradition cannot proceed until a Canadian review court makes a final determination on the legality of cannabis, and that is yet to happen.

Posted by: Jodie Emery | 2008-02-22 9:33:25 PM


Canada is a signatory of the United Nations Single Convention Treaty on Narcotics.
http://www.incb.org/incb/convention_1961.html

This Treaty is what is being observed with the extradition of people like Marc Emery.

The Treaty cannot be amended, superseded, or rescinded unless all 108 original signers agree to do so unanimously.

Believe it or not, this Treaty is how the United States keeps the governments of the Western world from unilaterally legalizing marijuana within their own nation.

Believe it or not, this Treaty overrides court precedent and even domestic law in the nations which are signatories, where domestic law conflicts with this Treaty.

Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-22 9:55:01 PM


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe a country's Constitution can override UN Treaties; so if the prohibition of cannabis is found to be unconstitutional, are we still bound by the UN Single Convention Treaty on Narcotics?

Also, I believe any country can leave UN treaty agreements with one year notice; however, the repercussions of upsetting the UN (which is, for all intents and purposes, controlled by the USA) are severe.

Posted by: Jodie Emery | 2008-02-22 10:33:58 PM


Lunatic,
>>I must say I don't understand the idea that Canada should violate its commitment under a binding treaty just because Parliament is too lazy to amend Canadian laws to match Canadian practice.

Really? I think having to deal with the consequences of breaking a treaty would be quite fitting punishment for parliamentarians who, for once in their overpaid lives, have a job to do and won't do it.

Certainly an innocent man shouldn't suffer for it in their place.

Posted by: Janet | 2008-02-22 10:55:07 PM


Peter/Conrad-USA:

How does a magazine go about being philosophically homosexual? Does it consist of being absolutely fabulous 24/7? Because if that's the case, then I think the WS might be guilty.

;)

Posted by: Janet | 2008-02-22 11:01:31 PM


If we had signed a treaty with the UN or anyone else proclaiming we shouldn't use a toaster to cook waffles, I'd say we should break it. If we had signed a treaty saying we wouldn't provide sanctuary to escaped slaves, I'd say we should break it. The first is unenforceable, the second is unjust - and the prohibition of marijuana (and all drugs) is both.

Posted by: Janet | 2008-02-22 11:18:26 PM


.. nice biography of the prince of Pot.. I hope his parole board are as impressed in 2013..

in the meantime, we feel real sorry for the guys who end up sharing Marc Emery's jail cell for the next five years.

Imagine listening to this wipehead manifesto day and night for years on end.. O U C H !

really, has his majesty - ever - talked about any other subject other than his drugged up struggle to become a slum hero ?

Posted by: XXkevinheaven | 2008-02-22 11:55:43 PM


Janet, Jodie,
I was just reading the Treaty and this section says
Article 36
b)
iv) Extradition shall be granted in conformity with the law of the Party to which
application is made, and, notwithstanding subparagraphs b) i), ii) and iii) of this
paragraph, the Party, shall have the right to refuse to grant the extradition in
cases where the competent authorities consider that the offence is not
sufficiently serious.

So the Canadian government really does have leaway, if they have the will!

However:
Resolution III
SOCIAL CONDITIONS AND PROTECTION AGAINST DRUG ADDICTION
The Conference,
Recalling that the Preamble to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, states that the
Parties to the Convention are "concerned with the health and welfare of mankind" and are
"conscious of their duty to prevent and combat" the evil of drug addiction,
Considering that the discussions at the Conference have given evidence of the desire to take
effective steps to prevent drug addiction,
Considering that, while drug addiction leads to personal degradation and social disruption, it
happens very often that the deplorable social and economic conditions in which certain
individuals and certain groups are living predispose them to drug addiction,
Recognizing that social factors have a certain and sometimes preponderant influence on the
behaviour of individuals and groups,
Recommends that the Parties:

1. Should bear in mind that drug addiction is often the result of an unwholesome social
atmosphere in which those who are most exposed to the danger of drug abuse live;

2. Should do everything in their power to combat the spread of the illicit use of drugs;


Doing everything in their power to combat the SPREAD of the illicit use of drugs isn't really what the Canadian government has been doing in the case of Marc Emery as Resolution III outlines they should have been doing.

The Treaty does provide for being denounced if the denunciation is given in writing, but the Party's obligations after denouncing the Treaty in writing aren't ended until the following January AFTER the Party denounces the Treaty.

I don't think it would be politically wise for a minority government to denounce a UN Treaty it has with 107 other nations when an election could be called any day and Canada's Treaty obligations would be in force until January 2009 even if the Harper minority government had any intention of doing so, which it probably doesn't.

I do sympathise with Mr. Emery and I do think marijuana should be legalized and should never have been prohibited in the first place.

Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-23 12:03:32 AM


>>really, has his majesty - ever - talked about any other subject other than his drugged up struggle to become a slum hero ?

I imagine that when Marc was fighting other authoritarian government laws like Sunday shopping bans and censorship laws, he probably talked about them. In fact, he still talks about them!

If only there was some way you could have known about those fights for freedom! Someone should really post some YouTube videos somewhere easily accessible so that you could check them out.

Posted by: Janet | 2008-02-23 9:08:18 AM


One individual with children responded to my challenge regarding legal marajuana advocacy and she (Dawn) explained that she is presently making valiant efforts to end her use of the drug (yet she persists in the legalization advocacy mode). It seems that Dawn has unusual capabilities including uncommon courage. The drug use aspect of her experience really saddens me, and it seems she recognizes difficulties related to it.

Speller provided text of international Treaty containing statements of seeming conventional wisdom regarding the generalized danger to populations at risk and society as a whole regarding drug use.

Mr. Jaworski asks for arguments against legalization of such drugs. I think the cautionary U.N. Treaty language was not developed without a depth and breadth of actual experience across many nations and cultures. Seldom do I defer to the United Nations (in spite of the notion expressed somewhere above that the USA "controls" it ???), but the Treaty language and the testimony by Dawn regarding addictive and other adverse results for both the user and for those within her household seem quite potent and persuasive.

If none of the intoxication experience that Dawn described ever occurred there would seem to be zero adverse result and potentially a great deal of additional positive contribution by her and those associated with her.

The arguments advocating legalizing intoxicating drugs (even to say nothing of addiction) have no merit. Rather than specifically discuss the unhappiness associated with such drug use, the Treaty language on this point says it all.

And to differentiate illegal intoxicating drugs from alcohol (which also has that potential), it MUST be noted that alcoholic beverages have a broad continuum or range of acceptable-joyful even beneficial use without ever entering the dangerous range of intoxication or impairment. That same thing cannot be said about illegal drugs, marajuana, etc. which only exist-function for the purpose of intoxication.

I don't want anyone I care about put into the danger of acting without conscious control of their senses (and I can easy develop that small level of concern for anyone on earth).

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2008-02-23 9:31:17 AM


>>I imagine that when Marc was fighting other authoritarian government laws like Sunday shopping bans and censorship laws>> quote Janet

Emery was in the general mercantile dogpile to free up Sunday shopping with Toronto shop keepers esp. Furrier Paul Magdar - and as for censorship.. Emery was in the dogpile with many others in Canada, writers, broadcasters.publishers bookstore owners.... however.. his majesty is the only one who gives a daily self congratulatory speech about his role in stale dated struggles from 30 years ago- everybody else went on to something else, like " A LIFE"

and what came of these titanic retro struggles ? we can wave our credit cards on the Lords day and look at images of skin and listen to swearing.. His majesty ran a bookstore 3 decades ago and both Sunday shopping and cernsorship impacted on his bread & butter .. uh, I mean, uh.. his noble soul was stirred for the common good of oppressed retail shoppers in this fair land..

......................woopie fricking doo..

now the battle is to elevate the global status of poisonous plants that the world went to some trouble to keep _away from people.... and celebrate systematic poisoning of somebodies central nervous system.. mainly the Princes' CNS-pretty much like Sunday shopping and progressive porn issues


None if this is Nobel Prize material - none of this is social sainthood fodder-none of this a VIP pass into history ..
......................curious? yes- valuable? no

His majesty is just another carpet salesman trying to talk us into three rooms of wall to wall purple shag he has a warehouse full of and then stick us with installation and unseen, unneeded shoddy underpadding..

WE WILL NOT BE UNDERSOLD ! DON'T PAY TILL 2013

Posted by: XXkevinheaven | 2008-02-23 10:18:47 AM


Conrad-USA:

You're retarded if you think you can distinguish between marijuana and alcohol on this basis: "alcoholic beverages have a broad continuum or range of acceptable-joyful even beneficial use without ever entering the dangerous range of intoxication or impairment. That same thing cannot be said about illegal drugs, marajuana, etc. which only exist-function for the purpose of intoxication."

Do you even know what alcohol and marijuana are? Visit your local library.

Posted by: Dave2 | 2008-02-23 11:14:28 AM


BTW good Janet:>> " Someone should really post some YouTube videos somewhere easily accessible so that you could check them out."<<<

I am well aware of the many Emery propaganda YouTube clips
I have viewed several, and made comments on some of them- after which Jody &/or his Majesty quickly removed these comments and then blocked me from further commenting action and censored and blocked any body else who did not fully embrace the celebration of his majesty, mark Emery- the self proclaimed prince of Pots' inheirant wonderfullness...

You could ask the roral couple yourself to confirm this- no other Youtube site comments area is as routinely censored as the clips these champions of free Speech have posted. The Youtube series the recent CBC interviews with his majesty about his views and fate have been pulled down because there were just too many unbelieving comments. The Emery camp will likely repost these clips on POT TV where their full strength firewall can be maintained, where no discenting comments ever get past their considerable censor filter.. We have the emails to prove it- plus we were watching ourselves here during the final days of the Prince and saw this chainsaw censor action launch with our opwn eyes. Afterwhich we laughed immoderately

You see dear Janet, not all of us, heck not even most of us, in fact the greater majority of your fellow Canadians do not believe in Marc Emerys vison of a continental Doptetopia.

Marc Emery is the only International Drug Lord we know of who has a website.. the rest of them tend to be a little more subtle.

Posted by: xxkevinheaven | 2008-02-23 1:08:33 PM


Conrad,

I think you have misunderstood some parts of my post. If you reread it again, you can clearly see that alcohol has done far more damage to my children then the pot did. In fact, a regular reading in the 12 step group I attend explains "alcohol IS a drug and we cannot afford to be confused about this. We abstain from ALL drugs" (and that means prescription drugs too unless surgery or manic/depression, schizophrenia etc)

My children were nearly killed, experienced a broken family and did watch their mom be abused because a member of their family was under the influence of legal alcohol. When we left the alcoholic, my boys experienced watching their mom excel in school and work, maintain her health AND keep a pulse on them. WE bought our first brand new car and our own home, all while mom was on pot and dad still couldn't keep a job/pay child support.

I don't buy your statement that "alcoholic beverages have a broad continuum or range of acceptable-joyful even beneficial use without ever entering the dangerous range of intoxication or impairment"... I've seen the full spectrum of that "broad continuum" first hand, thank you.

Also, LOOOOONNNNNGGGGG before this marijuana prohibition, pot was used as a pain medication, ointment and to treat many ailments of the body and parts of the world still use it. Hemp oil was used regularily as anointing oils in many different religious organizations. If cancer patients and people with MS didn't experience any medical benefits from using it, they wouldn't be fighting SOOOOOO hard to get it legalized at least for the purpose as medicine (and think about the hours they put into their efforts while SICK). Marijuana does NOT exist soley for the purpose of intoxication. For me, I did self-medicate. I think my liver is grateful I stayed off the prozac/zoloft. I believe that wholeheartedly.

I also mentioned above that I'm far more worried for my boys to be around alcohol, crystal meth, crack and unprotected sex than to be around pot. And yet I abstain from pot after about 30 years of use. That should tell you something?

But I don't push the alcohol prohibition thing, because we all see how that went down, huh? Men (and women) still got drunk, women/children (and men) got beat and the bootleggers/mafia got rich.

The lesser of two evils: marijuana. The one that has the most medical benefits without fear of addiction if prescribed properly: marijuana. The one that that has the potential to cleanse the liver (with other ingredients such as dandelion root) if eaten rather than smoked: marijuana.

But Conrad, I also want to thank you for recognizing the courage it took to tell my story on this blog. And I tell my story because I think it makes a strong case for the advocacy of marijuana legalization AT LEAST as medicine... but hell, I know lots of people that smoke pot socially and don't need to smoke it daily (like I did) and I do know a few people that drink socially, so the problem is NOT the drugs (alcohol IS a drug and quite a bit more serious a drug when addictive behaviour is present), the problem is how some people deal (or NOT deal) with life on life's terms.

It is the unknown that we fear the most. I wonder if you've ever smoked a joint? Go ahead, smoke 20 joints!! I guarantee you will not argue with your wife or want to hit your kids. They might wonder what you are giggling about. You might have a bit of a "pot hangover" the next day (extreme thirst and a little foggy headed for an hour or so after waking), but that is NOTHING compared to an alcholol hangover many experience after 20 beers. And after 20 joints in one sitting, I can guarantee you you will NOT be addicted, but you might be tempted to try ONE joint with your wife next time!

Posted by: Dawn | 2008-02-23 10:45:07 PM


The petro chemical and pharmacuticl industrial complex's backed by the guns of the military industrial complex made hemp/marrijuna illigal because they cannot patent a plant hence no profit. Also the plant is the most diverse natural resource in the world and legialization would affect every established industry in the world at some level in a negative way to there bottom line. $$$$$
The side effects of marijuana use is health and happiness. We live in a sad world of manipulated living in fear sheep dumbed down by educational systems and the military industrial complex/international bankers controlled media.
Giving up freedom in the name of freedom gets neither!

Posted by: Dan | 2008-02-24 11:34:36 AM


I noticed conrad mentioned that alcohol consumption may have some beneficial effects. I'm glad he brought this up, because I'd like the opportunity to shoot holes in this notion.

I've seen some recent studies claiming red wine can help prevent heart disease. There seems to be no end to the anecdotal evidence of people living longer because of moderate alcohol consumption. I'm calling bullshit on all of these claims. I'd be willing to bet a weeks pay($50) that these studies were promoted by the liquor industry.

I've yet to see a red wine drinker who didn't die a pathetic, puke breath, tongue tied loser before age 70. You can bet the authors of these studies have an extensive wine collection. It makes it more likely to find positive results when you go out of your way to disregard the negatives.

Posted by: dp | 2008-02-24 11:56:43 AM


Dawn -

Much of my thinking is based on reasonable and sound religious instruction which I got as a little kid because of just some unusual turns of events in my life. Those many notions and teachings proved enduringly sound when I often had no other guidance.

One of the basics was the notion of enduring sacred Marriage. My wife and I could easily (or almost) got divorced on every single day of our very long (faithful - and she was an absolute beauty queen winner in one of America's world famous "pageants") marriage. NOT a bowl of cherries but productive none the less and in many ways (all the easily visible ones and probably in some deeper, more spiritual ways too).

I read your comments with my own mind stuck on the unfortunate fact of the divorce. Granted, I appreciate the horrible horrible impact of drunkeness. I know how horrible and impossible that is. It was that aspect alone of your story which saddened me.

Again, my religious notions, gained from some good fortune amidst some sad circumstances guides my thinking, and is perhaps somewhat naive.

God gives the heavy burdens to those with broad shoulders. In which case I must be one of those thalidamyde babies, and you, well you're one of those broad shouldered Canadians who I always knew and grew up with when I lived around Detroit, Michigan.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2008-02-24 12:17:03 PM


dp,

The study or studies on red wine are quite old (since the 1980s) and well established.

What prompted these studies was a comparison between the diets of French people, who smoke, drink alcohol, and eat a lot of fried foods, butter, cream, and cheese, and the diets of people like the Southern Baptists in the Bible Belt of America who also eat a lot of fried foods, butter, cream, and cheese, but smoke less and drink little alcohol.

It was noticed that the French where much healthier, fitter, and longer lived with a significantly lower incidence of heart disease, heart attack and stroke than these American Southern Baptists.

Through unbiased study the conclusion was indeed to be found in the moderate drinking of red wine mixed with or along with water at meals.

The tannin in the red wine was found to bind with the saturated fats and carried them out of the human body.

Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-24 1:23:56 PM


speller

What about the fact that France has the highest incidence of alcoholism in the world? Statistics show that the French suffer from a very high rate of alcohol related disease and death.

I'll take my chances with the saturated fats, thank you.

Posted by: dp | 2008-02-24 1:35:54 PM



I don't mean to go on and on about temperance, but.

http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm

Posted by: dp | 2008-02-24 1:49:41 PM


Dawn -

You mused, "I wonder if you have ever smoked a joint?" To which I responded with insights from my religious experience (which you did not inquire about).

Perhaps I "forgot" about one of the many (of a type) blessings which I've experienced in life that I credit to God with protecting me.

Yes, I smoked a joint, it must have been a bunch of them, because I can picture myself crystal clearly all these years later, hunched down on my knees and elbows on the floor in the center of a big college fraternity party, barfing my guts out and wretching for seeming hours over and into a dog bowl. I got real "high" (and obviously quite low) in that experience. For some reason I didn't get into the marajuana habit. Maybe that's why they didn't draft me into that (cool guys) Fraternity? Who knows? ; - )

I've done most every dumb thing possible and escaped with my life or whatever else was at risk still intact. As ashamed and embarrassed as I am of such an event, it's hardly the worst example from my portfolio.

You were so brave and kind in discussing difficult things, that even as weak and guarded as I am, I couldn't persist in the fraud of a view from some higher plain.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2008-02-24 2:16:11 PM


>"What about the fact that France has the highest incidence of alcoholism in the world? Statistics show that the French suffer from a very high rate of alcohol related disease and death.
dp | 24-Feb-08 1:35:54 PM

Well, dp, alcohol abuse doesn't nullify the advantage of moderate use of about 3oz. of red wine with a meal chock full of yummy saturated fats.

On another note, Thank you, dp, for setting me straight on alcoholism in France.
(I thought Russia had the highest rate of alcohol abuse)

Of course another plus to French alcohol usage is that there might be resistance on that basis to the establishment of Sharia and the Caliphate in France.

Some clouds have silver linings.
8oP

Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-24 3:33:59 PM


I guess I could drink to that.

Posted by: dp | 2008-02-24 3:49:43 PM


Keep it going....Just say grow!

Posted by: Acebass | 2008-02-24 4:45:11 PM


http://ezralevant.com/2008/02/your-human-right-to-smoke-pot.html

Ezra Levant and Marc Emery

I love it when libertarian and conservatives find agreement. We need freedom-loving people to unite against big government.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-02-24 5:57:31 PM


Conrad,

Thanks so much for sharing so kindly/gently. I can only imagine with your religious background, alcohol abuse is frowned upon and temperance encouraged.

There's LOTS of scary things that our children have to deal with that we didn't have to. When I was in school, there was not gunmen, knife fights, crystal meth/ecstacy. Your car may have gotten stolen, but your children didn't!!

For me, the bottom line is the government obviously has not helped control these things, so why this expensive "war on drugs" ESPECIALLY "the war on pot" when we can see clearly who is winning and who is losing.

It is in the home that we must teach our children both through our behaviour and constant repitition (almost akin to brainwashing). The government can't help, and frankly, it can't afford to help!

People do what people do. Prohibition doesn't work, and I can only think that pot is so harmless compared to other "controlled substances" as I'm grateful for my well being compared to other addicts who were on other drugs (alcohol being another drug) for as many years who's brains may never recover (including some "wet brains"). I hear the adage that "pot is a gateway drug to harder substances" and that might well be true for an already addictive personality (although this didn't happen to me personally). In my 12 step program, alcohol is the gateway drug for many addicts who view alcohol separately from other drugs.

I'm glad you have a Higher Power you rely so heavily on. I'm just beginning to understand mine as a loving, accepting and forgiving God. It is because of this healing that I abstain from marijuana, NOT because it is considered an illegal substance. Again, I believe prohibition must come from within, not from mandated laws that make tax payers into criminals because they are carrying an 1/8 of weed to a friendly barbeque.

For such a reasonable man, I can only assume that you would either agree that they prohibit alcohol AND marijuana, or that they legalize, control and tax the hell out of both.

Thanks so much for your understanding, Conrad :)

Posted by: Dawn | 2008-02-25 9:35:00 AM


dawn and conrad up a tree
K.I.S.S.I.N.G.

Posted by: dp | 2008-02-25 10:03:42 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.