The Shotgun Blog
« The future of the Western Standard | Main | Don’t miss the Freedom Fair! »
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Marijuana legalization: a personal statement from Canada’s 'Prince of Pot'
They’ve saved the best (or at least the most controversial) for last.
The Libertarian Party of Canada announced today that Marc Emery will be speaking from 4:15 PM – 5:00 PM at the non-partisan Freedom Fair in Edmonton on Saturday, May 17th.
Marc Emery is a successful entrepreneur based in Vancouver, British Columbia. He’s also an outspoken libertarian, an activist for the legalization of cannabis and the bane of law enforcement in Canada and US. Emery, also known as the Prince of Pot, has earned millions over the years in his many pot-related ventures, including his website, www.emeryseeds.com, which sold 350 varieties of marijuana seeds before being shut down by the US DEA; his magazine, Cannabis Culture; his online Pot TV network and the BC Marijuana Party Bookstore in downtown Vancouver. Emery has been featured by CNN, ABC, Rolling Stone, Time, The Wall Street Journal, The National Post, The Globe and Mail, The Vancouver Sun and the Toronto Star. He currently faces extradition to the US on charges related to selling marijuana seeds.
Over the years, the Western Standard has covered Emery’s crusade to legalize marijuana. Here’s a sample:
The grass isn't always greener -- Andrea Mrozek, September 5, 2005
Question Period: Marc Emery -- Andrea Mrozek, September 5, 2005
One cheer for the boot heel -- Pierre Lemieux, September 19, 2005
The three witches -- Pierre Lemieux - February 13, 2006
You're not going that easy -- Kevin Steel, August 28, 2006
Question Period: Todd Greenberg -- William Hopper, January 16, 2008
Seeding Sovereignty -- William Hopper, January 16, 2008
Taking Liberties -- Jan Narveson, January 22, 2008
If that’s not enough for you, we’ve got two columns by Emery:
The triumph of ideas -- Marc Emery, April 4, 2008
On my vasectomy and my girlfriend's 2nd trimester abortion -- Marc Emery, April 10, 2008
Here are the details for the Freedom Fair:
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Holiday Inn Express
10010 – 104 Street
11:00 AM – 5:00 PM
Email Mike Sturko at [email protected] to reserve your seat at this presentation.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on May 13, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e55223a2188833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Marijuana legalization: a personal statement from Canada’s 'Prince of Pot':
Comments
Mathew
Did you intend to post Price of Pot or Prince of Pot? One is a result of the function of the market and the other is Marc.
Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-05-13 10:30:04 PM
Well over 50 years of fighting this "evil" weed and nothing to show for it.Think of the taxes that might have been collected. Pity that so many people know what is good for everyone else and will do anything to impose their views. Sell it and tax it. Resistance is futile.
Posted by: peterj | 2008-05-13 10:52:35 PM
Good catch, John. Thanks.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-05-13 11:02:25 PM
peterj,
The same people who want it legalized would be against taxing it, just as they are against taxing everything.
Libertarians like to use the word "levy" instead of taxes because is sounds so much more insidious.
Most people would grow their own and give it to their friends, trading it like people trade jars of jam or cuttings from especially nice plants.
No taxes to be had there, peterj.
On the other hand a lot of taxes would be saved by foregoing having to police the Blunt as well as saving court costs and the cost of incarceration.
But the other hand to that hand shows that the police would get less booty from seizing assets.
I guess they could make it up with more photo radar.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-05-14 6:56:50 AM
The man's tireless self-promotion and his limitless self-regard are both big warning flags. History teaches us that bombastic messiahs (as opposed to the humility of the Genuine Article) are usually bad news. In fifty years you'll probably find Marc Emery sharing book space with Walter Freeman, Nikola Tesla, Carl Sagan, Wilhelm Reich, David Suzuki, and Franz Joseph Gall.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-14 7:40:23 AM
If resistance is futile, Peter J., doesn't that negate the Left's entire reason for existence?
Marijuana was outlawed for the same reasons that tobacco has become all but outlawed--it causes health problems that for the most part outweigh any residual medicinal properties. It is not so integral a part of Western life and culture as alcohol (which can be consumed in harmless moderation) and was easily dispensed with, and hardly anyone protested at the time.
No one thought to even try it until more than twenty years later, and then only as a symbol of defiance and rebellion. The only reason anyone is even considering legalizing it today is because we have a bunch of boomer judges and politicians gazing wistfully at their halcyon days of the Psychedelic Sixties. Of course, today's B.C. Bud is a far cry from their Woodstock Weed, but if ever there was a ROM generation (as in Read-Only Memory), the boomers are it.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-14 7:56:14 AM
Shane, whether or not health problems outweigh the benefits does not make any difference. Why not outlaw French Fries since the only benefit seems to be taste. The health problem far outweigh the benefits.
One of the best ways to protect your own freedom is to defend the freedoms of other that you don't agree with or don't even like.
Posted by: TM | 2008-05-14 8:38:35 AM
"Marijuana was outlawed for the same reasons that tobacco has become all but outlawed--it causes health problems that for the most part outweigh any residual medicinal properties."
Shane Matthews | 14-May-08 7:56:14 AM
Not true at all.
The doctors of the day had no problem at all with marijuana.
The outlawing of marijuana had to do with Eugenics, racism, and industrial competition with few exceptions.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-05-14 9:10:04 AM
If marijuana is legalized, it will be motivated exclisively for taxation reasons, not because of some new found respect for freedom.
Posted by: TM | 2008-05-14 11:02:50 AM
Oh, Speller, your one-person crusade against the libertarians (or Libertarians, who knows?) needs a fact check. The overwhelming majority of libertarians view legalizing + taxing as a better alternative to not legalizing. Of course, libertarians oppose taxation, but you're again taking a minority and making it out to be the majority.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-05-14 11:10:42 AM
>"legalizing + taxing as a better alternative to not legalizing"
Yeah, and the sky is blue.
So libertarians are smart enough to progress by increments on this particular issue.
Who knew?
>"Of course, libertarians oppose taxation, but you're again taking a minority and making it out to be the majority."
If you're referring to the first statement of yours I quoted, Jaws, it isn't surprising that it could be true, as a first step.
But ask if libertarians oppose sin taxes in general and what do you get?
Posted by: Speller | 2008-05-14 12:21:45 PM
Shane, have read many of your posts and know that you are intelligent, sometimes long winded,but intelligent. Therefore surprised to see you give the green light to alcohol in moderation but the red light to marijuana and tobacco in moderation. Can only conclude that many years of activist brainwashing has had the desired affect on you.
Posted by: peterj | 2008-05-14 6:20:16 PM
You're right, Speller, libertarians are opposed to sin taxes. But if the choice is between legal pot + sin taxes, or no legal pot, then I don't know very many libertarians who wouldn't choose the former.
As a gentle suggestion, the principle of charity dictates that you argue against the very best arguments of a particular position, rather than the worst. It is easy to debunk crazy libertarians, just as it is easy to debunk crazy conservatives. What's difficult--a challenge!--is debating against the views of people like Milton Friedman, F.A. Hayek, the scholars at the Cato Institute, and Michael Walker from Fraser. These are the libertarians you should be arguing with, Speller. Not the nuts.
Posted by: Peter Jaworski | 2008-05-15 1:12:41 PM
PJ, well said.
Posted by: TM | 2008-05-15 4:34:13 PM
TM wrote: “Shane, whether or not health problems outweigh the benefits does not make any difference. Why not outlaw French Fries since the only benefit seems to be taste. The health problem far outweigh the benefits.”
Because it is possible to eat a lot of French fries and still be a contributing member of society. The same with alcohol. Even tobacco qualifies. Abusing any of these substances can bring long-term health consequences, but that’s not the same as a psychoactive hallucinogen that can do a surprising amount of damage to your brain in surprisingly small quantities. Dope smokers are not noted for their usefulness.
TM wrote: “One of the best ways to protect your own freedom is to defend the freedoms of other that you don't agree with or don't even like.”
Defending someone’s freedom to vote, enter a profession for which he or she is qualified, or raise a family in peace is on quite another level than defending someone’s freedom to get stoned, TM. Why don’t I defend their right to snort cocaine off a six-year-old’s tits while I’m at it?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-15 11:20:54 PM
Actually, Speller, it was doctors who advised that marijuana be removed from the list of approved pharmaceuticals in 1942, several years after the infamous Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. The grounds cited included its addictive qualities and side effects such as anxiety, sleeplessness, paranoia, and altered time perception.
As for the conspiracy-theory nonsense that DuPont killed the hemp industry in the U.S., don’t make me laugh. By 1937, the amount of hemp grown in the U.S. amounted to a grand total of two square miles. It was cheaper to bring it in from the Philippines than to produce it locally. And nylon is superior to hemp in so many ways—stronger, rot-proof, abrasion-resistant—that DuPont really had nothing to worry about.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-15 11:27:52 PM
EBT wrote: “By the way, the difference between today's weed and sixties weed, to the extent there is a difference, is that today's weed is much stronger. Which means you smoke much less of it to get high. Which means you do your body much less harm.”
Pretty flimsy logic there, EBT. A joint is a joint is a joint. And even if it weren’t, drinking one litre of a 1% solution gives you the same amount of product as drinking 100 ml of a 10% solution. Either way, you’re getting at least the same amount of weed. Next you’ll be saying that crack won’t be as much of a problem if only we make it stronger.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-15 11:31:25 PM
PeterJ wrote: “Shane, have read many of your posts and know that you are intelligent, sometimes long winded,but intelligent. Therefore surprised to see you give the green light to alcohol in moderation but the red light to marijuana and tobacco in moderation. Can only conclude that many years of activist brainwashing has had the desired affect on you.”
Actually, it has more to do with the fact that alcohol and tobacco, in moderation, don’t pickle your brain or even alter your mood very much. I don’t have any more respect for a drunk than I do for a dopehead. You can safely function while smoking tobacco. You can safely function after one or two drinks. You can’t safely function after a joint, or even a portion thereof. Accordingly, I give the green light to tobacco in moderation—you are mistaken when you said I gave it the “red light.” And I’m mad as hell at the self-righteous jihad the yuppies have waged against tobacco smokers, even though I don't smoke myself.
These same urbanites, though, if told the cigarette is really a joint, will most often apologize, tip the smoker a conspiratorial wink, and say no more. I think perhaps you are looking for brainwashing in the wrong place.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-15 11:37:19 PM
>"And I’m mad as hell at the self-righteous jihad the yuppies have waged against tobacco smokers, even though I don't smoke myself."
Shane Matthews | 15-May-08 11:37:19 PM
I've never heard Seventh Day Adventists called yuppies before.
Jihad is the proper term for what they are doing though.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-05-16 10:22:57 AM
>"Actually, Speller, it was doctors who advised that marijuana be removed from the list of approved pharmaceuticals in 1942, several years after the infamous Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. The grounds cited included its addictive qualities and side effects such as anxiety, sleeplessness, paranoia, and altered time perception."
Shane Matthews | 15-May-08 11:27:52 PM
That would be 5 years later, after an artificial stigma had been imposed on marijuana and when America was at War.
I would like you to provide a link, please, Shane.
Testimony before the U.S. Congress in order to impose the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937:
"Dr. Woodward was both a lawyer and a doctor and he was Chief Counsel to the American Medical Association. Dr. Woodward came to testify at the behest of the American Medical Association saying, and I quote, "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug."
Response from a Democrat Congressman:
"Doctor, if you can't say something good about what we are trying to do, why don't you go home?"
The entire debate on the national marijuana prohibition was as follows -- and, by the way, if you had grown up in Washington, DC as I had you would appreciate this date. Are you ready? The bill was brought on to the floor of the House of Representatives -- there never was any Senate debate on it not one word -- 5:45 Friday afternoon, August 20. Now, in pre-air-conditioning Washington, who was on the floor of the House? Who was on the floor of the House? Not very many people.
Speaker Sam Rayburn called for the bill to be passed on "tellers". Does everyone know "tellers"? Did you know that for the vast bulk of legislation in this country, there is not a recorded vote. It is simply, more people walk past this point than walk past that point and it passes -- it's called "tellers". They were getting ready to pass this thing on tellers without discussion and without a recorded vote when one of the few Republicans left in Congress, a guy from upstate New York, stood up and asked two questions, which constituted the entire debate on the national marijuana prohibition.
"Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?"
To which Speaker Rayburn replied, "I don't know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it's a narcotic of some kind."
Undaunted, the guy from Upstate New York asked a second question, which was as important to the Republicans as it was unimportant to the Democrats. "Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?"
In one of the most remarkable things I have ever found in any research, a guy who was on the committee, and who later went on to become a Supreme Court Justice, stood up and -- do you remember? The AMA guy was named William C. Woodward -- a member of the committee who had supported the bill leaped to his feet and he said, "Their Doctor Wentworth came down here. They support this bill 100 percent." It wasn't true, but it was good enough for the Republicans. They sat down and the bill passed on tellers, without a recorded vote.
In the Senate there never was any debate or a recorded vote, and the bill went to President Roosevelt's desk and he signed it and we had the national marijuana prohibition.
FROM>
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm
That is where the stigma came from, the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act.
Prohibition first, followed by stigma, followed by bias and endless propaganda to justify the political status quo.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-05-16 11:18:58 AM
So what you're saying, Speller, is that politicians lie, resort to expedients, and sometimes pass laws without expert advice. Well, thanks for clearing that up. However, marijuana was already against the law in several states before the Federal act was passed, so there is a good deal more to its legal history than your bum's-rush, ad-hoc, Friday-at-Five-Forty-Five retelling of the episode. With the passage of this act marijuana was still legal for medicinal use. Of course, doctors weren't able to find very many, because there weren't many to be found. Today, that's still true.
Sorry, but your "it was all the stigma caused by lazy politicians on a hot August day" argument doesn't pass the smell test any more than your DuPont conspiracy theory did. Marijuana was, and is, a largely useless substance that messes up your brain chemistry and trashes your lungs in the bargain. And ever since, the people most interested in smoking it have been the type who also don't seat belts, happily drive drunk, and refuse to close covers before striking.
Marijuana is illegal throughout the world except in a few places. In most countries the legal penalties for its production and use are far stricter than Canada's or even America's. It didn't all begin on a sultry Friday afternoon at the behest of a few indigent Congressmen.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-16 12:19:07 PM
Marijuana is illegal throughout the world except in a few places. In most countries the legal penalties for its production and use are far stricter than Canada's or even America's. It didn't all begin on a sultry Friday afternoon at the behest of a few indigent Congressmen.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 16-May-08 12:19:07 PM
Just curious, considering that you seem to think on the one hand that our laws really don't need to be followed if they don't serve "our best interest", yet when it comes to drugs you actually think that the law is right and everybody else who opposes it is wrong?
You can fine someone for driving under the influence or endangering people, but what somebody smokes / shoots / drinks / snorts etc. in his own home is utterly up to him as far as I am concerned. Considering the amount of pot I smell on the street in Canada if it really would be such a bad thing the country would have already broken down by now.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-16 12:36:15 PM
>"Sorry, but your "it was all the stigma caused by lazy politicians on a hot August day" argument doesn't pass the smell test any more than your DuPont conspiracy theory did."
Shane Matthews | 16-May-08 12:19:07 PM
At no time have I ever mentioned DuPont, not today, not ever.
What are you smoking?
There were indeed a number of states that had anti-marijuana laws before the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act but, as anyone can learn from my link above, all of them, with the exception of Utah which created their law not for medical but for religious political motives, were created for reasons of racism and Eugenic philosophy.
None of the individual states who had anti-marijuana laws created them because of medical reasons.
The Federal laws keep the individual states, such as California, from repealing marijuana prohibition today.
That is why I cite the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-05-16 1:26:21 PM
Just say no, kids.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk5I7KuZoYI
Posted by: Angela | 2008-05-16 1:26:39 PM
"By the way, the difference between today's weed and sixties weed, to the extent there is a difference, is that today's weed is much stronger.", says ebt.
Not only that.
Since the 90s, weed have got stonger while the prices are going down.
Onzes of weed (close to perfection) can now be found for something around 120-130$. When I was a kid, onzes where around 180-200$.
Posted by: Marc | 2008-05-16 2:05:34 PM
Speller: “At no time have I ever mentioned DuPont, not today, not ever. What are you smoking?”
You ought to try this stuff sometime, Speller. It’s called oxygen. And it helps the brain to function. Its absence leads to a marked loss of brain function, such as when you failed to remember that you cited “industrial competition” as one of the reasons hemp was outlawed. DuPont is the most frequently cited culprit. I foolishly assumed someone who could recall the deliberations preceding passage of the Marijuana Tax Act and was otherwise so up on his material would know this.
Speller: “There were indeed a number of states that had anti-marijuana laws before the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act but, as anyone can learn from my link above, all of them, with the exception of Utah which created their law not for medical but for religious political motives, were created for reasons of racism and Eugenic philosophy.”
I’m already familiar with the link you provided. At no point does it mention eugenics, or even suggest it. The birth rate among Latinos has always been high, marijuana or no marijuana, and banning it wasn’t going to change that. Mexicans are, however, an effervescent and highly passionate race, as are most Latinos and Catholics (and I, as an Irish Catholic, get to say that), which would not have gone well down in the staid, stolid southwest. The legislators mistakenly believed that marijuana was responsible for what they saw as lewd and licentious behaviour. It’s a natural enough assumption, considering that alcohol is famous for provoking the same: “Lechery, sir, it provokes and unprovokes. It provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance.”
In the northeast, it was a different matter. Marijuana was outlawed because it was believed that those addicted to hard drugs would turn to the then newly-discovered marijuana as a substitute, which in truth would not have been much of an improvement. Dopers are almost as useless as crack addicts. It’s possible to be productive while addicted to either, but that is the exception, not the rule. Sorry, but your conspiracy theories amount to just that: theories.
Speller: “None of the individual states who had anti-marijuana laws created them because of medical reasons.”
Irrelevant. The people wanted it, and for the most part still do. No rights are trampled in the process. You do NOT have a Constitutionally protected right to get stoned. I looked—it is most definitely not in there. Either in the main body or in the amendments.
Speller: “The Federal laws keep the individual states, such as California, from repealing marijuana prohibition today. That is why I cite the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act.”
And I have yet to see a convincing case for why we should repeal them.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-16 2:27:39 PM
How old are you Marc? I took you for someone a bit older. When I was a kid an ounce of pot was $25. By the "lid" about $20. Of course it didn't last long because it wasn't usually very potent.
It's a misconception that all pot was less potent in the old days. There's always been high quality stuff available, just not in most Canadian cities. If you were lucky enough to stumble onto some southeast Asian stuff, or some of the better Mexican product, it was like night and day. Hawaiian stuff was very close to today's standards in the 70's.
I don't know when things changed, but when I was still in the know hash much more desirable than pot. I've often wondered what that stuff was really made from. I know some of the middle east variety used camel dung for a base, and added the condensate to it. Other varieties used compressed pot plants. I never got very far into the technical aspects of production. Then again, I dont have a clue how beer or aspirin are made either.
Posted by: dp | 2008-05-16 9:37:27 PM
DP, the simple explanation is that marijuana is made from the leaves of the hemp plant while hashish is made from the flowers. Hashish is much more potent, but it's essentially the same stuff. The increased potency of marijuana began to erode hash's popularity in the 1980s, especially since the best hash comes from hemp plants grown in hot countries, whereas B.C. Bud grows in temperate climes.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-16 10:44:32 PM
A recent review of the modern Dutch marijuana marketplace by the EU indicates that in spite of decades of a liberal hash cafe system and licensed growers producing for the cafes --more than 60% of the pot grown in Holland is diverted into the black market - and for many years to come.
So if his majesty Marc Emery and his 420 commandos manage to convince the Canadian public that pot prohibition should fall and a fully taxed supply demand/supply system be put inits place- we can look forward to more than half of the pot production forever being diverted into the black market...
Canada is a much larger nation with many more opportunities to generate black market pot than Holland.. It is a fact that Canadians are the most prolific pot consuming people in the Industrialized world - right next door to the USA, which is undeniably the most insatiable market for pot on the planet..
Realistically- if pot was made legal in Canada right now, and a public policy downshift installed because it suits the stoner goal of temporary legitimacy - much more black market pot would enter into circulation than legal taxable pot.
Little or no tax money would reach the public coffers from legal pot in a social climate of black market product preferance. Police efforts to chase down and dismantle black market production would be pretty much the same level as it is right now under prohibition/ the Marijuana Black Market iwill not go away even after decrim or legalization measures kick in.
All this so a minority of stoner lifetsylers can stay intoxicated without fear of proscecution ?
That is collossially unjust to foist this narrow vision of Potopia on the rest of society, &/or to project a drug users eletist mandate into a future they won't be living in.
Its too late to legalize marijuana-that door slammed 20 years ago...not becauise of a mean cruel government , but because of the greedy ways of the criminal underclass..
- The marijuana black market will not fade way if the weed is ever made legal- society will always be fighting against a vast untaxed unregulated pirate production & distribution system... There is just too much money involved for the tens of thousands of pirate pot producers to cease operations .. For far too many of them ,overgrowing the government is the only way they know of making a living...
Thanks to short term social gain advocates like the Prince of Pot who BTW almost single handedly brought the Drug War to Canada, & now seeks to impose his campaigne of normalized drug vice on everybody else.
Snap out of it Canada - soft drug evangalism is knocking on the door .
Posted by: Exhaler | 2008-05-16 11:02:58 PM
dp,
Born in the 70s, I wasn’t informed of marijuana prices until 16 or 17 years old.
I think Matthews is wrong.
When you smoke pot, it’s the flower that you use; while hashish was made out of the sap of the plant. Today’s most common “hash” comes from a method using ice and the leaves.
I also believe that, contrary to what dp says, Mexican stuff worth shit while BC buds and Quebec gold are very appreciated Worldwide. I truly believe that Canada is exporting greater weed than we import.
My point regarding the prices going down while, as stated by ebt, the quality goes up; was to say that market laws operates even for this illegal product. That is to say that Canadian war on this drug, funded with our taxes money, is a joke and that it should be legalised. I also believe this natural plant that grows well in Canada’s climates do miracles to cure depressive people and other problems of that kind.
In short, the real thugs are the pharmaceutical lobbies.
Posted by: Marc | 2008-05-17 7:12:13 AM
I think it's encouraging to see that the lessons of the classic film Reefer Madness were not lost on some people, who have embraced its message and its wealth of scientific knowledge as their own.
If government want to criminalize a plant - and thus place control of its production and distribution in the hands of criminals - then surely that is its right.
Posted by: truewest | 2008-05-17 8:21:34 AM
Marc wrote: “I think Matthews is wrong.”
Only knowledge is important, Marc, so it does not matter what you think. In the information age we’ve conjecture enough.
Marc wrote: “When you smoke pot, it’s the flower that you use; while hashish was made out of the sap of the plant. Today’s most common “hash” comes from a method using ice and the leaves.”
Not according to Wikipedia. In the condensed article at the beginning of the scroll, describes hashish as “Hallucinogenic drug preparation derived from resin from the FLOWERS of hemp plants [emphasis my own]. Marijuana, a product of the same plant, is far less potent. Hashish is smoked or eaten. The active ingredient, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), makes up 10 – 15% of hashish.” By contrast, B.C. Bud has been known to contain up to 35% THC. So hashish is basically obsolete in B.C.
Marc wrote: “I also believe that, contrary to what dp says, Mexican stuff worth shit while BC buds and Quebec gold are very appreciated Worldwide. I truly believe that Canada is exporting greater weed than we import.”
Again, belief is subordinate to knowledge. I am unaware of any “blind taste tests” between Acapulco Gold and B.C. Bud, but I do know that about 90% of the dope that enters the U.S. passes through the Mexican border, not the Canadian one. As for B.C. being a net exporter of marijuana, well, duh.
Marc wrote: “My point regarding the prices going down while, as stated by ebt, the quality goes up; was to say that market laws operates even for this illegal product. That is to say that Canadian war on this drug, funded with our taxes money, is a joke and that it should be legalised.”
The fact that a black market operates like a white market is not grounds for legalizing an illegal product. What do we legalize next? Pimping? Contract murder? Well?
Marc wrote: “I also believe this natural plant that grows well in Canada’s climates do miracles to cure depressive people and other problems of that kind.
I believe you’re an idiot—let’s see believing it makes it come true.
Marc wrote: “In short, the real thugs are the pharmaceutical lobbies.”
This sad, outworn conspiracy theory might have some validity if marijuana had any real medicinal value. All tests have shown conclusively is that it restores appetites in nauseated patients. Tell you what. Talk to every advocate of “medical marijuana” and ask them if they would agree to a cannibinol-9 pill, or a cannibinol-9 inhaler, which provides the same “munchies,” without the high. See how many go for it.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-17 9:05:37 AM
TrueWest, have you ever actually seen the film "Reefer Madness"? How many have? It seems to me that most people are simply judging it on reputation only--a reputation that seems primarily to exist on the Left.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-17 9:06:39 AM
Shane,
Of course I've seen Reefer Madness, although I daresay it didnt resonate with me the way it apparently did with you.
For those who have not seen the light and doubt the wisdom of Shane's warnings, you can see clips aplenty from this important and timely (since 1938) documentary on youtube. It is also available on DVD (but careful there's also a musical version that doesn't include all the high-level scientific information of the original).
Posted by: truewest | 2008-05-17 10:36:33 AM
I think Matthews' parents should have done more in raising him. Now, the facts are maybe that they have done their best; but that didnt prevent this smart ass to became a real asshole.
And since when does the Americans know how to appreciate quality ?
Maybe my perception of things is unimportant; but it's certainly not the word of a smart ass knows nothing wikipedier that will hold me from posting it.
Here's my humble suggestion: try to get laid today.
Posted by: Marc | 2008-05-17 11:24:25 AM
Have you ever seen the FULL film, Truewest? Even ify you have, you shouldn't be directing people to YouTube. Selected sound bites don't count as seeing the whole movie. Do you think a judge could render a proper verdict if he listened to only five percent of the testimony?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-17 12:43:13 PM
Marc wrote: “I think Matthews' parents should have done more in raising him.”
And I think that your lapse into ad hominem attacks, as well as your continued emphasis on what YOU think, what YOU believe, only shows what a moronic, narcissistic, self-indulgent twit you are. Opinions are like assholes—everybody has one. Doesn’t mean they keep them clean.
Marc wrote: “Now, the facts are maybe that they have done their best; but that didnt prevent this smart ass to became a real asshole.”
You call names, but I’m the asshole. Classic narcissistic projection—you project your flaws onto others rather than own up to having them yourself. Pitiful.
Marc wrote: “And since when does the Americans know how to appreciate quality?”
A moron AND a racist. What a rare combination.
Marc wrote: “Maybe my perception of things is unimportant; but it's certainly not the word of a smart ass knows nothing wikipedier that will hold me from posting it.”
I never said you weren’t free to post it. Of course, that also means I’m free to rip it to pieces faster than a shredder on the grounds that you are, and let’s be fair to you, a complete gimp.
Marc wrote: “Here's my humble suggestion: try to get laid today.”
Last night, actually. You see, I have a wife. I’m guessing you don’t—or if you do, that this is not your first. That’s another thing about narcissists—high divorce rates.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-17 12:47:57 PM
My apologies to all of you. Shane has told me -- well, "scolded" might be more accurate -- that I should not direct you folks to youtube because you can't possibly learn anything of the whole of Reefer Madness on the basis of the parts. While my experience of movies (and I expect yours) tells me otherwise, Shane says you've got to watch the whole thing. And Shane, as we have learned by now, always knows best.
So, if you do go to youtube, make sure you download the full 68-minute version of the movie, which is available there. No cheating. And just to be sure you have followed Shane's directions, there will be a short quiz later.
Marc, apparently not getting laid is not the source of the problem. Perhaps it's genetic, although I wouldn't rule out Catholicism as a source of the condition you describe. Kathy Shaidle appears to be suffer the same ailment.
Posted by: truewest | 2008-05-17 2:17:49 PM
Wow.
That's crazy.
Before sending my latest post, I thought to myself: "After that, they gonna run to tell me I've just lost a debate since I've called Mr. Matthews for what he really is".
I thought: "oh well. So be it".
I didn't felt the need to develop my opinion for Mr. Matthews and calling the man for what he his was 10 times more enjoyable, so.
Maybe unintelligent; but oh so enjoyable.
Imagine my surprised when, coming back on this tread, I found out that Mr. Matthews did find a way to lose this exchange all by himself and this, after I've already accepted my fate.
Try to beat that Shotgunners.
Posted by: Marc | 2008-05-17 3:18:52 PM
Again, Marc, you seem to think that just because you say something, makes it so. You just can't get past the fact that you're not omniscient, that the world does not care what you think, choosing to take a simple reminder of this fact as a personal slur.
The fact is that you have descended, without any provocation whatsoever, into a stinking miasma of self-congratulatory mud-slinging. No exchange was ever won thus. Your "facts" were wrong, and when called on that, you jacked off and threw the cum everywhere, then pronounced yourself the winner, even if you did have to use your own left hand to raise your right fist in victory. What a fucking cucumber.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-17 3:50:56 PM
"Marc wrote: “Here's my humble suggestion: try to get laid today.”
Last night, actually. You see, I have a wife."
Shane, I have some advice, you can take it or leave it. This statement requires some self reflection. For your own good, do not let your wife read it. And for the sake of your marriage, never imply that having a wife entitles you to getting laid.
It's only a suggestion, the decision is yours.
Posted by: dp | 2008-05-17 8:08:41 PM
Actually, DP, having a wife DOES entitle me to getting laid. You see, we're Catholic. We're not allowed to deny each other our conjugal rights. She benefits no less than I.
Moreover, I never said having a wife ENTITLED me to getting laid; merely that it provided ample opportunity, so I could stick two fingers up Marc's craw. When a man starts boasting about his sexual prowess or attacking his opponents' supposed lack thereof, in a discussion like this, he's already long past losing.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-17 10:21:13 PM
"You see, we're Catholic. We're not allowed to deny each other our conjugal rights."
I just hope that one was a lame joke.
Posted by: Marc | 2008-05-17 10:31:45 PM
Marc wrote: "I just hope that one was a lame joke."
What you hope does not matter.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-17 11:47:08 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.