Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« WS Radio: Guy Earle interview | Main | Indoctrinate U »

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Face-Off: Marc Emery and Gerry Nicholls debate what the best way to get liberty is

What's the best way to fight for liberty?

That's the question Marc Emery, columnist here at the Western Standard, and Gerry Nicholls, blogger here at the Shotgun, e-debated for us. It's a little taste of the debate that they will have in person at the Liberty Summer Seminar this upcoming weekend in Orono, Ontario (you can still register and attend). You can read the Face-Off debate here: "Face-Off: What's the best way to fight for liberty?"

Gerry is a little bit more staid and conservative than Marc is. Gerry thinks we should join advocacy groups, and support the work of think tanks like the Fraser Institute. That's the best way, he thinks, of building and promoting a culture of liberty--expose people to the ideas of liberty, make an intellectual case for liberty, and then push for liberty within the law, urging political, legal, and social change.

Marc disagrees. The best way to get liberty, he tells us, is to break unjust laws in a transparent, non-violent, and public way. Marc thinks this is really the only way we've ever seen success--think of the American Revolution, the civil rights movement, Rosa Parks, and other instances. All of these helped foment social and political change that led to more liberty. And all of them were violations of the law.

And that, says Marc, is the best way to get to liberty.

It's a timely discussion in light of the extradition proceedings against Emery (he faces the extraditioners in February of next year), and the Human Rights Commission hearings against Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, and Guy Earle (to name just a few).

All of these cases are a result of possible violations of the law. In Marc's case, we know he broke the law, and he freely admits it. In the HRC cases, we're not yet sure if there will be a judgment against any of the people I've mentioned, but we do know that, technically, people like Stephen Boisson, who wrote a letter to the editor critical of homosexuality, have broken the law. And it is possible that Ezra, Mark, and Guy will share Boisson's fate.

But would they have done something different if they had known, in advance, that the law prohibited publishing depictions of the prophet Muhammad (in Ezra's case), or publishing an excerpt from "America Alone" (in Mark's case), or responding to heckling by unleashing a torrent of anti-lesbian commentary (in Guy's case)? Suppose the law was not a vague mystery about "giving offense" and "hurting feelings," but clearly stated that you can't insult lesbians, can't publish editorial cartoons of such-and-such a sort, and can't argue about demographic shifts that threaten western values?

Would we criticize them if they did it anyways? Or would we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them, in open defiance of laws that clearly undermine our freedom of speech, economic freedom, or other liberties? And if Canadians failed to raise a ruckus about the trials and the government's response, would that mean that they were wrong to break the law, or would we be criticizable for failing to stand up for their liberty?

In his rebuttal, Gerry makes it plain that, without a social and cultural foundation of support for liberty--a foundation that advocacy groups and think tanks provide--it would be next-to-impossible to generate the kind of feedback from the public that would lead to greater liberty. Without the work that these groups do, people like Ezra Levant and Marc Emery would be left to defend themselves without public support, and without the kind of clout that might actually generate changes in the law that help protect and preserve, rather than defame and defile, our personal and economic freedoms.

Read the exchange. Then drop a comment and let everyone know where you stand on the issue.

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on July 22, 2008 in Western Standard | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Face-Off: Marc Emery and Gerry Nicholls debate what the best way to get liberty is:


"I'll take that as a sign that I have scored some points. Hooray for the good guys (aka me)"
that was a response post to DF's post "Zeb

I will correct one thing.... not everything you say is crap... I'm sure you have a valid point somewhere. but your method of delivery is too filled with personal angst (its quite obvious really ) and needs a lot of work if you expect others to listen.

You sound bit like a child throwing a tantrum... just you are able to select your words with the mind of an adult. A tantrum is still a tantrum."

Zeb, you are a jackass. That is exactly what DF was talking about.

Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-23 1:21:43 PM

Then why is he fighting extradition?

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-23 1:23:48 PM

.. Marc Emery may not spend a lifetime in jail for selling pot seeds..his fate has yet to be determined

He will first have to endure an extradion hearing in BC. Thats in Feb 2009

When & or if he is sent to America, he will receive an open public trial. All the evidence the RCMP and the DEA have seized from his computers and elsewhere over the years will be rolled out in open court.
There are tens of thousands of pages of evidence

The BC 3 will have every opportunity to defend themselves, and in Mr Emerys case- he will finally have the ultimate grandstand to air his views about freedom and the pot laws. This is something he has always wanted-

( OK Mr Copernicus... please show the court
where you believe the sun really is
in the sky above us all... )

Mr Emery will not be blabbing before a bunch of sissies like us here- he will arguing his novel views of controlled substances , liberty and the pursuit of whatever before very serious men & women with hammers.
It better be good

This will pretty much be "it" for the stoners - how fares Marc Emery before the hammer people fares the stoners in Canada, \ the USA and possibly around the world.
And don't we all know it

Posted by: 419 | 2008-07-23 1:27:16 PM


Didja notice the insulting tone of the last two posts by Dumb F**k (DF)?

Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-23 1:28:24 PM

I dont want to put words in Mr. Emery's mouth here, but my assumption is he's fighting extradition because for one it will prolong the time he has in Canada to continue his activism, and for two because there is a gross difference between canadian marijuana punishment and US marijuana punishment. He is not being arrested, detained, or thrown in prison. He is being extradited to have his case heard before a foreign court, and then MAYBE he'll be arrested/thrown in jail.

Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-23 1:36:55 PM

Set you free:
Zeb might've, but I actually didn't notice any insulting tone in the last two posts by DF, who you so cutely refer to as Dumb Fuck. (<--HEY THERE'S AN INSULTING TONE!) I actually thought those two posts to Zeb were just a rational, and passive way to express his opinion about how Zeb is expressing himself. Which, by the way, is much less rational and much less passive :)

Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-23 1:39:39 PM

Maybe Emery's cause would be better served if he went to jail. It worked for Gandhi and Martin Luther King (in fact the cell bars from the Birmingham Jail have been preserved in the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute).

Or maybe Emery is a coward afraid of the consequences of his actions, and tries to solicit help by using the guise of "freedom fighting" and "civil disobedience". MY money is on the former.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-23 1:42:57 PM

Emery's cause would be greatly diminished if he went to jail. He would simply not be able to complete the same amount of activist work he does outside of prison, there is no arguing that. There wouldn't be as many rallies, the BCMP would need a new head, etc. It's much more pro-active to be out of jail. Especially when that jail wants to incarcerate you for 25 to life.
And I really, really, highly doubt that Emery is a coward, afraid of the consequences. I'm glad your money is on the former, as it's a more accurate statement out of the two, but I believe neither of them are of 100% truth

Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-23 1:53:46 PM

Well I said "Maybe". I won't lose and sleep if he goes to jail. One less drug dealer off the streets.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-23 1:55:39 PM

I'm glad you left that opinion open. And for the record, I would lose sleep, I wouldn't believe in our federal government anymore.
Oh and also for the record, he's not a drug dealer. He's never sold drugs of any kind. And he definetly hasn't done it on the streets.

Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-23 1:59:19 PM

Zeb -

You speak not as a person who has a libertated mind.

You seem to speak out of a hateful, callous, anger and bitterness. I wouldn't want to be you, because you probably take out the brunt of your hatred on yourself.

Posted by: DF | 2008-07-23 2:55:57 PM

I believe in freedom.

but since we are talking about drug dealers what about the big pharmaceutical company's who make millions a year with weight loss pills and anti-depressants.

and lets have a vote,

which is more harmful marijuana or alcohol?

Posted by: Jeff Sifa | 2008-07-23 2:59:13 PM

RE: Jeff Sifa's post
Alcohol is more harmful than weed.
1. Marijuana is far less addictive than alcohol.

2. Deaths from the two substances. There are hundreds of alcohol overdose deaths each year, yet there has never been a marijuana overdose death in history. The consumption of alcohol is also the direct cause of tens of thousands of deaths in the U.S. each year.

3. Alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs, and using just 10 times what one would use to get the desired effect can lead to death. Marijuana is one of – if not the – least toxic drugs, requiring thousands times the dose one would use to get the desired effect to lead to death. This “thousands times” is actually theoretical, since there has never been a recorded case of marijuana overdose.

4. Long-term marijuana use is far less harmful than long-term alcohol use.

5. The United Kingdom's Science and Technology Select Committee considers alcohol far more harmful than marijuana.

6. There has never been a documented case of lung cancer in a marijuana-only smoker, and recent studies find that marijuana use is not associated with any type of cancer. The same cannot be said for alcohol, which has been found to contribute to a variety of long-term negative health effects, including cancers and cirrhosis of the liver.

7. Studies find alcohol use contributes to the likelihood of domestic violence and sexual assault and marijuana use does not.

8. Studies find alcohol use contributes to aggressive behavior and acts of violence, whereas marijuana use reduces the likelihood of violent behavior.

9. Alcohol use is highly associated with violent crime, whereas marijuana use is not.

10. Alcohol use is a catalyst for domestic violence in Denver.

11. Alcohol use is prevalent in cases of sexual assault and date rape on college campuses. Marijuana use is not considered a contributing factor in cases of sexual assault and date rape, as judged by the lack of discussion of marijuana in sexual assault and date rape educational materials.

All those are from this site here. It's actually a great site I just found. Zeb, you'll learn something. Check it out.


Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-23 3:10:21 PM

Also I'd like to point out that for number 3, you would be deeply asleep before you could smoke that much weed

Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-23 3:18:27 PM

Hey dudes.

Why not compare a couple of comparable substances.

Cigarettes and weed.

Both are plants that are burned and their smoke inhaled.

Cigarettes can contribute to lung cancer.

Ganja residue clings to fatty cells, especially in the brain and therefore can throw off the sensitive natural chemical balance in the body.

I've tried to burn alcohol, but there's no smoke to inhale.

When I drink it, I piss it out almost immediately and other than the risk of liver damage from overuse and the dehydrating effect, there is no long-term residual effect. I'll try to expain it even clearer. All traces of alcohol leave the body within 24 hours.

Good thing I don't live in Denver becuase if I had even one drop of booze, I would go on a domestic violence rampage.

Last I heard though, doobies are good and cigarettes are bad. Can't explain the logic, since there is none. Both are inhaled substances.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-23 3:18:44 PM

Set you free:
"I've tried to burn alcohol, but there's no smoke to inhale."

Try Absinth or Everclear. Put in in a teaspoon, heat it up and inhale the vapours. You get fuuuuucked up.

Set you free:
"When I drink it, I piss it out almost immediately and other than the risk of liver damage from overuse and the dehydrating effect, there is no long-term residual effect. I'll try to expain it even clearer. All traces of alcohol leave the body within 24 hours."

Theres no long-term residual effect, except that over time, you become far more dependant on alchohol, your tolerance goes up and up (which means you need to drink more and more, and consequently destroy your liver and brain cells more and more), and withdrawl from an alcohol addiction can be worse than cocaine and even heroine.

Set you free:
"Last I heard though, doobies are good and cigarettes are bad. Can't explain the logic, since there is none. Both are inhaled substances."

The logic is present, let alone simple. "Over 4000 chemical compounds are created by burning a cigarette, many of which are toxic and/or carcinogenic. Carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen cyanide and ammonia are all present in cigarette smoke. Forty-three known carcinogens are in mainstream smoke, sidestream smoke, or both" Here is a list of cigarette additives, as well as the link for where I got the above quote. (not all harmful, but most of them are): http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/nicotineinhaler/a/cigingredients.htm

Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-23 3:44:31 PM

Oh I forgot to add that THC has also been shown to prevent dead lung cells from turning into cancerous tumors

Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-23 3:48:43 PM

Zebulon Pike

1. A civil resister (or satyagrahi) will harbour no anger. (Emery is a very angry person. No wonder he uses drugs)

-Having known Marc Emery for 10 years, I can tell you all that he is everything but angry.

2. He will suffer the anger of the opponent. (Hardly! Emery has tried to evade responsibility and anger government officials at every turn)

So YES, Marc Emery has suffered the anger of the opponent!

-Evade Responsibility? Marc Emery has been arrested over two dozen times, been jailed almost 20 times, has many convictions and months in jail....

3. In so doing he will put up with assaults from the opponent, never retaliate; but he will not submit, out of fear of punishment or the like, to any order given in anger.

(See above)

-What? See Above?

-When has Marc Emery EVER assaulted or retaliate with harm against his opponent? When has Marc Emery EVER submitted out of fear of punishment?

4. When any person in authority seeks to arrest a civil resister, he will voluntarily submit to the arrest, and he will not resist the attachment or removal of his own property, if any, when it is sought to be confiscated by authorities.

(See above)

-Again, What the Hell! When has Marc Emery EVER resisted arrest? Resisted the raids, the confiscation, the searches, the seizures, anything????

5. If a civil resister has any property in his possession as a trustee, he will refuse to surrender it, even though in defending it he might lose his life. He will, however, never retaliate.

(See above)

This SEE ABOVE Shit proves Nothing!

6. Retaliation includes swearing and cursing.
(See above, even posts in this thread from both himself and his supporters.)

-Marc Emery Himself didn't swear or curse against his opponents. If someone who supports him does, that doesn't prove anything...

7. Therefore a civil resister will never insult his opponent, and therefore also not take part in many of the newly coined cries which are contrary to the spirit of ahimsa (non-violence)
(See the comments he made against Mr. Irwin Cotler, the Justice Minister, whom he called "A Nazi-Jew")

-See Above

-Telling the truth isn't contrary to the spirit of ahimsa...

8. A civil resister will not salute the Union Flag, nor will he insult it or officials, English or Indian.
(Emery has been openly contemptuous of both the US and Canadian flags and their authorities.)

-Not Saluting the Union Flag is contemptuous...

9. In the course of the struggle if anyone insults an official or commits an assault upon him, a civil resister will protect such official or officials from the insult or attack even at the risk of his life.
(HA! Not likely!)

-You Underestimate Marc Emery...

The facts are clear: "It is the height of moral conscience to refuse to obey an unjust law. To obey an unjust law is to give credence to its oppressive power. To obey a law that punishes where no crime exists is to surrender to tyranny and, by acquiescence, endorsing the oppression. The only righteous place for this kind of man is the jail cell. He must break the bad law openly and without apology, and without any victim but the pride of the state, it will be soon apparent to all that an injustice has taken place. Gradually, eventually, a crisis in the public confidence occurs, and in this vacuum, in this opportunity, change will come." Marc Emery

What have you sacrificed for your freedom today Zebulon Pike.

Posted by: Christopher Goodwin | 2008-07-23 4:34:13 PM

If he likes jail so much, he shouldn't oppose extradition. Look at what Mumia Abu Jamal was able to do from prison, or Nelson Mandela, or Martin Luther King, or Gandhi. The difference between him and the latter three (Mumia is a coldblooded cop killer) is that Emery is a coward trying to manipulate the gullible into his quest to avoid life imprisonment. He will fail, and drag a lot of good people down with him.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-23 4:47:00 PM

So.. does anyone want to join the betting pool or not? attention all intellectial freedom debaters- Put ten bucks behind your convictions and see if you really are a winner or a whiner-

will the BC3 walk away free?
win big for _this longshot

or will they serve time in jail?
and if so, how long-
and for extra points- where?

this is the last chance to play Online BC Bingo

service available in both official languages

Posted by: 419 | 2008-07-23 4:58:25 PM

I did know a lot of people back in the 80s that smoked pot but didn't drink. They are all around today living normal lives from what I can see, and then there are the ones who drank a lot and smoked pot amongst other drugs, and never made it past their 30th birthday.

Posted by: glen | 2008-07-23 5:58:22 PM


Wow! Far out, man. Groovy.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-23 7:22:49 PM

Set you free, you're the biggest douche ever for that last post.

Zeb, either you love twisting peoples words around, or you interpret them more often then not.

I put my money on the BC3

Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-23 7:41:38 PM


No really.

Wow! Far out, man. Groovy.

You are living proof dope makes people angry.

Or maybe angry people are dopes.

Perhaps dopers need dope to hide their anger.

Or to pretend somebody other than them controls their every move.

Hey, proof that dopers are paranoid.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-23 7:52:16 PM

Peace, brother.

Trust nobody over 30.

In glen's very believable story, they're mostly dead anyway.

Power to the people. Right on!

Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-23 8:03:36 PM

I have an idea. Let's round up as many druggies as we can and put them in remote prison camps. Then we'll deposit all the drugs we can find and put them into these camps, allowing the druggies to have all they want. They can even grow their weed freely using Emery's seeds.

This way we kill two bird with one stone: the druggies are removed from our streets, and they can have their drugs. It is true that they will eventually kill each other off or die of starvation, but I'm prepared to live with that.

Any takers?

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-23 8:13:35 PM


"So.. does anyone want to join the betting pool or not? attention all intellectial freedom debaters- Put ten bucks behind your convictions and see if you really are a winner or a whiner-

will the BC3 walk away free?
win big for _this longshot

or will they serve time in jail?
and if so, how long-
and for extra points- where?

this is the last chance to play Online BC Bingo

service available in both official languages "

There are many people very concerned over this and for you to mock not only them but the people themselves who may actually be going to prison. It actually shows just how insensitive of a person you are at best, or absolutley vicious and abusive at worst. Taking pleasure in the misery and unfortunate circumstanes of others, as well as belittling those we are concerned for them. In my experience people who belittle are themselves very little and insecure.

If the shoe was on the other foot... how would you feel if faced with an posting such as yours?

I put yourself, Zeb and SetUFree all into the same category. Unfortunatley, nothing that this group has offered has been anything but hate.

By loving yourself first, then you can offer something to the rest of the world.

Posted by: DF | 2008-07-23 8:23:28 PM

The truth is, this lot is just looking for an outlet to vent their tantrums. They use loaded words and fire off mindlessly into crowds to try and ease their own self hate.

Posted by: DF | 2008-07-23 8:29:44 PM


419 hurt poor yiddle DF's feelings.

Hug. Hug. Better now, baby?

Just don't get angwy again. Kay?

There, there. Just light up a doobie and all those meanies will go away.

Posted by: Set you free | 2008-07-23 8:39:41 PM

SYF: No we, the meanies, won't go away! :)

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-23 8:44:45 PM

Yeah, Zeb.

We're the meanies who won't let get away with being spoiled brats.

Oppressors. Rise up against us!

Or ... tune in, turn on, drop out.

Who needs society? Who needs civilization?

Who needs rules?

All we need is weed!

Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-23 9:07:41 PM

SYF: maybe you should light up, you need to relax a little bit.

Posted by: glen | 2008-07-23 9:55:04 PM


I'm totally relaxed.

You? Repressed anger, perhaps?

Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-23 10:25:07 PM

SYF: I think I'm falling in love with you, geez I hope you're a woman or I'm in big trouble.

Posted by: glen | 2008-07-23 10:45:24 PM

Love is all you need.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-23 10:51:41 PM

Set you free:
You know what, I'm going to give up and finally agree with you... I am angry. Because I'm human. Which, consequently also makes me happy, sad, excited, frustrated, and various other emotions. However, when I smoke weed, the anger simmers, and the happiness rises. As with all weed smokers. To try and tell anyone that weed makes you angry just brands yourself ignorant.

Also, you seem to have a large tendency to misinterpret anything anyone says (I think it's largely conscious, as DF said, "The truth is, this lot is just looking for an outlet to vent their tantrums"). My basis for this, is that Glen simply remarked that you need to relax a little. Hell that seems like a neutral, if not positive comment. It's good to be relaxed. However, you somehow interpreted this as "repressed anger."

I highly doubt Glen suffers from repressed anger. I can see, however, you're unfortunate enough to suffer from repressed stupidity. It's starting to show.

Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-23 11:23:14 PM


Chill, man.

I'm high on life.

Got nuthin' to be miffed about, much less being angry.

Need no ganja to get me into my state of happiness since I got no issues ... man.

Why you so mad? You needs to relax.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-23 11:58:44 PM

hey.. DF--
thanks for posting my lottery offering- that was decent of you.

I am deliverately breaking an unjust law and challenging the Governments' monopoly on betting. I feel I should be free to generate $15,000,000.00 or so and funnel the proceeds into affliated organizations who also challenge the governments monopoly on betting. I am determined to overbet the government and plan to pay tax on my earnings.. I believe every adult should be free to bet and either win or lose...Its a basic human right to pick winners like picking your nose. You will just have to believe me on that one, after all, I have dedicated a decade of my life ruinning my own little casino.

I started out playing cribb for pennies and anyone who doesn't agree I am the greatest thing that ever hit Vegas is just a hateful socially retarded bigot Nazi. The goverment is just wrong stopping me. Visit my betting shop, we are not afraid to play poker in broad daylight, hold black jack tournements on the streets . My people and me will overbet the government becaise we are right and they are wrong..I think its ok because bingo is played in Church halls, and gambling is therapeutic. Life is one big gamble- so why not gamble> Its natural

Leading experts have shown that gambling is not addictice, nobody ever died from losing.. Gambling suffers from a stigma laid on it by evil powerful people in a big conspiracy based on hate

" They " along with evil corporations and the uncool American government profit from keeping gambling illegal.

Please. won;t yo must agree I am a modern day saint so demand the justice minister lets me go, for I do no harm..Anyone who gets into debt from gambling, well its their own darn fault-

If I go to jail you will never see me alive again.Please pay my legal bills / buy my magazine and read all about Jackpots and ways to start your own casino in your basement. Together if we all take a chance and just break the gambling laws, the laws will fall..like the spring rain

I am just too wonderful for words because I have personally steered tens of thousands of people away from gainful employment and into the profitable home casino bizz.
The war on gambling is an unjust war waged by evil stipid people out to get me.I am destined to bring legal gambling to the world by being arrested again and again. Working against such incredible odds, how can I lose ?

Posted by: 419 | 2008-07-24 12:11:17 AM

Don't you guys ever get tired of throwing the same childish insults and taunts at each other, over and over and over again, on every discussion thread where Marc Emeroy or Mary Jane are mentioned? None of this is even original any more. If you or whoever you take your talking points from hasn't convinced the other side by now, you won't. And the audience has heard it all before, too many times. Give it a rest, until you have something genuinely interesting to say.

That goes for both sides. This discussion thread wasn't even supposed to be about the legalization of marijuana; it has been hijacked for another agenda.

Boring, boring, BORING! Let's get back on topic.

Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-07-24 2:15:43 AM

Wow, I wish there was some kind of argument?

I do agree with "Love is all you need." you go set yourself free. and yes gambling is all we need 419.

wow, i am so enlightened now.

It is the worst things people think about others they truly have within them selfs.

I'm going to start a new law that says you can only eat purple bananas 2wice a week, and if you dont follow that law you go directly to jail. lets see you follow that law, but its the law it must be right.

mmmmmm purple banana's

Posted by: Jeff Sifa | 2008-07-24 9:09:03 AM

Wow Jeff, Momma Sifa must have had a hard time getting you tucked into bed every night--
25 years of that would wear anybody out

anyway, back to your enlightened point-
OK! Bring on the purple bananas..
you have a huge supply of course..
and you were elected, right?
We are obliged to obey your orders, correct? Heres' a copy of our constitution,
........look under "B"

and if we don't eat purple bananas you have a standing highly motivated and diciplined well equipted army to make us eat them, OK?
We brought cornflakes, let the revolution begin

Big question is.... your Excellency--
where do we put the peels
so other people don't slip on them?
harm reduction is in the eye of the beholder

" ...I hear the sound of water pistols
being refilled in the bathroom...

Posted by: 419 | 2008-07-24 9:29:50 AM


Did you have a question for me?

It helps the process of understanding somebody you don't know and guards you from making embarrassing characterizations based on self-delusional viewpoints.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-24 9:44:08 AM

SYF: "Chuck:

Chill, man.

I'm high on life.

Got nuthin' to be miffed about, much less being angry.

Need no ganja to get me into my state of happiness since I got no issues ... man.

Why you so mad? You needs to relax."

I guess I was too subtle before, so I apologize. When I said, "I am angry. Because I'm human. Which, consequently also makes me happy, sad, excited, frustrated, and various other emotions. However, when I smoke weed, the anger simmers, and the happiness rises," I was referring to emotions as all being relative. That is, if you are 70% happy, you can be 30% angry, etc. FYI, I'm being completely theoretical.
Having said that, in theory, if I happened to be 70% angry, and 30% happy, I hit the bong, and gradually anger is on a decline, and happiness is on an incline.
I just thought I should clear that up:)

Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-24 11:57:51 AM


So, if I read correctly, you believe the bong offers temporary relief from anger.

What happens when the effects of the ganja wear off? What has happened the source of the anger/frustration ... anxieties, fears, unresolved issues?

I've found facing up to my own imperfections is an important part of the maturing process.

Admitting the answer to the misery you feel is somewhere inside you, rather than being caused by some external factor, is a good first step.

Everybody has to overcome something and when they work it through, they'll be amazed at how easy it was to find inner peace and connect without chemical enhancement.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-24 12:25:00 PM

Maybe it's just hazard, but why is it that people who diss against the legalization of weed and, by the same occasion, on Mr. Emery…are those who also sound like pills abusers?

Posted by: Marc | 2008-07-24 12:41:46 PM

Thats a very interesting point Marc.

Purple banana's HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, all of a sudden im a fascist dictator not unlike________

who needs freedom anyway, national security is more important.

Posted by: Jeff Sifa | 2008-07-24 1:01:30 PM

The people have spoken - and apparently they're tired of freedom. Don't get me wrong, I'm not angry, I'm just disappointed. I thought this country would last longer than 230 years. That's it, folks, America is over. At this point, we might as well just give it back to the goddamn Indians. Let's see how they'd deal with foreign enemies bent on their destruction. Here's your cake, terrorists! There you go. Enjoy. Mmm, tastes like surrender. You know what really gets me here, you know what really gets me? Democrats didn't even win this thing, the Republicans lost it. They ran away from the president. "Hey, the ship's in trouble, quick, let's drown the captain!" We were this close to Jesus coming back. And you Republicans that turned your back on the president are going to wander in the desert for the next two years. Literally, someone's going to have to replace those troops in Iraq! And don't think you're off the hook, voters, you're the ones who made this bed. Now you're the ones who are going to have to move over so a gay couple can sleep in it. Tomorrow you're all going to wake up in a brave new world, a world where the Constitution gets trampled by an army of terrorist clones, created in a stem-cell research lab run by homosexual doctors who sterilize their instruments over burning American flags. Where tax-and-spend Democrats take all your hard-earned money and use it to buy electric cars for National Public Radio, and teach evolution to illegal immigrants. Oh, and everybody's high! You know what, I've had it! You people don't deserve a Republican majority! Screw this! I quit!

Posted by: Steve | 2008-07-24 1:15:54 PM

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

The world as we know it is coming to an end.

What's wrong with you people?

Don't you know ganja-smokin' anarchy is where it's at?

Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-24 3:05:10 PM

SYF: Once again, we have a case of you twisting words. You're really good at it, just so you know. ANNNNNNYWAYS.

You said, "Chuck:

So, if I read correctly, you believe the bong offers temporary relief from anger."

When I am angry it is always induced by someone or something else. I am not angry by nature. In fact, I'm extremely passive. Thus, when something or someone makes me upset, it is because I am upset in the moment. You hit the bong and by the time your high goes away, that moment is long past. I also believe you said earlier you were a drinker. Go get drunk, get someone to piss you off, have a few more drinks and tell me what happens.... If you can remember.

Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-24 3:21:57 PM

Essay question for everyone: what role have drugs played in the downfall of Toronto?

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-24 3:25:48 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.