The Shotgun Blog
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.
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:
"Don't you know ganja-smokin' anarchy is where it's at?"
Anyone, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong...
... But we don't want anarchy.... No one has said they do... Have they? I know I haven't.... I know Mr. Emery hasn't...
Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-24 3:31:51 PM
I have a cunning plan! Let's herd all the druggies into camps where they can have all the anarchy they want. Then they'll see how good we on the outside have it.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-24 3:36:41 PM
Every one has choice
And not to
Raise their voices
It's you who decides
– the late, great George Harrison
See Chuck. This is very simple.
You become angry when you choose to be angry.
It's nobody else's fault.
So, instead of raising your voice, you pretend to be ‘nice' by withdrawing into the delusion offered to you by your addiction.
Look around you, at nature, which you are a part of.
Is nature angry? Or is nature naturally peaceful?
Conquer your reaction to frustrating situations and you will live a dignified life. Nobody can take your dignity away from you.
It's you who decides.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-24 3:37:02 PM
In direct answer to your question Zeb, a lot. Not only a lot but I would guess all murders in Tranna are somehow connected to the drug trade.
I see a lot of new posters here, which indicates to me that Mr. Drug Dealer has gathered his supporters to post comments in his defence.
To compare the actions of Rosa Parks and the whole Civil Rights Movement to that of marijuana
legalization is an abomination.
A bunch of punks that don't have the wherewithal
to make a valid point ( because they don't have one ) so they bounce off a legitimate movement to try and make their case.
I say to Mark Scott Emory- Give yourself up and surrender to the US authorities if you feel your cause celebre is so important. Failing that, consider yourself a coward and a poseur.
Posted by: atric | 2008-07-24 3:46:31 PM
Zeb: You obviously did not read my post previous to yours.
SYF: Here is another thing we don't agree on I guess. I think it's completely possible to choose to be angry, but you can't choose to not be angry. If something angers you it is going to effect you. Even if you don't show it. You can shrugg it off, and pretend it didn't happen but it still has a negative effect on you. I'm speaking from personal experience when I say that when something makes you angry, or unhappy, the scenario can often be replayed over and over again in your mind, and you keep thinking about it. If you smoke some weed when you're upset, it's easier to take your mind off those things, and therefore you become a happier and calmer person, without harbouring your anger.
And also, it really is hard for me to believe that you think you can tell me I have a marijuana addiction. Especially when there is no such thing. I smoke about three eights of weed a day between my friends and myself, but I can easily go for a month without it. I did earlier this year for educational purposes. Addiction is not an issue.
Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-24 3:55:57 PM
"I see a lot of new posters here, which indicates to me that Mr. Drug Dealer has gathered his supporters to post comments in his defence."
Actually I'm quite sure that most of us new here subscribe to Mr. Emery's bulletins on facebook, read his fine debate here, and decided to add our two cents on the subject. FYI, it's not in his defence, it's in the defence of everyone that share the same viewpoints as we do.
"A bunch of punks that don't have the wherewithal
to make a valid point ( because they don't have one ) so they bounce off a legitimate movement to try and make their case."
I'm going to assume you haven't read all the posts, because I find there are actually some brilliant arguments from both sides on this page.
Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-24 4:02:44 PM
Zeb: You obviously did not read my post previous to yours.
Posted by: Charlie Cole | 24-Jul-08 3:55:57 PM
I never do. No point.
Kids, don't do drugs, or you'll end up like Toronto!
I imagine the rehab centers will be full of people trying to clean themselves up. No one wants to be like Toronto.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-24 4:07:44 PM
If you don't read a post before you add your rebuttle, then your rebuttle has no meaning. You cannot argue something you are not educated on. And in fact, maybe I should just take on your method of not reading posts, and apply it to your posts. Because I believe in one of your very first, you admitted you were arguing your opinion that Mr. Emery should be extradited to the states, without even researching it at all.
"'Have you even looked at ANYTHING about Marc Emery's extradition case? I seriously doubt it, as your opinion is so grossly misinformed.'
I have not looked at anything because I have better things to do. Like anything else." -- Zebulon in response to Jodie Emery's question.
An uneducated opinion is a worthless opinion.
Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-24 4:18:54 PM
I ignore them for the same reason I don't debate Holocaust deniers = it's a waste of time and ennobles their cause. Why should I listen to the drug-fried rantings of people who push their poison on others? I've urged real conservatives to avoid this cause like the plague because it won't help them stay elected. Some agree, others don't. Oh well, such is life.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-24 4:43:24 PM
Alright. Zeb. Please, please listen. If you are going to voice your opinion, EDUCATE yourself on the subject BEFOREHAND.
And furthermore, please do NOT tell me that we are trying to "push our poison on others"
I do not encourage anyone to smoke weed, they can do it if they choose to. If people I meet smoke weed, hey great, theres another someone I can smoke weed with. If someone I meet does not smoke weed, that's fine, it really makes no difference.
Thank god for those conservatives that don't agree with you, they're the only ones that make sense.
Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-24 4:50:28 PM
So Zeb, on that irrefutable note, why should Emery supporters, fighting our good fight, give two shits about what you think?
I do believe mommy forgot to teach you the two way street rule. Respect and ye shall be respected, but really. Who gives a fuck about you, debating pressing issues about our country?
Hey, we do. because we're fighting for something you choose to not believe in, to oppose, to argue, debate. But there's hope! A battle fought over the course of several years is something supporters can get behind. They can surround themselves with these kinds of people, and get a better grasp on the situation.
Can I count on you to take what we know, as we do in your own testimonials? It's not that we think your despicable apathy for BC's situation is disgusting, we just want you to be in the know!
As for set you free, what the fuck are you doing here? Your lunchbreak is almost done, head on over to the viva la bank corruption! forum to discuss US's great building blocks to the downfall of modern currency. I'm sure there's plenty of dead, forgotten moral leaders and inspirational people you can quote for that! ;D
Posted by: AK47 | 2008-07-24 6:20:42 PM
WTF are you trying to say?
Let me take a stab at what I believe is a goofy rant about the current sub-prime mortgage crisis in the US.
First off, the US went through an even bigger crisis in the early 90s. Just look up the history of the Savings and Loan banking crisis.
The greatness of the US is the fact that the vast majority have a moral compass and the nation will survive the banking prices and will adjust to the oil price shock eventually.
As with many of these crises in the past, a few individuals start bending the rules, creating a bubble which eventually bursts.
This is natural part of the greatest economic system ever created, giving the residents of the US a standard of living never before seen in the history of mankind.
Go ahead and feel smugly superior while you suck back your brain-rotting smoke. A battle? For what? For the Dare to be Stupid Club? For the ‘when I rip something down, that makes me a better person' delusion.
Today, your remarks have proven that ignorance is bliss.
Posted by: Set you free | 2008-07-24 6:50:20 PM
Alright, to begin a painful tirade against the none believer, I never said I smoke. I could call you on assuming that, and that I gave a soft jab at a US to properly level the playing field.
What did you just outline? The tried and true scheme? The hallmark and benchmark economic system? No, you entertained me by outlining the step in the right direction, Humans working there way up the evolutionary ladder, to be blunt. Face it duuuuuude, there are better ways to do it.
Wait wait wait. Before you feed me allegorical ancestry morality bullcrap. The point is that what has transpired recently in Canada is a tired and old way to go about itself. What we are looking for is new. Stable for now, not for when a US president unwittingly signs a document that dons the usury cap for all time, and regrets it afterwords.
"Of all the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arises, not from the defects of the Constitution or Confederation, not from want or honour of virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation"
-John Adams, founding father of the amurican constitution
Usury once in control will wreck any nation, yannow.
Man, ignorance IS bliss. sometimes I wish I had just studied to be a business man and just profit out of this caRAAAZAY world! Fuck hookers and smoke weed day and night with all ma munnay.
Today, your remarks have proven your a withered, tattered being stuck in the past, lolz
Posted by: AK47 | 2008-07-24 7:20:51 PM
You're entitled to your fairy tales and fears.
This is NOT the first time in history the US has faced a financial issue.
The financial sector is one part of the overall economy, which has undergone seven consecutive years of increasing employment and prosperity. That means growth, dude.
If Bush is to be faulted for anything economically, it would be that he ran the US into a debt whose percentage of GDP is approaching that of Canada's.
Not as high a debt to GDP ratio yet, but getting closer.
Our brothers in the US have the creative energy to get through this. In fact, you read it here first, the US economy will be humming while the Euroweenie socialists will be floundering in the not-to-far future.
Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-24 7:54:38 PM
SYF: is it the drugs that make these people link every political issue in the world, especially America bashing, to their desire to avoid responsibility, or is it their pre-existing politics. My guess is both.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-24 8:07:41 PM
All part of the same spoiled-brat mentality, far as I can figure.
One thing that's pretty consistent in their narrative is that they're fighting some type of oppression.
Could be something about rebelling against their mean moms and dads and the unfair rules.
Also, there's a freedom from responsibility thread running through that oppression. Those in position of authority or responsibility, particularly those who are more demonstrably more successful than them, seem to be a target of their scorn.
Nobody ever made themselves bigger by belittling others, but this bunch seems to keep on trying.
Look at the lastest example, AK47. I gave him an example of the last financial crisis, the Savings and Loan issue in the early 90s and told I was stuck in the past.
Something that happened about 16 years ago is ancient history!
Sort of gives you an idea of how old the guy is.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-24 8:23:06 PM
This is what the buffoon chooses to be ignorant about.
From wikipedia Savings and loan crisis:
The savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s (commonly referred to as the S&L crisis) was the failure of 747 savings and loan associations (S&Ls) in the United States. The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around USD$160.1 billion, about $124.6 billion of which was directly paid for by the U.S. government -- that is, the U.S. taxpayer, either directly or through charges on their savings and loan accounts-- , which contributed to the large budget deficits of the early 1990s. The resulting taxpayer bailout ended up being even larger than it would have been because moral hazard and adverse-selection incentives compounded the system’s losses.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-24 8:27:57 PM
Hey Zeb, I'm still confused as to how you think we are avoiding responsibility?
Can you explain?
I might just be misinformed, but I believe that if anything we are promoting responsibility.
Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-24 8:41:34 PM
SYF: I would elaborate if I had time (I don't, I have to be in a concert in 15 minutes), but I fail to see why you call it a spoiled-brat mentality. Our group is promoting freedom, something the US is supposed to revolve around.
As for belittling others, some people believe thats the only way to get through to stubborn people (which is typically a right-wing trait, I might add - don't get me wrong, there are many stubborn left-wingers, just a bigger percentage on the right.).
I'm also confused as to where you got this "Ancient history" crap, that never came out of his keyboard. If the word "history" or "past" did, thats hardly ancient, hell, a second ago is the past.
And finally, I am led to believe that when AK47 told you that you were stuck in the past, he was merely trying to reinforce his point that new changes must occur in the future, for the better.
That's all for now
Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-24 8:50:35 PM
Well thought-out change for the better makes sense.
History has proven change for the sake of change often turns out to be a stupid decision.
About your enquiry in the last graf:
Today, your remarks have proven your a withered, tattered being stuck in the past, lolz
Posted by: AK47 | 24-Jul-08 7:20:51 PM
Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-24 9:21:14 PM
SYF: No one said this was change for the sake of change. This is change for the sake of freedom and liberties.
And fair enough.
However, I forgot to add to my last post that before you attempt the "Nobody ever made themselves bigger by belittling others, but this bunch seems to keep on trying," argument you should make sure you haven't already belittled anyone, or are going to in the future. That goes for you and your "bunch."
Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-24 10:21:02 PM
"Our brothers in the US have the creative energy to get through this."
What ? Wtf? What brothers ? You're hardly a Canadian, so...
Please don't do too much. It's sad to watch.
It's already painfull having to skip your unproductive "posts" polluting this Web site.
Being a close friend I would invite you to shut your mouth now. I mean physically - shut you're mouth. You will gain from this experience.
But I'm not your friend - and you will still sounds like a twelve years old that wish to keep us under unfair and mafia style laws à la Jesus freak. Anyway, your kind is already in danger in Canada. I'm glad I have met one specimen alive.
Posted by: Marc | 2008-07-24 10:40:01 PM
Since you can't control anybody else, nobody actually controls you.
I'm constantly amazed how little belief have in their God-given freedoms.
Always, they are fighting against some invisible enemy, when what really stands in the way of inner peace is the person you see in the mirror every day.
The control issue is not about you controlling others or others controlling you (which is impossible). It's about self-control.
Par example, I could start smoking week today and quit in two months.
Take it the other way. Can you STOP smoking ganja for two months?
So, who in those two examples has the lack of self-control?
Man-made laws are unimportant. What's important is to understand that nature is totally at peace and to learn from its example.
Mafia? I laugh in your general direction.
The US has become the world's dominant culture because it allows individuals the freedom to be creative.
Remember the first three words in the US Constitution: ‘We the People.'
It doesn't matter if George Bush or the Messiah Obama is in the White House.
‘We the people' make the European elites, as exemplified by PhD of sociology Stephane DIon, a joke.
Even the Europeans are starting to understand they are being held back by their ruling elites.
And Marc, mon ami, tell me why are you so angry? Why do you want me to shut up?
What will you do if I don't? Hunt me down? Throw me in jail? Put my head under a guillotine?
Take me to a Human Rights Commission? Are you offended because the Canadian flag-bearer at the Olympics is not French?
Or is that just the other weenies in Quebec?
Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-25 12:02:13 AM
I would never think of belittling you.
Each human being has their own worth and their future lies in the ability to control themselves.
Nobody else is responsible for my failures but me. Same goes for you or anybody.
Those who are relatively successful do so through hard work or good luck or both. They take nothing from you and do not stand in your way to be equally successful.
I grew up on welfare and now have a net worth approaching $700,000. I can honestly say I oppressed nobody to gain that net worth.
Not much of a fan of overly hard work, I chalk it up to luck, buying real estate at the right time and getting good advice on the stock market.
SInce you have no idea who I am, it's a total impossibility for me to have victimized you.
To find out who did victimize you, just look in the mirror.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-25 12:14:41 AM
WOW SYF I CANNOT BELIEVE YOU.
First, you say that the only way "our bunch" knows to get through to someone is by belittling them, and now you belittle a whole province. You are the most hypocritical sack of shit I have ever met. And you know what, I openly admit that I do say that out of anger and frustration, because people such as yourself who will not take another sides argument in stride, and who have the self-concieted nerve to degrade a whole god damn PROVINCE (which just HAPPENS to be the BIGGEST), really, really piss me off. I'm through being nice and rational with you. I'm done.
Also, your statement "I'm constantly amazed how little belief have in their God-given freedoms," (which I'm going to assume is supposed to say 'how little belief people have') is retarded at best. If you believe in a higher power (which is fine, I personally don't, but whatever, your choice), and our freedoms are God-given, so is weed. Weed is God-given. Correct me if I'm wrong, but everything God does or places on this Earth, etc. is for a reason. Therefore, weed was placed on this Earth by god. Therefore, it's a God-given freedom.
Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-25 12:15:15 AM
FYI, I never said you victimized me, I never felt I was your victim.
Also, FYI, you're not allowed to tell me I victimize myself. You don't know who the fuck I am, you don't know where the fuck I live, you don't know anything about me. You are not allowed to say shit.
Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-25 12:18:45 AM
Oh and one more thing. In regard to our previous argument about alcohol vs. weed, and the effects they have on violence and anger; if I saw you right now, and I were drunk, and we were having this argument, and you degraded a whole province the way you did, I would probably punch you in the face and knock you flat on your fat, stubborn ass. However, if we were having this argument and I were high, and you degraded a whole province the way you did, I would laugh at you and use words and non-violent methods to describe how I feel, as oppose to using my fist in your head to describe how I feel.
Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-25 12:21:06 AM
Being so Acog as to write off my comedic writing just like that! You must know by now that from the length of this page, that theres no effort to stand in one other's shoes and see what we're trying to get across. Perspective. But that was ultimately never going to happen anyways.
Yes, BY THE WAY, the blatant US bashing was just an example of a problem, an unjust systum maaan. And for our plight in particular, at this point I don't believe I need to regurgitate why.
Why DON'T you smoke for a couple months, see what happens. Worst thing is you could be right.
Posted by: AK47 | 2008-07-25 12:29:42 AM
Now, now. Take a chill pill or whatever smoke it is that helps you escape from your own self-destructive forces. I'm not making you angry. You're making you angry.
My comments about Quebec's political culture and its smug attitude toward language issues are based on historical fact. Any observant person would know that the Quebec media always makes a big stink in an athlete cannot speak French. Even Saku Koivu's cancer could not spare him from the venom. There are many precedents about Canadian athletes who carry the flag at the Olympics who do not meet their judgemental standards.
You're correct. I did drop the word ‘people' out of my statement and stand by my general observation that people wold rather rip somebody else down that actually do somthing to make their own lives better. Heck, just listen to any of Obama's speeches and that's exactly what he's saying.
Hemlock is also God-created. Care to make the choice to drink some?
Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-25 12:31:52 AM
I'd have no problem smoking for a couple of months.
I suspect you'd have a problem quitting for a couple of month.
That's the difference between our levels of self-control, I guess.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-25 12:33:41 AM
SYF: I can assure you, that I am not making myself angry, and that you are. I would know if I were making myself angry. I can also assure you I am not self-destructive in any way. I'm self-productive. With the exception of hurtles thrown my way (this being the way of life), I have strived my whole life to be self-productive. You can stop telling me what I am and what I am not doing, because you clearly do not know. It's not something difficult to observe.
And if I were ever offered hemlock, I would refuse it (with a furtive look of skepticism shot at whoever offered it), but it is still a freedom to drink it.
And finally I think you should start smoking for a couple months. See if it changes your perspective on the subject. I really highly doubt AK47 would have trouble quitting for a couple months, because it's really not that difficult. It's not an addictive substance, as much as you want to convince yourself it is.
Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-25 1:10:34 AM
One thing I forgot to address: "My comments about Quebec's political culture and its smug attitude toward language issues are based on historical fact. Any observant person would know that the Quebec media always makes a big stink in an athlete cannot speak French." **I believe 'in' is supposed to be 'when'**
Alright then, my comments about your arrogance, and your ignorance toward Marijuana issues are based on your stubbornness to accept opinion, fact, and statistic. Any observant thread contributor would know that you always retreat to your initial argument and refuse to contribute something unheard is directly related to that same arrogance, ignorance, and stubbornness of the previous sentence.
Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-25 1:20:22 AM
And everyone who is actively contributing to this, would you please go and look at this picture: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=779959&op=1&view=all&subj=20604260786&aid=-1&oid=20604260786&id=504077612
This is what marijuana does for our community. Look at the smiles. Everyone is happy. There is no misery or anger in site. Who would not want to live in a world like that?
To me, not wanting to live in a world of positive happiness, is just as bad as promoting war.
Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-25 1:27:12 AM
We looked but could not find Marc Emery in there
and he is in _every marijuana picture ever taken in the world, for the last 10,000 years
Posted by: 419 | 2008-07-25 8:08:22 AM
We looked but could not find Marc Emery in there
and he is in _every marijuana picture ever taken in the world, for the last 10,000 years
Posted by: 419 | 2008-07-25 8:08:26 AM
I've always suspected dopers are mental midgets and now I see there's some scientific proof for it.
I was half-asleep when I saw it on TV last night, but since I haven't destroyed too many of my brain cells, this is the best I can remember before I start tracking the story down.
Scientists in Austrailia released results of a study on the brains of long-time marijuana users (five joints a day over 20 years).
They discovered the brain shrank considerably in two areas compared to non-users.
Seems to me one of the areas had something to do with perception in the social skills area, but I could have misheard that part. Much too complicated that early in the morning.
I wonder if any of our friends would care to sign a donor card so that scientist in North America can help refute these findings, since our friends claim it is a harmless substance?
Dopers of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your minds.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-25 8:36:00 AM
One among us doesn’t know his father.
I let you find who this is…
Don’t waste your time on this troll who clearly suffers from the lack of love while growing up.
Posted by: Marc | 2008-07-25 9:15:15 AM
I wonder how stoners can read
Brave New World" and miss that the main theme is the governemnt is handing out legal SOMA and the wipehead population become a nation of assholes (IMPARED BUT HAPP-PEE !! ) morally lame materialistic selfish retards on dope.
the only one who is able to figure this wicked swindle out and can retain any sence of self and function with any degree of reason is the Savage .., and he refuses to eat goct mandated SOMA or submit to demands of mainstream conformity...
he grew up surrounded by drug use, and knew the score and decided against eating the pills of chemical happiness..
Why any free person desire to have their government legalize psychotropic substances , & then demand their rulers tax and regulate recreational mind drug production and make them available to anyone who wants them-- is beyond me.
My guess is the present generation of Wipehead sissies, if they are promised free dope will quickly surrender autonomy to the first Socio Inebriatian that steps up - either an elected official with a rotton agenda of social domination or some boy bandit king like Marc Emery who just wants to pee off a balcony onto the crowd below.
Posted by: 419 | 2008-07-25 9:18:37 AM
Faced with the newly-realeased scientific fact that brains shrink with prolonged marijuana use, the weedheads understandably fall into a state of panic.
So, instead of addressing the scientific findings, they revert to name-calling and innuendo in the mistaken belief that the ganja makes them clever.
Perhaps a new marketing slogan is in order:
No brain, no cry.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-25 9:42:18 AM
SYF: You want one of us to address your scientific findings? Because I am more than happy to. I went to sleep last night. SORRY.
I would like to hear more about this "brain shrinking theory" because as I think YOU stated before, THC is fat-soluble, especially in the brain. Now unless your brain absorbs the THC, and then it proceeds to break down cells, my first guess at what happens to your brain after it absorbs THC is that it has more mass (I could be 100% wrong, I am just pulling a theory out of the air right now).
Furthermore, I don't think anyone said ganja makes you clever. If they did let me know, I'll retract that statement, but as far as I can recall all anyone said is that ganja makes you question authority. It makes you wonder "why?"
419: You say, "morally lame materialistic selfish retards on dope."
And then say, "and he refuses to eat goct mandated SOMA or submit to demands of mainstream conformity"
Which is it? Because as far as I know materialism and conformity are pretty much one with another in this world now.
"Why any free person desire to have their government legalize psychotropic substances , & then demand their rulers tax and regulate recreational mind drug production and make them available to anyone who wants them-- is beyond me."
We want it legalized, but as long as you don't grow it, it's never going to be free. The fact that we want it to be taxed and regulated is simply so that we can come to a slight compromise with the government. We get legal weed, they get a shit load of revenue on taxes from it.
Something on the scale of the taxes from cigarettes (which is REALLY high, just in case you were wondering)
Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-25 10:05:19 AM
MY scientific findings?
No, it's credible research on long-term ganja users that found within 20 years (not that long a time), the brain shrinks in two areas.
In the interest of truth, I'm sure the owners of this website could dig up the data and post it here.
I'm also curious as to why the THC that attaches itself to fat cells would congeal in those two areas of the brain and the process by which shrinkage is caused.
Any state would be acting irresponsibly if it legalized a substance which would cause physical harm through willful self-destructive behaviour.
No brain, no cry.
I'm not buying this ‘tax me, I'm Canadian' line any more than I'm buying Dion's Green Shaft.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-25 10:48:16 AM
SYF: by YOUR scientific findings, I simply was referring to the fact that you posted them. Don't worry I would never give you credit for scientific findings.
"Any state would be acting irresponsibly if it legalized a substance which would cause physical harm through willful self-destructive behaviour."
Guess what else is willful and 'self-destructive' (weed really isn't, HENCE THE QUOTATIONS)? Tobacco, alcohol, and, if you really want it to be, you can even make advil pretty god damn self-destructive. To quote Kat Williams, "Weed is not legal, but advil is perfectly legal. Shit let me tell you, you take 13 of those motherfuckers it's gonna be your last headache."
Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-25 11:40:34 AM
Oh yea I forgot: "I'm not buying this ‘tax me, I'm Canadian' line"
You should buy it, because our community is being responsible when we realize that taxing marijuana is the only safe and effective way to have it legal. Straight up, I would LOVE if it weren't taxed. But when it's legal it's going to be. Can't do anything about it, it's just accepting a reality.
Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-25 11:42:22 AM
Do any of those substances you mentioned shrink the size of your brain?
My late mom was prescribed comadin as a blood thinner. In case you're unaware of what that substance is, it's low-dosage rat poision. But, it did help keep her alive until this March, living with a pacemaker for 16 years.
No need to tax ganja. There's good reason it's not legalized. Is it the state's role to accommodate brain-shrinking activities?
You can rationalize your own consumption all you like. As long as you're aware of the risks, you're free to join the Dare to Shrink Your Brain Size' club.
What it does to your penis, I have no idea. There's always VIagra for that problem.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-25 11:51:32 AM
SYF: You are right, neither of them shrink your brain. However one kills your brain and your liver (at a high rate), and one gives you various types of cancer (at a high rate).
I'm sorry to hear about your Mom. I have no idea how the death of your Mother pertains to this argument, but sorry anyways.
And here is what I have been looking for from you and have been trying to stress this whole time:
"As long as you're aware of the risks, you're free to join the Dare to Shrink Your Brain Size' club."
EXACTLY. As long as people are EDUCATED by non-propagandist sources on the material, then why not let them do as they choose? If their brain shrinks and they SOMEHOW, in the slightest little chance that it is actually possible, become a BLUBBERING mass, then it's THEIR FAULT. You don't have to worry yourself with it. They knew the risks. They were educated. Why not let them do as they choose? It's all about choice. Recently North America has slowly accepted the CHOICE of sexual orientation.
And so far weed has given me no problem with impotence. I've heard cases of it, but I've also heard that it goes away in about a week. And if it doesn't, you're right. That's why we have viagra.
Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-25 12:02:38 PM
Hate to be the one to inform you of this basic fact, but we all have God-given free will.
That means, since the dawn of history, all humans have had to make decisions on a whole variety of choices. Curiously, the range of choices include those that are beneficial and those that are harmful.
Geez, the way you've phrased it, it seems North Americans are only now discovering a tiny minority of men stick their dicks into other men's orfices. Huh? Hey, it's been going on for thousands of years.
But the laws of nature tell us there are two sexes and, curiously enough, reproduction happens in situations other than guys sticking their members into each other.
Do we need a man-made law to understand what we can see with our own eyes (if you're ever lived on a farm, you would have seen it with your own eyes)?
On to the topic of ganja, what difference will it make if a man-mad law will make it a legal commodity?
Will that somehow change its brain-shrinking properties? No.
That's simply a law of nature and nothing will change the potential for harm the substance has, especially in strengths that are much stronger than when I used to indulge in it occasionally ... and how even more harmful harder drugs are.
Think of how much less fun it would be if you didn't have a sense you were sticking it to the man, even though the man just laughs at your lack of discernment.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-25 12:21:44 PM
in the 50 year old novel "Brave New World" the mainstream society of the future IN THE BOOK eat SOMA and yes, I refer to _them as morally lame, selfish retards on dope. The author, the good Mr ( Acidhead ) Huxley also paints them SOMA sluts in an indesirable way. I consider them the bad guys
the character known as THE SAVAGE does indeed refuse to eat Goct mandated SOMA or submit to the demands of mainstream SOMA slut conformity. I consider him the good guy
you say as far as you know materialism and conformity are pretty much one with the other in this world now...... Ya ok.. the bad guys are the SOMA eating conformists and the good guy isthe straight edge savage, Cliff notes was well worth the investment
So do you want cannabis legal so you can smoke this material and become and stay a mainstream materialistic conformist ?
Cannabis in 2008 certainly qualifies aa a mainstream indulgance- and pot is a material consumption ritual- it is not a material free spiritial excercuse
Maybe clear this up before the drug aparteid fencing is installed in your neiboirhood.
And you welcome govt tax and govt regulation..and will abandon lifelong black market shopping habits and obey the govt you have been crappoimg on and cheating all along? And yoi wiull agree to aid and support the taxmans Blitzkreiggers who will kick in the doors of black market grow opps, jails the pot pirates..and seize all their assets with a fury that todays little operation greens can't eveb imagine..
Will you accept the escalation of violence that will follow when dodging the taxman makes drug gangs even more desperate greedy & nuts than they are now? Will you be ok with the idea that every third world nation will continue , like they are right now- grow three crops of pot a year for the rich white urban SOMA people and neglect nation building?
Will you accept the the very economy of the world tilting to accomodate upswing drug cropping at the expense of future food and fuel production ? Most people in the world, by far do not grow their own pot , they buy it- thats a fact..
hard earned cash for ashes
what a wonderful deal -( not )-
We won;t even touch human health issues right now.
My guess is, like every other wipehead part time social reformer you haven;t considered _any of this serious social blowback beyond how great it would be to smoke up and not fret about just _you and your circle of friends not being busted-
I would say " think again"
but I am not convinced you thought
in the first place
Posted by: 419 | 2008-07-25 12:26:38 PM
I am getting so sick of this hypocritcal ignorance that I'm going to take the next however long of my time to go over EVERY reason why marijuana should be legalized.
1) Canada, and especially the US, were both built around the freedom and choice mentality. To smoke weed is a choice, but is not yet a freedom. And before you can counter argue with some bullshit that revolves around "oh killing someone is a choice but it cant ever be a freedom," you should realize that freedom should only come at times when it does not harm other beings.
As long as people are educated on the dangers of the substance by non-propagandist sources (everybody is in public school) then it is a lifestyle decision, the same as sexual orientation would be.
2) The crime rate of both countries would be drastically reduced, and the percentage of Americans in prison would be greatly reduced. (Did you know that 1% of Americans are behind bars?)
Tax payers dollars would have the chance to go to better use, as oppose to keeping someone behind bars who was just excercising their so-called "freedom"
"Federal data released this year reveals almost half of all drug arrests are for marijuana, and that approximately one in seven drug prisoners is now behind bars for marijuana offenses."
"In all, marijuana prisoners now compose approximately 14 percent of all state and federal drug inmates at a $1.2 billion annual cost to taxpayers."
--US Statistics (Canada is smart enough to not imprison people arrested on marijuana related charges)
3)Marijuana is proven to be less harmful to the body and mind then alchohol, tobacco, and is proven to be less addictive than coffee (seriously I think I'm getting addicted to caffeine, I still am not addicted to marijuana. I've been smoking weed a lot longer than I've been drinking coffee). It also does not contribute to heart disease, such as alcohol and nicotine do.
4) Marijuana can greatly help the economy if legalized. It would be taxed, and the amount of revenue generated from those taxes are EXTREMELY high.
"Replacing marijuana prohibition with a system of taxation and regulation similar to that used for alcoholic beverages would produce combined savings and tax revenues of between $10 billion and $14 billion per year, finds a June 2005 report by Dr. Jeffrey Miron, visiting professor of economics at Harvard University." (DAMN $10 BIL!?)
Lets get it right people.
Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-25 1:18:56 PM
you can have lots of opinions
but you only get one vote.
did you ever wonder why the pot laws have not changed at all in your lifetime, but actually become harsher?
Not a single inch in the social policy game has been gained by the stoners in 75 years
Between game show host Marc Emery and a million 420 armchair statesmen going off in 1001 unfocused directions during discussions. its it any wonder the vast mahority of yoir fellow humans are perhaps not interested in advancing the wipehead cause. As time goes on, your fellow humans are less willing to consider the doctrine of stoner entitlement.
Hemp and med pot don't count as there has always been an exemption clause in drug laws for medical, industrial and scientific use. Inly stoners seem to want to legalize pot.It seems everybody else either doesn;t care or they areagainst the idea.
75 years is a long time to
throw stones at the sky
and not hit anything
Posted by: 419 | 2008-07-25 2:17:08 PM
5) Over time, it shrinks the size of your brain.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-25 2:46:46 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.