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

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e553b107db8833

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

Comments

Isn't it clear by now that debating druggies is pointless? They keep running in circles, producing no new knowledge. Moreover, why should we continue when it drags us down to their level. These people are unable to cope with modern life, so they use drugs to 'tune out'. They're fundamentally irresponsible, and we owe it to ourselves to teach them the error of their - not our - ways.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-25 2:50:29 PM


HA. Only stoners want to leaglize pot? Are you sure about that?
"A recent SES poll found 53 per cent of Canadians support marijuana legalization while only 37 per cent oppose it."
http://ayl.blogspot.com/2005/03/end-prohibition-legalize-marijuana.html

"Cannabis use by all Canadians
2004: 12% of Canadians used cannabis more than once over the past year
2004: 14% of Canadians said they smoked pot some time over the past year
2004: 45.5% of Canadians said they had smoked pot some time in their lives
2002: 25% of adult Canadians have tried cannabis some time in life
2002: Approx. 7% of Canadians smoke marijuana recreationally (2.2 million)
1994: 7.4% of Canadians said they smoked pot some time over the past year"
http://frankdiscussion.netfirms.com/info_statistics.html

Therefore only 7 percent of the 53 percent that oppose prohibition are stoners. Get your shit straight 419.

Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-25 2:52:34 PM


Zeb, this whole time I've been doing nothing but producing new knowledge, new articles, and new statistics. I will agree I am running in circles, but those circles are around you three (SYF, 419 and yourself), as you three are too stubborn to accept a legitimate argument. As of late, SYF's only available argument has been that marijuana shrinks the size of your brain. One point for the prohibitioners, four for the anti-prohibitioners.

Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-25 2:56:33 PM


And with regards to your cute little poem 419,
we may have been throwing stones for 75 years , but we have definitely hit a couple birds. Now we're just waiting to bring down the plane of prohibition, and it won't be long

Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-25 3:29:44 PM


Zeb:

May I also add how closed-minded the stoner side is.

When presented with proven scientific evidence that prolonged use of mary-jane shrinks the brain size, it's taken as equal weight as a bunch of pointless points.

Just for the physical damage this drug does means it's even further away from legalization that it was just 24 hours ago ... when the news of the Australian research was revealed.

The sands have now shifted considerably during the time this thread was first posted and it seems to me the stoners are sinking in a pool of their own rhetoric.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-25 3:33:07 PM


SYF: it's their drug habit - their dependence makes them unreliable and chaotic, and hence unfit for citizenship. Such activities hinder social and political progress. Why don't they get high off of life, because it's great.

As Family Guy has shown us, they don't call it dope for nothing.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-25 3:43:45 PM


Mr Cole..
you refer to small sample surveys- I believe the polls enlist call centre professionals ( aka underemployed persons ) to telephone a max of 1000 people total in one metropolitan area and ask the questions you post the answers to.

1000 people is not a lot of people - most inner city highschools have more than 1000 people there- 1000 people pass by in five minutes at rush hour..there may be 1000 people in one Wallmart store at any one time...1000 people is not a lot of people.. not enough to tilt the odds yoi are ip against.

If this trend yoi are proposing ius so dazzling- why hasve none of the major political parties pocking ip on it? Why hasn't the private sector market addressed this so called dazzling opinion shift? If its a trenf the free market addresses it sincerely because thats where the money is or will be. Bit nobody but stoners take it seriously, and so there are lots of stoners? like we don't need polls to show is that.. we can smell them

maybe because this sort of pop survey is insignificant, just mass media dumb candy to generate website hits.

Pot and boobs will do it every time


The only numbers that count are votes ..and the only votes that count are the winning ones


Posted by: 419 | 2008-07-25 3:47:31 PM


Mt Cole-

the plane of prohibition you are throwing stones at is a stealth bomber, look out.. and here come a squadren of spray planes.. and a host of attack

helicopters.. the stones that are falling on yout head immediately after you throw your lithic volleys of stoner sass heavenwards..

guess where they come from?

Posted by: 419 | 2008-07-25 3:58:18 PM


Mt Cole-

the plane of prohibition you are throwing stones at is a stealth bomber, look out.. and here come a squadren of spray planes.. and a host of attack

helicopters.. the stones that are falling on yout head immediately after you throw your lithic volleys of stoner sass heavenwards..

guess where they come from?

Posted by: 419 | 2008-07-25 3:58:24 PM


Hey SYF:
I'm actually really, very open-minded, and I'm sure most stoners are, since stoners are typically liberal. Liberal's are traditionally open-minded, where as Conservatives are traditionally the close-minded bunch. I never said your argument of the brain-shrinking properties of weed was pointless. I actually think it's a great argument for your side, one I've never heard before. I merely stated it was recently the only argument you had.

Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-25 4:10:04 PM


lmao 419, thats actually really funny... i'm not saying that in a passive-aggressive way either, I truly thought that was hilarious. And if your plane of prohibition is a stealth bomber then my stones get to turn into F-19 Raptors :)

Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-25 4:13:18 PM


Chuck:

You've never heard about ganja's brain-shrinking properties because the news only came out yesterday, days after his thread started.

The traditional definition of liberal has never included tolerance for a substance which causes, in all cases, proveable physical harm. That's beyond open-minded, that's plain goofy.

I'm a pretty open-minded individual. That allows me to make decisions based on ALL facts.

The fact is once this latest research becomes common knowledge, no state will ever legalize a harmful substance of primarily recreational use. It's much too dangerous and, in Canada's health care system, its treatment would be indefensible.

Science has spoken and the time to bamboozle the unsuspecting public into a stupid decision is now past.


Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-25 6:31:21 PM


SYF: "The traditional definition of liberal has never included tolerance for a substance which causes, in all cases, proveable physical harm. That's beyond open-minded, that's plain goofy."

I'm sorry, when I stated that most stoners are liberal I was talking about the modern day, and more common version, which is the reform liberal. It's not beyond open-minded. Most open-minded people I know, do not care what other people put into their bodies, as long as they're informed. A lot of the time they do get informed. I have a lot of friends that smoke cigarettes who get a lot of shit from other people, but do it anyways. That shit from other people is getting them informed. But they choose to do it anyways. Do you see a pattern here? It's all common sense and logic.
First and foremost: As long as the individual is educated, it is solely their decision on what to do with themselves.
Second: As long as we have more substances which are more harmful than marijuana legal for recreational use, it's illogical to not legalize the less harmful substance.

Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-26 11:31:36 AM


Oh, and SYF:
I found your article for you. "Those who smoked cannabis regularly had on average a 12% smaller hippocampus, the part of the brain which is thought to be involved with emotion and memory, and a 7% smaller amygdala, which plays a role in regulating fear and aggression."


This isn't new information really... Everyone already knew that your memory gets worse the more you smoke weed. I am already aware of my decreasing memory, but whatever, I'll get a day planner. I don't see any change in my emotion yet, or my fear and aggression, but those last three are really not very important. Honestly, I don't think a lack of emotion, fear, and aggression are going to tip the scales that much in the battle against prohibiton. If anything a lack of aggression is a good thing.

Here's the link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jun/03/drugs.drugsandalcohol

Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-26 11:59:19 AM


SYF: "You've never heard about ganja's brain-shrinking properties because the news only came out yesterday, days after his thread started."


"Cannabis may shrink brain, scientists report
Ian Sample, science correspondent
The Guardian, Tuesday June 3 2008"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jun/03/drugs.drugsandalcohol


That was definetly like a month and a half ago...

Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-26 12:02:06 PM


Chuck:

Good work!

The first I heard about this was early Friday a.m., while I was watching TV. All I'm trying to do is weight the relevant facts, based on my previouslys-stated open-minded attitude.

So, if the information has been out there for more than a month, do you figure Health Canada is unaware of it?

The fact of proveable harm itself would disqualify it within the defenition of the greater societal good. In other words, legalization would be a regressive step rather than a progressive step, since it would expose individual citizens to recognizable harm.

There are many other examples of theories which espouse ‘progressive' political thought which, in the laboratory of human experience, have over time proven to be more harmful.

Marxism and National Socialism are two of these such ideas which espouse the perfectability of manking through evolutionary methodology.

In summation, keeping with the starting point of this thread, the ‘my enemy is your enemy' tactic will eventually fall flat.

Western democracies based on conservative, or rather more traditional thought, offer the best freedoms at any time in history.

Rebelling against freedom is plain stupid. By embracing the enemies of freedom, marxism and its ugly sisters, in an attempt to overthrow the existing political establishments is a losing proposition in the long run.

Those particular systems offer retraining camps for dopers.

Since you have the God-given gift of free will, it does make more sense to look at all the facts and make a decision that's best for yourself in the long run.

To me, it makes to sense to choose the slavery of drug addiction.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-26 12:48:15 PM


"The fact of proveable harm itself would disqualify it within the defenition of the greater societal good. In other words, legalization would be a regressive step rather than a progressive step, since it would expose individual citizens to recognizable harm."


So why hasn't Health Canada set another prohibition against alcohol or tobacco?


"Since you have the God-given gift of free will, it does make more sense to look at all the facts and make a decision that's best for yourself in the long run.

To me, it makes to sense to choose the slavery of drug addiction." *i assume 'to' is no*

I agree. Everyone needs to look at the long run, and make a decision that is suitable for them.
However, for at least the 50th time, it's not a drug addiction.

Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-26 3:10:23 PM


I don't know if Abe Lincoln or Ben Franklin had shrunken brains, but they both smoked pot and Lincoln was a hemp farmer. He said, "It's good for what ails ya."
It was the plastics industry that lobbied the government to make this herb illegal - they didn't want the competition, as hemp is a multi-use plant.

What a private individual smokes is his own concern. Lincoln also said "Mind your business."

When the government forces everyone to smoke or injest a harmful substance - thats when its evil.

It has been known for decades that floride, for instance, is extremely harmful to the brain and body - and the government puts it in the tap water - against all reason, against all proof.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Charlie, I don't know why you try to reason with these nitwits. Their method is the same as HRC Richard Warman - "maximum disruption". This is how they pretend to themselves that they have "won the argument".

Those who would deny individual rights and political freedom to others don't have a reasoned argument or a leg to stand on. They do nothing but hurl epithets and advocate (as one poster on this thread has done a couple of times) concentration camps as the "final solution" for pot smokers.

We all know who else had the same ideas and implemented them. Luckily he and his philosophy got their ass kicked in WW11. He is dead but unfortunately his ideas live on in the peabrains of the mindless.

Marijuana is a non-addictive herb. As an illegal substance it has proven to be a cash-cow for the legal profession and the injustice system. It also serves as a justification for law enforcement to appear to be "doing something" while doing little about the real and violent crime perpetrated against peaceful citizens.
Keeping it illegal is also a cash-cow for the criminal gang elements. It's a win-win all around. All we need now are those concentration camps - look at the jobs it would create!

Posted by: DonnaB | 2008-07-26 4:38:10 PM


I don't know if Abe Lincoln or Ben Franklin had shrunken brains, but they both smoked pot and Lincoln was a hemp farmer. He said, "It's good for what ails ya."

Lie. Lincoln never farmed.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-26 4:53:10 PM


Whether Lincoln farmed or not is irrelevant. You just got rocked on that last argument ahhhahaha.

Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-26 5:07:22 PM


Chuck:

Not an addiction?

Methinks the doper protests too much.


Posted by: Set you free | 2008-07-26 5:34:09 PM


SYF: Not an addiction.
Methinks the non-doper doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about because he's NOT A DOPER.

Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-26 5:37:34 PM


Chuck:

Do I have to kill somebody to know murder is bad?

Donna B:

Anything else you'd like to ban?

Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-26 5:40:29 PM


SYF: No obviously not, most human beings are morally coded to know that things like murder are bad. The problem with you, SYF, is that you counterargue with things that are on a completely different scale. Murder is not even comparable to smoking weed. You are inflicting the most possible amount of damage on another being, as oppose to inflicting a miniscule amount on yourself.

Think of it as tasting food. You would have starved already if your mentality was "well I don't know if I like that, so I better not try it"

Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-26 6:14:56 PM


Chuck:

Now, that's a truly interesting response on a level that's beyond your comprehension.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-26 7:06:04 PM


"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."

Abraham Lincoln (1809-65), U.S. President.
Speech, 18 Dec. 1840, to Illinois House of Representatives

ZP - I don't lie.
Perhaps my memory is gone from past years of smoking (sarc) and I could be mistaken about Lincoln. My source for Lincoln was in one of my Libertarian magazines from the '70's and I can't locate it right now.
However, Lincon's father grew it and his wife Mary Todd came from a family with a large grow-opp. Washington and Jefferson were both hemp growers. For a time it was illegal NOT to grow it, as it was needed to outfit Washington's army.

Charlie Cole is right - this is irrelevant. My point was that hemp/marijuana has a long history. It was not invented by the "hippies" of the 60's and todays prohibition and the lame excuses for it are unjust and destructive.

SYF - Is there anything else I'd like to ban?
I don't know what you are refering to that I said I would like to ban, but yes there is something I would like to ban.

I would like to ban the use of physical force - except in self defense and only in retaliation against those who initiate its use.
I support the right to bear arms for private citizens.
I support the right of citizens to allow governent to have a monopoly on the use of force - IF it is used to protect the individual and property rights of the citizens of the country against foreign aggression and criminals - with a constitution that severely restricts the government in the proper use of force.

I do not support making "criminals" out of people like Marc Emery or Ezra Levant and then violating their rights with the misuse of govenment force.

I would like to ban prohibitions by governments when they encroach in areas that are none of their business in order to violate our individual and property rights.

I would like to ban quasi-judicial soviet-style tribunals.

I would like to ban PC, multi-culti, global warming fear mongering scam artists, and any other group with a pet theory from using our government to enforce their theories against everybody else.

Live and let live.

Posted by: DonnaB | 2008-07-26 8:25:46 PM


Donna:

Marc Emery and Ezra Levant?

Hmm. Levant is championing an individual's God-given right to free speech.

Emery is championing legalization of a substance which will shrink one part of the brain 7% and another part of the brain 12%.

I think I like Levant's chances better.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-26 8:50:31 PM


SYF -

You may be right that Levants chances are better but that doesn't change the principle involved.

Both are fighting prohibition and speaking out for individual and property rights.

Posted by: DonnaB | 2008-07-26 9:10:45 PM


Donna:

Levant's battle promises to make a positive impact on civilization.

Emery's battle promises to destroy more brains, a negative impact.

Not even the same outcome.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-26 9:15:48 PM


SYF: "Chuck:

Now, that's a truly interesting response on a level that's beyond your comprehension."


Care to explain how it is beyond my comprehension?


"Donna:

Levant's battle promises to make a positive impact on civilization.

Emery's battle promises to destroy more brains, a negative impact.

Not even the same outcome."

The outcome is also irrelevant (though Emery's wouldn't be negative anyways), as was whether or not Abe grew hemp. The point is the principle that is shared between the two cases, as DonnaB already pointed out.
Also, You may think Emery's battle will destroy more brains, but honestly. Out of everyone that chooses to smoke pot, who ACTUALLY doesn't because it's illegal. It's like who ACTUALLY goes exactly the speed limit and never over because it's illegal.

Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-26 9:36:24 PM


Chuck:

No. You wouldn't understand.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-26 9:41:05 PM


SYF: Try me. You can't even begin to make assumptions about someones intelligence until you've spent time with someone. Since I haven't spent time with you, and have no desire ever to, you can't tell me I wouldn't understand.


I'm also happy to see that we've reduced you to one sentence, one line insults.

Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-26 9:52:47 PM


Outcomes irrelevant?

As long as your ilk gets its way, the outcome is irrelevant?

I believe one historical precedent for that particular short-sighted and self-centred viewpoint was the Russian Revolution.

That turned out pretty good, didn't it?

Insults? Wow!

Are you really that thin-skinned? Richard Warman would be proud.

I'll give you a clue to my insight. It has to do with a tactic you use and I've deduced that the answer you're used to from the deep-thinking morons you usually debate is ‘yeah, I guess so.'


Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-26 10:06:58 PM


There are plenty of people who who want Levant to lose and don't see a win here as a positive outcome. Should their whims and personal prejudices override his and everyone elses right to freedom of speech? Nobody is forced to read what he writes or buy his magazine should he resume publishing. Nobody is forced to agree with his views on anything.

In a similar vein, nobody would be forced to grow or smoke pot if Emery wins.

Alcohol has far more serious negative health effects than marijuana. I don't drink alcohol and don't recommend the practice. Should we reinstate alcohol prohibition because I, and others don't like it? What about the softening of the brain caused by alcohol?

I might counsel against it if someone asked my advice, but prohibition arbitrarily takes away the right to decide for yourself if you choose to drink or not.

Ezra Levant points out that free speech is everyones right - even if it's speech you abhor.

I'm not a Christian, but I do respect the right of Christians to their beliefs and support the Reverend and Bishop in their fight against the HRCs too.

Emery wouldn't force anyone to smoke pot if he wins his fight - any more than Levant would force anyone to read what he publishes.

I think all drugs should be legalized and take the problem off the streets - as well as the criminals who profit from the prohibition and have no qualms about using force against anyone.

Prohibition against political ideas, religious practices (that don't include violence against nonbelievers), alochol or pot consumption, is outside the governments proper function to decide.

These things are the right of free people to decide for themselves. Big Nanny needs to butt out.

The outcome in both cases would be a victory for our right to exercise discriminating taste, i.e. to decide for yourself.


Posted by: DonnaB | 2008-07-26 10:32:31 PM


Actually the answer I get from most people I discuss this with is, "you know that actually makes a lot of sense." That's because the people I generally tend to associate with aren't overly-stubborn, oppressive mules.

Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-26 11:56:44 PM


Emery may be a bit of a nut with a martyr complex...but he is most certainly not a criminal.
The war on drugs is a war on our rights. Sadly, The majority of people have had sufficient "public education" to believe that this war is somehow justified. It isn't. The war on drugs has done more to create gang violence and criminal enterprise than any other single set of laws in our history. When the prohibition on alcohol was lifted in the US the murder rate dropped by nearly half. And lets not forget the "Prison Industrial Complex". Gotta keep those prisons full. The US has imprisoned more of its own people than any other country in history. Why?
To add another level of control of course.
here's an interesting little video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRPxN7DGy5c

What is necessary is education...not the kind sold in public schools, but the kind that comes from parents. If someone wants to smoke crack until they are hiding in a closet, that is their choice, if they come out of that closet and commit a crime to support that habit, then the crime, not the habit, is to be punished. Severely I would hope.

Here's an example of hard hitting education, it didn't stay on TV long because it might have actually worked. And we can't have that because that Prison Industrial Complex needs new meat all the time to help justify rapacious taxation...
Check out the video and see if you don't agree...this hits home. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZSSfSwr0T4

As for Marc. Good luck Buddy, they're going to eat you alive.

Posted by: JC | 2008-07-27 8:51:04 AM


Yo JC..

I don;t know if Mr Emery is a " nut " but if anyone qualifies for a psychiatric evualuation amd detox at taxpayers expense, its that guy.

"Martyr Complex?" its not complex, its simple- DopeReich Marshal Emery believes and announces everything that passes through his drug saturated mind while looking in the mirror while displaying zero discernment of word, thought or deed.

Thats a martyr- minus doing anything for other peoples sake- Mr Emery is conducting an enormous one man ego pic nic as others look on-- his actions have not and will not likely improve things for anybody else..If we as a society come to inderstand anything from Mr Emery- it will be what _not to do ..

Maybe weak willed clinically uncertain apologists are impressed by his manic bouts of TC Evangelist style confidence- but , really, so what?

As for Mr Emery being a criminal.. you are unsure ?? he has been raided, charged convicted . fined and jailed many times for breaking various drug laws..if you are still unsure if this is criminal activity or not, I direct you to his majestys diverse online, radio TV & print revelations, confessions and naked & frequent admissions of guilt..You may not know, but he sure does

Mr Emery is perhaps the worlds most easy criminal to identify, mainly becacause he boasts he is a serious repeat offender lawbreaker- He seems to be somewhat proud of fucking up

Unless of course, you are trying to say that you don;t believe that the drug offences that The Prince of Pot willfully commits for personal profit are crimes..Drug offences of that natire are very much crimes on ecery nation on earth-- your fellow human race seems to think they are crimes..


But you are correct in assuming "they are going to eat him alive" -thats very plaisible and likely oitcome for an international drug criminal of his stature
Now watch the countdown to the fall and slippage of the BC3 & as the stoner hoards will not do anything about it except get stoned and bitch. just like thay have for the last 75 years

Posted by: 419 | 2008-07-27 9:52:27 AM


419: "Unless of course, you are trying to say that you don;t believe that the drug offences that The Prince of Pot willfully commits for personal profit are crimes..Drug offences of that nature are very much crimes on every nation on earth-- your fellow human race seems to think they are crimes.."


The drug offenses Emery commits are to stand up for principle, not for personal profit. The only of his 'crimes' that he made money off of would be selling seeds, and more than three quarters of that went to fund various charities as well as his political party.


"Now watch the countdown to the fall and slippage of the BC3 & as the stoner hoards will not do anything about it except get stoned and bitch. just like thay have for the last 75 years"


You'd be surprised to know how many stoners are actually doing something about it. There's a lot.

Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-27 10:23:51 AM


I would have to agree with Charlie about the "overly stubborn oppressive mules" comment. It seems Charlie has at least tried the stuff and can "therefore" base an opinion on the matter. In stead of basing an opinion on what other people tell you.

Posted by: glen | 2008-07-27 10:44:10 AM


419,Thank you for your comments,

You seem to have focused on only the parts of my post that you care to address.I maintain that prohibition is simply a senseless and useless waste of very expensive government resources.
It is a law of control that is completely ineffective for anything, it acheives no visible results and has done pretty much nothing to end the problem. The law itself lends to turf wars and violence, just like the prohibition on alcohol did so many years ago. They government couldn't stop that either so they legalized and taxed it.
I maintain that education is the key.
I do not endorse drug use as it does destroy lives. But its still just plain none of the governments business, unless of course we accept the idea that socialism works and that governments should be able to dictate how we live our lives. I do not endorse that kind of fascist government on any level whatsoever.

Posted by: JC | 2008-07-27 11:58:42 AM


Yo JC-
why yes, I only comment of the parts of your post that I want- you are catching on fast !

Say all you want about/against prohibition-
even throw stones at the jets of control. You don;t endorse drug use because it destroys lives.. prohibition is a world sceberio- not just some socialist side show0 every socio-political system in the world has anti pot laws . and enforces them.

The governmet is not an invading foreign force - it is the democratically shaped tool of the society you are in..and collectiovely, your fellows ahc decided prohibition of certain sibstances are the way to fo. Same socio-political mechanism that is trying to eliminate every stray speck of asbstoes. mercury, heavy metal. spray for mosquitos, inocilate against diseases.. etc etc.. pot is just one more toxin on the list of indesirable stuff " we can all live better without "

So have your fun playing on the Prohibition road, but be prepared to be run over at some point.

and Mr Cole, yes- I would be surprised at the number of stoners who are doing anything about it, because so far none of them have done anything that matters.. we are talking actual _results, not efforts expended in that direction. Mr Emery and the stoner CEOs footprint is all talk and no results - no pot laws changed- they haveinstead, become even harsher

Just wait for their trial in America that will follow on the heels of extradition- where we will all see where $ 15,000,000.00 actually went-

only an insignificant fraction of that dopeseed fortune went to helping anybody other than Mr Emerys' well advertised self interests.


Have yourself a real nice day


Posted by: 419 | 2008-07-27 1:26:49 PM


Before you can get any hevy results in political issues, you have to win over the majority of the public. The amount of supporters of Marc Emery and anti-prohibiton groups is growing every day.

And actually, Mr. Emery consented to a 5-year prison term served in Canada with the other of the BC3 left out of it.
The extradition hearing is off.

Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-27 5:09:40 PM


So, how is winning over the non-stoners coming along? The support you say is increasing everyday, is not increasing enough to make much difference. Prohibition seems to be doing just fine in spite of your claims otherwise

As for the inevitability of the Extradition hearing: its scheduled for Feb 2009 in Vancouver- a few months away. And even if you follow stoner news, you would know that Mr Emerys quickie plead guilty deal for 5 years in prison fell apart in the winter of 2008 , So its back to square one for drug lord Emery and his co accused gang members.

may justice be swift, fair and complete

First the extradition hearing-
then the judgement-
then the extradition order


Posted by: 419 | 2008-07-27 5:42:07 PM


419: forget it. Emery thinks he's Scarface, doing a public good while inflicting great harm. His supporters - aka minions - like CC above want to be like Manny and/or Elvira. If only they had a Gina to bring them down to earth. All we have to do is add some cheesy disco music and we're set to say hello to his little friend.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-27 6:11:07 PM


Zeb-

you're right, The lambs of thc here don;t even know the court datebook takedowns of the prince..and imagine some mystical delivery will occur to rescue both Emery and the stoner agenda.

I do wish they had all bet money on the outcom to give a little gracity to their pandering words . but no, activists are notoriously cheap..

Posted by: 419 | 2008-07-27 7:35:23 PM


419, you're right I'm sorry. I saw this article (Seeding Sovereignty) on the front page of this site, and thought it was recent. I was not aware his compromise had fell through either, I thought it still stood if he chose to hand himself over.

Zeb -- Emery is inflicting no harm. I'm pretty sure on the cover of the movie, Scarface holds two tommy guns. Emery owns no firearms, and has never inflicted damage on anyone. Don't try to pull that crap.


"So, how is winning over the non-stoners coming along? The support you say is increasing everyday, is not increasing enough to make much difference."


419 -- It's actually coming along great. It takes a loooong time for changes like this to occur. The rate we're growing is actually pretty fast... As well as is the rate at which cumulative evidence which supports the end of prohibition grows.

Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-27 8:11:30 PM


75 years and no change- get ready pass the torch of dope advocacy to the 4th generation..
If you wave at the spray planes ,

Posted by: 419 | 2008-07-27 9:00:07 PM


There's not going to be a torch to pass in a decade or so.

Posted by: Charlie Cole | 2008-07-27 9:07:20 PM


419:

Have you noticed that the size of stoner's brains shrink by about the same proportion they delude themselves into believing their support is growing?

Have you ever listened to anybody blah, blah, blah and blah some more and after a while you agree with him in the hope he shuts up?

How many ‘yeah, whatever's' do you figure motormouth Chuck includes in his legion of growing supporters?

No government will ever, in anybody's lifetime, legalize any other substance which causes demonstrable physical harm.

If tobacco were not legal today and if it did not have the history it had, including being a sort of legal currency at one time, it would never have legal status.

Both substances have demonstrable capacity to do physical harm ... and look at how sucessfully it has been marginalized in the past few decades.

Ganja will never get the chance for legal status within a society which has become increasingly health-conscious.

In fact, I predict an increasing backlash against it.

That's my opinion, based on open-minded thinking ie weighing pf all the facts.

The sociopaths will increasingly find themselves on the wrong side of history.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-07-27 9:31:01 PM


Yay this is post #300 in this otherwise totally useless thread.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-27 9:50:45 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.