The Shotgun Blog
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Green Party plan for marijuana reform unworkable: Libertarian Party
Libertarian Party candidate Krista Zoobkoff today launched her campaign in the federal riding of Wild Rose with a press conference with party leader Dennis Young.
Zoobkoff and Young released the party’s strategy for marijuana policy reform at a Canmore hemp store owned by 29-year-old entrepreneur Zoobkoff, who also owns businesses in Banff and Airdrie.
The party’s three-part strategy for reforming Canada’s approach to marijuana policy includes:
Legalize the cultivation, sale and use of marijuana by adults
• After 80 years of prohibition, at least 10 million Canadians have still used marijuana. Legalizing the cultivation and sale of marijuana will ensure the safe, peaceful trade of a drug that is substantially less harmful than alcohol or tobacco.
Pardon and expunge the convictions of all non-violent marijuana law offenders
• 600,000 Canadians have criminal records for marijuana possession. These criminal records make international travel difficult or impossible and can limit employment opportunities. The Libertarian Party would pardon Canadians with non-violent marijuana convictions.
Stop the extradition of Canadian magazine publisher Marc Emery to the U.S.A.
• Canadian magazine publisher and political activist, Marc Emery, will spend the rest of his life in an American prison for selling marijuana seeds unless the Canadian governments asserts its sovereignty over drug policy and stops the politically motivated extradition trial against him by the American Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).
“The prohibition of cannabis is more damaging to society than the plant itself,” Zoobkoff told reporters. “The war on drugs is a war on the Canadian people. It can’t be fully enforced, cost taxpayers too much, and breeds violence and organized crime,” she continued.
Party leader Dennis Young said “the Libertarian Party is the only party with a comprehensive strategy for ending marijuana prohibition and ending the organized crime associated with the trade in marijuana.” He was also critical of the Green Party plan for marijuana policy reform.
“Elizabeth May and the Green Party should be congratulated for not running from the important issue of marijuana policy reform, but her plan is unworkable. It will not take the organized crime out of the marijuana trade. Legalizing marijuana for personal use will do nothing to restore peaceful trade in the marijuana business. We must legalize the cultivation and sale of marijuana and take the violence out of the marijuana business once and for all,” said Young.
Young also called on May to publicly oppose the extradition of marijuana legalization activist Marc Emery, who faces an extradition hearing -- scheduled to take place between February 9 –17, 2009 -- that could land him in a US prison for the remainder of his life. The Minister of Justice is responsible for the implementation of the Extradition Act an has the authority to prevent Emery from being prosecuted in the US for selling marijuana seeds, or, alternatively, to charge Emery in Canada for the same offence, the penalty for which in Canada is only a small fine.
“May must commit to restoring Canadian sovereignty over drug policy by joining the Libertarian Party in working actively to prevent the extradition of Canadian publisher and activist Marc Emery to the US for selling marijuana seeds. Will Elizabeth May stop the extradition of Marc Emery? If she won’t, she is not serious about a made-in-Canada approach to drug policy,” said Young.
Young is calling his strategy an "adult" approach to drug policy, one that trusts adult Canadians with choice and is realistic and honest about the failure of marijuana prohibition.
“After 80 years of prohibition, at least 10 million Canadians have still used marijuana, and the number is probably higher. We need to be honest with ourselves. The war on marijuana has been lost, and, despite the best intentions of policy makers, it is doing more harm than good. We must legalize the cultivation, sale and use of marijuana in the interest of public safety, public health and personal liberty,” concluded Young.
(Picture: Libertarian Party candidate Krista Zoobkoff outside her Canmore hemp store)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Green Party plan for marijuana reform unworkable: Libertarian Party:
kim please dont try to force your humaneism on my freedom. that is inhumane. who would be in charge of the warnings? the govenment. to me that means they have to be involved and that costs me money. the government stealing my money is inhumane. we cant put warnings on everything. it is impracticle.
Posted by: krista zoobkoff | 2008-09-28 6:52:33 PM
I meant Krista, sorry.
Kim, you read the standard warning that hang gliders come with.
In effect they all say, that even if you are an expert flying this product under the safest of conditions, (warnings of no gusty air-that's the only air we fly) that there can will will sure come a failure AND YOU WILL DIE and the company is not responsible for any thing.
Yeah, and I 've seen two deadly errors see my blog deadly mistakes and I would still run off a cliff without a concern in my heart. Life isn't fun unless you get to take the gambles on your own and it is your duty and should be drummed into our children that it is their duty to find out exactly how dangerous anything is, not someone else's duty to warning you about the coffee being hot, when it is a hot cup of coffee that you came in for.
Posted by: budoracle | 2008-09-28 7:02:10 PM
Legalize it and warn the vulnerable. If you have ever witnessed a friend affected negatively, you would understand my position. Offer free choice and provide warnings. I'll let YOU be incharge of the warnings if you like. lol
I'm telling you plain and simple this is GREAT for some people and absolutely WRONG for others.
I have witnessed both sides of this issue personally.
This is NOT warning the stupid that the coffee is HOT. It warning the vulnerable of the possible side affects. You find fault in warning vulneralbe people of possible side effects?
You want to allow the stupid to be stupid....and let the chips fall where they may ?
Why is warning someone aboput possible side affects against libertarian valaues?
There is a fine line between libertarian and anarchist...
I believe libertarians should maintain their compassion.
Posted by: kim | 2008-09-28 7:11:56 PM
kim. i hear what you are saying.i am one of the peopel that cannabis affects negativly so i dont smoke it. i have done extensive research on cannabis and have come to the conclution that it is safe. i think what budo is saying is the people in the cannabis culture are sick of being discriminated against and if we have to do this with cannabis then we would moraly have to do it to everything. i seriously cant drink coffee. im not alone. should we put lables about all of the side effects of a substance? i do hear what you are saying and understand where you are coming from. i think the cannabis culture wants to be treated the same as everyone else.
Posted by: krista zoobkoff | 2008-09-28 7:21:52 PM
I am most definately a Libertarian and an advocate of free choice.
This doesn't mean I think people should be let to go forward on decisions concerning their own health without some warnings and education.
In fact I advocate education Way ahead of incarceration. I beleive that when people are generally well informed that the knowledge and the stigma surrounding drugs (hard and soft) will become common.
I don't know how much kids are educated in schools regarding drug use, but I think that the time spent teaching them about sex could be put to better use. (That's a parents job.)
Here is an example of the kind of education I'm thinking of. Its hard hitting and I would think, effective. And I have to wonder why we don't see more of this on TV during prime time when kids and parents are most likely watching together and could talk about it.
Posted by: JC | 2008-09-28 7:33:37 PM
JC...fyi...we are talking about Cannabis. Not heroin... not crack... not meth...
No lumping your drugs....lol
What we need is some good DEA repellent.
What we dont need are people who cant figure out the "one of these things is not like the other" puzzles.
I say quite clearly. Make cannibis available... BUT either regulate it medically or at LEAST warn the vulneralble.
You should be able to get it as easy as you can get paxil.... OR you should be abvle to get it over the counter with warnings to those groups who have proven to be suseptable.
All great to offer Darwinian free choice but when it comes to the ignorant...do you not think they at least should be forwarned?
Bipolar folks maybe should lay off the weed.... paranoids folks maybe should lay off the weed...
Why cant free choice and warnings go hand in hand ???
Those among you who give a flying frig about people should care.
No I dont want to be everyones nurse... governor... I'm just for caring is all.
p.s. the vidoe is irrelevant to this topic.
Posted by: kim | 2008-09-28 7:45:53 PM
yes if something may be detrimentale to a certaqin group of people then they should be warned... like hey... there are penuts in this...dont eat it.
Yes we NEED warnings to protect the vulnerable.
In the work place there is whmis. To identify hazards... A similar system for the public is warrented for everything from chemicals... to drugs. This is NOT against free choice...it is simply a matter of safety!
To the fun aspect... yeah its great to be free to choose and have fun... BUT wnen a warning you read saves you life one day...you will GET the picture.
We are taght form an early age not to driunk the friggin drano.... Well a suseptable patient who is negatively affected by cannabis deserves the same fair warning.
How does warning people affect free choice ?
Posted by: kim | 2008-09-28 7:53:30 PM
For your information check the record.
On March 7th, 2005, the CRTC gave my complaint of hate crimes being perpetrated seriously and gave me a case file number 233039. I had accused there 3 ministers of the Canadian Government breaking the Hate crimes act part 2 which the exact wording of the Broadcasting act. What followed was this (See: An E-mail can change the world on my website).
what followed was that there was never another link made in the national broadcasting media with the tragedy at Mayerthorpe and the pot growing industry. CBC had to answer to me within 3 weeks (See Anne Bolton's answer)
On the eight Commissioner Zacardelli of the RCMP, stepped up to a public microphone and withdrew those allegations that attempted to connect the murders in Mayerthorpe with pot growers. (of whose group I was a member being up on charges and therefor was a member of the targeted group)
The commish, then, very generously APOLOGIZED FOR MAKING THOSE STATEMENTS to all of Canada and especially those whom might have been affected
(That too is in the public record)
Also, within one month, the Crown Attorney approached me unilaterally and dropped the production charges, although I had stipulated to all the charges.
So yeah, having extracted all that with a single email on my first attempt at political activism in which I approached the government, I kind of expect an apology for a century of oppression (43 years of it personal) and you can bet on it, short-one: the government will be apologizing, and soon, because if they don't I will launch a 10 figure law suite.
There is no way that it is legal for the government to hold in place a regime of prohibition which works contrary to its stated goals, has increased violence and the addiction of ever younger children to ever harder drugs and makes our whole society lawless, without being held to account for it.
Revolutions have been held over the tax on tea, my small minded friends! (But by more intelligent people then Canadians)
I have no respect for traditions, or the courts, or any leaders in our government, because their inaction has caused our society fatal trauma for nearly a half century. Only scam politics and the pressure of a foreign government is the reason for this reign of terror. It is not a valid reason to sacrifice our children: for trade. The effects of this law are a much worse effect than Al Quaeda has ever had, or could have on us,and all for no good purpose, contrary to the goals stated. And every day this idiocy continues to takes it toll in our country. These deaths of gang members are CANADIANS.
I can't really respect my fellow Canadians for not standing up for this crucial for our future change. This thing is evil incarnate entrenched into every niche of our society and the government wants to focus on harsher sentences and prohibit hand guns!
I call Canadians Bovines, because they are actually discussing a "prohibition" on handguns. Would that look like a prohibition on drugs we have now? And Jack is floating that pipe dream for votes? I am not the one who is off their rocker! I would have to arm myself if a "prohibition" of handguns were to come about, because I would know that every punk woul;d be packing!
Here we are trying to make things "safer" for Afghans at the point of a gun, while in Canada we are also making our society "safer" at the point of a cop's gun enforcing "Prohibition" read "Promotion"
Hello! are you facken daft, fellow Canadians, to do nothing, but allow and participate in this idiocy?
Must we also take the same moron led course as the Bovines to the south, or, could we wake up please, and smell the coffee and pot before its too late?
watch me, 409. They'll be apologizing, before I'm through.
Posted by: budoracle | 2008-09-28 8:10:02 PM
Put your tongue back inside your mouth, Kim. It was you who called names. It really is amazing how much pro-pot advocates prove my past words with their every thought and deed—their pathological need to broadcast their immaturity, their petulance, their selfishness, their inability to recognize anyone’s needs but their own. And let’s be frank: Marijuana is a want, not a need.
By all means, let’s have a referendum on pot. Let’s also have one on abortion, on the death penalty, on repealing the Youth Criminal Justice Act, on closing InSite, on bulldozing the Downtown Eastside, on locking repeat offenders up indefinitely, on… See where I’m going? If I proposed a referendum on any of these, you’d complain about a tyranny of the majority. But for some reason that doesn’t apply to this issue; is that because it’s yours?
Smoked the stuff for 40 years? Wow, another baby boomer! Another case of arrested development. (What have I been saying all this time?) How does it feel to be a member of a horde? Have you had a prescription for the last 40 years, or just recently? As for the rest—you expect me to believe that? It would take at LEAST four hours to run twenty miles. Anyone making a six-figure salary would never have time for that. As for the rest, you’re blowing smoke…in more ways than one. And you expect me to believe you write essays when your prose reads like a sixth-grader wrote it?
Assuming marijuana does have some medical uses—and I’m not against using it for medicinal purposes—a better delivery mechanism would be an inhaler or a vaporizer. Smoking it wastes product, imparts a burned taste, and is inconsiderate to your neighbours—not that the last consideration would be important to you. And let’s face it, even if it was as easy to buy as morphine (with a prescription), you’d still be kicking up a fuss that it wasn’t available for recreational use. You haven’t been using medicinally for 40 years. If you have, that’s the slowest cure I’ve ever seen.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-28 8:56:57 PM
Kirsta wrote: “people break down dopamine differently. i get it. my argument is based on principle.”
Sound policy is based on facts, not principles. Because then you have to choose whose principles and incur bias—not a problem with facts.
Kirsta wrote: “diabetics should not consume too much sugar. should we have a regulatory body to stop these people? what do you think about that. they face blindness, amputation, neuropathy. i agree they shouldnt use too much sugar, but i dont think we should start trying to police their bodies.”
The risk with diabetics is not overconsumption of sugar, but of taking too much insulin. That’s why if a diabetic has a spell you’re supposed to give them sugar to tie up the excess insulin. I see your point, but there has to be a line beyond which casual use of a product causes more trouble than it’s worth, and dope is pretty much over that line.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-28 9:00:08 PM
Phillip wrote: “That's the whole problem with your rhetoric, Shane. Where laws do not recognize human quality-of-living it is a citizen's responsibility to act to have them changed.”
Your quality of living is that impoverished by not having dope or alcohol? That’s pretty sad, Phillip.
Phillip wrote: “There are about 4% of people who'd suffer from paranoid psychosis, if toking regularly. This is less than alcoholism, gambling addiciton and cigarette disease rates.”
Alcoholism, slot machines and cigarettes all have a 4% chance of inducing psychosis? Source, please.
Phillip wrote: “Substances that don't initiate a psychotropic effect (heroin and crack do).”
THC in high doses and concentrations IS a psychotropic substance.
Phillip wrote: “S.Harper and organized crime monopolies have no right telling me I can't consume them safely.”
Oh, the organized crime monopolies want you to buy all the pot you want. Believe me, the more you buy, the happier they’ll be. It says a lot about you that you’d finance criminals instead of dumping something completely unnecessary.
Phillip wrote: “Here, Conservatives are missing out on a billion dollars of tax revenue annually, and $400 million annual savings to already streched prison/police/court resources.”
Ah, yes, the same tired old saw. How do you tax something you can grow in your backyard? How will legalizing it here without legalizing it in the U.S. cut down on organized crime? It won’t—and you know it won’t. You simply don’t care. Because it’s YOUR RIGHT.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-28 9:05:09 PM
Budo wrote: "Harper, or any government, does not have the right to enforce this law against the Canadian people's wishes. A majority of Canadians don't want it!"
Then why don't a majority of Canadians vote for a party promising to repeal it?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-28 9:06:07 PM
1. So we’re supposed to vote for you because you know how to manipulate the system?
2. You have proof that the government dropped the charges because of your complaint? One had nothing to do with the other.
3. Actually, it’s perfectly legal for the government to keep dope illegal. And how, exactly, do you intend to pay for this “10 figure law suite” of yours, based on what you “kind of” expect? PLEASE tell me you’ll be representing yourself, Bud Hat and all.
4. Are you actually saying that Americans are more intelligent than Canadians? Wow! Never thought I’d hear that from Moonbat Central.
5. If the damage caused to our society was fatal, BudO, why is it still here?
6. Yes, every day the crime continues to take its toll. And you and your stoner brethren are fully responsible. You buy and sell dope with full knowledge of what the effect on society will be, telling yourself it’s better that society suffer than that you have to review your priorities. Because, in the end, it’s all about you.
7. You stray farther than ever from the credible. “Incarnate evil”? You’ve had a few too many drags, BudO. You’re talking like one of those fly-eaten nut bags who preach “the end is near” from a soapbox on a streetcorner. Oh, and by the way, if you don’t respect the Canadian people, why should they vote for you? And are these the same Canadian people who, without exception, welcome you and your message and your magic hat?
8. Handguns are already prohibited for street carry, you idiot. I know; I’m a handgun owner. You can only take a licensed handgun to a licensed range in a locked box, and then only by the most direct route—no detours. And you need permission from the government to take it anywhere but to a range, each and every time you do it. Gang-bangers get them regardless. There’s no reason to believe a handgun ban would make matters worse, since the law-abiding already cannot carry, but it wouldn’t make them better, either. So maybe you should start packing now.
9. Yes, the Taliban would suddenly become contrite and reasonable if we laid down our weapons and went out to them with garlands of flowers. It never ceases to amaze me that people who support blood for pot still oppose blood for oil—a far more necessary commodity to modern society.
10. We’re not the ones wearing the funny hats, BudO.
11. I thought you said up above that the Americans were more intelligent than us.
12. They’ll be apologizing, all right—for not recognizing your mental illness sooner.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-28 9:33:36 PM
Kim you are missing the point. It is none of anyone else's business whether I wish to drink ethyl or methyl alcohol, both will kill me, one quicker than the other.
It is none of your or anyone else's concern what goes into someone else's body.
In fact that is part of the wondrous mechanism of Natural selection.
There are only 3 mechanisms that affect mutations, Exposure to heat, radiation or chemicals. We are forced to ingest all manner of dangerous substances that the government allows industry to use. I know, I have a degree in the field.
These effluents are affecting all life on this planet detrimentally, including your future and present offspring causing genetic mutations. It is then the mechanism of Natural Selection to weed out the good ones from the bad.
Until this wholesale poisoning of our environment, about which we hear nothing from you (because you haven't watched enough shows yet?) came about, the only mechanisms which have moved life forward in a constant symphony of interconnected evolution on this planet, much of it symbiotic in nature, were what people and creatures chose to expose themselves to. This of course includes ingestion of all manner of substances.
A large part of this mechanism depends on randomness and chance exposure to chemicals. It DEPENDS on each member of each species, to be free to ingest anything it chooses. Without the freedom and randomness to choose wrong or survivable, no species can move forward on the evolutionary chain as nature would have it.
No single human being, or group of human beings, for whatever reasons must ever try to second guess this sacred mechanism.
It has worked for me and YOU since the very first thing that wiggled. Without any interference from a single government law, through eons of evolution, in every primitive, through every advanced life form, everyone of my billions of direct ancestors chose correctly.
And now the likes of these racist lawmakers of ours have the wisdom to deny all that display of evolutionary success, all of the evidence the natural inborn resistance to be controlled in this way (crime), and second guess the wonder of creation?????
Kim and all, you are facken daft, to try to tell me that you know better than the mechanisms of nature and that I must listen to you and deny the call of nature in my life.
Control your own small minded existence, but don't stand between me and the rights endowed me through the weight of the evolution of all life on this planet.
In fact there is no government or group that can stand between this right and nature, as we plainly see. That's why Organized crime is so firmly and "naturally" entrenched. It's standing in for this natural right, the freedom of choice for those so inclined to exercise it.
Posted by: budoracle | 2008-09-28 9:34:30 PM
whats really apparent here are two things
one how nice and caring cannabis people are as they beat their heads against a stone wall needlessly
number two is the obvious addiction of shane matthews to cannabis people and threads here ...eh?
who here besides me who thinks this shane bully is just some probable insignificant public servant just letting the fear of random drug tests stop his own self discovery ....he sounds like a very dry drunk who cant be trusted around boooze....a probable sugar addict tipping the scales at obese is my guess
""8. shane matthews is a self-absorbed narcissist and a shameless media whore with a pathological need to attract as much attention to himself as possible. This is merely his chosen cause; if it wasn’t this, it would be something else. For shane the fight and the attention it brought him were their own reward. They have brought him to a rich end, truly.
I love taking on those like him that don't need a piano box to be buried in and are still able to stagger out and be decimated in my personal presence
shane you get a chance tomorrow night if you are feeling up to it
come see me at the all candidates meeting in surrey so I can report back here your cowardly ignorant moves as you go again out of your way to confirm your families assertions that you are a over blown bully
hoo hummm .........time for another puff as I do as I please and think about the abusive karma that should be directed to scum like shane....the cop
hey all you cannabis people ......arguing with the likes of this little girl .....are beneath even us compassionate caring potheads
he has no life and wishes yours smashed
he isn't worth the sweat of your balls to talk to and craves your attention
vote green and give your two dollar vote money to those who will stand up and not be cowards or hypocrites like jack layton
don't fall for the fear tactics of the lieberals
and most definitely if you live in my riding vote for me as I will deal with people like this fool and I instill so much fear into them that they keep attacking me unmercilessly ...and it makes me so very proud and rewarded by that
the greens say all that the libertarians say ....and I know
the greens actually have momentum and a chance the libertarians do not
the greens will have seats after the election the libertarians will not
do as you will but if you ignore your scouts pleas you and I will wander in the desert longer ......and needlessly
see you tomorrow shaney
Posted by: john shavluk | 2008-09-28 9:42:16 PM
shane i live with a type one diabetic.
Posted by: krista zoobkoff | 2008-09-28 9:46:59 PM
1. It is if I subsidize your hospital stay.
2. Even if it’s a bullet of mine? I’ll remember you said that, my friend.
3. Natural selection allows few fools to reach maturity; so, how did you manage?
4. And four, viruses, and five, the most common cause of all, mitotic and meiotic transcription errors. Both of which were occurring billions of years before there was any kind of toxic sludge or radioactive fallout. What was that degree in, exactly?
5. So by all means, let’s help the process along by lighting a stick of chemical on fire and breathing in the smoke!
6. Wrong. Assuming minimum nutritional requirements are met, your choice of food has no discernible effect on mutations in your DNA.
7. Actually, mutation depends mostly on random transcription errors during interphase just prior to cell division. You’re just preaching nonsense to an anti-development crowd that doesn’t know any better and probably don’t even know what the letters DNA stand for.
8. Unless someone else’s choice has the potential to affect you.
9. So your solution to the blasphemy of government and laws is to run for government so you can make more laws?
10. Is that really you, BudO? I thought “challenge everything!” was your mantra. Let me tell you something. Hang-gliding is not part of the natural selection process, because it provides you with no increased chance of survival and gives you a very good chance of never passing your genes on to the next generation. You have blasphemed all over your own so-called “religion.”
11. No, she’s just an immature baby boomer, as so many pro-pot types seem to be. She appears to have some sense of social responsibility, however, unlike you, who acknowledges no one but yourself.
12. Evolution does not endow rights, knucklehead. In Nature you have no rights at all. (Try demanding an apology from the hyena that drags you down, hauls out all your guts, and leaves you to die.) Rights are an abstract notion created by a sapient mind.
13. Actually, apparently there is, which pisses you off to no end. Organized crime is entrenched because a whole demographic has grown up so self-absorbed that it’s willing to nurture criminals rather than grow up themselves.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-28 9:52:11 PM
And tell me, Krista, is it called a "sugar reaction" or an "insulin reaction"? If you have too much sugar, that's called hyperglycemia. Hyperglycemia is dangerous only in the long term. It's when blood sugar drops, causing hypoglycemia, that things get hairy. Inject too much insulin and things can get bad real fast.
I notice you simply said, "I live with a type 1 diabetic." That's neither claiming that you're right, nor admitting that you're wrong. You just took a chance that dropping a fact without context would shut me up. Fat chance; I'm wise to rhetorical tricks.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-28 9:56:49 PM
Good luck John Shaviuk!
I am engaged in expressing myself to whomever wishes to read these words, besides Shane.
He acts like an "imbecile" foil for my pose.
For me its all practice in my passion writing. Even better than hang gliding I can easily access and launch from my keyboard and soar into anyone's mind who reads my words.
Yeah, you guessed it I have no TV, but I love to write. The multi faceted re-expression of my arguments will stand me well when I get before a jury. I'll be well versed and extremely cogent on this subject.
Shane is winning the fight for us. In comparison to the sane side, rather then the Shane's side, he is bringing out the best in us, while hammering his so called side into oblivion.
The way he inspired me, I thanked him earlier thinking that perhaps it was a devious tactic by a clever man to draw out eloquent arguments, to oppose the obvious morons of the prohibition side. I'm going to try it some time, works great for the much more intelligent pro marijuana side, doesn't it?
Thanks Shane 409 and all, you brought out the very best in me!
Posted by: budoracle | 2008-09-28 10:03:38 PM
Hahaha. You know a third thing that’s really apparent, John? The idiot-babe, grade-school writing skills of the pro-pot set. The inane, puerile, adolescent rantings that can make a senior citizen look like a junior-high pizza-face. They even have to cut and paste other people’s writing and insert their own nouns because they couldn’t possibly come up with decent rhetoric on their own. That’s really funny. Hahaha.
Also funny is how predictable you all are. Hahaha. Half the time you don’t even attempt to debate the facts, but just start chucking mud and administering e-wedgies all round. Calling names, playing the victims, appealing to “compassion,” repeating the same old pro-legalization myths and dodging every attempt to discuss the obvious problems with them. Hahaha.
Oh, you know what else? They call bullies, and right away they threaten you physically, come on, Shane, wanna fight? Another facet of their sandbox playground mindset: “Ya wanna fight?” “Come meet me and I’ll bring all my friends because I’m too much of a chicken shit to face you alone. And even if I do, I’ll only pretend to be alone, and while I throw up all over your shoes my friends will be torching your car.” Yup, you potheads are really law-abiding, salt of the Earth, definitely statesman material. Hahaha.
But you know the kicker? Hahaha. The fact that you have the gall to call yourselves “compassionate,” when you have your product of choice floated to you across a lake of blood, like those six who were murdered in that high rise across the street from where my wife works, two of them innocent bystanders, and all because you won’t or can’t grow up. You speak of peace and love while you finance gang wars and grow-rips, electricity thefts and neighbourhoods on fire, all while you dance around in a circle singing “Kumbaya.” Compassionate potheads. That’s really funny. Hahaha.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-28 10:06:34 PM
john, shane is a grafic artist. he has the right to beleive what he wants and he is not easily swayed wich i respect. i do agree that cannabis use is a choice and not a need except for medicinal patients. i also think that cannabis users have been descriminated against and want to stand up for their rights. i know you have a different veiw than me on what rights are shane and i accept that. i dont smoke cannabis but still feel like i am a part of the cannabis community.
Posted by: krista zoobkoff | 2008-09-28 10:07:02 PM
shane can you give me an example of this river of blood?
Posted by: krista zoobkoff | 2008-09-28 10:08:09 PM
BudO wrote: “He acts like an "imbecile" foil for my pose.”
BudO wrote: “For me its all practice in my passion writing.”
Passion is like flatulence, BudO—everybody has it and it’s best kept to yourself and your intimate circle.
BudO wrote: “Even better than hang gliding I can easily access and launch from my keyboard and soar into anyone's mind who reads my words.”
I read your words, and believe me, you were stopped at the gate. To judge by your harsh criticisms of your fellow Canadians, you were stopped at a lot of other gates, too. What’s the matter, doesn’t your magic hat work over the Internet?
BudO: “Yeah, you guessed it I have no TV, but I love to write. The multi faceted re-expression of my arguments will stand me well when I get before a jury. I'll be well versed and extremely cogent on this subject.”
Keep in mind, those jurors lose more money and more family contact the longer you keep them at trial. They might decide to take revenge on you for wasting their time with your ridiculous rhetoric and send you up the river.
BudO: “Shane is winning the fight for us. In comparison to the sane side, rather then the Shane's side, he is bringing out the best in us, while hammering his so called side into oblivion.”
Promises to keep on toking while the world burns is the best you have to offer?
BudO: “The way he inspired me, I thanked him earlier thinking that perhaps it was a devious tactic by a clever man to draw out eloquent arguments, to oppose the obvious morons of the prohibition side. I'm going to try it some time, works great for the much more intelligent pro marijuana side, doesn't it?”
So intelligent they turn to crime.
BudO: “Thanks Shane 409 and all, you brought out the very best in me!”
Oh, I can’t take the credit.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-28 10:11:30 PM
Krista wrote: "shane can you give me an example of this river of blood?"
How about the six who were murdered at that highrise in Surrey, two of them innocent bystanders? What about the endless gang shootings, the grow-rips, the little boy who had an arm blown off by a shotgun hooked up to a tripwire because he blundered into a Hell's Angels outdoor grow? Pot smokers are an accessory to all of that, Krista. It doesn't matter if marijuana SHOULD be legal. What matters is that it's currently illegal and so, rather than do the mature and responsible thing and advocate for legalization while refraining, they hook up with crooks and start fleecing their wallets. Sad.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-28 10:14:44 PM
By the way, John, weren't you pulled out of the running for making anti-Semitic comments? So what are you doing at the all-candidate's meeting if you aren't a candidate? Hasn't the carnage of the last couple months showed you that potential MPs should exercise restraint when blogging while an election's on? Or were you just too hopped up to resist?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-28 10:20:36 PM
shane, this is why i want to see prohibition ended. these things happened when alcohol was prohibited and the crime that went along with prohibition greatly diminished when it was made legal. i know you disagree and understand it to be because of export to the states. but it would lessen the blood shed because most marijuana is grown in canada for canada. im not saying it would get rid of all the blood shed but it would lessen it.
Posted by: krista zoobkoff | 2008-09-28 10:31:08 PM
the last people that want prohibition to end are drug dealers.
Posted by: krista zoobkoff | 2008-09-28 10:33:49 PM
You know what would completely stop the bloodshed, Krista? If people stopped buying illegal pot. I will ask the same question I've asked this entire blog--what does it say about people who are willing to cause this sort of thing rather than butt out? What does it say about their priorities? Their morals? About their respect for anyone but them? And perhaps a more salient question is, why should anyone ever listen to them?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-28 10:35:06 PM
Or maybe, John, you're just attending the meeting so you can beg your "Canadians are stupid" boss for one more chance to make a complete fool of yourself and the entire Green Party.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-28 10:38:17 PM
shane its naive think cannabis is going anywhere. we have both agreed that there is evedance of smoking it for 3000 years. if people bought legal pot, then that would diminish the blood shed. most of the cannabis users i know are very good people and would grow it themselves if they didnt face getting their lives ripped upside down by the criminal system.
Posted by: krista zoobkoff | 2008-09-28 10:41:29 PM
shane i think i know where you stand on this and think we are starting to repeat ourselves. i think you have brought up many valid statements but i think it is time to agree to disagree.
Posted by: krista zoobkoff | 2008-09-28 10:43:19 PM
Let us agree to disagree, then. Nice debating with you. It's refreshing to find an opponent with manners.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-28 10:54:09 PM
thank you shane. good night and will probly talk again
Posted by: krista zoobkoff | 2008-09-28 11:00:35 PM
all this swordplay is exciting, but in the real world out there in Canada proper- the Pro Wipehead parties will likely lose the election by a considerable margin- the Harper team will likely win the election by a considerable margin and continue governing.. and that means pot will stay against the law aka: prohibition wins yet another lap while the wipehead thunder speeches become more gone with the wind material-
because in a democracy such as Canada- its a numbers game and most of your fellow citizens don't buy into any of the wipehead whateverism creedo. Nobody will hunt the stoners down like dogs- nay -we will just ignore them/you in their/your self shaped dope ghettos We will watch the chemically compromised age badly and just evolve where we are going., with or without you
No hard feelings our marijuana community neibours- there is room for you in our vision, but we notice there is no room for anybody else but your rigid stoner ethos in your vision
maybe because when you say 20% of Canadians have smoked pot- you somehow miss the flip side that equasion that shows that 80% of canadians do not.. have not and will not smoke pot.
In the meantime, do what you can as a group of compassionate citizens to save Marc Emery from his fate in the extradition Courts- and then from the crocodile jaws of the DEA.
if you manage to pull that one off, and you have had more than 3 years to get ready , good for you . The next hurdle will be changing the pot laws to reflect the values you present here..-
Please let us know when you have gained a single inch- or even a single millimetre of success in this important freedom issue
. Old Shane here whom you accuse of closet satanism is doing you the biggest favour of your lives by kicking your stoner snowmen army over because like it or not- he represents the sentiments of the greater portion of human society out there- and you ignore all his arguments because he so easily outskates you all- displaces all your vague inarticuate peeps.
he is taking you all on at once and trashing you all singlehandly- with one hand tied to his graphic art projects-- sheesh- -and in his spare time..
Legal pot is not gonna happen in our lifetime..and you know it. Most people in the Dominion of Canada don't want, need or approve of legal marijuana.
Posted by: 419 | 2008-09-28 11:06:28 PM
All shanes arguments can be ended with the re-legalization of cannabis and the decriminalization of all drugs.
He speaks about the effects of prohibition not the drugs.
I don't know of 6 bodies ever found in a liquor store .....do you bully scholars?
No shanes a bully to even all of us here who don't use cannabis and actually all agree he has what appears to be alcohol syndrome....boozing parent ? besides being probably raised by a single mother who couldn't help his ego before it ruined him.
It simple shane don't smoke it.
A cow got so scared in the slaughter line that it jumped the corral and smashed a car......now I suppose guys like shane will always blame the cow or even the car instead of his meat addiction and to argue will such neanderthal DNA is like the quote I am given credit for but didn't actually write...
arguing with his type is like the special Olympia's you may win but you are still retarded.
shane sits at this spot constantly with no life hoping some one will bother to argue their choices or rights with him because the laws the law hahhahhahhahaaa....sorry shane not all of us are snively cowards who kowtow to bullies over stupid laws...get over your self sick man.
It is against the law for Prime Ministers to receive bribe cash and I don't see you too worried about that one.
The Americans started an illegal war in Iraq and I hear zip from you as well.....no its just a typical bully using that ole mantra as they beat you and your choices"the laws the law"
And I am in the election shane...take your nose out of here for a breath and look around the world before your kind really is extinct and not just walking dead.
Good luck Krista ..just don't forget to not bs about the greens because I worked very hard to give them the same policies you explain.
I also almost had the ndp doing the same but jack layton turned out to be a liar and a cowardly hypocrite .....like some others we know.
Posted by: shavluk | 2008-09-29 8:50:01 AM
"...It is against the law for Prime Ministers to receive bribe cash and I don't see you too worried about that one..."
........sayerh Herr Shavluk
there are just so many -.uh..interesting..statements in the squirrel cage of your mind that somehow found this rhread and decided to unload this weeks pail of mental waste products to address i will pick this mereone to reply to
1) so did our prime minister receive a bribe over the weekend?
I must have missed it as I was panting the porch. I am sure it will be front page news all week, so thanks John, i will keep an eye open for it..Howecer i will propbably stop looking by Tuesday.. so call me at home on the Batphone if it pops up on the CBC say, Wednesdayish. leave a message if I'm not there
2) So no, I am not worried about something that didn't happen
3) can we errect the memorial to the Unknown Stoner in your yard? we want it somewhere where the right sort of people will have reasonable access to it, where they can pitch a tent and get water from the hose to take their meds...
Thanks John, we know the Green Party gave you the pink slip, what a bunch of faschist tree hugger weirdos they turned out to be eh? ya// but maybe the Marxist-Lenninists will take you on. these are your best years Johnnie, your very best work- you against the world-next stop Mars - its not too late - drop off a resume..
And I say forget about working for Marc Emery- you'd just end up being pushed around by his wife after he goes away to meditation camp. Wowser! when her meds wear off, shes not exactly reasonable is she ?
you have yourself a special day John. maybe grab a nap and try to dinish those jig saw puzzles of dinosaurs.. We know you can do it if you try
Posted by: 419 | 2008-09-29 9:16:50 AM
Great day to campaign for us Krista!
I can't wait to get going again, it's so great being in contact with happy Canadian, face to face, enjoy your day.
Leave these hateful morons masturbating with the keyboard to themselves.
Posted by: budoracle | 2008-09-29 9:25:38 AM
Hey, John. Hahaha.
1. All my arguments can also be ended with recreational marijuana smokers giving up the weed. But you go ahead and bathe in the blood of others; it’s probably become a habit. Hahaha.
2. You’ve never heard of people being murdered in liquor store hold-ups? What about corner store hold-ups? Do you pay any attention at all to what happens around you? Guess not, that’s why you’re no longer a candidate. Hahaha.
3. And here we go about bullying again. Hahaha. Tell me, how is asking people to articulate their beliefs and justify their actions bullying? Sounds more to me like due diligence. You’re just trying a variant of the “magic words” solution, saying things like “racist,” “sexist,” “bigot,” “Neanderthal,” which, once invoked, are supposed to end all debate. But that is so 1990s. Hahaha.
4. At least I have a job, John, unlike you, poor wannabe candidate, who now apparently has nothing better to do than sick up dump-truck loads of stoner twitter, unable to justify even a single opinion, wallowing in loathing and self-pity and contempt for a world that will have none of him. Hahaha.
5. “Snivelling kowtowing to stupid laws,” John? Hahaha. Well, that probably explains why you were who were booted from the running because you are hostile to the law, which as a legislator you are bound to not only respect, but make. What could be more moronic than a scofflaw wanting to make more law. Hahaha.
6. Illegal war, John? Hahaha. Clinton started an illegal war in Kosovo over what later turned out to be exaggerated (although otherwise accurate) reports of ethnic killings and Leftists the world over were waiting in line to fellate him. The UN did NOT approve action in Kosovo. But whatever Clinton does is right, and he did not have sexual relations with that woman. Hahaha.
7. You are in the election? Hahaha! I read a report on September 4 quoting Elizabeth May’s thanking you for your service but refusing to sign your nomination papers. I have seen nothing since retracting that report. If there is, merely provide me with a link to that effect. But I don’t think you'll be able to. Hahaha.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-29 9:29:54 AM
You know what else, John? You called yourself "John Shavluk" in one post and just "Shavluk" in another. That means that you're in all probability a poser. Not only are you a wannabe, John, but you're a wannabe wannabe. Hahaha.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-29 9:31:10 AM
BudO wrote: "Leave these hateful morons masturbating with the keyboard to themselves."
Better that than fellating a stoner hat, BudO.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-29 9:33:15 AM
Can we all agree that there is no sense talking sense to the senseless...lol
Shane... you can agree on that, right? Since to you; I am senseless, and to me; you are senseless.
Pot needs to be removed from the drug war.
Thats the bottom line.
I would like to know(SM) WHY a mean tone has to be injected into your every argument?
You liked to point out that I've been smoking pot off and on for a long time without recognizing that I have also been a responsible member of society for the same amount of time.
Removing statements from context, to make them work for your argument, is the first rule of political spin... congrats.
Where exactly did I call you a name, Shane ?
I wrote truth... expounded reason.... took the opposite viewpoint.
Truth is...you cant handle the truth...truth hurts... "and thats the truth
"Edith Anne 1970ish" from the big chair...lol
...and Budo...we agree more than we dont.
Posted by: kim | 2008-09-29 9:34:04 AM
You wrote Truth, Kim? You spun a fantastical tale of being a marathoning Milton (as in John, as in "Paradise Lost") who happened to pull down a six-figure salary in her spare time. You compared me to the notorious witch-finders of 17th-century Salem. All the while peppering her iambic pentameter with infantile giggles and school-cafeteria put-downs. And now you have the gall to take umbrage at my "mean tone"?
Truth is meanness, to those who would not face it. How dare I intrude upon their illusions, hurling reality right and left? And what makes you think having a job makes you a responsible citizen, when you've been subsidizing organized crime for forty years? But instead of doing the responsible and mature thing and acknowledging your contribution to the problem, you rant and rave and hiss and accuse others of pushing you into a corner.
Because you just HAD to have that dope. You HAD to. Nothing else mattered. If society feels the sting from a stray bullet gone awry once in awhile, then let them, for it's all they deserve after standing between you and what you so desperately needed to survive. The establishment is wrong. The establishment has always been wrong. And they'll probably carve that on your tombstone.
You want to be taken seriously? Then be serious.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-29 10:09:41 AM
Progress is changing laws that the majority say are outdated.
Ok. I admit it...organized crime is all my fault... lol!!!!!
Organized crime exists due to laws that were written by self righteous people like you.
You want to be taken seriously...take your blinders off.
Posted by: kim | 2008-09-29 10:17:43 AM
Shane....You must agree with this then....
"Since ALCOHOL, a dangerous substance,...is legal...the biggest organized crime group is run by the people who legalized it....sell it..regulate it."
You obvioulsy have no sense of humour Shane.
Too busy telling people how to run their lives to realize the futility of your Bullshit.
Posted by: kim | 2008-09-29 10:24:07 AM
Kim, even though I like to fling the word moron around I realize in the end I am one of that herd too.
I know we are closer, than we differ. It matters to me that the crime and lawless attitude be curbed, more than pot be legalized. I could make a good living at it again if that is what I wanted and it were illegal. Does $10,000.00 per week sound good?
That is not why I am here, I smoke as much pot as I desire and will continue to do so till I chose differently, irregardless of what the government does.
I want safety and harmony in my country. for my grand children, more than I want $10,000.00 per week.
What I am after is the ferreting and stamping out of such government sanctioned hatred as you see being heaped on good Canadians here in the forums like you and I, from the traditional sanctuaries of Haters the churches and right-wing nutz.
It is this training of a century of government sanction hate of gays demanded by the religious bovines, which is the cause behind these hate crimes of gay bashing that are still prevalent in Vancouver today. It is the same excuses as heaped on us tokers, to be free for them to hate in an unbridled fashion, which the government encourages through its prohibition act.
Remember all the dire warnings about marraige collapsing the end of society should gays get rights? Not one single thing has happened sue to the liberalizing of those laws except the haters lost a target of convenience. This allows them to concentrate more on Prohibition to give their vile attitude some venting. Yes these nuts here are encouraged in their hate crime of tokers by the government for no reason other than lies.
Kim, if you look at every thread on all the different forums and follow these discussions you will see that it isn't really about, pot, it is about being different and having the right to discriminate against those who are different sanctioned and encouraged by the government.
This is called the tyranny of oppression and is ALWAYS, THROUGHOUT ALL OF HISTORY, accomplished the same way. The powerful demonize a segment of the population for whatever reason seems valid for the times and culture. They alway use the same modus operendi, they easily harness the hateful, moronic section of society and encourage its natural strength, the unbridled hatred of others. This then divides the opposition and allows the ruling forces through a police state built up on the excuse that it is needed to maintain order, to continue in power until a violent revolution says enough.
Do you want a disintegration of society, chaos?
If not, our society must continuously evolve as we see the example all around us in the natural world.
It is the same as in the genetic component in Natural Selection. We must weed out the bad mutations in our laws and allow society to move forward. There is no successful model of stagnation in Nature, as these bible thumpers would have you believe is best.
You can see it here, the ones that hate are always on the side of the government which gives their idiocy strength in law.
This is not going to happen here anymore on this issue in my Country. The year is 2008 and I and millions of Canadians have had enough of being harangued by hateful morons over nothing. Sop that the conservatives might get some more votes by encouraging hate?
I warn Canadians again that any politicians who seek to encourage one segment to hate and blame the other segment, will ruin our socieyy as did those to the south.
Have a great day Kim and just skip by the morons, who like to hate, to stay stagnant for whatever reason. they have their rights and will never change, so let think masturbate. Just go to the bottom of the post see who wrote it if you don't recognized the idiot author in the first sentence and ignore them completely. They have nothing but hatred born in small minds, so let them simmer in it and go to lengthy vitriolic idiocy in rebuttal, its their version of an orgasm and they don't need either you, or me, to try to dissuade them. This is the reason they live, to hate others and when they see others being affected by it the revel in it.
Posted by: budoracle | 2008-09-29 10:31:58 AM
"....Pot needs to be removed from the drug war...."
......................................doth say the mighty Kim
well that can only happen if..
1) the majority of the world agrees and there is a democratic change to international law. Chances of this in our lifetime about zero %
2) everyvody realozes that pot smoking is not a food thing like aexpoure to asbestos and then ecerybody stops using pot and it goes away - chances of this happeninbg zero %
3) shunk type high THC varieties of cannabis die off around the world and disappear forever like the dodo from spraying, disease or your choice ort natiral or manmade disaster. chances of this one zero %
4) Genetic engineering of super pot causes cannabis to mutate and kill off all the pot users or render them sterile so all demand by the 420 club dies out..chances of this are zero %
5) the Black market sees the error of their ways, and feel refret for all their damagie to mental and physical health, u and their footprint in nderground economu and criminal inde4rclass interaction and stops producing and selling marijuana- chances of that zero %
6) Global warming gitire SOS restrictions of irrigation of non food crops means of course, no water available for global marijuana industry. so it ceases all operations and devotes itself to growing lettuce- chances of this is zero % as well
6) reassign pot to some other catagory- such as Mental Health-
Economic Crime- Toxic Agriculture- or the Dept of Casino Affairs..again, a zero % here
or would you prefer pot be sold ( or traded for social service tokens ) in libretarian green party health herb and happiness NDP co-op food shops without any legal restrictions labels warnings or age access limits-- maybe pot dispensed a bulk scoop bin with hand written signs describing the various kinds of pot by variety- and organic designation..
please advise- but hurry
our helicopter pilots are on stand by
Posted by: 419 | 2008-09-29 10:33:29 AM
I will be in a debate tonight in surrey as I decimate the conservative and the ndp and the liberals...the green knows to not come as I will be the green again after the election and in the provincial election.
I was the sacrificial appeasement TV debate deal lamb for convenience as I would call it.
the greens have met and already agreed to give me money for their blatant slander just out of fear of upsetting the Jewish vote.
It actually was about an Ottawa doctor who called for two states on the green blogs as the greens dealt with my non anti Semitic comments a year and a half ago.
Tonight I am an independent.
I am also very easy to find Mr sugar larva......anytime you feel up to it.
The simple fact is you are a bully who is wrong and we will win...in fact that's why you scribe so desperately here and cant even spell(some of you)
I know many would like to silence me so get in line as I am unafraid these days and never will be again.....I will win and you are already a loser so get over it !!!
google me to find me
hahhahhahha hey shane don't let you obvious fears stop you from coming to be educated.....all people even you deserve a life.
come see me as yes I am curious to who some one like you are in fact as I am a skip tracer and have an agency in the family I will make some inquiries to find you myself and come visit to explain in person where yo can not hide.
By the way I will be announcing that my skip tracing abilities found the blogger who tried to silence me was directly attached to only the PM himself ...harper !!
Posted by: shavluk | 2008-09-29 10:51:24 AM
"...I am a skip tracer and have an agency in the family I will make some inquiries to find you myself and come visit to explain in person where yo can not hide..."
...sayeth the mighty Shavluk
Wowser! you are smart Jonnie I guess when someone gets expelled, expunged, kicked out and evicted as often as you, doing your own skip tracing makes sence, why pay book rate when you can get it at bulk rate.. what a pro! if you were our leader,( hint hint hint ) then we could save a bundle with Shavluk brand ( TM ) discount CISIS- no messy premise, no costly justice!!
" we might lose our credibility but we always get our man. "
We just _ know the Greens will be begging for you back on October 15-- like, who else can answer their phone in an empty office?
Hang in there baby> far left politics is not about winning
Posted by: 419 | 2008-09-29 11:12:45 AM
Kim wrote: :”Progress is changing laws that the majority say are outdated.”
I agree. The majority are demanding tougher punishments for offenders after the holiday they’ve enjoyed since the liberal-minded sixties courtesy hug-a-thug types like yourself.
Kim wrote: “Ok. I admit it...organized crime is all my fault... lol!!!!!”
No. But you do contribute to it. I guess you don’t have the ability to be serious after all. In which case I find your claim to be an engineer rather suspect. But the rest of your claims about yourself were already hard to swallow, so…
Kim wrote: “Organized crime exists due to laws that were written by self righteous people like you.”
Using this logic, all one would have to do to defeat organized crime of all types is to repeal all laws. Is that the solution, Kim?
Kim wrote: “You want to be taken seriously...take your blinders off.”
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-29 11:18:09 AM
Kim wrote: “Shane....You must agree with this then....”
Only if logic demands it. That’s not a language you’ve proven fluent in.
"Since ALCOHOL, a dangerous substance,...is legal...the biggest organized crime group is run by the people who legalized it....sell it..regulate it."
A as proof of B is a logical fallacy; therefore I cannot agree.
Kim wrote: “You obvioulsy have no sense of humour Shane.”
Curiously, I don’t find a sixty-something giggling like a schoolgirl funny. Perhaps if you sat on a tack.
Kim wrote: “Too busy telling people how to run their lives to realize the futility of your Bullshit.”
Come in, Kim; come in, Kim; this is the Sixties calling…”
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-29 11:21:20 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.