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:
Yes, John, I too have found one blogger through tracing, attached to a TO a right-wing ad agency known for its conservative support.
This is nothing new, I have been delisted from Google search engines and now am back up, You'll see many links, especially those from the police slime pit website, Discover Vancouver, are deactivated. When Al Jezeerah USA published my article "Do Humans have a political gene?" it went off the internet in five weeks. This study is worth having a look at if you are a politician and is valid original science by me on the question. (Not yet peer reviewed, but not yet discredited either.)
I just restate my thoughts elsewhere when censorship happens, especially by the police, and they have learned to not stimulate me into more writings by obvious censorship.
John, I don't know how long you have been campaigning but I'll give you some honest advice that I learned the hard way.
Don't let anyone get your goat. *(goats are precious and hard to come by)
Your best political asset is a sense of humor, not an argument that you feel passionate about.
In the end people vote for people, not the arguments. People have made up their own minds on the arguments a long time ago, or will use much more than your input to do so. No, people will vote for someone they like. People don't like angry people.
It is a known fact that the contentious have a difficult time getting elected. That is the major reason that Harper doesn't have, nor will ever get a majority of Canadians to support him, he is an insulting argumentative authority figure that will only go so far in politics. The only reason he is where he is today, is because the Liberals screwed up their reign of power through corruption. It was Harper's finest hour, letting his contentious nature stand in for the revulsion Canadians felt against the liberals. Since then he hasn't been able to move forward in the standings, because Canadians don't like him personally.
Unlike Steve you don't have a huge party to try to float a nice image over the reality of a poor personality. Don't let the likes of idiots like these morons here get your precious goat. I care about how you do, because you are carrying forth my fight too.
Good luck at your meeting tonight, Stay happy, enjoy the moment project a nice person wanting to change things for the better, not someone who enjoys arguing!
Posted by: budoracle | 2008-09-29 11:33:07 AM
1. You’re going to decimate the other candidates, John? Hahaha. Especially since you’re no longer a candidate and therefore not entitled to debate. And I somehow doubt the debate could be won by a man with a hose stuffed up his ass hooked up to a tank of laughing gas. Hahaha.
2. You were the sacrificial lamb, John? Hahaha. Now you’ve got messianic delusions. You were turfed because you were a worse than useless liability who would destroy what little credibility the Greens currently have. Hahaha.
3. They’re giving you severance, John? Hahaha. You have documented proof that this is hush money? I bet you don’t. Hahaha.
4. You’re an independent? Hahaha. Well, got news for you, John; Chuck Cadman you ain’t. You have zero credibility except with the stoner crowd. And I don’t make a habit of associating with known criminals. Hahaha.
5. “We,” John boy? For whom else do you speak? Not the Greens, that’s for sure. Hahaha.
6. Yes, John, I’m such a loser that my position is secure and you’re sitting dejectedly on Loser’s Common. Hahaha.
7. Find you, John? Why should I want to do that? Looking for trouble is the surest way of finding it. This will sound strange to you, but some of us don’t have an urge to do that. Hahaha.
8. Educated, John? That would imply you know something I don’t. You don’t even know how to hold a job with the most radical party in the country. Hahaha.
9. Oooh, you’re a SKIP TRACER, you’re coming to find me, I’m scared now, John! Hahaha. Stay away from my property or I’ll truss you up and drag you by the feet down the street to the cop shop, which is where a crook like you belongs. Hahaha.
10. Wow! You’ve been conspired against from the very top, the big boy himself! Hahaha. (X-Files theme plays.) The truth is out there, hahaha.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-29 11:33:40 AM
John wrote: "the green knows to not come as I will be the green again after the election and in the provincial election."
Strange, I didn't think it was legal to be both an MLA and an MP at the same time. Of course, the law isn't a big concern of yours, is it? But you would think those two respective governments would find out at some point.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-29 11:37:26 AM
hes running as an independent
he's the only person in his entire cabinet
look for him. on his throne of his enemies skulls
he wears a leopard skin robe and a top hat
with a bone through his nose
he answers every policy question with
" Booga Booga "
we love him and bring him captives to eat
because hes authentic. not one of those rational people
Vote for Jonnie Shavluk- verbal superstar of the internet
Skip Tracer Stoners Starfleet Commander
been in & kicked out of more political parties than _you ever will
Posted by: 419 | 2008-09-29 12:16:11 PM
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-29 12:32:50 PM
hahhaha you guys just crack me up......must be the crack you use???? or booze?
sadly I must just leave a little mind mel for our friends here ...a little slow burn worm......as I prepare for tonight's debate and yes budoracle you are right and I know that.....its only because of the mis information about the green policy versus the libertarians here
thanks for the words of encouragement
you have to admit its fun ...with the pure evil exposed here and the sport they willingly provide?
Ps I have never been kicked out of any party and probably just won a seat on the federal green council if I am not further abused by their own drug fears and some of the evil like what shows here.
and yes ....thank you if I win as MP ....hahhahahha I will not be running in the next provincial election...just financing candidate schools and training new soldiers.
You mean-spirited non informed probable cops deserve no more of my time and yes I will burn a few brain cells eventually finding all about you in the end and will respond in ways that no one will ever figure out.
I would always laugh as a Revenue Canada Manager in charge of two departments as I explained in great detail how to cause someone's repeated tax audits for example......or as a bank supervisor explaining a messed up credit report etc
I get a kick out of the conservative right thinking they have all the tools while others play them like rats in a maze from above.
The difference of course is their weak ego's need to advertise their success's....I feel no such need and I will say one more time......I know of no one more effective or crafty or hardworking than me ......good luck fellas.
see you tonight if you are able to not be drunk by 7 pm ....for a change
Posted by: john shavluk | 2008-09-29 12:42:20 PM
hmmmm how many shavluks are here today?
You must be all so confused without a surname ...eh hahhahhhhhahaa
of course you all realize I am one of the good guys and would hurt no one ...unless pushed to defend myself or my kind
have a nice day all and all who pushed me
Posted by: shavluk | 2008-09-29 12:48:38 PM
The real laugh is that anyone thought this cowardly, backstabbing pustule was ever a viable candidate to represent the people. He threatens to mess with people's livelihoods while he screams "Bully! Bully!" Hahaha.
Perhaps he's deliberately trying to wreck the Greens' reputation in revenge for dumping him. It must be depressing for Elizabeth May, who in order to find candidates must apparently not just scrape the bottom of the barrel, but bash through the staves to scoop up the bugs and worms beneath. Hahaha.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-29 12:58:55 PM
I've done some research. Had no idea the Western Standard was your troll bridge Shane Matthews.
War is not the answer to everything...nor is a combative self rightious attitude.
Your so called war on drugs is so hypocrtical... its a joke. One drug is ok....cuz a lobbyist said its ok and gave enough money to make it ok...but Cannabis is not ok because there is no drug company lobbyist donating anough money to enough petty politicians to make it ok.
Life is not 24/7 serious either. Guess what you can go to school, get a degree, work 40 hours a week... raise kids... and smoke a bit of pot once in a while... and still find time to vote against knot heads like you...lol
What Shane.... you can't multitask... cant be a funny grump...just a serious grump? keeerist...
I dont lie Shane Matthews...I am who I am.
Now its time to take my bat and ball and carry on my merry way....lol...cuz I dont like your immature little playground.
Sorry to have crossed your bridge... its ok you'll find new punching bags.
Whats up Shane... wacky rgiht wing forums not good enough for you? Had to find a different troll domain to conquer?
The drug issue is a serious issue.
The solution is not to nuke dealers and/or drug addicts. The solution is to work with the medical community. To work out real, root cause solutions... pro-active solutions.
Has the drug war worked in the US? No.
Do experts say the drug war is a good thing? no.
Do experts say there are better ways to combat this issue... YES !
bye bye now...
Time for you to trash me...
Draw ridiculous conclusions...etc...etc.
Rant and rave in a general right wing manner...
Wish you were here right now... we could discuss this over tea and fisticuffs...lol
Smile dipshit... lies is way to short
Posted by: Kim | 2008-09-29 3:44:13 PM
correction... smile dipshit... LIFE is way too short.
Posted by: kim | 2008-09-29 3:47:19 PM
go home crybabies- this is the street of ideas
Posted by: 419 | 2008-09-29 4:53:06 PM
A vote for the current neo-Conservatives is a selfish vote.
A vote for anyone else is an unselfish vote.
New ideas are required to fix the social ills discussed.
Old far right and far left ideas are time tested proven failures.
There needs to be balance.
Some say legalize all drugs ..and manage the issue socially...not legally.
Some say lock up the ne'r do well thughugdruggies and pushers and use thumb screws if you have to to makem squeal.
The answer is somewhere in between.
Some of THE worst drug dealers are the so called legal pharmaceutical companies.
Shall we start locking up pharmaceutical ceo's ... liquor company ceo's...etc.
These are nothing more than legal drug gangs...with political backing... right?
There's the Molson drug gang... the Seegrams drug gang... the pfizer drug gang... the Bayer...Eli Lilly... and Merck gangs...
Oh but these gangs are ok because they back the right politicial party... donate enough to a campaign.
There is so much hypocricy running through the drug war argument it makes me sick.
No vigilanty, website blog board is going to be the place to solve any of this...
A ground swell of NEW... practical approaches to
root cause solutions is the likely correct answer.
Or of course you could just take the defined insanity route... keep doing things wrong over and over again until you get it wrong....lol
Repeat and fade...
Posted by: kim | 2008-09-29 6:28:46 PM
"...There's the Molson drug gang... the Seegrams drug gang... the pfizer drug gang... the Bayer...Eli Lilly... and Merck gangs..."
doth sayeth the mighty Kim
to which we add..
the Emery Pot seed gang= the BC indoor bud growers guild ( s ) -the Hells Angels gang( s ) delivery service - the Chinese Tri Ad alkaloid R&D and distribitation gang( s ) - the Viet Namese farm grow pot gang( s ) the Mexican Cartel Gang ( s ) - the Shining path Coca fanclub gang -Peru Coca pickers & Submarine workers association - the Taliban Victory opium garden gang ( s ) the North Korean Contraban Drug Precursors and Chemistry Supply Chain- the Russian Hash co-operative farm union - the Meth Cooks R Us association - the Ecstacy tableteers network- your independent hash oil distillers association - East Asian Shabu Marketing Association-
the fake viagara retailers co-operative .. etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
the beverage alcohol companies you present make clean, proper accountable products in fully inspected, modern clean premises..they deliver their bonded products to govt regulated retail outlets - or to other govt licensed premises
the pharmeceutical companies you describe are very successful in developing many valuable new medicines , vaxines, drugs and medical devises and marketing them worldwide. Sick people are better off with these companies out there doing what they do.
They do not conspire to stamp out alternative medicine competition as that market sector is microscopic in value to them..to billions of other of your fellow humans as well
the pirate drug gang network do not produce safe, legitimate, clean, stable. accountable , inspected or reasonably priced product. They use violence ,subtrafuge, firearms fraud and deception to distribite their wares.
-- Whos side are you on ?
Posted by: 419 | 2008-09-29 7:19:09 PM
those gangs are not going anywhere. not when there is the opportunity to make money. that is the whole ending prohibition argument. its what happened when alcohol prohibition ended
Posted by: krista zoobkoff | 2008-09-29 7:39:27 PM
I think this shane guy has a mental disorder and alot of spare time
Posted by: blah blah blah | 2008-09-29 9:49:43 PM
1. No, you never call names at all, do you?
2. Peace is not the answer to everything, nor is a toking up, nor pumping the neighbour’s cat. Next.
3. It’s not hypocritical because alcohol, used properly, even recreationally, is harmless and actually beneficial. Tobacco does long-term harm but does not space you out. Pot combines the worst of both worlds. You only want it to be hypocritical so you can shoehorn yourself into the “in” crowd.
4. Spoken like a true hedonist. What have I been saying all this time?
5. Blah, blah.
6. Exactly what kind of engineer are you? Residence stationary?
7. That’ll be the day.
8. No one asked you to cross it.
9. Boo hoo.
10. Which is why it should be dealt with by serious people—which excludes you.
11. The cause is immature hedonists wanting to get high. I’m afraid the only cure for that is a heavy leather belt.
12. Their crime rate is dropping, no?
13., 14. If we’d listened to the experts we wouldn’t have airplanes.
15. If only.
16. Nah, you’re doing good on your own.
17., 18. Blah, blah.
19. You wish.
20. Yes, it is. By one letter. The word is “life’s,” not “lies.” Engineer.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-29 11:06:07 PM
1. Screeched the hedonist.
2. And a stupid one.
3. Hedonism isn’t a social ill; it’s a personal failing.
4. As are baby boomers.
5. A well-balanced life does not include psychedelics.
6., 7., 8. But what a spread that encompasses.
9., 10. Typical anti-corporate boilerplate. An odd attitude for an “engineer.”
11. Wrong. Their drugs are by prescription only.
12. The Crips…the Hell’s Angels…the Scorpions…all of whom you are more likely to patronize. Pharmaceutical company CEOs don’t carry machine pistols.
13. X-Files theme plays…
14. An engineer who can’t spell “hypocrisy,” even with a spell-checking browser.
15. Or “vigilante.”
16. The “likely correct answer”? How much thought have you devoted to this really?
17. Crime is dropping in the U.S. But then, only a liberal is typically stupid enough to argue with success.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-29 11:12:32 PM
Wrong, Krista. Bootlegging continues to this day. And the spectacular crime that flourished during the "public enemy" era had at least as much to do with the Great Depression, and 35% of the people out of work, as it did with Prohibition. The new mobility lent by the automobile, giving the ability to easy cross state lines and therefore elude justice, also contributed. Bonnie and Clyde weren't bootleggers. Other famous gangsters like Pretty Boy Floyd, John Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson, Bugsy Siegal, and Ma Barker, did little or no bootlegging.
As for Al Capone, well, he was certainly a bootlegger, but it was only one wrinkle in an extensive criminal empire that included racketeering, gambling, and prostitution. Prohibition was ineffective because so many Americans were used to drinking (far more than were used to smoking grass, which was virtually unheard of in the 1930s), but Prohibition did not in itself cause all the crime of the 1930s, especially since it was repealed in 1933 after running the entire gamut of the 1920s, during which there was much less crime than in the 1930s.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-29 11:21:53 PM
Blah, Blah, Blah wrote: "I think this shane guy has a mental disorder and alot of spare time"
I think your ass is ugly.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-29 11:22:55 PM
shane you really surprise me with your knowledge. you are right i think the number was under 10000 people who smoked cannabis before it became illegal in the 30's. this is something not too many people know. usually when i have these discussions with people, the only ones who know this stuff are the people who are pro pot. you are an enigma wrapped in riddles and stuff. i think its time you came over to our side. lol.
Posted by: krista zoobkoff | 2008-09-29 11:28:45 PM
Actually, Krista, from what I understand, marijuana remained virtually unknown for nearly 30 years after its prohibition in 1937, and prior to the 1970s, most people had never heard of cocaine, either. If prohibition automatically increases usage, we should have seen a spike at once, but we didn't until a whole generation later. And it's a fact that Americans as a whole did drink less during Prohibition.
It may interest you to know that most temperance activists were women, who claimed, among other things, that alcohol contributed to domestic abuse (which was very often true). The trouble is that alcohol can't make you do anything you would find morally repugnant when sober; it's merely opening the door to latent violence that was already simmering there. So the real issue was not alcohol, but their poor taste in men.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-29 11:43:10 PM
Hmmm- we wonder how Mr Shavluk did in his debate tonight against the forces of evil?
We did have someone look him up on google as he suggested.. what a sad little man he is when hes not here playing the obtuse the spiderman of pot here-with his track record on Google we can see a lifetime pattern of rejection- he joins free social policy forums, and then immediately goes keyboard postal on whoever is there who won't lionize him- then threatens people, ignores warning and then gets banned.. like again and again and again..so he looks for a new forum that doesn't know him and starts at it again..
I am sorry i teased him, it looks like he has been teased all his life and is very hurt that nobody appreciates his socialist machette work .. well maybe if he quit using drugs and flushed out his dope frozen anger brain centre he would he ok..
Posted by: 419 | 2008-09-30 12:45:49 AM
Wow, to think that someone so good that he can judge it all is on this forum with us! Praise the Lord Hallelujah! I have heard his voice from on high, the lord is amongst us now! It wasn't the alcohol but "the women's poor taste in men" that causes family violence.
such a clever boy this enema Shane!
I know he is putting us on with this claptrap. He can't be blaming the victim can he?
There could be no-one who could be so naturally incredibly stupid. Thanks for the inspiration--good one, shane!
Such a great time today campaigning again. I sure hope it is as much fun for you Krista.
People seem ready for a change when you talk to them. Or are those only the ones my hat or wolf draws towards me?
I sure hope that something comes of the different news organizations the have recently been visiting my blogs. I can only hope that something might come of it.
Have a good one tomorrow!
Posted by: budoracle | 2008-09-30 1:04:41 AM
1. Women’s poor taste doesn’t cause family violence, Budo. Violent men do that, and violent men are solely to blame. The point is that the violence has always been there and that the alcohol merely lets it out. It can’t make you into something you’re not already, inside. You’d think by the time a woman knew a man well enough to marry him that she’d detect a flaw like that. By the way, research has shown that women hit men at LEAST as often as men hit women. The men sure do complain less, though.
2. Cleverer than you. I don’t need a magic hat.
3., 4. If a kid climbs a transmission tower and gets roasted, as you saying he’s blameless? For that matter, if someone pickles his brain in marijuana, is it society’s fault? Didn’t think so.
5. Ah, yes—it really is all about you.
6. “Is it only the hat?” Bingo. I’ve only told you have a dozen times.
7. Newsworthy does not mean electable.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-30 7:17:21 AM
I would like to encourage everyone to ignore Shane's trolling on these issues.
He deliberately avoids dealing with the factual. He has not included any sources or studies, and constantly ridicules others. With the huge amount of available literature, he cannot even find simple quotations without a direct roadmap.
His focues on blaming others and not taking any personal responsibility for anything tells you all you need to know.
His only argument in favour of prohibition is: thats the way it has been. People like Shane, who follow governmental decrees without question, led to some of the worst atrocities in human history.
Prohibition is a policy that has proven extremely wasteful and causes much more harm than the products it intends to restrict.
The facts are all there. Do not buy into Shane's empty rhetoric.
Posted by: Q | 2008-09-30 10:39:24 AM
1. Yes, avoiding reality seems to be the path you’ve chosen. You even have drugs to help you out.
2. Excuse me, YOU are the one avoiding the reality that your support of an illegal product is the beating heart of organized crime. You are an accessory to every murder, every grow-rip, every gang war. You provide the market that makes their enterprise possible, against the law and mores of society, for no better reason than because you like to get stoned.
3. Sorry, that’s my line. I do not buy marijuana; therefore I do not contribute to the illegal market for it. That I leave to you. The responsibility is yours. You don’t get to blame society on this one, Q.
4. I’ve advanced several arguments in favour of Prohibition; you discount them all because you don’t agree with them. That’s not the same as my never having met them. And are you seriously comparing the outlawing of pot to the systematic murder of millions of Jews? Do you fancy yourself so untouchable, your cause so unassailable, the inherent rightness of your stand so unimpeachable, that your right to get fucking STONED should receive the same priority as people being gassed to death by the millions and reduced to ash? No, Q. You’re not narcissistic at all, are you?
5. Funny how that’s uniquely true of drug prohibition, but somehow doesn’t apply to crime prohibition, gun prohibition, speech prohibition, or anything except your own little pet cause du jour.
6. Yes, the facts are all there. And they are not on your side, stoner.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-30 10:54:29 AM
if evil Neo Con blogger spies from the Prime Ministers office are following Mr. Shavluk around to oppress him,. and thwarting Mr.Budoracles bid to lead a grassroots revolution towards- more grass ropot revolutions -- then they high ranking Neo Con spies are reading his forum and monitering the posters very carefully- We are pretty sure the foul language filters picked up on Mr Shaluk within the first half hour here!
And so the highest office in the land ( short of Jack Laytons treehouse ) are intimately aware of Mr Shavluks looming threats & Mr Budoracles dangerous pot bud hat of civil disobedience. Nice one..
So if there are any broken windows. mis directed pizzas or late night whispered phonecalls - we can rely on the PMs' office records to provide evidence in court. It will be relatively easy to convince the goonsquads to pull these famous peace vulture drug activists out of bed after midnight for some spontanious dental work with an oak baton and a can of pepper spray
So the Prime Minister himself is privy to all that has appeared here on this forum- wow/ thanks Mt Shavluk for arranging for all these cool security cameras to swing this way ! We have never felt safer since you stepped in here with your colourful style and award winning ways. And Mr Budoracle- we just know you will win the election vecaise you deserve to win becaise pot makes you so much-- uh-- well it just does. where yoi will singlehandedly transform Canadian society with silly hats for all !
and lets face it, Steve whatshisname the PM is not in favour of letting up on the Drug War or repealing marijuana prohibition , nope not one little bit- and neither are the vast majority of your fellow Canadians
Posted by: 419 | 2008-09-30 11:04:06 AM
I think we all know that, Q, at least most. I don't take him seriously, but occasionally I see someone like this in public. See my blog September 11,
The harassment of peaceful people is sanctioned by our government.
I use someone like the ever contentious Shane as a spring board, or his own idiocy as one would use your opponent in judo, use their energy against them. That ois why I believe he is actually doing us a large favor and on our side.
Judging by the universities and different news organizations, advertising firms and think tanks, that have had a good look at my website, some coming from here, some of a different mindset is reading my posts and intrigued enough by my drivel to come for a look-see.
For this, I have people like Shane to thank as they bring out my very best and have helped, nay caused, the honing of my writing skills in the past 3 years. I've gotten my first radio interview see my podcast through just such an initial contact. I know that I am not yet in the same skill league in Blogging as Shane, but hopefully one day will be. until then I appreciate his constant input. It is like a sound level monitor on my audacity program: a constant measure of the impact of my words.
I've left off reading all of his diatribe a long time ago because there is nothing new in it ever. Not a single personally derived conclusion or insight do I see, but constant schoolyard verbal posing.
He has no personal identity of his own, no writings or website he stands for(just clicked on his name the first time) but has a kind of a generic, regurgitated vomit-like existence. Kind of ethereal, like an enema, as was described here before, that causes vile excrement to flow endlessly.
I don't know about you but, Q, but I kind of like the prose that leaps from me now. I owe all my progress in my writing talents and activist passion to the likes of morons like Shane.
In the end it will be said of them, "They should have let happy tokers dream in peace" for the reaction that they have caused which will eventually bring down Prohibition.
And that is my final point, and another nail in the coffin of prohibition today: There is nothing that takes place in a vacuum as simpletons like Shane would have us believe. That throughout society, religion and right-wing thought unchecked is dangerous. Check out my post as Shatner Bassoon on the Edson murder this morning on the CBC news site (which by the way would not allow Shane's personal comments) https://membercentre.cbc.ca/MemberComments.aspx
Have a good one and don't let this moron get your goat, they are rare and precious.
Posted by: budoracle | 2008-09-30 11:39:22 AM
I commemorate you on your decisions and personal investment to further a cause you believe in.
We have to raise this debate above simple name-calling and lonely observations. Considering the lack of true argumentation or discussion from Shane, it is easy to see why he is so out of touch. He prefers to insult and shut down debate, which is a standard tactic of the old school statist as well as the modern neo-liberal, but ultimately leads to a ostracisation from mainstream societ. Shane is case in point. But from him I hope you realize the labelling and name calling does not do you any good in promoting your points as well.
Simply, we can show Shane's fraud for what it is, and lacking in factual basis:
- The moral argument that breaking a law (smoking pot) is in effect supporting criminal organizations is completely ludicrous. You cannot morally criminalize any mutually beneficial transaction between two parties. By doing so, you support a totalitarian statist viewpoint. The same as criminalizing Jews for lending money. Suddenly, Jews were 'evil', and dictated as such by this perception being condoned by the state. Shane would obviously support this. True morality (or the benefit of individuals to any exchange) is not important to him in the face to State regulation. Thus, his premise is that even though the state is acting immorrally, it is bereft of any responsibility for the outcome of its actions. Totally illogical.
He cannot grasp the reality of economics and the effects of prohibition upon any human exchange. Even though it has been documented hundreds of times in history and modern policy. Anyone who has read about the prohibition of alcohol, coffee, chocolate, abortion, guns, marijuana, etc can see the exact same effects. And always the same bottom line: prohibition of goods is inneffiecient, inneffective, and the outcomes affects reality in the opposite way of it's intention.
Except in the case of creating an entire class of Canadians that one lonely old man can call 'criminals'. If you can call that a positive, so be it.
Posted by: Q | 2008-09-30 12:40:43 PM
"...Except in the case of creating an entire class of Canadians that one lonely old man can call 'criminals'. If you can call that a positive, so be it..."
Yoo Hoo citizen Q-
its not just one lonely old man- the vast majority of your fellow citizens in the Dominion of Canada are against recreational drug use- you know thats a fact based on polls the pro matijuana club has presented on this and other forums..-"majority is against pot" statement is not a projection - how did you forget, _again_- that most ( 80% ) of your fellow Canadians are very much against overturning prohibition or legalizing recreational pot use, and this same 80% + majority show zero signs of changing their position.
Why? because the arguments in favour of this collossal socieatal turnaround presented here and in other places of discussion are not convincing to anyone else but the wipehead fringe. Nice try- but repeal of the pot laws are not going to happen in your lifetime. and you know it.
Especially when we Canadians elect a majority Conservative government in the next few weeks who are dead against lifting prohibition.
We admire your pluck, but wonder about the basic reasoning powers of the anti prohibitionists when we watch their blindspot growing larger with each passing day. I can only guess that they fear what Shane has to say because he is popping their bubbles faster than they can blow them .
Look no hard feelings citizen Q - this is only an exchange of ideas not a gladiator arena where the winner prevails and the loser dies.. . Your allies are coddling your delusions and singing you to sleep - your opponants are knocking on your door to tell you that stoner summer is over.& to remind you the seasons have changed, and that winter is coming..
Goodbye- goodluck- try sobriety.. you won't get busted for it
Posted by: 419 | 2008-09-30 1:18:14 PM
its not just one lonely old man- the vast majority of your fellow citizens in the Dominion of Canada are against recreational drug use-
Does that include alcohol? You know that legal drug of choice responsible for all those traffic deaths?
Posted by: JC | 2008-09-30 1:32:03 PM
Q, that is why I leave it to those with an expertise/knack in these areas of debate.
I know that it seems that I'm on a different planet, compared to what you see as the nitty gritty, sometimes to you. The fact is, the reasons repeal are truly as broad as the fabric of humanity. If everyone, no matter their personal understanding of the crux of the argument got together when I go to court, stand up with me and say that you are customers who agree that we have the right to use this natural substance for beneficial natural reason, The government could not pick a cannabis enhanced person out of a crowd of people walking on the street by observation of any kind. The only confirmation would be through blood testing. So beyond that it has no right to "control" me.
If I behave no different, no more dangerous than a coffee drinker, it is TYRANNY to make a criminal out of me ........... PERIOD
AND THE REST OF IT, THE WRANGLING OVER SEMANTICS, IS PLAYING ON HIS TURF.
I once saw an antique photo in a historic book on the prairies around the turn of the century. It was of a farmer and his bride (she was good looking) in front of their tall colas of Cannabis. This they used daily as a food source. Lately I've found the pleasures of using Canna butter in my daily diet.
I could see the health and vigor of this hardy pioneer couple in the diet they kept and feel it personally today.
Some may not like it, but I do. And I see it as a way of finally curbing my smoking habit. For me it is both energizing, slightly like an upper but less stringent, edgy like coffee. It leaves me extremely lucid and aware. Perhaps 25% more mentally engaged than normal. As I said before I have had no Epileptic seizures for many decades now, nor that vacuous pre seizure feeling (perhaps caused by the drugs.
I enjoy this state of pleasurable engagement sprinkled lightly with euphoria, which also helps stave off the edgy a sense of melancholy which in creative people like me tends to escalate quickly into depression.
Now my friend, Q, if the Pharmacies found a drug like that which they could patent, it would out-perform the Erectile dysfunction drug market. And they would probably get away with charging people $1000.00 per month for it.
I can use 10 grams of this butter daily. It cost me $100 fopr a pound and I can retail it for 100% profit easily as in cookies. Now that works out to around 45 days worth if you did it every day which I don't, because it also, like most drugs looses its nice effects and becomes routine if you do too much. This is personal control practiced by me, the foundation of all human survival since the beginning of time.
Cannabis is not an intoxicant that is why you can't recognize the difference in a crowd. The government has, after the fact tried to paint it so, but there is no real basis in science users are intoxicated.
Yes, like tobacco, the initial effects of first time use could be classified as intoxicating, as least as much as their is both a physiological and mental component to both of these substances.
With Cannabis it is the case that it is less addicting, but the smoking of any substance in itself is addicting. If we tried to nix all forms of smoking and allowed those who wished to feel the way do on Canna butter, we should be able to do so.
There are so many more dangerous reactions to all manner of prescribed and non prescribed/controlled substances that there is simply no cause to torment me and make our society unsafe while doing so.
There is no one that can point to a single moronic conclusion that I come to in my writings and I am constantly on my anti epileptic seizure medicine.
Many are on much more dangerous substance cross prescribed by multiple doctors or taken in error.
Please give me a break, leave me alone...... I am doing nothing wrong what so ever. This is just a legal form of what was considered OK by the legislators who signed the Prohibition legislation in, racism and oppression through diversionary tactics.
Today it can be conveniently used against people like me who think differently from the prevailing right-wing idiocy. It can be used to gain ever more control of the population through the formation of a police state. The drug demon is well used to generate that wonderful tool people like GWB and Harper like to use: FEAR.
Take a look at Dana Larsen's video without the layers of bull propaganda and tell me what is so friggin dangerous about him that I haven't seen a cell phone user doing while driving?
Think of how brainwashed most people are and then you'll understand why we have such poor government. The bovines are easily duped and the will spook and stampede in fear at the slightest provocation.
While using the statement of hardline on drug dealers to win votes conjuring up dealers selling to your children, their policies have proven themselves the cause of the rampant growth of drug addiction in our society. Just as in alcohol prohibition use continued to escalate amongst the young which was the final straw for repeal.
They repealed it for a reason contrary to what revisionists want you to think.
Cannabis and me, my business not the government's
Posted by: budoracle | 2008-09-30 1:50:23 PM
Avoiding the generalizations and namecalling, I have to disagree completely with you.
First: rates of marijuana use, especially among youth, have increased substancially. If nothing else, this shows more Canadians are willing to 'break the law' and thus disregard it. This is demonstrated clearly in the most recent Canadian Addiction Survey: The past-year reported use of marijuana among youth has increased steadily in the 15-year time span from (15.5%) to (37.0%), and in the 10-year time span between the there was a significant increase in the proportion of current users who used cannabis "at least once a week" over the past 3 months 43.7% versus 27.9%.
Furthermore the Canadian Senate has already concluded that: "If our estimates do indeed reflect reality, no fewer that 2 million Canadians aged between 18 and 65 have used cannabis at least once over the past 12 months, while at least 750,000 young people between the ages of 14 and 17 use cannabis at least once per month, one third of them on a daily basis. This proportion appears, at least in the four most highly-populated provinces, to be increasing. Statistics suggest that both use and at-risk use is increasing. "
So we know our children, and thus society in general, are using more and more marijuana. Should we be building jails faster and faster?
In terms of public support for decriminalizaion, I beleive you are also wrong:
The latest Angus Reid poll (june 28 2007) concluded that 55 per cent of respondents think marijuana should be legalized in the country. This proportion jumps to 75% when including decriminalization of marijuana for medical purposes.
Do you have any evidence of the contrary? It seems to me that Canadians do support changing our current inneffictive and wasteful policies that define almost half of our children as "criminals".
Posted by: Q | 2008-09-30 1:50:34 PM
Q wrote: “Considering the lack of true argumentation or discussion from Shane, it is easy to see why he is so out of touch.”
This coming from someone whose debating style consists entirely of personal attacks. How does responding to other people shut down debate? Do I tell them to leave? To shut up? Do I tell others to ignore them? No. That I leave to you, when you’re not too busy rolling doobies.
Q wrote: “But from him I hope you realize the labelling and name calling does not do you any good in promoting your points as well.”
Q wrote: “The moral argument that breaking a law (smoking pot) is in effect supporting criminal organizations is completely ludicrous.”
It’s market economics 101. You provide the market for illegal dope, and the criminals provide the product. If you and others like you weren’t willing to buy illegal dope, the criminals wouldn’t sell it.
Q wrote: “You cannot morally criminalize any mutually beneficial transaction between two parties.”
Of course you can. Take selling weapons to terrorists as an example. The terrorist gets what he wants (power) and the seller gets what he wants (money). However, the effect on everyone else is anything but beneficial.
Q wrote: “By doing so, you support a totalitarian statist viewpoint.”
Invoking the spectre of totalitarianism is below feeble. You are anything but an oppressed minority, as evinced by the fact that you even have the right to say it.
Q wrote: “between two parties. By doing so, you support a totalitarian statist viewpoint. The same as criminalizing Jews for lending money. Suddenly, Jews were 'evil', and dictated as such by this perception being condoned by the state.”
Charging interest was considered immoral and un-Christian. It was not the invention of a feline, anti-Semitic brain, but a moral call. Muslims are forbidden to charge interest to this day, and historically were much more tolerant of Jews than Christians were (or than liberals are today, for that matter).
Q wrote: “Thus, his premise is that even though the state is acting immorrally, it is bereft of any responsibility for the outcome of its actions. Totally illogical.”
States act ethically, not morally. For more, I suggest you read some Machiavelli.
Q wrote: “He cannot grasp the reality of economics and the effects of prohibition upon any human exchange.”
The reality is that your high is more important to you than another’s life. You’re just too much of a chicken shit to come right out and say it.
Q wrote: “Even though it has been documented hundreds of times in history and modern policy. Anyone who has read about the prohibition of alcohol, coffee, chocolate, abortion, guns, marijuana, etc can see the exact same effects.”
So your argument is that the harder it is for the average citizen to buy something, the more of them will end up using it? And you accuse me of poor logic.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-01 8:32:39 AM
Q wrote: “First: rates of marijuana use, especially among youth, have increased substancially. If nothing else, this shows more Canadians are willing to 'break the law' and thus disregard it. This is demonstrated clearly in the most recent Canadian Addiction Survey: The past-year reported use of marijuana among youth has increased steadily in the 15-year time span from (15.5%) to (37.0%), and in the 10-year time span between the there was a significant increase in the proportion of current users who used cannabis "at least once a week" over the past 3 months 43.7% versus 27.9%.”
Really? I’d heard that marijuana use among younger generations has actually dropped (to 9.5 percent from 9.8 in 2006, ages 12 to 17) but was increasing among the baby boom generation as more of that cohort joined the 50-59 age group. This data was from the United States, I’ll admit, where they take marijuana prosecutions a little more seriously. Considerable progress in drug-use reduction was realized in the years 2002-2005.
Q wrote: “Furthermore the Canadian Senate has already concluded that: "If our estimates do indeed reflect reality, no fewer that 2 million Canadians aged between 18 and 65 have used cannabis at least once over the past 12 months, while at least 750,000 young people between the ages of 14 and 17 use cannabis at least once per month, one third of them on a daily basis. This proportion appears, at least in the four most highly-populated provinces, to be increasing. Statistics suggest that both use and at-risk use is increasing.”
I wonder if this has anything to do with declining enforcement? It’s gotten so lax that even a someone with a grow-op is unlikely to spend a day in jail, at least here in B.C. Do you really expect a given activity to DECREASE when the penalties associated with it decrease? Only of the perpetrators have their brains wired backwards.
Q wrote: “So we know our children, and thus society in general, are using more and more marijuana. Should we be building jails faster and faster?”
No, we don’t. There is no objective way to measure marijuana consumption among the populace. Polls depend entirely on the honesty of respondents, which is suspect in this sphere of human activity. This is the sort of “science” that made Alfred Kinsey’s research so controversial. As for jails, why not? Got to put those crooks somewhere, unless you want to hang them all. Locking up criminals does reduce crime rates. The U.S. example proves it. You may find it unpleasant, but then again, you’re a criminal.
Q wrote: “In terms of public support for decriminalizaion, I beleive you are also wrong: The latest Angus Reid poll (june 28 2007) concluded that 55 per cent of respondents think marijuana should be legalized in the country. This proportion jumps to 75% when including decriminalization of marijuana for medical purposes.”
That 75 percent includes myself, provided marijuana can be scientifically proven to be an effective treatment for the illness in question. However, you could probably get similar levels of support for abolishing income tax. And just because people say they’d vote for the measure doesn’t mean they will. The only poll that counts is the one where you put an X in the box.
Q wrote: “Do you have any evidence of the contrary?”
Yes, I do, as a matter of fact. If the legalization of marijuana is so important to Canadians, why has the Marijuana Party failed to win even a single seat, on both the provincial and federal levels?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-01 8:49:24 AM
Quick Summary of Shanes arguments:
1- Existince of an inelastic market is somehow immoral. (clearly false)
2- Selling marijuana is equal to selling weapons to terrorists. (clearly false)
3- State actions, whether immoral or not, are valid. It was 'right' for christians to see Jews as criminals and thus 'good' for the government to criminalize them. (clearly false)
4- Prohibition is a good policy. (clearly false)
5- Prohibition limits consumption. (clearly false as in alcohol and marijuana)
Empty, vacuous and false assertions without any backing. Welcome to Shane's world.
Posted by: Q | 2008-10-01 8:50:43 AM
Most people are brainwashed, eh, Budo? Like stupid bovines stampeding. You and your fellow stoners alone know better, is that right? What a negative view to take of your fellow man. What's the matter, has the hat lost its magic?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-01 8:50:54 AM
1. No, support for an illegal market for a non-essential and even harmful product is immoral. And most, if not all markets are elastic.
2. I didn’t say they were equal. But both are illegal because both are deemed to harm society. Which you know. You just don't want to admit it.
3. The act of outlawing interest does not amount to outlawing Jews or Judaism. Jews have lived in peace among Muslims for centuries. The current conflict in Palestine is about land, not religion.
4. Opinion, not fact; you are not the world. (Good luck explaining that to any pothead.)
5. Alcohol use dropped during Prohibition. Drug use is down among the young in the States (where enforcement is strict) and apparently up in Canada (where enforcement is lax). Oh, and they’re closing the coffee shops in Holland, too. Seems the Dutch have had enough of being harassed by glassy-eyed drug tourists.
6. That piece of glass in front of you isn’t a window; it’s a mirror. Wake up.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-01 8:59:46 AM
More dribble from Shane:
Shane: Really? I’d heard that marijuana use among younger generations has actually dropped (to 9.5 percent from 9.8 in 2006, ages 12 to 17) but was increasing among the baby boom generation as more of that cohort joined the 50-59 age group. This data was from the United States, I’ll admit, where they take marijuana prosecutions a little more seriously. Considerable progress in drug-use reduction was realized in the years 2002-2005.
- Nobody cares about 'what you heard', you are a known liar. Where's the beef? Nobody cares about the USA, or their huge failure on the war against drugs. (are you seriously supporting [email protected]!?) If you like it so much, move there.
BOTTOM LINE: MARIJUANA USE IN CANADA HAS INCREASED, ESPECIALLY AMONG YOUTH. PERIOD. READ THE STATISTICS.
Shane: I wonder if this has anything to do with declining enforcement? It’s gotten so lax that even a someone with a grow-op is unlikely to spend a day in jail, at least here in B.C. Do you really expect a given activity to DECREASE when the penalties associated with it decrease? Only of the perpetrators have their brains wired backwards.
-In Shane's world, over half of Canadians should have a criminal record (as over half used marijuana). I mean, what a totally stupid argument. Shane supports incarcerating over half of our children today. Wow.
S: Got to put those crooks somewhere, unless you want to hang them all. Locking up criminals does reduce crime rates. The U.S. example proves it. You may find it unpleasant, but then again, you’re a criminal.
- The US example proves exactly the opposite. Do your research: The effect of prohibition on violence depends not just on the existence of a prohibition but on the degree to which it is enforced. Increased enforcement narrows the scope of legal exceptions to the prohibition (e.g., medical uses), thereby increasing the size of the black market, and increased enforcement destroys reputations and implicit property rights within the black market. Both effects increase the use of violence. (Miron, 1999 &2000)
Verifiable, scientific facts once again seperate Shane from reality.
Stop sending our children to jail Shane.
From Our CANADIAN Senate:
In addition to being ineffective and costly, criminalization leads to a series of harmful consequences: users are marginalized and exposed to discrimination by the police and the criminal justice system; society sees the power and wealth of organized crime enhanced as criminals benefit from prohibition; and governments see their ability to prevent at-risk use diminished.
We would add that, even if cannabis were to have serious harmful effects, one would have to question the relevance of using the criminal law to limit these effects. We have demonstrated that criminal law is not an appropriate governance tool for matters relating to personal choice and that prohibition is known to result in harm which often outweighs the desired positive effects. However, current scientific knowledge on cannabis, its effects and consequences are such that this issue is not relevant to our discussion.
Posted by: Q | 2008-10-01 9:22:13 AM
Q, you really are something. You implore the post toward a more civil tone, then you start slinging insults like “known liar.” Known to be a liar to whom, except among potheads, themselves known criminals?
The study showing a reduction in drug use among American youth appeared in early September on various U.S. media, including Fox. I know YOU don’t care about the Great Satan, except when looking for someone to blame for the illegality of your Acapulco Gold. Don’t say NO ONE cares, BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT THE FUCKING WORLD. Get that into your little narcissistic stoner skull.
In the U.S., enforcement is up and crime is down (including drug crime). In Canada, enforcement is down and crime is up. You don’t have to be a Ph.D. to spot the correlation. And when the folly of your “prohibition doesn’t work” rant is thus laid bare, you shift gears, trying to make it a moral issue, spinning lurid tales of a whole generation of children toiling in marijuana gulags when the real focus is on the suppliers, not the users.
And there you go again, trying the medical marijuana angle, screeching “People need it! People need it! I NEED IT!” Medical users make up only a minute fraction of total smokers, just as rape makes up only a minute fraction of total unwanted pregnancies. You base policies on rules, not exceptions.
As for the Miron study, it contains some interesting passage indeed. Such as: “Prohibitions reduce demand by creating legal penalties for possession and by increasing uncertainty about product quality”; “prohibitions raise supply costs”; “participants in an illegal trade cannot use the legal and judicial system to resolve disputes, so they seek other methods such as violence”; and “Prohibitions can increase income-generating crime…IF CONSUMERS FINANCE CONSUMPTION OF THE PROHIBITED COMMODITY FROM SUCH CRIME.”
In other words, Miron states exactly what I have said: That all other things being equal, prohibition decreases use of the product, and that any crime associated with black market versions of a product are consumer-driven, not prohibition-driven. You are the one feeding organized crime, Q. Not the government.
As for the Senate report pleading “marginalization,” don’t make me laugh. Users aren’t being marginalized; they’re marginalizing themselves by turning themselves into criminals without any provocation whatsoever, entering an activity they know is illegal from the outset. The legal system is SUPPOSED to discriminate against criminals; THAT IS ITS FUCKING JOB. These people are unelected, unaccountable, and require no legal or scientific training whatever. Chretien appointed a FASHION DESIGNER, for shit’s sake.
I know I’ve hit a nerve, Q, because you went from being self-appointed peacekeeper to Q-Bomb in zero seconds flat. You are as hysterical as a woman having a hot flash. You have utterly blown your cool. Not coming unravelled, are we?
P.S. "Don't put our children in jail." Okay, how about just you then?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-01 9:57:43 AM
Oh wow. It appears the omnipotent Shane has finally lost it. More name calling, and now even swearing.
Your lack of argumentation is only further highlighted by your Juvenile behavior, you see.
Shane quotes an imaginary study that only he has seen and knows about as fact. Sorry Shane, your imagination doesnt count in a debate.
Shane is proven wrong, by credible Canadian research, that marijuana use among our youth is significant and increasing over time. His response is to cry and call names. Sorry Shane, the polls don't lie.
Shane is given research that is in direct opposition to his viewpoint. He cherrypicks quotes from the studies but ignores the entire point of the articles. Miron is most famous for his research involving prohibition and the absolute failure of the policies. Sorry Shane, your cherrypicking is only lies. Perhaps you would be interested in reading Miron's bestselling book, entitled: Drug War Crime: The Consequences of Prohibition. It agrees with all of my arguments quite neatly.
Shane cries that the Senate Report, which clearly destroys all of his viewpoints, 'shouldn't count' because the Senators are appointed. Yet Shane supports government policy blindly and without question, and insists that 50% of our population are criminals, and should have spent time in jail. Sorry Shane, your hypocrisy is too easy to spot.
No need for me to swear, call names, or make personal attacks. Shane's opinion is just horribly wrong, and that is evidenced clearly in these posts.
Liberty for all Canadians.
Posted by: Q | 2008-10-01 1:56:53 PM
Q wrote: “Oh wow. It appears the omnipotent Shane has finally lost it. More name calling, and now even swearing. Your lack of argumentation is only further highlighted by your Juvenile behavior, you see.”
No, the truly juvenile behaviour is yours. Your arguments are amateurish and fitful, riddled with logical fallacies like argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad ignorantiam, argumentum ad logicam, argumentum ad misericordiam, argumentum ad numerum, argumentum ad nauseum, and cum hoc ergo propter hoc. You see, you still haven’t got past the fact that neither my deliver, nor your personal reaction to it, constitutes a rebuttal of the arguments I make. I win this point; you’re a narcissist who thinks the world cares, or ought to care, what you think above all else.
Q wrote: “Shane quotes an imaginary study that only he has seen and knows about as fact. Sorry Shane, your imagination doesnt count in a debate.”
Um, the name of that study (Miron) was provided by YOU. Did you even read it? If you’re talking about the U.S. study, it is the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, released to various media outlets in the first week of September. Google “baby boomer drug use” and you’ll be overwhelmed with hits.
Q wrote: “Shane is given research that is in direct opposition to his viewpoint. He cherrypicks quotes from the studies but ignores the entire point of the articles. Miron is most famous for his research involving prohibition and the absolute failure of the policies. Sorry Shane, your cherrypicking is only lies. Perhaps you would be interested in reading Miron's bestselling book, entitled: Drug War Crime: The Consequences of Prohibition. It agrees with all of my arguments quite neatly.”
Research neither supports nor denies any viewpoint. Research is an attempt to determine truth; it is not a matter of opinion. The researcher can form conclusions that constitute viewpoints but the research itself cannot, by definition, be in opposition to anything. The tone of the report I read at:
is very scholarly and unbiased in tone, and certainly does not make the bold claims you attest to his book. Of course, academic papers are peer-reviewed and held to a much higher standard than a mass-market paperback, whose primary objective to make the author lots of money. The graphs in the report also show a sharp drop in the use of alcohol during Prohibition years. Although actual data from 1919-1933 is lacking, immediately thereafter the per-capita consumption has dropped 50 percent. And the graphs suggesting that stricter enforcement produces more violent crime are to be expected—criminals get increasingly desperate the harder you put the screws to them. That’s not an excuse for lax law enforcement. Today the US murder rate is lower than the average for the entire 20th century, while still having very strict drug enforcement.
Furthermore, nothing Miron said in any way rebuts my stated point: That it is the consumer, not the government, who drives prohibition-related crime. That is an inescapable fact. No consumer, no market, no crime. The difference is that Miron has essentially given up on humanity, arguing that it is better to accept that the world is full of those who would rather go to criminals than do without something they absolutely do not need. I’m not discouraged so easily. Once the baby boomers begin to die off, drug use likely will as well. They were not the herald for a new era, despite their lofty delusions to the contrary. They were simply a misguided and badly brought up aberration.
Q wrote: “Shane cries that the Senate Report, which clearly destroys all of his viewpoints, 'shouldn't count' because the Senators are appointed.”
A report can’t destroy a viewpoint, any more than research constitutes an opinion. It can only offer a contrary viewpoint, especially inasmuch as the report is largely itself a matter of opinion. It was loaded with emotional language like “marginalization” and “discrimination,” and was a typically Liberal exercise in blaming society for the acts of individuals. The Senate has also clumsily weighed in on other issues, recommending, among other things, a guaranteed annual income in a country already losing competitiveness owing to onerous taxation levels.
Q wrote: “Yet Shane supports government policy blindly and without question, and insists that 50% of our population are criminals, and should have spent time in jail. Sorry Shane, your hypocrisy is too easy to spot.”
Another logical fallacy, A as proof of B. I never said I supported government without question. I just said that if alcohol were outlawed I’d stop drinking it. Just the way million of smokers no longer light up in restaurants because that has been outlawed. Some of us, you see, are mature enough not to assume that the Universe revolves around our chosen habits and that it is our duty to pull society down if it places restrictions on them. You don’t have a good reason for breaking this law. “Because I want to get stoned” is not a good reason.
Q wrote: “No need for me to swear, call names, or make personal attacks.”
So why do you?
Q wrote: “Shane's opinion is just horribly wrong, and that is evidenced clearly in these posts.”
This statement is, in itself, an opinion. And a statement is not “just” true because you say it is. Get over yourself, already. You are just not that special.
Q wrote: “Liberty for all Canadians.”
Unless that liberty extends to making a law you disagree with. Then we’re Nazis, or to quote BudOracle, “bovines,” in need of instruction from our betters. You don't want liberty for all Canadians; just the ones who think and act like you.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-01 2:50:08 PM
P.S. I never said anyone who's ever smoked pot should be in jail, either, or that children should be there. Those were all your own inventions. See what happens when you reel off lie after lie after lie? Eventually you can't keep them straight and make a total fool of yourself.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-01 2:55:53 PM
P.S.S. It is difficult to separate Prohibition crime from "public enemy" crime because the two occurred over the same time period. A more scholarly breakdown would exclude killings by gangsters who specialized in kidnappings and bank robberies, which were a veritable plague in the 1930s.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-01 3:11:07 PM
Well, at least you've stopped swearing. One step towards maturity, anyways.
Just to be clear, because you are so lost, Jeffrey Miron is probably the worlds best advocate for Marijuana decriminalization. He is an award winning Harvard Economist, who understands that throwing people in jail doesnt eliminate a market. Something that you miss after supporting incarcerating millions of Canadians who are no different from their neighbors.
Regardless, here are some of his award winning conclusions, no matter how you cherrypick research:
- Drug law enforcement in the United States is severe enough to impact the lives of millions, but it is ineffective at reducing drug consumption. Although there are more than 1.2 million possession arrests each year, there are more than 28 million drug users, and most users purchase drugs on multiple occasions.
- There is a strong correlation between the violent crime rate and drug law enforcement: when drug prohibition increases so does the homicide rate. Similarly, countries with greater enforcement of their drug laws have more violent crime. Eliminating drug prohibition would likely cut the homicide rate in the United States by 25–75 percent.
- Although virtually all countries have drug prohibition laws similar to those of the United States; the degree of enforcement differs substantially. Using drug seizures by the police and customs agents as a measure of prohibition enforcement, the evidence consistently supports the hypothesis that prohibition enforcement increases the violent crime rate.
-It is, of course, true that some people ruin their lives with drugs,” writes Miron. “The right question for policy analysis, however, is not whether drugs are sometimes misused but whether policy reduces that misuse, and at what cost. The best available evidence shows that prohibition reduces drug use only modestly, and most of this reduction is for casual users rather than ‘addicts.’ It is hard to see, therefore, how any benefits from prohibition could possibly outweigh its incredible costs.
Case Closed. Shane, time to do some more reading. And not just the US, look outside your little sphere, theres a whole world out here.
Posted by: Q | 2008-10-01 3:28:20 PM
This is getting comical.
1- First Shane lists off the names logical fallacies from wikipedia. Then he calls me a bad name and offers his conclusion. Still not convinced he is right? Well, there's more lightning intellect coming!!
2- Shane then obliquely refers to some US study. Which apparently bolsters his argument about Canada. Or Something. Shane is lost here, but alas, so are we. Not to worry, Shane isn't finished yet:
3- Shane badly butchers the article he links to, even missing the entire point. But, dear reader, we can easily quote Mr. Miron, who is perhaps the best advocate for drug law reform the world has ever seen, and you can judge him without shane's magic goggles:
-Both drug and alcohol prohibition, Miron shows, coincided with increases in the homicide rate, consistent with the view that under prohibition people settle their disputes by substituting guns for lawyers. Miron also examines the relation between prohibition and violence across countries. Again, the evidence indicates that vigorous enforcement of prohibition is associated with higher, rather than lower, rates of violence, contrary to the standard defenses of prohibition.
-In any case, policies to reduce drug consumption make sense only if their benefits exceed their costs. Since prohibition has substantial enforcement costs and itself generates externalities, prohibition is a poor choice for reducing drug consumption
-It is, of course, true that some people ruin their lives with drugs,” writes Miron. “The right question for policy analysis, however, is not whether drugs are sometimes misused but whether policy reduces that misuse, and at what cost. The best available evidence shows that prohibition reduces drug use only modestly, and most of this reduction is for casual users rather than ‘addicts.’ It is hard to see, therefore, how any benefits from prohibition could possibly outweigh its incredible costs.
- Liberty and utility thus both recommend that prohibition end now: the goals of prohibition are questionable, the methods unsound, and the results are deadly.
Obviously Shane is not totally illiterate. But to see how he can read these things, and this still support such a horrible policy, probably explains his need to attack others morality so aggressively.
It's not too late Shane. Stop making criminals of our children. 50% of which smoked marijuana last year. They don't deserve to go to jail.
Posted by: Q | 2008-10-01 3:45:41 PM
Yes, it certainly is. Your desperation is palpable, exceeded only by your pathological need to disagree with prohibition at all costs. It must be hard for you, being on the losing side of the law and all.
1. They’re not from WikiPedia; would it matter if they were? They do enumerate your rhetorical failings nicely, at any rate.
2. Actually, the study was intended to bolster my argument that increased enforcement does not necessarily produce increased crime. Even Miron admits this, stating that the efficacy of enforcement in a given situation can only be determined empirically and is not hard-wired into the social persona.
3a. So you say. You don’t provide much of an alternative conclusion and reference absolutely no data, preferring to scream at the top of your lungs, “Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!” And whose word do we have that he is the BEST advocate for drug reform yet seen, besides your own? See there, again an opinion offered as fact.
3b. “People” don’t settle their disputes via violence, Q; only “criminals” do. Got that? “Criminals.” Many of the gangsters in the Prohibition era had all sorts of wrinkles to their operation. Bootlegging was only one. Many of the most famous gangsters didn’t bootleg at all. Even today, we have gambling, racketeering, extortion, prostitution, massage parlours, ATM scams. Criminals would continue in these ventures with or without drugs. The difference is you don’t have to finance their behaviour by purchasing drugs, yet you do.
3c. It would take a lot of crime to negate the worth of keeping kids off dangerous substances—apparently with some recent success in the U.S. Just keep buying drugs and we may yet reach it, Q.
3d. I’m numbering this way because you can’t count past 3, substituting dashes. Miron’s focus is intentionally narrowly construed, seeking only correlation (and ultimately causation) between the presence and strictness of prohibition and crime (specifically homicides). It intentionally does not delve into the area of drug revenues being used to fund other criminal ventures, such as gambling, vice, extortion, burglary rings, contract murder, etc. In the black market like the white, the wise businessman diversifies his portfolio. So in all likelihood you are contributing to all of those as well. Stricter enforcement can cut off that revenue and reduce the other activities. It’s all about the money.
3e. Maybe, but justice demands that it continue. That’s an interesting question: Liberty vs. Justice. Which takes priority? For you the answer is easy—whatever maximizes your pleasure while minimizing your investment therein—but for those of us who recognize a world beyond our own little life, the question merits thought.
4., 5. These are emotional pleas. They are forbidden in debate and have no place in making policy. And it is not possible for me to make a criminal of anyone but me. The final decision to break the law rests with the lawbreaker. Perhaps they don’t deserve jail for a couple of youthful lapses, but we can’t say the same for the growers and the pushers, can we? In fact, doesn’t Stephen Harper echo that thought, reducing penalties for possession while cracking down on the vicious crooks who peddle it? And aren’t you aware of that? Of course you are. Yet your argument boils down to “save the children.” Pathetic.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-01 5:21:23 PM
1. Really, I didn’t think you’d be so sensitive. Someone who hangs around stoners and criminals ought to have a thicker skin.
2. Actually, throwing people in jail does eliminate a market. The alternative argument—that whenever a criminal is jailed, another person who would not otherwise have become a criminal then becomes one in order to keep the numbers up—is untenable. In any case, no one except you is talking about putting occasional pot users in jail. Given their willingness to fund organized crime, though, I’ll admit it’s tempting. A good belting might be a better idea.
3a. Every year, tens if not hundreds of millions of people speed, and yet every year the police catch only a fraction. Is that grounds for legalizing speeding? This is a classical example of argumentum ad numero.
3b. Most homicides in the United States are black-on-black and gang-related. Drugs are only peripherally involved. Gangs do and sell drugs, but the killings have at least as much to do with machismo and gang culture as they do with eliminating competition. You won’t see a 25-percent drop and certainly not 75 percent.
3c. The United States has a violence problem and always has, owing to its unique demographics. It had this problem before drug prohibition and even before alcohol prohibition, and it will outlast them both. It really is like no other country in the world where homicides are concerned. However, property and nonviolent crime rates in the United States are actually much lower than they are in other English-speaking countries (including our own), thanks largely to stiffer penalties and armed homeowners.
4. This was brought up (and addressed) in your last post.
5. The case will be closed by the voters, not by you. And you’re the last one to be telling someone else to consider others, considering what you are willing to put society through to defend your right to light up.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-01 5:31:46 PM
The moron de tuti fruti moron is still at it, I see.
Posted by: budoracle | 2008-10-01 7:07:25 PM
Still maintaining your vigil outside the tomb of the unknown stoner, BudO? I don't get it--I thought your magic hat was supposed to drive away other people's negative energy.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-01 8:35:59 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.