The Shotgun Blog
Monday, May 25, 2009
Marc Emery's extradition hearing delayed "to finalize an agreement with U.S. prosecutors"
This is the interesting part:
Emery’s lawyer, Ian Donaldson, told B.C. Supreme Court Madam Justice Anne Mackenzie he needed more time to finalize an agreement with U.S. prosecutors that would end the need for the hearing.
Donaldson noted that two of Emery’s co-accused have pleaded guilty to their part in a scheme in which marijuana seeds were sold for use in grow-ops south of the border.
He said that since the pleas by Michelle Rainey and Gregory Williams were entered in Seattle last month, he has been in discussions with the U.S. prosecuting counsel.
“He and I have a general framework capable of resolving the case for Mr. Emery.”
Donaldson said that under the agreement, Emery would consent to be committed for extradition on one of the three criminal counts he faces. He noted that the Canadian authorities are opposed to such a move.
Oh pooh. I wanted him out. Oh well, what's a little delay compared to years of his absence? Enjoy your last days, druggie, assuming your drugs allow you to remember them.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-05-25 3:18:55 PM
"... Canadian authorities are opposed to such a move..."
this sounds like Emerys lawyer is bringing out out that dusty old deal that fell apart months ago- the one where da' Prince would plead guilty if his co accused would not have to testify against him in a US court and thus sink him even deeper into the mud-that deal Canadian Authorities opposed way back then..
Lawyer guy is not getting paid much or nothing to defend his Majesty the Prince of Pot so we wonder if lawyer guy just wanted to attain closure so he could move on to legit legal business opportunities.
Emery is charged with three criminal felonies-he admits guilt to three criminal felonies, why wouldn't he receive a fair trial for three criminal felonies ? He only has to face one punishment-
Justice delayed is justice derailed-
Posted by: 419 | 2009-05-25 3:26:54 PM
This is at least the second such delay to be granted. How much time does this sad excuse lawyer need to prepare a case, and more to the point, how much time are the courts prepared to give him?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-25 3:38:08 PM
"He noted that the Canadian authorities are opposed to such a move."
In this statement lies Emery's defence. Why does his lawyer feel he has no defence.
Is the extradition process hopelessly political? I wouldn't think so.
419 may be right when he writes: "Lawyer guy is not getting paid much or nothing to defend his Majesty the Prince of Pot so we wonder if lawyer guy just wanted to attain closure so he could move on to legit legal business opportunities."
Is Emery getting the best legal advice he deserves?
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-25 3:44:22 PM
an agreement implies all parties support a motion- In this case no agreement has been reached, as long as the Canadian authorities are against this deal, then thats that.
Stay the course etc//
Sources in vancouver say that Mr Donaldson off th record has had enough of working with his Majesty Marc Emery- Lawyer guy puts in all this work and effort to get the prince some basic justice in a system that may well try to eat him alive because of so many years of him being a colossal asshole--, and dope fiend client wrecks it all in 30 seconds smoking a huge bong with a bunch of underage girls before the TV cameras, mouthing off about crap.. etc
same sources who share the lawyer guy us working for free or cheap also share lawyer guy is fed up to _ here_ with Marc Emery and his childish antics..
Posted by: 419 | 2009-05-25 3:58:12 PM
Matthew: Actually, the extradition process is indeed hopelessly political. It's a two-step process:
1. The court hears the matter. The Extradition Act was changed a few years back. The result is that the judge's hands are, for the most part, tied in a case like Marc's: rubber stamp.
2. After that, Marc's fate is in the hands of the Minister of Justice, Rob Nicholson. From what I gather, Nicholson is unlikely to say no to extradition, unless his own, personal, prospects for re-election are at risk. His government is currently involved in plans to ramp up the "war" on drugs in this country. In any event, there's nothing much a lawyer could do to affect the Justice Minister's decision.
Hence, it's a matter of dealing with the US, which is the body that wants him convicted. Incidentally: there's no need for Canadian authorities to approve the deal because there's no need for an extradition if Marc agrees to go to the USA voluntarily as a condition of settlement. It's as simple as walking across the border.
Posted by: Paul McKeever | 2009-05-25 4:05:32 PM
But if Step 1 results in a judge saying Emery should not be extradited, then Nicholson is off the hook with conservative voters. Nickolson would not likely override the decision. Can he, in fact, override the decision if he wants?
The legal points in Emery's favour seem numerous.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-25 4:27:51 PM
Donaldson is the best extradition lawyer in Vancouver.
Extradition law with the U.S. is a farce. I think only two requests have ever been refused in history. Further, Chretien signed a super lax new treaty so that it's now next to impossible to prevent someone from being extradited.
When the current new severe border controls -- with drones, sensors, and armed guards -- are combined with ease of extradition requests, we've traded our citizenship rights against prosecution by a foreign power for severe restrictions on our movement across the border (as opposed to the free movement that comes with open borders). The state on both sides of the border have agreed in their mutual self-interest to become more powerful at the expense of our liberty.
Much of the reason for this gross abuse of state power, including the extradition of the peaceful, non-violent Emery, is the moral support of the type of punishment-police-military-obsessed conservatives who regularly post on this blog.
Too bad the God of the Old Testament isn't real or else they'd all be stricken with cancer for their sadism, on the fast-track to burning in hell.
Posted by: Michael Cust | 2009-05-25 4:35:26 PM
$20 bucks says Emery will be escorted across the border
Extradition is the Justice Ministers' call- he reviews judges' comments & recommendations after a fair trial to determine if the petitioning nation has grounds to charge a Canadian in Canada. If Justice Minister so wishes, he/she orders the extradition and unless appeal prevails- its away to the peitioning nation/nations the accused goes..
we wonder if any of the other nations out there in the world that Emery shipped pot seeds to wants to have him when the Americans are done--
Posted by: 419 | 2009-05-25 4:39:36 PM
"...we've traded our citizenship rights against prosecution by a foreign power for severe restrictions on our movement across the border.."
no nation has to let anybody in they don;t want or give reason why- your citizenship rights only apply in the nation you are a citizen of- everywhere else on planet earth and elsewhere in space- YOU ARE A GUEST
Posted by: 419 | 2009-05-25 4:49:01 PM
419 is correct - no one has the right to cross any international boundary. It is a privilege. Canada and the US have among the freest movements of people in the world save that of the Schengen area in Europe. Be grateful. Except in a handful of cases, most of which are drug related, it works for all concerned.
Moreover, you have the responsibility to obey the laws of the jurisdiction that you are in, whether at home or abroad. If you don't like that, too bad. In your country of citizenship you may try to affect some change, but elsewhere you do not. Look at the TV series "Locked Up Abroad" for more.
Emery should be written off - he's going to jail for a while. Find yourselves a new prince...so that s/he can be thrown in jail too.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-05-25 5:00:01 PM
"Is Emery getting the best legal advice he deserves?"
He's getting the legal advice he's paying for. He has the right to choose his own counsel, even if he shows no more sense there than elsewhere. And he can afford the best.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-25 7:17:02 PM
"Donaldson is the best extradition lawyer in Vancouver."
The best at delaying the justice process, certainly. One wonders if he has something on these judges.
"Extradition law with the U.S. is a farce. I think only two requests have ever been refused in history. Further, Chretien signed a super lax new treaty so that it's now next to impossible to prevent someone from being extradited."
So if only two cases have been won throughout history, I presume this lawyer has won them both? Or at least one of them? Otherwise, my hunch was correct--he's good at delaying the inevitable, but little else.
"When the current new severe border controls -- with drones, sensors, and armed guards -- are combined with ease of extradition requests, we've traded our citizenship rights against prosecution by a foreign power for severe restrictions on our movement across the border (as opposed to the free movement that comes with open borders). The state on both sides of the border have agreed in their mutual self-interest to become more powerful at the expense of our liberty."
We've traded nothing, Michael. America is powerless to prosecute any Canadian citizen residing in Canada unless that Canadian commits a crime on their turf. If he does, then extradition should be a foregone conclusion. All your gobfluffery of jackbooted border guards and hypersurveillance is just that--gobfluffery. It is totally irrelevant to the subject matter.
"Much of the reason for this gross abuse of state power, including the extradition of the peaceful, non-violent Emery, is the moral support of the type of punishment-police-military-obsessed conservatives who regularly post on this blog."
Since when is prosecuting confessed criminals an abuse of state power? You think that if you say it's an abuse, it'll automatically become one, whether it is or not?
"Too bad the God of the Old Testament isn't real or else they'd all be stricken with cancer for their sadism, on the fast-track to burning in hell."
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-25 7:44:36 PM
Shane, Zeb, and 419, you make me laugh. I've met some extremists in my time, but you guys are taking the cake. And as usual, the common sense of a soap dish, and the IQ to match. Answer BadPolicys question. What do you think would happen if we lifted prohibition? If we treated it as a social problem and not a law enforcement problem? This should be good for a laugh.
Posted by: No Chicken Littles | 2009-05-25 8:49:41 PM
I had to post it twice, since you went scurrying off. So come on now, answer the question. Give us some giggles.
Posted by: No Chicken Littles | 2009-05-25 8:53:11 PM
If drugs were legalized, it will also become illegal to discriminate against them for employment. Goodness knows then what would happen. Imagine someone stoned using heavy equipment and causing injury, death or property destruction. It would not be good.
Keeping a barrier will tell people where right and wrong meet. Not everyone will agree with such an idea, but it's better than nothing at all.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-05-25 9:19:37 PM
Is it illegal to discriminate against an alcoholic who goes to work drunk and kills people? Good grief. Please come up with something better ...
Posted by: Charles | 2009-05-25 9:30:13 PM
Okay, how about this: if drugs are legalized, Jesus will cry.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-05-25 9:43:38 PM
Cut the crap, Chicken Little. It's bad form to demand an answer to a question posed in another thread; Bad Policy does not even appear in this one, so if you want to get up on your soapbox and posture in all your self-importance, I suggest you hie your arse over to one in which he does appear. That way, at least, you won't look like a TOTAL troll.
If prohibition were relaxed, drug use would increase. It's against all logic to argue that making something easier will result in fewer people doing it. But go on, Chicken Little, by all means make US laugh. Tell us by what incredibly convoluted bit of mental gymnastics you arrived at the conclusion that the harder you make something the more takers you get. Go on. We'll wait.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-26 12:27:23 AM
"Is it illegal to discriminate against an alcoholic who goes to work drunk and kills people?"
It is if alcoholism is considered a disability. Granted, they could probably pull him off heavy machinery duty, but if that's all he's qualified to do, they'll be paying him full salary to do nothing at all.
By the way. The intelligent approach is to stop the alcoholic BEFORE he kills people. That's where "discrimination" comes in.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-26 12:29:20 AM
Zebulon Pike is a child molester.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike Hater | 2009-05-26 4:17:36 AM
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-26 6:21:10 AM
"But if Step 1 results in a judge saying Emery should not be extradited, then Nicholson is off the hook with conservative voters."
On what grounds, Matthew? There is not a SINGLE convincing legal point in Emery's favour. The oft-quoted "fact" that Canadian courts have declined to prosecute is false; Emery has several convictions already. The fact that he "only sold seeds" is also irrelevant; under both Canadian and U.S. law, selling marijuana seeds is the same as selling the finished product. The maximum penalties under Canadian and U.S. drug law are also surprisingly similar. And the fact that he sent them across an international border makes him a smuggler and puts him beyond the pale of any Canadian law. Finally, only some Charter rights are available to a person facing an extradition hearing (US v Kwok 2001 1 SCR 532), as opposed to someone being tried in a domestic court, who receives full protection.
The judge, by the way, has only to consider whether there is a prima facie case that the accused has committed the extradition offence; the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not apply in this stage of the proceedings, but rather in the U.S. court in which he would be tried. Indeed, subjecting someone to a full trial twice, albeit in different countries, could be considered double jeopardy. People may argue that he faces 10 years to life if convicted in the U.S., a "de facto" difference in sentence, but look at his two compatriots, who faced similar time, and in the end received nothing at all.
I must say that Mr. Emery's goose is looking very much cooked. His best option by far would be to walk across the border and throw himself on the mercy of the Americans. But then, he doesn't seem to have much of an instinct for self-preservation, and with his partners in crime off the hook, he is free to indulge in guilt-free martyrdom. Now, which course would be more typically Marc Emery?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-26 6:44:56 AM
This post was removed four times yesterday evening
I wonder who fears the message that much
I will keep reposting this until an explanation is offered
If drugs are legalized, then drug users will be tracked and filed through life- there you go- Brave New World-
the government is your dealer
Drug crops will occupy the best lands where food used to grow
Since pot doesn't kill anyone, and it will be cheap and easy to obtain- or steal or grow - there will be many more hyper intoxicated people than there already are - mega wipeheads beginning a full time fascination with fire and smoke and trips starting in childhood, and never coming down. Human lumber all their lives. That's not freedom- thats' neglect
Legalized drugs even if that does occur in the distant future will not be a pan global reversal of policy _ thats for sure- so called legal stoners in wipehead friendly nations will have to be carefully identified so they don't wander into other nations who will kill them for using drugs. To avoid this sort of trouble, wipeheads may not be allowed to travel to a long list of constantly changing drug intolerant jurisdictions- - Nor take jobs where they might compromise the integrity of their company or home nation.. Tomorrow is coming- get ready - it may not look like the 70s when it gets here
Legalizing party drugs is social surrender: a step down and backwards- nothing anywhere resembling progress. It would temporarily resolve wipehead drug shopping problems, but it would also make for a messy, stupid ,stinky complicated future.
The unborn will curse you for being so selfish and short sighted as to open the gates to Dopetopia for all time, hiss to all you dumb ass stoners sowing tares and feeding rats ..
Your parents left you with a lingering legacy of DDT. mercury and lead plus a galaxy of unwelcome contaminants in the soil, air and water because of the shortsightedness of their vulgar consumerist selfishness- and mountains of their garbage and their enduring lust for oil- Wipeheds would only be adding self directed chemical brain damage to the pile of an unwelcomed legacy of stupidness- -Any legally sanctioned drug habit, even if taxed to the max could not generate enough revenue to repair the damage they would do to themselves. We learned that lesson the hard way with tobacco, with alcohol, with fatty fast foods, . or should have-- .You want a world with better health care? well don't ruin your health with party drugs, you >retards
" For the healing of the nations" etc well, short sighted selfish recreational drug policy damages these nations that require so much healing- think about that one next time you wonder why the world toils against you prevailing, oh ye wipeheads- wake the fuck up
Posted by: 419 | 2009-05-25 10:25:44 PM
Posted by: 419 | 2009-05-26 7:26:40 AM
As it turns out, leaving people "free to destroy themselves" with drugs does lead to a conservative's worst nightmare.
The Dutch are having to close prisons because there aren't enough criminals to lock up. No more make work for your beloved policemen once the dope is circulating freely. (Note most of us here who want dope legalized don't use it. We just understand economics and don't hate freedom like you.)
And I assume your posts were being deleted because on first reading 'wipehead' appears like a racial slur. What exactly does it mean? And if it is a racial slur, good on the Western Standard for exercising their property rights and deleting it.
Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2009-05-26 8:42:25 AM
Is that what repealing prohibition would do 419? I guess thats why the Netherlands is such a terrible place, they have to close prisons.
PROHIBITION IS THE PROBLEM
Less money for prisons = more money for health care.
The war on drugs is a losing war. As long as we provide organized crime such a lucrative oppourtunity to corrupt our officials and representatives then the war will never be won.
If your not part of the solution, you are part of the problem!
Posted by: Ryan Villeneuve | 2009-05-26 8:50:31 AM
Playing the gadfly again, eh, Robert? Last I heard, the Dutch were cracking down on "coffee shops" because of problems with drug tourists from other countries. And the fact that overall crime is down in the Netherlands is certainly not proof that legalizing drugs works, especially since drugs are NOT legalized in the Netherlands and indeed the one legal method of obtaining them is being closed down at the same time as this decline in crime is noted.
P.S. Don't play the "property rights" end-around justification of censorship with me. Look where it got Mike Brock over on the Sri Lanka thread. He exercised his "rights" and was promptly pilloried by the contributors. A blog is not a house; it is more like a store, set up with the express intent of inviting the public to contribute. To cut people off at the knees in a fit of pique and then hide behind your "rights" is the act of a coward and, in the case of a libertarian, a hypocrite.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-26 9:14:25 AM
Ryan, the war on crime is also a losing war, one we will never win. Everything that can be said about the "war" on drugs, can also be said about the "war" on crime in general. Every single thing.
If we're not part of the solution, we're part of the problem, eh? Isn't that what the Nazis said? And we all know about their "solution." The problem, my dear dimbulb, is people willing to line the pockets of criminals and contribute to murder and mayhem rather than give up a completely useless herb. What do you think that tells us about their character?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-26 9:18:02 AM
Sure, compare prohibition to Nazi's, thats right because I think that their is no harm in growing, possesing or consuming a totally natural herb, I am somehow EVIL and therefore deserved to be locked in a jail cell for the rest of my life?
The Nazis did have a solution your right but that is not where the term came from dimbulb
"IF YOU'RE NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION, YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM. "Anyone who doesn't take direct action to make things better is just an obstacle to changing the status quo (the current state of affairs). The saying originated in the United States in the 1960s. The American activist Eldridge Cleaver is generally credited with its coinage (1968). However, according to Ralph Keys, it was used earlier by City College (N.Y.) president Buell Gallagher (1964). Either part can be used separately in the affirmative or the negative: part of the solution or part of the problem." From "Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings" by Gregory Y. Titelman (Random House, New York, 1996). "
As for the same thing being said about the war on drugs being the same as the war on crime. You are forgetting that their IS NO VICTIM in a possesion charge or in a cultivation charge, is there?
You are arguing a losing argument Shane and 419. Prohibiton will be repelled you can bet your ass it will and I cant wait until the day I can grow my own Marijuana and not have to support any causes that could contribute to CRIME.
Posted by: Ryan Villeneuve | 2009-05-26 9:48:18 AM
Never argue with an idiot. He'll bring you down to his level, then beat you with experience...
Posted by: Ryan Villeneuve | 2009-05-26 10:09:16 AM
“Sure, compare prohibition to Nazi's, thats right because I think that their is no harm in growing, possesing or consuming a totally natural herb, I am somehow EVIL and therefore deserved to be locked in a jail cell for the rest of my life?”
What you think is of no importance; focus rather on what you can prove. And people don’t get jail time for possession, so can the persecution shtick.
“"Anyone who doesn't take direct action to make things better is just an obstacle to changing the status quo (the current state of affairs). The saying originated in the United States in the 1960s. The American activist Eldridge Cleaver is generally credited with its coinage (1968).”
Perhaps the actual English-language expression is of comparatively recent vintage (and what a surprise, it was a radical activist of the 60s), but the sentiment—and policies derived therefrom—is as old as man. It is the product of paranoia.
“As for the same thing being said about the war on drugs being the same as the war on crime. You are forgetting that their IS NO VICTIM in a possesion charge or in a cultivation charge, is there?”
There’s no “victim” in poaching wildlife or polluting remote environments, either. And what about electricity theft, damaged rental housing, fires, grow-rips, crack shacks, and so on ad infinitum?
“You are arguing a losing argument Shane and 419.”
Of course. That’s why the great liberal hope of the United States declined to legalize when asked if he planned to do so, and why countries noted for their former liberal approach to drugs are toughening their stance. They have already learned what starry-eyed flower children in this country have yet to comprehend—surrender is not the answer.
“Prohibiton will be repelled you can bet your ass it will and I cant wait until the day I can grow my own Marijuana and not have to support any causes that could contribute to CRIME.”
But until and if that day comes, you’re quite happy to keep contributing to crime, if the alternative is not getting high. Yeah, you’re a real winner, all right. People like you gawked at the gladiatorial games and hoot from the sidelines during cockfights. It matters not who gets caught in the middle, so long as you get your cheap kicks. So go crawl back under your rock.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-26 10:15:06 AM
Even if drugs were legalized, they druggies would find something to complain about. Keep them banned and fill the jails and rehab centers if need be. It's the least we can do to them.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-05-26 10:15:35 AM
Attention Wipehead activists- This thread is about Marc Emery's extradition - not vague stoner ethics, but if thats your best shot at the topic, well ok.
Dutch closing prisons because they don't have enough criminals ? Check the gang murder rate for Amsterdam.. it has not gone away. Its amongst Europes' highest murder rate and general crime satruration BTW
Your formula of prohibition and health care- are you aware that there is free health care in prison? , but its probably better to be a free law abiding person and take care of yourself
Marijuana Prohibition will likely remain in place for the remainder of your lifetime. Mr Emery didn't alter that progression, in fact he made it worse by bringing the Drug War to Canada. There wasn't a DEA presence in BC until he started playing the Pirate Prince of Pot with his ill fated
" Overgrow the Government " rebellion.
What will you do when the Prince of Pot goes to America for trial? Will you watch as the ample evidence against him is laid out and he is judged based on that evidence ? What will you do if he is sentenced to jail ? That the state intervenes on a commercial cannabis cultivator is a good move- get the dope before it gets sold and used. Remove a drug manufacturer from circulation- Free health care for the criminal cultivator - maybe even a dental plan
Posted by: 419 | 2009-05-26 12:35:11 PM
Overgrowing the government is morally right.
Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2009-05-26 1:20:27 PM
BTW- the photo atop is perfect-one moment in time that has taken 30 years for it to pass away
-We see a grown man, repeat offender drug felon does drugs right on a city street., He hunches over to suck it all in, counting the days till he is sent to a foreign prison for drug and money crimes he openly admits to... A 420 clown girl works the lighter, she's a mouth breather festooned with the symbols of her devotion- the wacko weed itself, marihuana - the downfall crime crop of a once hard working, motivated provence.
And looking on as the badly aging boy man becomes flippantly intoxicated in public we see a smirking a bevy of cameras capturing this snarky scofflaw getting his fix for his audience of THC goofs, and off to one side staring is disbelief, -- a baffled kid..
Posted by: 419 | 2009-05-26 1:21:41 PM
I'm sorry your heart is filled with hate. I wish I was religious because "Jesus loves you" is what you need to hear most. I mean whatever the secular equivalent is. Seriously.
Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2009-05-26 1:52:14 PM
"Overgrowing the government is morally right."
Do you mean "outgrowing"? If that was supposed to be something profound, you pretty much killed it with sloppy execution. To say nothing of the fact that you offer nothing in support of such a radical claim.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-26 2:23:29 PM
P.S. Given that you're defending a demographic that is currently funding organized crime for a useless luxury, you have quite the ditch to dig out of if you want to claim anything like moral authority.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-26 2:24:35 PM
Citizen Seymour- Are you yet another wipehead who considers a different point of view either " hate' or a " threat"..
maybe work on your tolerance and, uh your choice of music..
Now, if you want to bet $20 on Marc Emerys' fate,: that being hero walk free or creep earns jail- we are still taking bets
..It's morally right to bet to back up your beliefs
Posted by: 419 | 2009-05-26 2:47:58 PM
Comrade 419, cluck cluck cluck, cluck cluck, cluck, cluck cluck. Bacawww bacawww. Now in english for the rest of us. If Emery is sent to jail in the US, our government has failed us. He should be dealt with here, as his buisnesses are here, which the government was only to happy to get their taxes from, and he is a Canadian citizen.
Posted by: No Chicken Littles | 2009-05-26 3:39:38 PM
But he committed his crimes in the United States, who has a legitimate and legal claim to his extradition. Hence he must go. It's only fair.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-05-26 3:58:01 PM
There are four kinds of people who support the war on (some) drugs. They are:
1. The uninformed,
2. The just plain stupid,
3. Those who profit from illegal drugs, and
4. Politicians (the all of the above answer)
Posted by: Dan Givens | 2009-05-26 4:29:43 PM
Even if drugs were legalized in Canada (and I pray they never are) so long as they are in the US, there will be a problem.
The main benefit to keeping drugs illegal is to permanently disable losers. So long as their habits control them, there will be a large body of inexpensive labor for jobs on the low end of the economy. I have to wonder what kind of life Emery would have had if he did not deal drugs - because that is all he has to show for it. He's a perpetual loser.
For those of us sensible to avoid drugs, the sky is the limit - the way it should be.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-05-26 5:04:16 PM
"If Emery is sent to jail in the US, our government has failed us. He should be dealt with here, as his buisnesses are here, which the government was only to happy to get their taxes from, and he is a Canadian citizen."
Apparently you're ignorant of the concept of jurisdiction, chicken boy. He breaks an American law, he gets tried in America. Neither his citizenship nor the country in which his "businesses" are located have any relevance whatever.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-26 6:48:19 PM
Haven't you heard Citizen Givens ? The new US Drug Czar has stopped the War on Drugs- its over now. Its the responsible management of out of control drugs and those who abuse them - same old firepower, brand new name-
So revise your list of the four types of your enemies and report back .. be sure to rell Marc Emery the news-- there may be a lot more than just four types of resisters to wipeheadism, maybe billions..You might just to live with being on the fringe of humanity
Posted by: 419 | 2009-05-26 6:49:06 PM
There are two types of people who oppose the war on drugs. They are:
1. Drug users; and
2. Lazy quitters who think that the best way to control a situation is to let it resolve itself. This vocation tends to attract quite a lot of 1. and also snot-nosed, petulant adolescents who think they know everything while proving nothing.
Needless to say, if most of our decision-makers were like option 2, we'd still be living in caves. I find it quite amusing, actually, to see that most of the pro-Emery people on the board at this point are just chucking mud, because they lack anything substantial with which to make an argument. They show either a profound ignorance of or profound disrespect for laws in general. Clearly the sort of people we ought to be taking more legal advice from.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-26 6:52:46 PM
"...Comrade 419, cluck cluck cluck, cluck cluck, cluck, cluck cluck. Bacawww bacawww...."
thats super. really something special-- I am in awe of your gigantic brain pumping out social policy and resolving complex abstract concepts in a fair and enlightend way.
Here's hoping you succeed in the Sims world, because you are losing cabin pressure in this one.
Thumbs up Chicken Little
Posted by: 419 | 2009-05-26 7:18:59 PM
I wonder if Jodie will be able to keep Emery's customers in drugs while he's away for the next few years. It must be hard to actually do some work while being stoned all the time. This is why druggies should be kept away from the rest of society.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-05-26 7:26:10 PM
Well excuse us for not being up to date on the laws of juristiction. We have jobs to go to and lives to live. Unlike you obviously. Or if you are at work, does your boss know you spend your days trying to impress your views on everyone? You can beak off all you like, your not changing anyones mind. In fact you sound like a hysterical chicken. Cluck cluck. The sky is falling!!!
Posted by: No Chicken Littles | 2009-05-26 7:34:32 PM
"...Well excuse us for not being up to date on the laws of juristiction..."
sorry, ignorance is no excuse--none of this insight is new- these laws has been around all your life, decades, centuries before that. Its the basis of why Emery is being sent to the US-- wipeheads seem to think he should be judged in Canada for the crimes he did in another country because ,uh.. well ..thats as far as your brainwaves go-
"... You can beak off all you like, your not changing anyones mind. ..""
If you had a mind to change maybe you would be ok.
unless you are 12 years old you have a serious problem grasping ways of the world, or living with other people who aren't stoned ....
"... In fact you sound like a hysterical chicken...""
how many hysteric chickens do you find the time to listen to if you are so busy at work and living a stoned out life?-
Don't tell us tell Marc Emery- he will have many years ahead to detox then formulate an answer
Posted by: 419 | 2009-05-26 7:57:51 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.