The Shotgun Blog
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Marc Emery’s “Farewell Tour” rolls through Banff: A report by Krista Zoobkoff
Marc Emery’s “Farewell Tour” rolled through Banff, Alberta on Monday for an event hosted by Krista Zoobkoff, Libertarian Party candidate for the riding of Wild Rose in the last federal election.
In a report for the Western Standard, Zoobkoff wrote:
Marc and Jodie Emery made their way to Banff on their second stop in the Marc Emery "Farewell Tour." The event was teetering on shaky ground, as we prayed for the weather to clear up. The event was held at the gazebo in central park at 4:30 p.m. just as the rain stopped. One hundred Emery supporters braved their way to the outdoor venue, making the Banff stop on the Farewell Tour a success.
Emery is being extradited to the United States for his conspiracy to cultivate marijuana. This is a man who is going to lose his freedom for his part in selling cannabis seeds over the border to the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). This was an act that was non-violent and that had no victims. Cannabis seeds don’t contain THC or any other intoxicant.
As a Canadian, I am outraged at the United States, the DEA, the RCMP, and the Conservative government that has not come to the aid of a Canadian citizen. Canada is not going to be safer with Emery behind bars, further showing the incompetence of the Harper government. The Emery extradition has been a burden to taxpayers, leaving Canadians to suffer the loss of a family member and a friend. These are our tax dollars hard at work.
Emery is going to prison and there is nothing we can do about that. Our next fight is going to be to put pressure on the Conservatives to transfer Emery to Canada so he can do his time where he will be safe and have access to his family and friends. So don’t rest just yet and stay informed on what we can do to get him transferred to Canada.
Thanks for the update, Krista.
(Picture: Marc and Jody Emery in Banff, Alberta)
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Spot the logic flaws:
"Emery is being extradited to the United States for his conspiracy to cultivate marijuana. This is a man who is going to lose his freedom for his part in selling cannabis seeds over the border to the DEA."
Wait, did he sell seeds to the Drug Enforcement Administration? If so, Emery is even dumber than I thought he was.
"This was an act that was non-violent and that had no victims. Cannabis seeds don’t contain THC or any other intoxicant."
The DEA disagrees. The District Attorney disagrees. The judge disagrees. Those are powerful forces.
As a Canadian, I am outraged at the United States, the DEA, the RCMP, and the Conservative government that has not come to the aid of its citizen."
Why blame the Harper government when his arrest occurred under the Martin government? They're just enforcing the laws as they were written at the time.
"Canada is not going to be safer with Emery behind bars, further showing the incompetence of the Harper government."
"The Emery extradition has been a burden to taxpayers, leaving Canadians to suffer the loss of a family member and a friend. These are our tax dollars hard at work."
Emery is everyone's relative? Wow, he gets around. Does Jodie know?
I'd pay for his incarceration myself.
"Emery is going to prison and there is nothing we can do about that."
FINALLY some sanity.
"Our next fight is going to be to put pressure on the Conservatives to transfer Emery to Canada so he can do his time where he will be safe and have access to his family and friends. So don’t rest just yet and stay informed on what we can do to get him transferred to Canada."
Good luck with that.
Emery has done more to undermine and discredit the legalization movement than anyone before him. He's a professional activist and someone who has a direct financial stake in the trade, not an innocent victim of unjust laws. Move along, people. He's the equivalent of a NAMBLA member or a Holocaust denier.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-07-07 3:51:51 PM
Your personal dislike of Mr. Emery is noted, but doesn't offering to pay for his incarceration violate the very logic of your offer?
If socialists like yourself (i.e. people who think they have a right to control other people's personal choices in life) could actually voluntarily raise money for their collectivist visions, then we would have much fewer of them which could be a good thing.... but unfortunately, this current plan of yours involves spending your money which according to your beliefs is actually "our" money (if you truly believe that you have a right to control Marc's life, then shouldn't we have the equal right to control your life and your earnings?)
If you are going to speak for "all of us" shouldn't you at least consult us first? Doesn't your new idea, unchecked by the very collective that logically lies behind your rhetoric, require you to get "our" permission before you reach into your pocket (which remember is actually our pocket) to pay for an incarceration?
Posted by: Paul Geddes | 2009-07-07 4:21:38 PM
zebulon pike, get a life.
Posted by: howard roark | 2009-07-07 4:23:32 PM
emery can fight what to me is just a political attack
He is the one choosing jail
The other two co accused took a plea bargain for no time in jail at all
No one is putting him in jail...but his own ego
Posted by: shavluk | 2009-07-07 4:27:28 PM
I said I'd pay for his incarceration, but I didn't say how much I'd pay. He ought to get used to eating gruel, sleeping on a straw mat outside, and working 20 hrs a day growing his own food (given his special expertise).
Why do you people hitch your wagon to such an obvious loser? Find a better example to follow.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-07-07 4:34:18 PM
Marc Emery is not choosing jail. He is trying to not spend the rest of his life in jail. That is why he is pleading quilty.
Posted by: howard roark | 2009-07-07 4:40:45 PM
zebulon pike, have you ever tried cannabis?
Posted by: howard roark | 2009-07-07 5:04:02 PM
you are delusional howard
he has complete choice
what you speak of his chances with what he knows of his own character
He should stay the path he pretended and have faith
He is nothing if he pleads...mark my words
No one will rise up over it
I mean no one of any consequence
He has a choice to wait as the trial is reported
and the good done for the movement
he will tell you himself the guilty plea in saskatoon which he blamed on his lawyer....excuse me hahahhahhahahhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
was a horrendous idea...its cost himhuge credibility ...his new store much much more
this will be far worse make no mistake and mark my words
faith my friends is more than a word
even when it doesn't come...the results one prayed for ....it comes....eventually for others
thats what being a martyr really is...not caving in when your chess move game in your own head is lost....not if you pretended otherwise all along ...anyway
Posted by: shavluk | 2009-07-07 5:12:48 PM
Krista, he was most likely allowed to light up only because busting a man for smoking a joint when he's facing the ass end of five to ten in the big house would be a complete waste of time, and perhaps out of a little bit of sympathy.
Secondly, it does not matter whether seeds contain THC or not. Viable seeds can be used to manufacture a THC-bearing plant, and indeed they were sold for that express purpose. Under both American and Canadian law, exporting or importing marijuana OR viable seeds is punishable by imprisonment for life.
As for "no victims," give me a break. Do you know how many high school kids' lives have turned into train wrecks because they started smoking pot? Pot affects a developing brain, just like alcohol. "Victimless crime," my ass. This man is a trafficker in human misery. A large percentage of his ultimate customers are underage and he knows it well.
Being outraged at the U.S. is your prerogative. But don't presume to speak for me or any other Canadian, or suggest that we ought to feel as you do by dint of our nationality. Emery knowingly broke the laws of another country with which we have an extradition treaty. There were no grounds on which Harper or Chretien or Trudeau or any other Canadian government could have intervened, unless it wanted to break its own laws AND an international treaty. And Emery's extradition cost us money only because he fought it, knowing he would lose.
As for transferring Emery to Canada, don't waste your breath. Why should the Americans transfer him? It was their laws he broke; it was their justice he will answer to. They don't owe Emery, or you, or Canadians in general, a bloody thing, other than to adhere to their laws, our laws, and the letter of the written treaty. And there is nothing in any of them about going easier on a convict just because his cabal of supporters is especially whiny.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-07 6:33:52 PM
Paul Geddes, it is not Canadians who are paying to incarcerate Emery, but Americans. They may do with their money as they please. Libertarianism 101.
Smuggling is a federal offence, even if the goods being smuggled are legal in themselves.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-07 6:36:02 PM
"Marc Emery is not choosing jail. He is trying to not spend the rest of his life in jail. That is why he is pleading quilty."
This is the same man who a few short years ago made a career of daring the authorities to prosecute him. Now that they have obliged him, he is singing a very different tune indeed. The man's a lobster.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-07 6:37:26 PM
mr matthews i hear what you are saying and i agree with alot of it. odviously i disagree with alot of it as well. i dont claim to speak for you nor do i encourage minors to smoke pot.
i agree that mr emery chose to break a law in another country and is going to face the consequense. personaly i dont think he should go to jail for years because in my eyes it is a waste of time and money. i know that you disagree with that and i respect that and i am not going to try to change your mind shane.
now, it is a practice that prisoners can be transported back to canada but the conservatives dont sound like they are willing to do that. so what i am asking is that he be given the same priviage that other canadians have been given and be able to do his sentence in canada.
Posted by: krista zoobkoff | 2009-07-07 6:43:58 PM
Shane: "Paul Geddes, it is not Canadians who are paying to incarcerate Emery, but Americans. They may do with their money as they please. Libertarianism 101."
With respect, this isn't libertarianism 101, Shane. Of course Americans can spend their money on whatever they'd like, but there are two relevant caveats here.
The first is a theory about what ought to count as a "crime." On the libertarian view, selling or using marijuana, or marijuana seeds, ought not to count as a "crime."
It follows that no libertarian would endorse the use of the criminal justice system against those charged with marijuana-related crimes. And from this it follows that no libertarian would permit an American to spend money on trying to incarcerate someone charged with a marijuana-related "crime."
Secondly, we need a theory about when a government action actually represents what regular Americans would choose to spend their money on. It doesn't follow merely from the fact that a government is doing something, that that's what the people who the government represents choose to spend their money on.
For example, the Canadian government is spending a portion of my money putting people before kangaroo court tribunals if they violate section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. I *do not* support this use of my money. I think many Canadians would agree with me, if only they looked into the matter a bit. If someone were to say that "Canadians are choosing to spend their money on putting Maclean's and Ezra Levant before various tribunals," I would insist that that's not true -- the government is choosing to do this, and we don't have a say about it (not yet, anyways).
It's possible that a majority of Americans would not approve of the use the government is choosing to put tax money to when it comes to Marc Emery. We just don't know.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2009-07-07 6:52:50 PM
an extradition case does cost money. there are canadian judges and lawyers involved.
Posted by: krista zoobkoff | 2009-07-07 6:56:47 PM
The truly sordid thing is that the Green Party actually thought Shavluck had potential as an MP. Maybe they were hoping to turn him loose on the opposition during Question Period. I can hear it now: "Shavluck! Sic! Harper!"
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-07 7:03:57 PM
Unfortunately, P.M., your logic falls apart due to the international nature of the crime. Smuggling is itself illegal, even if the products, for example tobacco, alcohol, and firearms, are themselves legal. So even if marijuana was legal, sneaking it across an international border absent proper taxes, duties, paperwork, and so on would not be. QED.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-07 7:08:09 PM
Usually appeals to stop legal proceedings due to the financial cost indicate that litigants are running out of options.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-07-07 7:10:14 PM
"an extradition case does cost money. there are canadian judges and lawyers involved."
Only if the accused fights the extradition. Which is stupid, if you've already confessed to the crime.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-07 7:11:38 PM
"Usually appeals to stop legal proceedings due to the financial cost indicate that litigants are running out of options."
Another favourite tactic is blaming the lawman for enforcing the law.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-07 7:12:57 PM
Shane: "Unfortunately, P.M., your logic falls apart due to the international nature of the crime. Smuggling is itself illegal, even if the products, for example tobacco, alcohol, and firearms, are themselves legal. So even if marijuana was legal, sneaking it across an international border absent proper taxes, duties, paperwork, and so on would not be. QED."
That does complicate things, but not for the libertarian. Speaking strictly within the libertarian framework (libertarianism 101), there should be no duties, barriers, or other restrictions on cross-border trade. There would be no such crime as "smuggling."
Libertarians think you should be as free to sell firearms, tobacco, and marijuana across international boundaries as you ought to be selling to your next-door neighbour, or someone in another province.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2009-07-07 7:18:53 PM
One other thing: In extradition cases, it has to be the case that both countries have the same law on the books. So if Canada were libertarian (oh, if only...), and the U.S. wasn't, we wouldn't extradite because selling marijuana, marijuana seeds, and so on, would be legal here.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2009-07-07 7:22:54 PM
Here's a question that I'd like an answer to, now that I think about it: Does it count as smuggling when you mail something across the border?
I'm not clear on this, and I don't think Marc is being charged with smuggling (which makes me think that mailing something does not count as an instance of smuggling).
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2009-07-07 7:26:37 PM
what happened to the idea of freedom? marc emery fights for freedom. what is so wrong about that? as a libertarian, you preach FREEDOM!! how dare you!! you only want your own freedom. you selfish piece of filth.
Posted by: howard roark | 2009-07-07 8:25:11 PM
the prosecutors could say that because mark already said he would do 5 years for it..hahhaha
two times in canadian history someone convicted and it was a two hundred dollar fine
we are not talking about cannabis here foolish old men
you guys are really a joke and Neanderthals really
this whole charge was nothing more than a response to us heckling john walters when he was here preaching to the converted a year before the bust
there are over a hundred companies selling cannabis right at his minute....not one facing charges
as I said some of you might as well just post your bibles your blatant ignorance jealousy and mean spirited demons give you all away
wastes of flesh .....an argument for abortion most of you are
I could hear one of you creaking as I pictured this crusty old hasbeen!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bite me ...LOL
on another note I would like to thank all of you for this little glimmer of entertainment in this very sad day ...what with Micheal funeral and all............LOL
And shame.... the wife says why not he is glued to that computer sitting on phone books so he can reach it ....LOL
Posted by: shavluk | 2009-07-07 9:11:59 PM
sorry cannabis seeds
they are selling cannabis seeds every day and no one cares fellas
Posted by: shavluk | 2009-07-07 9:13:10 PM
"what happened to the idea of freedom? marc emery fights for freedom. what is so wrong about that?"
Getting high is not a freedom in the classical liberal tradition pantheon, just as motorcycling without a helmet isn't.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-07 9:17:25 PM
Yup... Those dopers sure are doing a lot to promote libertarian ideals...
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2009-07-07 9:24:18 PM
"Getting high is not a freedom in the classical liberal tradition pantheon, just as motorcycling without a helmet isn't." -- Shane Matthews
I'm sorry but it is, Shane. It comes from the right to self-ownership, which includes the right to engage in self-destructive behavior.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-07-07 9:26:23 PM
Yeah no one stops you from what later in life will seem like self destructive behavior ...remember that one shame
and Matthew its about time
I have been hanging around here for years to see you again
my gods its been almost 9 years now
I guess some of that emery ego is still stuck to you ..LOL
Dont worry some are working at getting it out of the country to lessen the glow or effect ( by some I mean the dea and emery)
Really I just want to say you were one of the good conservatives in my mind....it just shows even you guys do evolve so there is hope !
Now this alias you post as for view numbers is a bit too much though matt....shame matthews...LOL did you not think we would catch the resemblence ?
Take it away dino.....
as in dinosaur..yes you shame
tell the wife I said hi will you?
Posted by: john shavluk | 2009-07-07 10:49:33 PM
"And shame.... the wife says why not he is glued to that computer sitting on phone books so he can reach it"
Grunted Oog the Neandertal.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-08 6:26:39 AM
"I'm sorry but it is, Shane. It comes from the right to self-ownership, which includes the right to engage in self-destructive behavior."
No right is absolute, Matthew.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-08 6:28:49 AM
"Yeah no one stops you from what later in life will seem like self destructive behavior ...remember that one shame"
Don't you wish someone had stopped you? Look at you now. "Nothing left to lose these days," remember?
"I have been hanging around here for years to see you again my gods its been almost 9 years now..."
More like 9 hours. Yup, people can take just one look at you and realize just how harmless pot consumption is.
"Dont worry some are working at getting it out of the country to lessen the glow or effect"
Mmm...this is some good shit...
"tell the wife I said hi will you?"
It's better for your balls if I don't. Last I checked she was measuring her minivan for a trailer hitch.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-08 6:31:57 AM
"No right is absolute, Matthew."
Well there you have it. Shane can now dictate what others can do with their own bodies.
Posted by: Charles | 2009-07-08 6:55:17 AM
"Well there you have it. Shane can now dictate what others can do with their own bodies."
You mean like swinging swords when others are near? You may as well drop the shtick, Charles; it doesn't hold any more water for you than it did for feminists.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-08 7:12:57 AM
"Why not ban the clown, and end his clown show? Let this newest trespasser post on his own blog."
A better option would be banning you, Shawn (is that you, Robert?), because unlike you, Attacker actually talks about the topic, whereas your sole contribution is a blizzard of drive-by smears.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-08 9:13:06 AM
Who died and made you anything?
If we can listen to your diatribe we can picture some idiot vomiting on his own computer.....great
your drivel is worse actually as I feel so sad how backward ...mean spirited and stupid some are
I just feel sorry for you your parents and your wife
maybe if she escaped your boys wont get the same disease?
anyhooooo back to the program
lets see matthew wont say hi ...no biggy
shame still thinks anyone cares what he .....um I was going to say thinks ...but all can see he doesnt ...hmmmm
I guess I will see you all at the next emery stop ...eh?
take it away shame........
you of course just can not shut up right?
Posted by: john shavluk | 2009-07-08 9:54:05 AM
It may not be absolute, Shane. But self-ownership is part of the classical liberal notion of justice.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-07-08 9:55:26 AM
I haven't been to Banff for decades. Is it still a hippy town? I'd think Mr. Emery would be well received.
It's also one of the most regulated towns on the planet. If you don't have four legs, you don't count for much. Is there irony here?
Posted by: dp | 2009-07-08 10:20:10 AM
Shotguns aren't primed, you moron. They're "charged" or "cocked," in the case of the ubiquitous pump, by shucking. SHELLS are primed, CARTRIDGES are primed, and old muzzle-loaders and contemporary reproductions are primed, but not modern centrefire or rimfire firearms.
We're still waiting for you to discuss the topic, troll. Without looking, do you even remember what it was?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-08 10:21:58 AM
"Who died and made you anything?"
What I have, I earned, not inherited. I also had the sense not to lose it. Funny how the cops haven't targeted ME in a massive frame-up job, huh?
"If we can listen to your diatribe we can picture some idiot vomiting on his own computer..."
We could also, if we wanted to delve into the world of *total* fantasy, picture you writing a sentence without errors.
The rest of your post is worthless character assassination without even a residual attempt to discuss Marc Emery's situation or the broader subject of marijuana, so I won't respond to it. After a while all your idiot babble looks the same.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-08 10:28:58 AM
Only self-ownership that does not infringe on that of others, Matthew. Your right to swing your arm stops where my head starts. It is possible to use alcohol responsibly without ill effect to either yourselves or others. Very few marijuana smokers seem able or willing to do that. Lots of people have one or two drinks and go home without getting drunk. How many pot smokers do you know toke up without getting stoned? Getting drunk in public is illegal, by the way, and if Emery had chugged a beer in public the cops would probably have arrested him. That's because what you do in public affects the public. Why should the bar be lower for marijuana?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-08 10:31:59 AM
"Tell me more about what gets to count as a "contribution". "Contribution" usually includes some benefit that someone gets."
In this context, a contribution means actual debater or discussion of the topic--something you have heretofore avoided at all costs.
"Who is benefiting from Vomiter's comments? Is it the Western Standard? No. Is it Western Standard readers? No."
Who benefits from yours? How do you justify banning him and keeping you?
"And since this is Western Standard property, I think that's how we should measure a "contribution," don't you?"
"Vomiting does not count as a contribution. Clown shows that no one asked for do not count as a contribution. Being a fucking imbecile is not a contribution."
Nor did anyone ask for a puerile, self-righteous smear campaign urging the subversion of the very principles on which the Western Standard is founded. Whatever else you might be, you are not a libertarian in any sense of the word, or even a classical liberal. You're just a bellicose toad.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-08 10:39:07 AM
'How many pot smokers toke up without getting stoned' asketh Mr. Matthews.
What is the definition of stoned? Mr. Matthews?
The Canadian Criminal Code defines being impaired by Alcohol as .08 or greater.
At what point/# is someone who imbibes Cannabis impaired?
Ironically, research into this important question was cancelled by the CRAP'ers and their Puritanical, somewhat Portly, Make Up Wearing, perfectly coiffed Mr.Stephen Harper.
As with many things CRAP'er, perhaps our Minority P.M. was just following the lead of his Evangelical Puritanical Bretheren south of the border.
In 1998, the USA Congress mandated that the USA DEA Drug Czar to oppose legalization of drugs and any research on legalization.
If it looks like CRAP, smells like CRAP, 9 times out of 10 it is CRAP.
'Hemp for Victory' Mr. Matthews.
Posted by: jeff franklin | 2009-07-08 11:04:38 AM
The obsession with vomit and shotguns is an obvious warning sign. I've been noticing suicidal tendencies in a couple of visitors to the site. Shawn and Bobby, if they are actually different people, may be in need of some intervention. I would not suggest banning them, as this might trigger an event.
If anyone knows of a therapist who has experience with this sort of disturbing behaviour, this might be a good time to speak up.
Posted by: dp | 2009-07-08 11:34:10 AM
the event in banff was great. there was a great turnout. we has people attend the speech from the neibouring towns as well.
Posted by: krista zoobkoff | 2009-07-08 11:51:16 AM
spelling correction, we had people attend from neighbouring towns. sorry.
Posted by: krista zoobkoff | 2009-07-08 11:53:26 AM
The holocaust comparison is valid ZP. It means that gov't is capable of enforcing unjust law. Get it?
Since you're unable to process just one of my "single reasons," I'll spoon feed them to you like you're a victim of public schooling steeped in some religious based haze. I'm sure that's not true.
#1 ZP: Violence and death to innocent people. That's bad, ZP. Ready? Here comes another one:
#2: There is no complainant. Emery hurt no one. In the eyes of his customers, Emery is as criminal as a liquor store owner.
#3: The drug war is killing our cops. Cops are my former brothers and more than likely your heroes. I mean show me a coward that doesn't demand more protection from cops and soldiers. Everything you say on here comes out as "Please Jesus and gov't protect me in my kevlar closet from the forces I do not understand, Amen." Pathetic really.
#4: The war has been waged for 80 years. What kind of nitwit would lose a war for 80 years and demand more war? What kind ZP? What kind? I know you have the answer. Turn on your red lensed flashlight, carefully sneak out of your closet, grip your cross tightly, leopard crawl to your phone and call a friend if need be.
The only people who want to continue this war are the fearful, the ignorant and the Christian Sharia snake dancers - The lunatics.
Any processing going on there ZP? Four points are a lot to absorb. I have many other reasons, but I'll see if you can digest these 4 simple points first, then it's on to more challenging endeavors. We'll see.
Posted by: Dennis Young | 2009-07-08 9:45:30 PM
Some comments are kind of on the money here. First of all, the two co-defendants, they narked on Emery so they wouldn't have to go to prison themselves. They are not heroes at all. Second of all it's all about money and always has been. Third of all to be heroic you have to have a good character not just do good activism. Emery's character is as as an egohead, chauvinist, greedy, know it all. Nobody should go to jail for pot, but Emery isn't a good guy, he's just a good self-promotor who lived high and mighty until now.
Posted by: Bryan | 2009-07-09 4:29:37 PM
I think Emery is a great guy, aside from his activism, he is a lot of fun to hang around with.
Marc is great at what he does, and getting the media to pay attention to your cause sometimes(most of the time) requires the kind of charisma, and showmanship that Emery is so good at.
Marc inspires activism. I've seen the effect he has on crowds, and the way he inspires others to become active in the cause. It really saddens me that such a great Canadian is being struck down in the name of the war on plants. Marc, rest assured the movement will not die in your absence, you have many friends and followers throughout the country who will do our best to continue your good work. This is not the end of this fight, and we will continue to demand your safe return to Canada.
Posted by: DrGreenthumb | 2009-07-09 6:45:47 PM
"What is the definition of stoned? Mr. Matthews?"
Demonstrably intoxicated by a non-alcoholic drug, in this case marijuana. One joint will reduce your motor response time by two-fifths. Sounds like impairment to me.
"At what point/# is someone who imbibes Cannabis impaired?"
That's actually a strong argument for taking a tougher stand against marijuana than booze--the very fact that impairment cannot be calculated by a simple breath or blood test demands that the side of caution be erred upon.
"Ironically, research into this important question was cancelled by the CRAP'ers and their Puritanical, somewhat Portly, Make Up Wearing, perfectly coiffed Mr.Stephen Harper...As with many things CRAP'er, perhaps our Minority P.M. was just following the lead of his Evangelical Puritanical Bretheren south of the border."
Yeah, and no other country in the galaxy is qualified to do this research. Embittered NDP or Liberal supporter; we get it. Cut the partisan politics and stick to the facts, please.
"In 1998, the USA Congress mandated that the USA DEA Drug Czar to oppose legalization of drugs and any research on legalization."
And the U.S. Congress is answerable to whom? I thought one of the arguments was that voters were in FAVOUR of legalizing marijuana. And why is no other country doing their research? Or if they are, what have they found?
"If it looks like CRAP, smells like CRAP, 9 times out of 10 it is CRAP."
Ooh! Nice finish. I'm on the ropes; I really am.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-09 6:59:35 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.