Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« The Big Dog | Main | Knox's CanCon Gems - The Greatest Canadian Albums of All-Time (That You've Probably Never Heard) - Volume 1 »

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Botanical Revolution

Marc Emery, the Prince of Pot, will be turning himself in to U.S. authorities in September to serve a 5 year sentence for various charges related to his marijuana activism. That activism consisted of selling marijuana seeds to people through his mail order business from his downtown Vancouver store front.

He was interviewed about his upcoming incarceration, civil disobedience, marijuana laws, and other legalization subjects on this past Saturday's edition of liberty talk show Free Talk Live.

Listen to the MP3.

--------

I welcome feedback and I ask for civility in the exchange of comments. Vulgarity is discouraged. Please express yourself creatively with other language. We discuss ideas here, attacks on a person are discouraged.

Posted by Freedom Manitoba on August 13, 2009 in Marijuana reform | Permalink

Comments

Good. If nothing else let us hope that he learns that discretion is the better part of activism, as of most things. Like Icarus, he flew too near the Sun. But unlike Icarus, he won't be asked to pay for that mistake with his life.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-13 7:46:49 AM


"Good."

His actual "crime" is selling seeds, for plants...

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-13 7:58:44 AM


Under US law selling those kinds of seeds is a serious crime, trafficking in narcotics. He should have kept his trade to Canada. Either Emery's drug habit has permanently impaired his judgment, or he did this deliberately. Either way, he'll be in a US federal prison for several years.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-08-13 8:25:35 AM


It was done deliberately as a form of activism. I would encourage you to listen to his interview to understand why he did what he did.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-13 8:41:56 AM


Well then, if he did this deliberately as part of his activism, his credibility just dropped to zero.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-08-13 8:44:40 AM


That's what activists often do, challenge the law, sometimes ending up in jail for it, even though they've hurt no one. The point is to futher a cuase and/or show how absurd a law is.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-13 8:50:26 AM


It can backfire too, and harm both the cause and the activist. Rosa Parks was not the only person to obey segregation laws. She stood out because she was a middle-class married woman that others like her could rally around. Indeed they did, both white and black, for an entire year, subsequently changing laws around the US, and the world.

Emery portrays himself as a businessman and activist, but very few of either have come forward to support him. He's been abandoned because his cause is not popular and his own foolish behavior. Taking on the DEA is the act of a coward desperate for attention. His futile sacrifice will harm, rather than help, his cause. I suggest you people find someone else.

(I find any comparison between Rosa Parks and Emery to be ridiculous. She was a woman of dignity and courage fighting unjust laws; Emery is a professional activist favoring a hopeless cause with little public support.)

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-08-13 8:59:53 AM


"but very few of either have come forward to support him."

"with little public support"

I don't believe that to be the case.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-13 9:08:11 AM


Then again, the popularity of a position or movement doesn't make it legitimate, though it may make it easier to get things done.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-13 9:14:31 AM


Scott,

There you have it. We should just follow the laws no matter how unjust. Activists deserve the punishment they receive because "it's the law". Can it get any more circular than that?

Posted by: Charles | 2009-08-13 9:30:48 AM


Most Canadians -- in poll after poll -- oppose Emery's extradition. He does have public support.

That Shane and Zeb oppose Marc based on their general viewpoints is a badge of honour.

Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2009-08-13 9:42:27 AM


Extradition perhaps, but not his punishment.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-08-13 10:11:40 AM


"Extradition perhaps, but not his punishment."

Perhaps, though I don't have any data to support that. It would be interesting to see if any polls have been done about that specifically.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-13 10:25:06 AM


"An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.

"An unjust law is no law at all."
-St. Augustine of Hippo

Posted by: LobbyCanada | 2009-08-13 10:43:59 AM


Simply quoting a few notable figures does not justify your actions. It takes mass action and external help. The Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s succeeded because it had help from the mass media, the Cold War and the Vietnam War, and help from the Johnson administration - NOT because of some sort of inherent justice. Emery has few friends, a bad public image and little credibility. He's going down hard and it is all his fault. Romanticizing him is not going to help.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-08-13 1:31:49 PM


"NOT because of some sort of inherent justice."

It was both, if it wasn't a justice question then it wouldn't have been as popular.

But that brings up a good point; government is often the cause of injustice, they are the ones that limited the minorities, made their cultures and actions illegal, it took many years to change government. That is why civil disobidience is important because working to directly change the government is a slow, defeating process, while with civil action you can act free now.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-13 2:16:57 PM


Acts of injustice occur each and every day. Only a few receive any attention at all. Emery never stood a chance - even he accepted his fate. His problem was never with the government - it was with himself.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-08-13 2:37:00 PM


Scott -

Why the disclaimer below your post? I blog here on occasion and don't scold my readers in such a fashion. Nor, as far as I am aware, do any of the other Shotgun bloggers.

Posted by: Craig | 2009-08-13 3:56:00 PM


I have mixed feelings about Marc Emery.
Quite a number of years ago Marc owned and operated a used Book Store in London Ontario, his home town.
A thorn in the side of the historically anal-retentive London City council (Sunday shopping was illegal)he was often written up in the equally anal-retentive London Free press and so, had my admiration.
I met Marc briefly on one occasion when I bought a (slim) book from him about the history of marijuana, which was an illegal act at that time in Canada.
The book was deemed to be illicit therefore buying or selling it was an offence in our Canadian law.
I had no interest in the subject of the book except the fact of thumbing our noses at the censorious nature of Canadian law.
I suspect I still have the book some where in a long undisturbed trunk stacked full with Hemingway, Greg Clark, Braithwaite, Agatha Christie , Joe C.W. Armstrong (The Seduction and Rape of Canada 1963-1994) among others.

It was reported Marc moved to an Asian country from London after selling his book store and a few years later was back in Vancouver.

While I always appreciated his single mindedness as regards to stupid laws, I felt his judgment was skewed when he took up with the New Democrats whom I have long seen as a closeted communist party.

In a flight of fancy, I win a lottery, can afford to travel the world, I dig out the little book about marijuana which I bought from Marc so many years ago, meet Marc and get his autograph on the once illicit book which I dared to buy on pain of state punishment.

I have not followed Marc's travails closely but I hope for his sake he survives his incarceration safely and perhaps in Canada.

Posted by: Joe Molnar | 2009-08-13 4:34:09 PM


In many countries, government is the author of major injustices. You don't have to go any further than the right of eminent domain to find profound examples. I don't have any brief for Mr. Emery other than to acknowledge that he has stood by his principles and like many guilty of civil disobedience is willing to pay the price. People who are willing to pay the price while harming no one move society ahead.

Posted by: DML | 2009-08-13 10:29:55 PM


The government gets to decide what we grow in our backyard and we the people accept this? Unbelievable! Next thing you know, they'll be after my St. John's Wort and Echinacea, too. If you want to discourage use of pot on a moral basis, I'm with you. But if you want to make growing some plants illegal, then I will fight you.

Posted by: Ras Rasmus | 2009-08-14 12:20:56 AM


I know Marc Emery personally because I ran for the B.C. Marijuana Party in 2001.
I have been a cannabis-using public school teacher since 1979.
It is my opinion that Emery is, first of all, a genius. Agree or disagree with him, hate him or love him, ... he's still a genius.
Secondly, he has put his personal freedom on the line for ideas that he believes in. Ideas about personal liberty that we should all share.
He simply believes that cannabis users should be treated like alcohol users. Emery simply wants what we in the West have always been told to be willing to fight and die for: personal liberty.
Marc Emery provoked a huge liar, bully and hypocrite: the United States Government.
Marc Emery is part of history ... I personally revere the man and, yes, he has a huge ego but it is well-deserved
As to the statement "...very few support the man"?---Have you ever considered that people are afraid to show support?
You think it's easy for a public school teacher like myself to be open about his support for cannabis legalization?
Marc Emery is my biggest hero.
I know many others feel the same.

Posted by: Dave | 2009-08-14 5:38:06 AM


The scariest comment I have heard in the past several weeks was the first letter added to the end of Mr Levant's blog today. The sentence in it that jumped out at me said, "...would you rather be right or be happy?"

That we have persons willing to surrender their freedoms in order to be "happy" is truly frightening. I have never used pot myself but find myself incensed that my money is being used to imprison persons who wish to do so.

Posted by: Ed Haines | 2009-08-14 6:28:51 AM


If Emery was TRULY interested in human freedom, he'd open a shop in Singapore, where people like him are rightfully, legally and properly executed.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-08-14 7:13:43 AM


"His actual "crime" is selling seeds, for plants...

Which is a crime in virtually every country on this planet. Are they all wrong, and you right, Scott? That's quite a boast.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-14 7:53:56 AM


"It was done deliberately as a form of activism. I would encourage you to listen to his interview to understand why he did what he did."

I know exactly why: Because he's a malignant narcissist who always has to be the centre of attention. Before pot it was selling smut; before that, it was shopping on Sunday. Like most activists, Emery is in it for the struggle, not the cause.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-14 7:55:20 AM


"I don't believe that to be the case."

Well I do.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-14 7:55:50 AM


Scott -

Why the disclaimer below your post? I blog here on occasion and don't scold my readers in such a fashion. Nor, as far as I am aware, do any of the other Shotgun bloggers.

Posted by: Craig | 2009-08-13 3:56:00 PM

As an occasional blogger here than you likely know that each poster is to set the rules and mod their own posts. You can choose the rules you would like for yours.

I am not interested in personal attacks, flame wars, trolls or other such nonsense; they are a waste of time and bring nothing of value to the conversation, hence the disclaimer.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-14 7:57:05 AM


"There you have it. We should just follow the laws no matter how unjust."

Whose rights are violated, and what specific right? I search in vain through the Charter for the right to get stoned, for the right to smuggle goods (legal or illegal in their own right), and for the right to launder money.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-14 7:57:18 AM


"That's what activists often do, challenge the law, sometimes ending up in jail for it, even though they've hurt no one. The point is to futher a cuase and/or show how absurd a law is."

Usually the the point is to show how unjust a law is. Gandhi had home rule as his objective; Rosa Parks, to be treated with the simple dignity due any human being. And against these noble goals, you offer in comparison...pushing drugs?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-14 7:59:08 AM


I'd also like to add that both Rosa Parks and Gandhi were willing to accept the maximum punishment under the law in order to advance their cause, both were comparatively modest and dignified individuals, and neither was involved in the distribution of a blood product. Marc Emery was involved in distributing blood products (or the components thereof); he's a shameless media whore convinced of his own infallibility, and he cut a deal at the last minute, whereby he will grovel at the feet of his "oppressors" in return for a lighter sentence.

How anyone could see any similarity here eludes me.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-14 8:02:50 AM


Joe, interesting story. It does seem silly that it used to be illegal to sell information in a supposedly free country.

It seem to me that the state is growing bigger and more intrusive, while at the same time many people are becoming more disenfranchised with their rights being violated by so-called "authorities".

When will the bubble burst, and what will cause it?

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-14 8:04:56 AM


People who are willing to pay the price while harming no one move society ahead.

Posted by: DML | 2009-08-13 10:29:55 PM

True. I wish it didn't have to be that way. As long as there are people out there who would hurt people who are peaceful, there will be tyranny.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-14 8:06:51 AM


If you want to discourage use of pot on a moral basis, I'm with you. But if you want to make growing some plants illegal, then I will fight you.

Posted by: Ras Rasmus | 2009-08-14 12:20:56 AM


Not only are growing the plants illegal, so is selling the seeds for those plants!

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-14 8:07:57 AM


I have never used pot myself but find myself incensed that my money is being used to imprison persons who wish to do so.

Posted by: Ed Haines | 2009-08-14 6:28:51 AM

Ditto.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-14 8:09:13 AM


"His actual "crime" is selling seeds, for plants...

Which is a crime in virtually every country on this planet. Are they all wrong, and you right, Scott? That's quite a boast.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-14 7:53:56 AM

How many countries have it as a crime is irrelevant, that’s an argument from popularity. Something being popular doesn't make it just or right.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-14 8:12:10 AM


"I don't believe that to be the case."

Well I do.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-14 7:55:50 AM

What is your evidence?

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-14 8:12:35 AM


and for the right to launder money.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-14 7:57:18 AM

He didn't launder any money. If you actually listened to the interview you would know that all of his income from selling seeds was reported to Revenue Canada, he paid income tax on it, the Feds were aware of what his income was from, and he donated most of the money back into legalization causes. It was very transparent, that is not money laundering.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-14 8:15:17 AM


you offer in comparison...pushing drugs?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-14 7:59:08 AM

The movement offers personal liberty. People voluntarily ordering seeds from Mr. Emery is not "pushing drugs", it's selling seeds for a garden.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-14 8:16:54 AM


How anyone could see any similarity here eludes me.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-14 8:02:50 AM

The similarity is being willing to stand up against violent oppressors for a cause. Going to jail isn't ideal, he doesn't want to go, but if he doesn't they will hurt him and possibly his family.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-14 8:18:59 AM


And for those of you that care about majority opinions, a 2007 Angus Reid polls that shows that 55% of Canadians are in favor of full marijuana legalization. It’s probably even higher now.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/16300
Canadians Support Marijuana Legalization

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-14 8:23:41 AM


"Most Canadians -- in poll after poll -- oppose Emery's extradition. He does have public support."

They oppose it the way they oppose the war in Iraq--they may not like it, but they're not bent enough out of shape to do anything about it. If it were any country but America they wouldn't even care.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-14 8:38:38 AM


"I don't have any brief for Mr. Emery other than to acknowledge that he has stood by his principles and like many guilty of civil disobedience is willing to pay the price. People who are willing to pay the price while harming no one move society ahead."

How do you figure that, DML?

1. Marc Emery did not accept his punishment. He fought it tooth and nail. He is pleading guilty only to avoid a heavier sentence. He'd avoid the punishment altogether if he could.

2. Selling drugs is NOT "harming no one." How many kids have bummed out of school and had their lives go off track because of pot grown from the seeds this man has sold? We'll never know. But we may safely affirm that the number is greater than zero.

3. I fail to see how increasing access to a psychotropic hallucinogen constitutes "moving society forward." Dopers are famous for their lack of ambition and allergy to hard work. How we are to advance this country on such values as those I can't imagine. Perhaps you can explain it.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-14 8:45:15 AM


"It does seem silly that it used to be illegal to sell information in a supposedly free country."

Pornography counts as information?

"It seem to me that the state is growing bigger and more intrusive...When will the bubble burst, and what will cause it?"

I won't argue with that. But there are liberties far more fundamental, and far nearer and dearer to most people, than getting stoned. Those expecting Marc Emery to light the flames of revolution are in for a disappointment.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-14 8:49:11 AM


"That we have persons willing to surrender their freedoms in order to be "happy" is truly frightening."

Yes, it does cast aspersions on both their priorities and their survival instinct, doesn't it?

"I have never used pot myself but find myself incensed that my money is being used to imprison persons who wish to do so."

People do not receive jail sentences for simple possession in this country. This is a common but mistaken belief. Even people who run grow ops don't usually get jail for a first offence.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-14 8:52:02 AM


2. Selling drugs is NOT "harming no one." How many kids have bummed out of school and had their lives go off track because of pot grown from the seeds this man has sold? We'll never know. But we may safely affirm that the number is greater than zero.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-14 8:45:15 AM

1. He didn't sell "drugs", he sold seeds for a plant.

2. If people choose to use pot, that is their choice.

3. "How many kids have bummed out of school and had their lives go off track because of"... any number of things.

Are you opposed to adults buying these seeds?

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-14 8:52:51 AM


"It does seem silly that it used to be illegal to sell information in a supposedly free country."

Pornography counts as information?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-14 8:49:11 AM

I was referring specifically to the book that Joe bought from him. It was once illegal to have books or magazones in Canada that had factual information about marijuana or that was pro-marijuana.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-14 8:54:56 AM


But there are liberties far more fundamental, and far nearer and dearer to most people, than getting stoned.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-14 8:49:11 AM

Different people will have their different issues that they care about. For some people it's the freedom to put what they want to into their bodies, be it trans fats, beer or pot, for others it's free speech, for others the freedom to travel, etc. This is the one marc Emery cares about and its nobodies place to tell him what he can or can't care about.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-14 8:57:22 AM


"How many countries have it as a crime is irrelevant, that’s an argument from popularity. Something being popular doesn't make it just or right."

True. But it does raise the issue of why all those disparate cultures and creeds have decided they don't want this stuff floating around. This is key to the entire discussion. That, and if and why is is unjust, or wrong. That's where you come up short.

It is not impossible that you are right, and that everyone else wrong. But it does put a heavier burden of proof on your shoulders, for the likelihood of you being right, and everyone else wrong, is rather remote. And so far, you've given us a show of hand-wringing and not much else.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-14 8:58:07 AM


"People voluntarily ordering seeds from Mr. Emery is not "pushing drugs", it's selling seeds for a garden."

Weasel words. The garden will be used to grow drugs.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-14 8:58:40 AM


1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »

The comments to this entry are closed.