Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Mark Steyn heralds the demise of the CHRA's hate messages censorship clause | Main | With Conservatives like these... »

Friday, September 18, 2009

Cops Are Drug War Victims

So states a Washington Post op-ed. Here is an interview with the authors of that op-ed, one of which is a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

-----------

freedommanitoba.blogspot.com

twitter.com/freedommanitoba

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 September 18, 2009 in Crime | Permalink

Comments

Finaly the police have realised that the war on drugs is exactly like prohibition on alcohol in the 1920s and 1930s. There is a market for drugs and no matter how much some people want it to go away, it never will.

Legalizing soft drugs such as marijuana won't increase use, it will decrease. For those with a "think of the children" mentality who think that if drugs become legalized every teen will start drugs, they have no respect for the intelligence of children. As an example, before I was 19, the legal age for consuming alcohol in Ontario, I was drinking all the time. When I turned 19, I totally lost interest, and now I rarely drink. People who have this attitude that the government must protect children and not parents are either lazy parents themselves, or just blind statists (socialists, communists, it's all the same attitude) and want their values forced on other people.

If drugs were legalized, than maybe the police can take care of real crime. As Canadian Law is now, you can spend more time in jail for smoking a joint than child molestation or rape. Does this sound like justice?

Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-09-18 8:49:49 AM


"Legalizing soft drugs such as marijuana won't increase use, it will decrease."

How? Provide specifics.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-09-18 9:16:24 AM


Good grief Pike. The arguments have been outlined over and over.

Posted by: Charles | 2009-09-18 9:34:20 AM


We have the evidence from places where drugs have been de-criminalized or drugs laws not enforced (Portugal, Amsterdam) which actually showed a decrease in usage.

Drug usage in the U.S. has not gone down, even with the draconian drugs laws present for the past almost 40 years.

Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-09-18 9:37:01 AM


In Portugal, the Netherlands and Sweden for example, drug users were legally encouraged to seek rehabilitation. That's why use decreased. Police supervision remained in full force. Trafficking is still severely punished with zero tolerance policies. You people really should do some research rather than cling to half-truths.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-09-18 9:50:13 AM


"In Portugal, the Netherlands and Sweden for example, drug users were legally encouraged to seek rehabilitation."

There you go. If drugs are legal to consumers, users will have no qualms about seeking help if they so choose.

Posted by: Charles | 2009-09-18 9:54:09 AM


Yep, even with the small changes made in those places, useage went down.

Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-09-18 10:00:57 AM


No you missed what I said: "legally encouraged"

They are FORCED to seek rehab. By the state.

The point is to reduce drug use through other means. You people actually encourage drug use, which makes you a public menace. So, there will be no changes.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-09-18 11:30:56 AM


In Portugal, the force consists of a small fine. Not the threat fo jail time.

Posted by: Publius | 2009-09-18 11:39:45 AM


In Sweden, as in many countries, penalties range from fines to imprisonment. Drug testing is mandatory in all cases. So the idea that decriminalization or legalization would mean a reduction in law enforcement is a lie. Nothing would change.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-09-18 12:06:34 PM


"You people actually encourage drug use"

I haven't, no more than I encorage people tatooing thier entire body or hacing sex with a hooker, both things that I think should be legal but wouldn't encourage or support.

Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-09-18 12:07:19 PM


What a load of crap. Cops engage in violence far more often than drug dealers. If we have a strong moral aversion to drug dealers, we should have at least an equally strong one to the police.

The issue here is not that some group (i.e. drug dealers) is evil and everyone else is good. Thinking that way is scapegoating.

The problem is that we have a system that incentivizes a lot of people to act violently and that that system could easily be replaced by a better one that results in peaceful behaviour.

Further, Freedom Manitoba deserve special reproach for posting this. Jumping on the blame the drug dealer bandwagon is jumping on the anti-capitalist bandwagon. Shame!

Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2009-09-18 12:35:35 PM



'You people actually encourage drug use, which makes you a public menace'.


This message is brought to you by Rahim Jaffer and the CRAPer's of Canada.


Hypocrite.

Posted by: jeff franklin | 2009-09-18 1:00:59 PM


@ Zebulan Pike "The point is to reduce drug use through other means. You people actually encourage drug use, which makes you a public menace. So, there will be no changes."

Saying that support drug decriminalization also support drug use is a load of crap. Your the one who is saying decriminalizing is the same as supporting.

You seem to want more laws and turn Canada into a police state with no freedoms. You are more of a public menace than drug users.

Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-09-18 1:10:42 PM


You people want decriminalization without any means to resolve the drug problem. No other country does that. Therefore, your proposed solution is irresponsible because it amounts to nothing. You might as well make people do drugs.

As for Mr. Jafar, it is disappointing to see a good man fall into a situation like that. However, his experience will show how the existing system works. After all, it worked for a much more hard core druggie like Marc Emery.

Say, isn't Emery in prison yet?

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-09-18 2:14:17 PM


The United States crime rate continues to fall sharply! The murder rate fell 4% in 2008. All other areas except burglary fell sharply. Most categories of crime are down to early 1960's levels. The U.S. murder rate is down to its lowest level since 1965. Another four years of similiar decreases and the United States murder rate will be down to around the 1950 level according to the federal statistics. Has Canada's fallen that much with its "hug a criminal" liberal justice policies? Funny, crime is going down in America and the police are not listening to you drug legalizers. Look at the United States criminal justice policies! The United States uses very tough sentencing(including the death penalty, life with no possibility of parole, limited use of corporal punishment in some state prisons), allows citizens the right to defend themselves(40 states have concealed carry laws, 46 states have open carry laws, 33 states have strong castle doctrine laws, 32 states allow carrying of firearms in state parks, gun owners allowed to carry firearms in federal parks), and tries to promote family friendly social policies(1990's welfare reform policies emphasized the importance of both parents staying involved in children's lives). In addition, the number of incidents of schools applying acts of corporal punishment to disruptive students has actually risen(the public schools in 21 states, Puerto Rico, Guam, and Virgin Islands and the private schools of all states but Iowa and New Jersey allow for corporal punishment). The United States has a significantly higher birth rate than Canada(over 2 children per woman versus 1.54) and a larger percentage of young in their population. Yet, crime and this includes youth crime is falling sharply! How is it that the U.S. has a high and rising birth rate(but youth crime has been falling for over 10 years), is in a major recession(but no increase in crime despite rising poverty rates), and has the most armed citizenry in the world(could gun control be a fraud?)? Could the answer be that when you get tough with criminals, allow law abiding citizens to defend themselves, and actually instill discipline and values in your children that the end result is a low crime society?
P.S. Sad story from Yale University where a graduate student was strangled to death. Unless the alleged murderer pleads guilty, he is almost guaranteed to be sentenced to death. In Canada, how many years would he have before he was paroled? Where is the real justice? I bet that most Canadians would prefer Connecticut's option over Canada's!

Posted by: Dave | 2009-09-18 6:40:53 PM


"Say, isn't Emery in prison yet?"
Posted by: Zebulon Pike

Ah yes, this crime wave of marijuana that has been going on will finally come to a close. Isn't that right Zebulon? Now young people will stop doing marijuana, and so they will grow up in a peer group that respects cops for the job they do, rather than despising them as an adversary.

"You seem to want more laws and turn Canada into a police state with no freedoms. You are more of a public menace than drug users."
Posted by: Doug Gilchrist

The liberty of the people is not necessarily going to increase by legalizing vice.

Now I can willingly grant

Posted by: Timothy | 2009-09-18 10:14:37 PM


Timothy: Emery's imprisonment won't achieve much but it will get one prominent dealer off the streets so it's a victory. Anyone dumb enough to take on the DEA is a fool. He got what he deserved. How anyone can see him as a hero is a mystery to me. It sounds more like lack of options rather than a choice.

However, whether one respects the police and the courts is not the point of the government's drug policy. Getting people off drugs and into healthier, productive lives is. Deterrence and rehabilitation are justifiable and laudable goals. Just ask former drug abusers. If you want the government off your back, stop doing drugs. It is as simple as that.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-09-19 8:21:44 AM


Pike said
"You people want decriminalization without any means to resolve the drug problem. "

You see, the majority of the problem that exists with cannabis is the prohibition of it. Its less addictive and dangerous to use then that morning double double. Its time to get real about this drug. Its a much safer alternative then alcohol. Legalization could actually create a drop in domestic violence against women, and if you don't think so i would like to hear of one case of someone coming home and beating their wife and child like you see with alcohol. At bars with 40-50 people there is almost a 50/50 chance of fights breaking out, but meanwhile when 10,000 gather for a cannabis rally there wont be a single instance of violence. Also decriminalized/tolerant models are the only ones that have seen a reduction in drug use. Despite cannabis being sold in hundreds of stores in the Netherlands they still have cannabis usage rates almost half that of the U.S. Prohibition has only seen an increase, over %1000 increase since prohibition of cannabis began.

The fact is all the violence and shit related to cannabis is not caused by the user, but rather the consequences of its prohibition. So legalize, turn it into a similar business as a brewery, and we can be done with almost all violence associated with cannabis.

Posted by: Baker | 2009-09-19 8:22:46 AM


Also pike i wouldnt compare marc to Jaffer. Marc sold cannabis seeds which contain absolutly no active content and require whomever ordered them to then make use of them in order to create the cannabis. NO ACTIVE CONTENT, NO ONE IN DANGER. And in fact cannabis seeds are the most nutritious seed for humans.

Now Jaffer was driving drunk (innocent people in danger of loosing their life) and was in possession of cocaine. Cocaine, a highly addictive and dangerous drug.. u kno the one crack is made from. Now who is the real druggie? Whos the real danger to society?

Posted by: Baker | 2009-09-19 8:34:22 AM


Good grief Pike. The arguments have been outlined over and over.

And refuted over and over. Only a person with a complete logical disconnect could argue that increasing availability will decrease use.

You guys keep retreading the same old stale arguments again and yet again, acting as if the entire dynamic of the subject is completely altered every time someone gets a quote or a picture in the paper. It isn't.

We have the evidence from places where drugs have been de-criminalized or drugs laws not enforced (Portugal, Amsterdam) which actually showed a decrease in usage.

Case in point. I've personally rebutted both of these arguments several times, as have others. Portugal has seen a modest drop but was never a drug tourist destination, and so far only a single source has quoted this "success." And drug usage rates in Amsterdam were never very high among the locals, although drug tourists from other countries soon became a nuisance.

Drug usage in the U.S. has not gone down, even with the draconian drugs laws present for the past almost 40 years.

Yes, it has. In 1900, when narcotics and cocaine were available over the counter, addiction rates were double what they are now. The fact that the law hasn't prevented every single addict doesn't mean it doesn't have a positive effect.

What a load of crap. Cops engage in violence far more often than drug dealers.

What a load of crap, indeed. Those cops kill or forcefully subdue are themselves violent, and then only if the suspect is combative or poses an immediate danger. Like you'd hide your head in your hands and passively await the hand of fate if someone came at you with a knife, Robert.

Saying that support drug decriminalization also support drug use is a load of crap. Your the one who is saying decriminalizing is the same as supporting.

It's called enabling. Pro-abortionists attempt the same argument, and it's just as unconvincing.

You see, the majority of the problem that exists with cannabis is the prohibition of it. Its less addictive and dangerous to use then that morning double double.

On the contrary; pot makes you stupid. The pot smokers on this board are the living proof. And don't flash your degrees in my face; Robert MacNamara was the smartest and best-educated man in any room he ever walked into and he still had less sense than a garden cabbage.

The fact is all the violence and shit related to cannabis is not caused by the user, but rather the consequences of its prohibition.

No, by the consequences of people breaking that prohibition for no other reason than that they're selfish anarchist ass-cracks.

Marc sold cannabis seeds which contain absolutly no active content and require whomever ordered them to then make use of them in order to create the cannabis.

So selling weapons-grade uranium to a terrorist is a lesser or even a non-crime than selling a working atom bomb to a terrorist, even though he could have a working atom bomb in fifteen minutes from that uranium. Do you guys even think before you post this stuff?

Nothing new here, on the blog or in the article. Just more of the same old party lines by the same old suspects.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-19 9:32:49 AM


Emery reports to jail on Monday. I wonder when he will realize the huge mistake he made selling drugs across the border. Did he really think taking on the Drug Enforcement Agency would work? His was a completely useless sacrifice. He should be used as an example of what drugs do to people - they make you stupid and careless.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-09-19 9:42:01 AM


"Deterrence and rehabilitation are justifiable and laudable goals. Just ask former drug abusers. If you want the government off your back, stop doing drugs. It is as simple as that."
Posted by: Zebulon Pike

You are absolutely correct on the first point. We have a long way to go in deterrence on the user side and on the high-level supplier side. I wince every time I hear a 22 year old referred to as a "high level gangster".

It seems that a fair number of people keep the mentality that the police are out to get them long after they stop smoking up. I believe it is directly linked to the tactic of blaming "The Drug War" on those who are fighting criminals, rather than on criminals and users.

Posted by: Timothy | 2009-09-19 11:12:21 AM


Timothy, the outlaw always blames the lawman for his lawlessness. Nothing new in that.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-19 7:04:54 PM


Actually, Zeb, Emery’s imprisonment begins on September 28, the following Monday. At 9 a.m., to be exact. To all those on this board in contact with Emery, please pass on that we would appreciate punctuality.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-19 7:09:02 PM


"Timothy, the outlaw always blames the lawman for his lawlessness. Nothing new in that."

What a load of crap. Do you keep little jewels like that for just special moments or is it a common occurrence?

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2009-09-19 10:53:44 PM


What a load of crap. Do you keep little jewels like that for just special moments or is it a common occurrence?

Don't take my word for it, Steve. Read any book on the criminal mind. For that matter, ask any criminal. There are several on this blog. Another awaits you in the mirror. You've all been quite specific on the point; there's no stepping back from it now.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-20 12:29:16 AM


Your obviously the master on the criminal mind. I'm sure all thieves, rapists, murderers and con men think it was the lawman that made them do it.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2009-09-20 2:05:26 AM


Shane said
"On the contrary; pot makes you stupid. The pot smokers on this board are the living proof. And don't flash your degrees in my face; Robert MacNamara was the smartest and best-educated man in any room he ever walked into and he still had less sense than a garden cabbage."

You have no proof of cannabis killing brain cells because there is NONE. In fact it actually mitigates damage that can be caused by alcohol. Also its been shown to help reduce the brain depredation from Alzheimer.

"No, by the consequences of people breaking that prohibition for no other reason than that they're selfish anarchist ass-cracks."

So we have established you hate cannabis users, we got is Shane. The fact is people use it and arent going to stop. Over %40 percent of all Canadians have tried it at least once. Its time we fact reality.

"So selling weapons-grade uranium to a terrorist is a lesser or even a non-crime than selling a working atom bomb to a terrorist, even though he could have a working atom bomb in fifteen minutes from that uranium. Do you guys even think before you post this stuff?"

ROFL so you can assemble an atomic bomb in 15min now? WOW how far technology has come, i haven't seen this bit of tech yet...And As if you would compare seeds with no active content (poppy seeds actually have active content so whats worse?) with weapons of mass destruction... Try to create an argument next time please... this is too easy.

Posted by: Baker | 2009-09-20 9:47:25 AM


Drugs do make people stupid. Look at Marc Emery. He thought that the Canadian people would rise up to his defense when he took on the DEA after selling seeds to US customers. That was a massive flop that will cost him several years from his life.

The match between Marc and Jodie Emery ought to convince even the most recalcitrant druggies of the evils of drugs.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-09-20 10:11:45 AM


Pike-
"Drugs do make people stupid. Look at Marc Emery."
"The match between Marc and Jodie Emery ought to convince even the most recalcitrant druggies of the evils of drugs. "


Persuasive argument, I'm in awe of your intellect.
I get it now, obviously expecting ones government to stand up for its citizens against a foreign one shows cannabis kills braincells. Also better watch out whom you fall in love with, huge sign of brain damage in that one according to you.

For someone with a pristine brain not ravaged by the evils of drugs i would expect more. Please don't argue bs.

Posted by: Baker | 2009-09-20 11:39:21 AM


Baker: but the Canadian government DID stand up for Emery. They made sure he had a fair trial and received adequate legal representation as they were obligated to do.

He brought himself down by knowingly selling drug paraphernalia to US customers with the intention of making money. If he thought he could get away with it simply because he lived in another country, he was wrong. I'd like to think that the drugs made him do it, but profit and politics clearly helped.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-09-20 12:00:00 PM


Your obviously the master on the criminal mind. I'm sure all thieves, rapists, murderers and con men think it was the lawman that made them do it.

Most criminals think of themselves as victims, Steve. They rationalize that because they’ve been made victims, it’s okay for them to make more victims, and that this is just the natural order of things. As for being the “master of the criminal mind,” I admit I don’t have the advantage of your first-person view.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-20 12:01:29 PM


For someone with a pristine brain not ravaged by the evils of drugs i would expect more.

How about the fact that by their own words and deeds they stand revealed as two malignant narcissists who have not matured emotionally beyond the age of fifteen or so? Teenage behaviour is irritating coming from the genuine article. Coming from a quintegenarian, it’s positively creepy.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-20 12:04:34 PM


You have no proof of cannabis killing brain cells because there is NONE. In fact it actually mitigates damage that can be caused by alcohol. Also its been shown to help reduce the brain depredation from Alzheimer.

I never said it killed brain cells, did I? It’s very possible to permanently alter brain chemistry without actually “damaging” anything. That was an assumption YOU made. As for your “universal panacea” list, I’m surprised that lung cancer, infertility, and plain old aging weren’t included on the list of things pot supposedly cures. Well, it’s partially true. It does arrest mental aging. That’s why so many potheads act like dung-headed teenagers.

So we have established you hate cannabis users, we got is Shane. The fact is people use it and arent going to stop. Over %40 percent of all Canadians have tried it at least once. Its time we fact reality.

Time we “fact” reality, huh? Boy, that marijuana really lubricates the old brain, doesn’t it? And who is a drug user to talk about facing reality anyway? Virtually everybody has broken the law at some point or other; the difference is most people have the sense and decency to be ashamed of it later, rather than giving their actions as a pretext for dismantling the law. Your “I’ll toke and toke and toke, so BWAHAHAHAHA” rebel yell doesn’t make you right; it just makes you a rebel.

“So selling weapons-grade uranium to a terrorist is a lesser or even a non-crime than selling a working atom bomb to a terrorist, even though he could have a working atom bomb in fifteen minutes from that uranium. Do you guys even think before you post this stuff?”

ROFL so you can assemble an atomic bomb in 15min now? WOW how far technology has come, i haven’t seen this bit of tech yet...

That’s because you’re too busy reading things like how to steal electricity and grow pot in your basement to read things that actually matter, Baker. With two hunks of weapon-grade uranium-239, you can make a gun-barrel type weapon of the type that destroyed Hiroshima within minutes. All you need (besides the uranium) is a reinforced steel tube and a charge of black powder. Put the black powder in one end of the tube, and then insert the subcritical masses at either end. A simple blasting cap to the black powder through a hole in the tube will provide ignition; hook the other end up to a cell phone. Dial the number, the black powder explodes, drives one subcritical mass into the other, forming a supercritical mass and a brand-new ghost town. And that bit of technology dates from 1945.

And As if you would compare seeds with no active content (poppy seeds actually have active content so whats worse?) with weapons of mass destruction... Try to create an argument next time please... this is too easy.

The point was to demonstrate the stupidity of your argument that selling components to a forbidden object should not be counted the same as selling the final finished object, when creating it from those components is laughably easy (plant in dirt; add water). Both Canadian and U.S. law treat marijuana and viable marijuana seeds as the same product. But of course, you know better than all of them, don’t you? You know better than everybody. Doubtless through a process similar to that by which Budoracle discovered the secrets of stellar fusion while hang-gliding stoned.

Like shooting fish in a barrel. With a Vulcan gun.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-20 12:28:42 PM


Shane-
"How about the fact that by their own words and deeds they stand revealed as two malignant narcissists who have not matured emotionally beyond the age of fifteen or so? Teenage behaviour is irritating coming from the genuine article. Coming from a quintegenarian, it’s positively creepy."

Another good argument.. even if you were the one to define who fits those attributes, those same attributes are not unique to cannabis users are they? So your OPINION (even if correct) has no basis upon whether cannabis kills brain cells or not.

Enough of this (Emery is, in your opinion dumb so that is evidence of cannabis killing braincells) stuff.

Cannabis doesn't kill brain cells, doesn't cause cancers, doesn't breed meth users, doesn't cause chronic emphysema or bronchitis, has never killed a single person, is less addictive then coffee, does not cause violence associated with use. costs tax payers billions not make any difference in usage rates, offers criminal enterprises one of the most profitable industry's in Canada.

It is uncontrollable until we decide that drug dealers cant control every aspect from its potency to who its available to. You argue that you want control on use and availability, well its not going to happen when its still illegal, and Joe Shmoe gets to decide who gets it.

Posted by: Baker | 2009-09-20 12:37:29 PM


P.S. My mistake. That should be uranium-235. The 239 isotope is plutonium, which while suitable for an implosion-type weapon (such as Fat Man), would not work in a gun-barrel bomb (like Little Boy). And for the record, in spite of what you may have seen on TV, either fissile material is perfectly safe to handle, even with bare hands. They emit no gamma radiation and are therefore not dangerous by mere proximity. You might get cancer 20 years down the road if you don't wash your hands after, but for most terrorists that's not a concern.

How's the pot garden coming, "average" Canadian?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-20 12:38:41 PM


Another good argument.. even if you were the one to define who fits those attributes, those same attributes are not unique to cannabis users are they?

But markedly prevalent among them. Of course, if you want to compare yourself to retards and mental-hospital patients who have never smoked pot, then be my guest.

Enough of this (Emery is, in your opinion dumb so that is evidence of cannabis killing braincells) stuff.

I'll say what's enough, Baker, not you.

Cannabis doesn't kill brain cells, doesn't cause cancers, doesn't breed meth users, doesn't cause chronic emphysema or bronchitis, has never killed a single person, is less addictive then coffee, does not cause violence associated with use. costs tax payers billions not make any difference in usage rates, offers criminal enterprises one of the most profitable industry's in Canada.

Cannabis disrupts brain chemistry, causes (not cures) lung cancer, frequently causes bronchitis or smoker's cough, has contributed to the deaths of thousands of people, is a psychotropic hallucinogen (unlike coffee, tobacco, or even alcohol), and causes intense crime associated with procurement, if not actual use.

It is uncontrollable until we decide that drug dealers cant control every aspect from its potency to who its available to.

Were you stoned when you wrote that, Baker? Like when you put the percent sign before the number?

You argue that you want control on use and availability, well its not going to happen when its still illegal, and Joe Shmoe gets to decide who gets it.

Yes, making something easier to get inevitably results in more control over who gets it. Brilliant piece of reasoning. Want to know the real reason pot is still illegal? Pot users.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-20 12:46:16 PM


-Shane
"But markedly prevalent among them. Of course, if you want to compare yourself to retards and mental-hospital patients who have never smoked pot, then be my guest."

Because mentally disabled people are the only narcissistic and "not matured emotionally" people. Pleas provide proof.

"I'll say what's enough, Baker, not you."

Well when you are arguing a point that is based solely upon your observations with the sheer absence of any fact, i find it somewhat narcissistic, it doesn't make much sense to argue against since there is no argument there on your part, its quite childish to be honest. Your opinion doesn't constitute fact.

"Cannabis disrupts brain chemistry, causes (not cures) lung cancer, frequently causes bronchitis or smoker's cough, has contributed to the deaths of thousands of people, is a psychotropic hallucinogen (unlike coffee, tobacco, or even alcohol), and causes intense crime associated with procurement, if not actual use."

Does it really effect brain chemistry, so that's why it makes people feel good!Dang ive been wondering... You offer no argument to why it is bad (if it even takes place). Musicians have been shown to have altered brain chemistry and development vs non musicians, does this make playing music bad? ..
I never claimed it cured it, but it certainly does not cause it, there is no proof, even casual link. And a recent study showed a 60% reduction in head neck and throat cancers associated with cannabis smoking...
It has been shown in clinical study to have no increase in risk of C.O.P.D which includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema...

"has contributed to the deaths of thousands of people"

Plain lies. :)

Granted its classified as a hallucinogen but one is more likely to hallucinate from high doses of alcohol then high doses of cannabis.

"and causes intense crime associated with procurement, if not actual use."

As a result of banning a substance wanted by the public. Same thing happened with alcohol prohibition.

""It is uncontrollable until we decide that drug dealers cant control every aspect from its potency to who its available to."

Were you stoned when you wrote that, Baker? Like when you put the percent sign before the number?"

lol whats the difference... Read slow, you will get it eventually.

"Yes, making something easier to get inevitably results in more control over who gets it. Brilliant piece of reasoning. Want to know the real reason pot is still illegal? Pot users."

It isnt, its making it less available to children and teens. At the moment kids and teens are able to get cannabis much easier then tobacco or alcohol. That's because there are age restrictions upon those retailers. That's the facts. People are less likely to become habitual users of drugs if they use after the age of 19, therefor it reduces use and availability.

Posted by: Baker | 2009-09-20 1:26:51 PM


If you think I am a criminal because I smoke pot on occasion, and think prohibition is wrong, then I must be. Because we should all bow down to authority and know-it-alls. Because they know whats best for me, right? That is your argument isn't it?
Well Shane, you can call me a criminal for my beliefs , and I'll call you a retard for yours. Now we can both sleep tonight.

And a note on Mr. Emery. How do you define dumb? Seems to me he managed to do quite well for himself. He is going to jail, true, but for his cause. He took a stand and now is being forced to pay for it. I hear he made millions, runs a successful business, is the leader of a Canadian political party and has a beautiful wife. Hands up here for anyone else that has managed to pull this off.
The persecution of Marc Emery is purely political. There are still lots of seed sellers out there sending seeds to the USA. Did they round up any of them? Not that I have heard. Marc is no dummy, hes just a victim of prohibition.
"the outlaw always blames the lawman for his lawlessness." As the saying goes, "Don't hate the player, hate the game".
A murderer or rapist, ect., can't say that with any moral ground because there are victims. Where is the victim when I smoke a fattie? Until there is a victim or grievance, I should be free to do as I please.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2009-09-20 1:29:10 PM


Emery only "did well" for himself by exploiting a captive market - drug addicts. It's the perfect opportunity: users are willing to spend every dollar they have to feed their habit. Nice work if you can get it.

Emery is also not being persecuted. He's being prosecuted as he has been many times before. He should be used to it by now. Only those with drug-fried brains would see it any other way.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-09-20 2:32:35 PM


The original point is being forgotten, in that Cops also get killed in this needless drug war. Let get on somethig new besides trying to convince Shane of the error of his ways.

Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-09-20 3:27:24 PM



Shirley, former CRAPer Rahim Jaffer and his attorney will ask the judge at Jaffer's upcoming trial for Drunk Driving for the maximum possible prison sentence allowed under Canadian Law.

Given Jaffer's rabid CRAPer/ Prohibitionist viewpoint on Drugs and his 'wanting to keep the children safe' message, Jaffer/his attorney must demand a harsh sentence, a 'Mandatory Minimum' that reflects the seriousness of the crime. 'Drunken Driving'.

Perhaps, with his wife's help, Jaffer could forwrd this proposal to CRAPer Justice Minister Rob Nicholson or to CRAPer Minister Peter Van Loan to fast track it.

One need only to visit a local hospital E.R./ICU to see the damage done to Canadians day in and out, by the most insidious of drugs.

Alcohol.

This Bud's for you Rahim Jaffer.

Oooohhh, the Rapture.

Posted by: jeff franklin | 2009-09-20 4:06:23 PM


"Emery only "did well" for himself by exploiting a captive market - drug addicts. It's the perfect opportunity: users are willing to spend every dollar they have to feed their habit. Nice work if you can get it."

Come on Zeb, even you don't believe that. Give it some thought. First, just about everyone that produces a product people want, has a captive market. Smokes, booze, aspirin, barbie dolls, and so on. He had no more of a captive market than..., well I can't think of a market with as much competition in it. Pot smokers will not sell the house to buy weed. They don't spend every dollar to feed the "habit". And I see it as persecution, not prosecution. I guess that distinction depends on your viewpoint.

Ok, sorry Freedom, I'm back on track. Yes, cops get killed in this stupid war. So do innocent people. By the cops and gangsters involved in the drug trade. But the cops nowadays are practically asking for it. They either gear up like the military and storm the place like they expect the third world war to break out, or they are dressing like gang members and shooting pastors. There seems to be a fair amount of them with the "lets bust some heads" attitude. In most cases, 2 officers in uniform could handle any situation if common sense and intelligence is applied. No knock warrants and property forfeiture are 2 of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard of. Especially when related to drugs. This is all because of the "war on drugs", and the money that flows from it. This war is corrupting authority, it is damaging to society, and costs far more than its worth. End the war, legalize.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2009-09-20 9:54:31 PM


"But the cops nowadays are practically asking for it."

You're right, they have escalated it. It's too bad that the average street cop has to deal with this stuff, it's the politicians that make the bad laws and then law "enforcement" has to carry it out.

Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-09-20 10:12:24 PM


Because mentally disabled people are the only narcissistic and "not matured emotionally" people. Pleas provide proof.

No. They, like pot smokers, have significantly higher than normal prevalence.

Well when you are arguing a point that is based solely upon your observations with the sheer absence of any fact, i find it somewhat narcissistic, it doesn't make much sense to argue against since there is no argument there on your part, its quite childish to be honest. Your opinion doesn't constitute fact.

And when you say that I said something that I did not in fact say, I find it somewhat imbecilic, if not outright deceptive. I never said pot killed brain cells. I never said that. That was an inference you drew, and a faulty one at that. Then again, you do need your full wits to draw accurate inferences.

Does it really effect brain chemistry, so that's why it makes people feel good!Dang ive been wondering... You offer no argument to why it is bad (if it even takes place).

Most people consider that a 50-year-old having the mental age of a 15-year-old is not altogether a good thing, although of course there are those, like you, who would disagree.

I never claimed it cured it, but it certainly does not cause it, there is no proof, even casual link. And a recent study showed a 60% reduction in head neck and throat cancers associated with cannabis smoking...

If so many people smoke cannabis, and if cannabis reduces cancer rates, than perhaps you can tell me why the overall cancer rate is increasing?

Granted its classified as a hallucinogen but one is more likely to hallucinate from high doses of alcohol then high doses of cannabis.

Says who and based on what?

As a result of banning a substance wanted by the public. Same thing happened with alcohol prohibition.

It wasn't wanted until 30 years after it was banned, and then only by people who wanted it only because it was illegal. Criminals, in other words.

lol whats the difference...

Your approach to life in a nutshell.

It isnt, its making it less available to children and teens. That's because there are age restrictions upon those retailers. That's the facts.

Of course! Teenagers never get their hands on alcohol that was purchased legally. We all know how little teenagers drink.

People are less likely to become habitual users of drugs if they use after the age of 19, therefor it reduces use and availability.

But they don't. Unless by some miracle you can explain how making something easier for adults to get makes it harder for kids to get. Go ahead. We'll wait.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-21 4:54:11 PM


If you think I am a criminal because I smoke pot on occasion, and think prohibition is wrong, then I must be. Because we should all bow down to authority and know-it-alls. Because they know whats best for me, right? That is your argument isn't it?

I KNOW you are a criminal, and what is more, so does the law. It's not a matter of opinion. And like I said, attitudes like this are the reason pot is still illegal. Because most of its users seem to be immature dickheads.

Well Shane, you can call me a criminal for my beliefs , and I'll call you a retard for yours. Now we can both sleep tonight.

Except I'll be right and you'll be wrong.

And a note on Mr. Emery. How do you define dumb?

Lacking in sense.

Seems to me he managed to do quite well for himself. He is going to jail, true, but for his cause. He took a stand and now is being forced to pay for it. I hear he made millions, runs a successful business, is the leader of a Canadian political party and has a beautiful wife. Hands up here for anyone else that has managed to pull this off.

Yes, indeed, Steve. Hands up, anyone else who became an internationally wanted criminal and drug smuggler. By definition, only criminals aspire to such goals. This is the most moronic thing I have ever heard you say--and believe me, there was some pretty stiff competition.

The persecution of Marc Emery is purely political. There are still lots of seed sellers out there sending seeds to the USA. Did they round up any of them? Not that I have heard.

Well, if you haven't heard about it, that must mean it hasn't happened, because like Budoracle who discovered the secrets of stellar fusion while hang-gliding stoned, you know everything.

Marc is no dummy, hes just a victim of prohibition.

No, he's a victim of his own grandstanding. Everything that is happening to him he caused to happen, devoted his every waking minute to making it happen.

As the saying goes, "Don't hate the player, hate the game".

Something no sportsman would ever say. In fact, this aphorism sounds like something a contemptuous teen would say, a slightly dated way of saying, "This bites!"

A murderer or rapist, ect., can't say that with any moral ground because there are victims. Where is the victim when I smoke a fattie? Until there is a victim or grievance, I should be free to do as I please.

Again you reveal your simplicity of thinking. Unless there's a bleeding corpse on the sidewalk in front of you the instant you take the first puff, you acknowledge no victim. It's all about you. With your every word you further prove my longstanding assertion that potheads are selfish creeps. And then you can't understand why polite society shows you their backs.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-21 5:02:23 PM


Yes, cops get killed in this stupid war. So do innocent people. By the cops and gangsters involved in the drug trade. But the cops nowadays are practically asking for it.

Actually, the overwhelming show of force is supposed to increase everyone's chances of walking away from the situation, by defusing any conflict before it starts. A man stupid enough to fight a single cop is less likely to offer resistance to a half-dozen men with subguns. Result: They live, he lives. I agree the optics are terrible, and that kind of power is a dangerous intoxicant; but the fact remains that suspects and cops are dying less now than they were 30 years ago, when unarmoured police carried six-shot revolvers.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-21 5:06:00 PM


It's too bad that the average street cop has to deal with this stuff, it's the politicians that make the bad laws and then law "enforcement" has to carry it out.

But again, it is the lawbreakers that actually cause the problem. And when asked why they do it, they answer defiantly, "Because I want to." They want to break the law. And they see no trouble with that, because to them, the only good law is one that doesn't stand between them and something they desire, however many and convincing the arguments against them having it.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-21 5:26:33 PM


Let get on somethig new besides trying to convince Shane of the error of his ways.

Good idea. Start confronting the error of yours. Because my ways, unlike yours, don't increase crime rates.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-21 5:27:38 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.