Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Black Coffee | Main | Restraint »

Friday, March 12, 2010

Cross party support for Prince of Pot

MPs from the 3 national parties are going to submit petitions that are calling for marijuana activist Marc Emery not to be extradited to the United States.

Conservative Party: Scott Reid
Liberal Party: Ujjal Dosanjh
New Democratic Party: Libby Davies

In an interview Mr. Dosanjh said that this was a non-partisan issue, and he’s right. But it is also an issue that goes beyond the Emery case. It goes to the heart of the sort of society that we want to live in. Do we want to live in a society where people can make their own choices as long as they do not hurt others? Or do we want to live in a society where those choices are taken away from us?

Marc Emery is not perfect, but he is a man that has always opted for the first option. More than that, he has fought his whole life for that option. I hope that the government of Canada listens to Canadians and refuse to send Mr. Emery to a dangerous high security prison for a crime with no victims.

Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on March 12, 2010 | Permalink

Comments

Emery is a loser who is just manipulating people to avoid doing hard time for his serious crimes. He chose this life, he has no one to blame but himself. Let him rot.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-03-12 6:37:20 AM


Unfortunately, Hugh, drug abuse does hurt others. Even many drugs legal with a prescription become illegal when abused. People like Emery contend that the only harm drug abuse does comes from the fact that it's illegal. They forget the reason these once-legal substances were put under controls in the first place--and no, it wasn't a government or corporate conspiracy.

By the way, what proof have you that Emery would serve his time in a high-security prison? Even if he is, his biggest danger would be his mouth--he has never learned to keep it shut. In prison or out, he's his own worst enemy. And no, you can't take something vulgar and base and turn it into something good and noble by prepending the words "freedom fighter" to it.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-12 7:15:15 AM


This will definitely reverse the satanic inspired extradition / five year jail deal the Prince of Pot signed. No Canadian should be held to any binding agreement that they change their mind about a year later, including elections

This is the sort of standing up to America we have come to expect from the Canadian government. Ottawa had it in for Marc Emery all along because marijuana can save cure cancer and important stuff like that that even Wikipedia won;t publish the truth about

Now Comrades, with this success behind us we will bring back the Avro Arrow
and toss off the oppressive metric System.

Besides, dope debates brings in the most hits to the Shotgun by far - serious politics discussions gets windy and cranky real fast

Posted by: 419 | 2010-03-12 7:22:23 AM


Hey didn't Emery agree to his sentence and deportation? That would make these petitions completely redundant. I knew that the Liebral/NDP people would do this, but I expected more out of conservatives, the party of the people.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-03-12 7:36:58 AM


He made a killing through his mail order business. He used Canada Post as his dealers.

He wasn't curing anything and wasn't thinking about this at the time. All he was thinking was how to make money like any other drug dealer.
Plain an simple. I'd give him the 10 years in the States. He has wasted our time with this.

This person is a leader and activist? Leader of what?

I believe pot should be legal one day and I believe that the medicinal purposes of this 'Herb' should be taken more seriously.
These Party reps should consider implementing an action plan for the gov't to initiate discussions around it and they should keep Emery's name out of it.

He is ruining it for a lot of people.

Posted by: Lawrence Gervais | 2010-03-12 7:53:01 AM


"...Hey didn't Emery agree to his sentence and deportation? That would make these petitions completely redundant..."

thats about right Citizen Zebulon.
Are you aware that 20,000 Australians signed a petition in the 19th century to spare the life of notorious train robber > Ned Kelly?

well we all know how that one worked out- he was hung because his penalty had already been decided before the petitions began circulating through the saloons.

The Three MP Musketeers fading attention scavengers will be presenting 20,000 signatures to an indifferent Caesar as well..& we can expect the same sort of fail for Marc Emery in Canada as Ned Kelly got down under except his Majesty will walk out alive after 5 drama filled years in a US Prison with his life- and a free detox
There!
justice rendered without malice or discount

Posted by: 419 | 2010-03-12 8:47:53 AM


First...Shane.

"People like Emery contend that the only harm drug abuse does comes from the fact that it's illegal. They forget the reason these once-legal substances were put under controls in the first place--and no, it wasn't a government or corporate conspiracy."

As far as cannabis goes, the large majority of "harm" comes from the prohibition NOT THE DRUG. Look at the properties of the drug. Less addictive then caffien, less deadly as well. Less intoxicating then alcohol, has yet to even be casually linked to any secondary condition.. Cannabis its self has very little harm potential.

AND yes, it was made illegal for reasons that did not in anyway relate to the true safety of cannabis. given the FACTS its less addictive then caffeine, less intoxicating then alcohol, less deadly then tobacco, ALL of which, if you were correct in saying illegal drugs are that way because of legitimate risk/reasoning, would be illegal along with cannabis.

Posted by: Baker | 2010-03-12 8:57:53 AM


As far as cannabis goes, the large majority of "harm" comes from the prohibition NOT THE DRUG. Look at the properties of the drug. Less addictive then caffien, less deadly as well. Less intoxicating then alcohol, has yet to even be casually linked to any secondary condition.. Cannabis its self has very little harm potential.

A one in five chance of being turned on to narcotics is not an acceptable risk. Also, given the unique properties of its intoxication--fat soluble, rebound highs, far less predictable detox rate than alcohol, far greater difficulty in effectively pacing dosage, outward signs far less noticeable (of particular importance to driving and other tasks requiring coordination and with stiff consequences for failure), it's not nearly in the same class as a cup of coffee.

AND yes, it was made illegal for reasons that did not in anyway relate to the true safety of cannabis.

Yup. Everything's a conspiracy. There was a nefarious, worldwide, deep-rooted conspiracy that outdid anything perpetrated by the Masons or the Illuminati. You know, Baker, that marijuana is widely held to cause paranoia, and that delusions of persecution are a sign of paranoia?

In any case, Marc Emery has agreed to plead guilty. HE HAS ADMITTED HIS GUILT. It therefore does not matter how many people sign this stupid petition. There are no legal grounds to refuse the extradition, and Tories are among the few Canadians who have an identity outside not being American, so the anti-American shtick won't fly either.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-12 9:16:01 AM


Actually there is legal grounds to refuse it; all that needs to happen is the Minister of Justice just doesn't sign the extradition order.

That's it. Simple as that. No complex appeal process. No lawyers. Just the lack of signature on a piece of paper.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-03-12 9:25:48 AM


"A one in five chance of being turned on to narcotics is not an acceptable risk."

You mean the defunct gateway effect? LOL's shane, LOL's.

"also, given the unique properties of its intoxication--fat soluble, rebound highs"

The parts left detectable in fats are the metabolized (used) cannabanoids. They will get no one high.

"far less predictable detox rate than alcohol"

LOL what? It is as predictable as alcohol, it is all dependent on ones metabolism, as with alcohol. This is just ridiculous. Find some more strings to pull on.

"Far greater difficulty in effectively pacing dosage"

Hardly, take a toke, wait a minute, take another as needed. It has been praised by doctors on how easy it is to effectively manage ones dose for medical uses. This would be no different whether for medical or recreational use.

"outward signs far less noticeable (of particular importance to driving and other tasks requiring coordination and with stiff consequences for failure)"

For you maybe, thats your opinion. But is this even an argument? "i cant tell whos high! wah". Philips have created a multi drug "breathalizer" police are consistently trained to spot drugged drivers, furthermore the risk from legalizing cannabis to the safety of our roads is minimal, cannabis users are already everywhere, anyone who would drive high already does (i can think of 10 people off the top, i went to school with, whom consistently drive high, happens all the time), so "cannabis crash's" are highly unlikely to increase. so all in all, this is most DEFIANTLY no legitimate reason for it to have been made illegal. If someones driving is bad, the police can pull them over and find out why, its that simple.

"Yup. Everything's a conspiracy. There was a nefarious, worldwide, deep-rooted conspiracy that outdid anything perpetrated by the Masons or the Illuminati. You know, Baker, that marijuana is widely held to cause paranoia, and that delusions of persecution are a sign of paranoia?"

Way not to rebut my point! Makes my job easy... Ill give you another chance if you like. Give er another shot!

"In any case, Marc Emery has agreed to plead guilty. HE HAS ADMITTED HIS GUILT. It therefore does not matter how many people sign this stupid petition. There are no legal grounds to refuse the extradition, and Tories are among the few Canadians who have an identity outside not being American, so the anti-American shtick won't fly either."

Right on, doesn't make the drug an evil one tho, nor does it make the drug more harmful, so please end your propaganda campaign against cannabis. But j/w what are the terms of our extradition agreement with the US? Specifically the terms of dual criminality.

Posted by: Baker | 2010-03-12 9:57:46 AM


Actually there is legal grounds to refuse it; all that needs to happen is the Minister of Justice just doesn't sign the extradition order.

Legal privilege does not constitute legal grounds. Granted, he could refuse to sign, but as Minister of Justice he presumably he bases his decisions on matters of law, not matters of politics. Canada has never refused an extradition request from the United States and is not likely to start with a scruffy, dial-a-dope dickwad like Marc Emery. That's essentially the advice his own lawyer gave him right before he capitulated.

Furthermore, even if politics do enter his mind, it's likely to be on terms like this: "I risk considerable political and perhaps economic repercussions from our much more powerful neighbour if I don't sign, versus the catcalls of a few libertarians who mostly don't vote, spoil their ballots, or vote for irrelevant parties if I do sign."

Yup, that's a tough call, all right.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-12 10:09:22 AM


Maybe those dissidents working in death-camps in North Korea wouldn't be there if they just obeyed, and weren't so loud mouthed. They got themselves into trouble. They knew what the law was. The law says you have to respect the eternal leader Kim Il-Sung. If they can't understand that, they should be fucking killed.

I totally agree with Shane. if everyone around the world just obeyed the law, everything would be fine for them. The Taliban wouldn't have had to stone women to death if they women had followed the law. And it's not like women learning to read is a victimless crime, either. The cultural changes that literate women bring, bring about changes to the culture that effect EVERYONE!

Today is women learning to read, tomorrow they'll be demanding the right to drive cars. They have no right to impose themselves on society like that. Reading and driving are not human rights! Those women in Afghanistan are selfish, as are the political dissidents in North Korea.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-03-12 10:12:29 AM


The mere fact that Emery has not been extradited yet proves his unimportance. He is just a common criminal with a slightly high profile because of his minions. He'll be shipped off soon enough with others like him - well not like him, just bigger, tougher, stronger and meaner, who will make his prison stay more interesting.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-03-12 10:17:31 AM


You mean the defunct gateway effect? LOL's shane, LOL's.

Guffaws are not rebuttals. Round one to me.

The parts left detectable in fats are the metabolized (used) cannabanoids. They will get no one high.

According to this, you're wrong. The half-life of THC in the body varies according to activity level and fat content, but averages about 7 days, assuming no more is smoked. And note the list of undesirable effects. Milk and cookies look better all the time.

Round two to me.

LOL what? It is as predictable as alcohol, it is all dependent on ones metabolism, as with alcohol. This is just ridiculous. Find some more strings to pull on.

More knee-slapping offered without proof; for rebuttal, look to my point about THC half-life above. Round three to me.

Hardly, take a toke, wait a minute, take another as needed.

Right. And BAC is a myth. You know, there's a reason doctors dole out medicine in such precise amounts. You expect to be taken seriously after fielding simpleminded horseshit like this?

It has been praised by doctors on how easy it is to effectively manage ones dose for medical uses.

By which doctors? Where? By the AMA? Or individual mavericks?

This would be no different whether for medical or recreational use.

Apples and oranges. In medicine the objective is a measurable effect. In recreation, the aim is to get high. Just like drinking alcohol, by the time you feel the effects, you're already stoned. The difference is you probably remember how much you drank, and can predict your detox rate from that, whereas marijuana is of widely variable potency and quality, and everyone inhales differently. I have yet to see a detox rate chart for marijuana based on amount smoked.

For you maybe, thats your opinion. But is this even an argument? "i cant tell whos high! wah". Philips have created a multi drug "breathalizer" police are consistently trained to spot drugged drivers

For the POLICE actually, which is why stoned driving is to difficult to prove. Although a new breathalyzer-type device for marijuana is in development, and early deployments in Australia revealed the stunning fact that up to 8 percent of drivers are stoned.

furthermore the risk from legalizing cannabis to the safety of our roads is minimal, cannabis users are already everywhere, anyone who would drive high already does (i can think of 10 people off the top, i went to school with, whom consistently drive high, happens all the time), so "cannabis crash's" are highly unlikely to increase.

This is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. You're essentially arguing that increasing supply and decreasing price will not result in increased consumption, which runs counter to every law of economics. Moreover, there's another side to this coin; if pot is kept illegal, and new breathalyzers allow the cops to nab the stoned drivers, smoking and driving will probably go down. And since marijuana stays in your system much longer, people will be forced to choose between pot and cars. Guess which most of them will pick?

Way not to rebut my point! Makes my job easy... Ill give you another chance if you like. Give er another shot!

Rebut what point? You offered no proof, only a silly, oft-repeated slogan. Now, proof, please, that this WAS a conspiracy, IN EVERY PART OF THE WORLD. You'll have to do better than the customary Anglinger-Hearst-Dupont crap.

Right on, doesn't make the drug an evil one tho, nor does it make the drug more harmful...

Too bad that's not what the thread is about, nor what the Justice Minister must consider when deciding whether or not to sign.

But j/w what are the terms of our extradition agreement with the US? Specifically the terms of dual criminality.

All that righteous flow of speech, and you haven't even bothered to look it up? Classic Baker--shoot from the lip and make everyone else do the work.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-12 10:30:31 AM


Zebulon Pike is just plain ignorant, not only of the facts of the case, but of M.E.'s "importance"
It is truly disheartening to read all of these hate based, fact challenged diatribes that point out the flaws of the writers more than anything else.

Drug Abuse is a horrible thing and people caught up in that lifestyle are to be pitied and helped. But somehow equating Marc Emery's seed selling with that makes as much sense as saying Cannabis is a gateway drug!

It doesn't matter how often it has been shown to be a lie, stupid, ignorant people clutch onto that lie like their Bibles and their ignorance!

And this Shane Matthews is really the epitome of the loud ignorant moron, who has bits and pieces of lies he has heard, but never once attempted to do ANY research on his own to verify the veracity of his claims, (A 2 second google search would reveal that 80% is nonsense!)

The one in five chance is NOWHERE! It stems from the debunked gateway theory.

His comments on Drug Abuse... Here he is all over the place, comparing peoples abuse of prescription drugs to what? I couldn't tell you!

But lets examine this exchange

Someone said Baker maybe(and this is a COMPLETELY TRUE STATEMENT) AND yes, it was made illegal for reasons that did not in anyway relate to the true safety of cannabis.

And this incredible BRAIN TRUST responds like this....

Yup. Everything's a conspiracy. There was a nefarious, worldwide, deep-rooted conspiracy that outdid anything perpetrated by the Masons or the Illuminati. You know, Baker, that marijuana is widely held to cause paranoia, and that delusions of persecution are a sign of paranoia?

Does this make sense to ANYONE? Does Shane have any idea HOW and WHY or even WHEN Cannabis was made illegal? And does ANYONE else notice how he read a headline about Marijuana and Paranoia and comes up with this ludicrous "fact"
And how does stating a FACT about how Cannabis was demonized translate into a delusion of persecution?

I mean, the amount of straight up ignorance around here is amazing, although most of the comments are coming from the three stooges of valid information, Led by Genius Shane (I love to see my name attached to mindless drivel) Matthews and his mind-numbing lover Zebulon (Facts be damned, I just love to spout inane drivel) Pike

Jeez, it must REALLY bother you losers that Marc Emery, who gave MILLIONS of Dollars to legalization movements including HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS to U.S. causes, will NOT be getting extradited!! And the recent settling of the Overgrow.com/CannabisWorld/Heavens Stairway/Cbay trial MAY actually help M.E. Since R.B. was doing the SAME EXACT thing (except instead of supporting pro-legalization movements, he (R.B.) bought Gold Bars and Hogs and Cocaine w/his profits) and he did not warrant prison time!
Which PROVES that M.E.'s case was POLITICAL because he was who he was!!!

And little baby boys like Shane and Zeb will just have to deal with that! People the WORLD over Know and respect Marc Emery. Stupid Haters who have never met him and are ignorant of even the history of cannabis prohibition aren't known or respected AROUND THE BLOCK!
In fact, this isn't the 1st time Ive seen this Shane character voicing his ignorance and its always multiple letters each getting more ignorant than the next! He must have a very interesting life! If you call a shut-in with ignorant hatred interesting! Sad

Posted by: I. Ben Niemand | 2010-03-12 11:16:18 AM


While you people continue to live in your drug fueled fantasy world, your hero Emery rots in prison. But it doesn't matter - non drug addicts like his lawyers saw his situation clearly, soberly and clinically. Emery was a goner from the start and no one could save him. The alleged, and totally fictitious, medical properties of drugs are totally irrelevant to his or any other drug smuggler's case. He's a common criminal nothing more. Even he accepted his fate.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-03-12 11:36:32 AM


Mike,

That was hilarious. And spot on.

Posted by: Charles | 2010-03-12 11:41:45 AM


"Guffaws are not rebuttals. Round one to me."

Thought we could be more mature then to re hash old "reefer madness" slogans. But ok, for 1, tobacco is a better indicator of future multi-drug use. THEREFOR if cannabis is such a "gateway", and this is one of the legitimate reasons used to justify its illegality, tobacco would be illegal as well. Unfortunately for you, reality does not reflect the possibility of the "gateway" or "stepping stone" theory actually existing, EXCEPT in the sense that a cannabis user is exposed to people and situations where introduction to different illicit drugs is a possibility DUE to the prohibition of cannabis. So if there is any "gateway" found in cannabis it is a direct result of Prohibition. Prohibition creates any "gateway effect".

PWNT!

"According to this, you're wrong. The half-life of THC in the body varies according to activity level and fat content, but averages about 7 days, assuming no more is smoked. And note the list of undesirable effects. Milk and cookies look better all the time."

If you were at all educated in the ways of chemistry you would know they are referring to 9-carboxy-THC, the METABOLITE. God ur dumb. The active THC is metabolized within MINUTES and is detectable within minutes of smoking because it is metabolizes so quickly. In fact the tests, that are designed to find cannabis, that detect this form of "thc" upto a month later because it is fat soluble ARE DIRECTLY TESTING FOR THE METABOLITE, not the molecule that has the high. YOU ARE AN IGNORANT IDIOT, EDUCATE YOURSELF.

PWNT AGAIN!

"More knee-slapping offered without proof; for rebuttal, look to my point about THC half-life above. Round three to me."

The HIGH, has nothing to do with the "half life" you referred to as that was the METABOLITE, which doesn't get you high. After a few times, just like alcohol, a person will consistently know how long the high will last.

PWNT once again!

"Right. And BAC is a myth. You know, there's a reason doctors dole out medicine in such precise amounts. You expect to be taken seriously after fielding simpleminded horseshit like this?"

What does BAC have to do with judging a dosage of cannabis? Do people measure their BAC as their drinking? NO. The effects of the toke take place within minutes as inhalation is one of the quickest ways to ingest a drug, the effects can then easily be judged, then "rinse and repeat as necessary". Its a simple concept shane, funny you cant comprehend it.

PWNT AGAIN AGAIN!

"By which doctors? Where? By the AMA? Or individual mavericks?"

Many doctors whom specialize in this area of medical cannabis, cant think of names off the top of my head but if you would bother to educated yourself unbiasedly about the medical cannabis industry, you would have heard these sentiments from the doctor's mouth's. Many medical users have said, first hand, how impossible it is to find the optimum dose even with marinol pills set out in specific doses, whereas within minutes they are able to get the needed/wanted level of medication without issue through inhalation, FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE of how it is actually easier to gauge ones needed dose with cannabis vs predetermined exact amounts dictated by a 3rd party. This would be the same with recreational cannabis use. The dosage is very easy to judge and control.

"Apples and oranges. In medicine the objective is a measurable effect. In recreation, the aim is to get high. Just like drinking alcohol, by the time you feel the effects, you're already stoned. The difference is you probably remember how much you drank, and can predict your detox rate from that, whereas marijuana is of widely variable potency and quality, and everyone inhales differently. I have yet to see a detox rate chart for marijuana based on amount smoked."

Not at all, its judging a dose of cannabis, plain and simple, makes no difference whether used for recreation or medically, its about judging the dosage. The difference you fail to see between alcohol and cannabis, is the effects of cannabis are felt almost immediately whereas alcohol takes a good 20-30min to go from stomach to brain. One is easily and quickly able to note when they maybe have ingested more cannabis then wanted and are able to stop intake right away without getting higher. Whereas with alcohol it is VERY EASY to have gotten to the point of uncomfortably and yet still have active substance "on deck" ready to make things worse. Furthermore cannabis is not known for loss of memory during use, ALCOHOL most defiantly is, it is much less likely for one to remember how much alcohol they drank vs someone recalling how much cannabis they consumed. Despite the irregularity in cannabis potency (which would be fixed with regulation btw) people are consistently able to judge the desired dosage since the effects happen within minutes and therefor can feel the effects FIRST and judge whether they should consume more later almost instantly, as opposed to upto a half hour with alcohol. How many alcohol poisonings send people to hospital year? How many cannabis poisonings send people to hospital each year?

PWNAGE!

"For the POLICE actually, which is why stoned driving is to difficult to prove. Although a new breathalyzer-type device for marijuana is in development, and early deployments in Australia revealed the stunning fact that up to 8 percent of drivers are stoned."

So because someone who may have consumed cannabis, isnt imparted enough for an officer to make the call of impairment we should make it illegal? Should we then also make pain killers illegal? Cough syrup? Anti-histamines? Perhaps we should create "emotion" detectors as many impairment caused accidents are caused by emotional impairment. Your argument holds no water when it comes to reality. Furthermore was the lack of a a breathalyzer (which still isnt found in even the majority of police cars) make the case for keeping alcohol illegal and continuing all of the negative consequences that prohibition creates? Just because cannabis is LESS INTOXICATING (as your point would claim) any reason to keep it illegal, or to have made it illegal in the first place?

OWNAGE! (ill concede it this one isnt quite Pwnage lol)

"This is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. You're essentially arguing that increasing supply and decreasing price will not result in increased consumption, which runs counter to every law of economics."

Well you see, i like to use factual relevant examples when assessing what a consequence of an action would be. And as regulated sale has shown in places like the netherlands, increased "supply" does not correlate to increased cannabis consumption. These are real world facts from real world occurrences. You forget what drives all economics, demand, which has been shown not to increase due to regulated sale. Furthermore the actual availability to the number of people (regulation would cut out youth) and the number of outlets which distribute this product will decrease. Instead of a town of 14k having 10-20 different possible distributors, that would be reduced to 1-2. There were more speakeasy's in NY during prohibition then bars today.

"Moreover, there's another side to this coin; if pot is kept illegal, and new breathalyzers allow the cops to nab the stoned drivers, smoking and driving will probably go down. And since marijuana stays in your system much longer, people will be forced to choose between pot and cars. Guess which most of them will pick?"

Or perhaps, they would need to test for the active chemicals and not the metabolites? Im unsure specifically what the philips "bud-alized" (lol), specifically tests for and given your previous ignorance on the subject of active chemicals vs metabolites, you wouldn't either. But either way, if an officer preforms a coordination/dui test on a cannabis user, and that officer is unable to detect any level of impairment, whats the prob bob?

"Rebut what point? You offered no proof, only a silly, oft-repeated slogan. Now, proof, please, that this WAS a conspiracy, IN EVERY PART OF THE WORLD. You'll have to do better than the customary Anglinger-Hearst-Dupont crap."

The proof/point came after through a logical examination of the facts, you declined to argue the POINT of that section...

"Too bad that's not what the thread is about, nor what the Justice Minister must consider when deciding whether or not to sign."

THE FIRST THING YOU SAID:
Shane - "Unfortunately, Hugh, drug abuse does hurt others. Even many drugs legal with a prescription become illegal when abused. People like Emery contend that the only harm drug abuse does comes from the fact that it's illegal"
If you dont want to talk about this, dont start it.

"All that righteous flow of speech, and you haven't even bothered to look it up? Classic Baker--shoot from the lip and make everyone else do the work."

My "flow of speech" was not about the legitimacy of the extradition, was it? it was rebutting your claims. But whats your problem with asking the question shane? You see, i can find the general definition, but am unable to find out whether this is specifically the exact way that "dual criminality" is used in our agreement with the USA. was only looking to learn and discuss, but apparently thats not OK with you.

Posted by: Baker | 2010-03-12 12:06:50 PM


So, Mike, now we're living in North Korea or Taliban Afghanistan? Do you have any rational basis for making these bullshit comparisons, or are you just off your meds again (or on too much of the wrong kind)?

Your problem is that your message requires pre-existing outrage on the part of the recipient in order to take root. That's why your views find solace chiefly among fellow malcontents.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-12 12:15:44 PM


What were the results of that "2-second Google search," IBN? You don't bother to say. Like Mike Brock, you just throw around a lot of exclamation points and all caps served up with a lot of outrage and consider your point made. No wonder you're shouting in the darkness. You may rest assured that you have left this board in exactly the same condition as it was when you found it.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-12 12:19:01 PM


"Jeez, it must REALLY bother you losers that Marc Emery, who gave MILLIONS of Dollars to legalization movements including HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS to U.S. causes, will NOT be getting extradited!!"

Well yes, He wasted all that money on pointless causes that helped no one but himself. He sought to expand the market for his drugs, and failed. So why back a loser?

Emery is a drug dealer, pure and simple. He is on the level of child molesters, child pornographers, pimps, gang members, drifters, the KKK, Holocaust deniers, and Toronto school board members. His kind are a threat to public order and health and must be eradicated. So far, we've been too kind with him. This must change.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-03-12 12:21:22 PM


Baker,

I agree with you. I would, however, note that it is impossible to judge exactly how inelastic demand for pot is. It is quite conceivable that legalizing pot would lead to a larger increase in usage than one would logically expect.

Posted by: Charles | 2010-03-12 12:39:24 PM


Thought we could be more mature then to re hash old "reefer madness" slogans. But ok, for 1, tobacco is a better indicator of future multi-drug use.

How do you figure that? One of the reasons it's so difficult to pin lung cancer specifically on marijuana is that most people who smoke it also smoke tobacco. Got a stat for this, by the way, or are we just supposed to take your word?

PWNT? Nope.

If you were at all educated in the ways of chemistry you would know they are referring to 9-carboxy-THC, the METABOLITE. God ur dumb.

But the list of ill effects is attributed to that metabolite. Who's dumb? Me, or the loser with the fried hippocampus?

PWNT? Nah.

The HIGH, has nothing to do with the "half life" you referred to as that was the METABOLITE, which doesn't get you high. After a few times, just like alcohol, a person will consistently know how long the high will last.

And also how long the loss of motor coordination will last? Are you saying that you believe both drunks and potheads when they tell you they can "handle it"? The science lies, and the dope- and booze-addled sages know it all?

PWNT? Hah.

What does BAC have to do with judging a dosage of cannabis? Do people measure their BAC as their drinking? NO.

But they can read a little chart that will tell them how much they can safely drink before driving, or how long they should wait if they drink too much. Is there such a chart for marijuana? Is one even possible?

PWNT? Hoo, hoo, hoo.

Many doctors whom specialize in this area of medical cannabis, cant think of names off the top of my head but if you would bother to educated yourself unbiasedly...

"Educated myself unbiasedly," huh? So I was right about those maverick docs. About that hippocampus, Baker...

Many medical users have said, first hand, how impossible it is to find the optimum dose even with marinol pills set out in specific doses...

Yes, and pot users are such trustworthy and unbiased souls, aren't they? Their real beef is that the pills don't get you high. It stands to reason they'd shoot down any non-psychotropic alternative.

Despite the irregularity in cannabis potency (which would be fixed with regulation btw) people are consistently able to judge the desired dosage...

The DESIRED dosage is NOT the REQUIRED dosage. This is MEDICINE, not a PARTY FAVOUR. No sensible physician would ever tolerate this loosy-goosy approach to dosage. However, it's entirely consistent with the "I don't give a shit" crowd.

Furthermore cannabis is not known for loss of memory during use...

Memory problems are a CLASSIC sign of heavy marijuana use. With alcohol, when you sober up, your memory works again. With pot, there is low-grade, long-term damage.

PWNAGE? Tee, hee.

So because someone who may have consumed cannabis, isnt imparted enough for an officer to make the call of impairment we should make it illegal?

I'm sorry; was that supposed to make sense?

Should we then also make pain killers illegal? Cough syrup? Anti-histamines? Perhaps we should create "emotion" detectors as many impairment caused accidents are caused by emotional impairment.

Here we go, down the laundry list of legitimate (and physician-approved) products. Man, it really sucks being out there in the wilderness, doesn't it?

Furthermore was the lack of a a breathalyzer (which still isnt found in even the majority of police cars) make the case for keeping alcohol illegal and continuing all of the negative consequences that prohibition creates?

Relative intoxication was readily detected using standard field sobriety tests. The problem was that they did not provide a physical, permanent record; the officer could in theory say you flunked even if he never administered the test at all. All the breathalyzer does is provide physical proof that can be presented at trial.

Just because cannabis is LESS INTOXICATING (as your point would claim) any reason to keep it illegal, or to have made it illegal in the first place?

How do you call a substance that subtracts two-thirds of your motor coordination after two joints less intoxicating than the equivalent of half a bottle of rum?

OWNAGE? Not even rentage.

Well you see, i like to use factual relevant examples when assessing what a consequence of an action would be. And as regulated sale has shown in places like the netherlands...

Didn't consumption increase to the point where the coffee shops (along with the brothels) were deemed a nuisance, with the result that they're now being closed down?

Furthermore the actual availability to the number of people (regulation would cut out youth) and the number of outlets which distribute this product will decrease.

Of course! Teens never smoke tobacco or drink beer.

Instead of a town of 14k having 10-20 different possible distributors, that would be reduced to 1-2. There were more speakeasy's in NY during prohibition then bars today.

Yet overall alcohol consumption in the U.S. dropped by half.

Or perhaps, they would need to test for the active chemicals and not the metabolites?

Why? To increase your chances of getting off? Depth perception can be substantially degraded up to 24 hours after smoking; there's no field test for that.

The proof/point came after through a logical examination of the facts, you declined to argue the POINT of that section...

You have offered NO PROOF OF THIS at all. Not one name, not one date, nothing. Again.

If you dont want to talk about this, dont start it.

I've talked about both. As usual, you concentrated on harping on the supposed harmlessness of pot. You don't even know what the extradition treaty's terms are, yet here you are, piping up.

My "flow of speech" was not about the legitimacy of the extradition, was it?

Precisely.

You see, i can find the general definition, but am unable to find out whether this is specifically the exact way that "dual criminality" is used in our agreement with the USA.

That's your problem, then, isn't it? Let us know when you find out. If you hadn't fried your brain, you might actually be able to learn new things.

was only looking to learn and discuss, but apparently thats not OK with you.

In a nutshell, the terms are that the signatories (the U.S. and Canada) will turn over one another's citizens for prosecution for offences committed in the other country, provided they are also offences in the host country. Possession of marijuana or viable seeds for the purposes of import or export are crimes in both countries, and in both countries the maximum sentence is life. So all requirements met there.

There is a clause that would allow refusal of extradition if the potential sentence would "shock the conscience of Canadians," but this is used primarily to extract promises that murderers will be spared the death penalty. It's a stretch to suppose it might be invoked to protect a notorious drug smuggler from a five-year sentence in a minimum-security institution.

All in all...

OWNED!

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-12 12:53:28 PM


So, Mike, now we're living in North Korea or Taliban Afghanistan?

No, the point is to show you what it looks like when I apply your same logical constructs to a different set of pre-conditions. It's an example of comparative reasoning.

I already understood before writing it that you'd reject it as an apples to oranges comparison carte blanche.

Of course it isn't. It demonstrates that your arguments are shallow.

If the law is the law is the law in Canada, then why isn't the law is the law is the law in North Korea? How do you draw the moral and ethical distinction?

When is it noble to break the law? When isn't it? You don't advance any theory or reasoning on this question. You simply dismiss any and all civil disobedience as criminals and drugged-up hippies.

You would say the distinction might be that drugs cause harm to society as a whole. But why can't the Taliban say that about women learning to read? Maybe Afghani women learning to read will destroy their Islamic culture. Perhaps that's a negative externality they're not willing to endure. For them, women's literacy is a crime. I see no reason why you would support the Afghani women on this matter.

They are simply criminals if they learn to read. Period. End of story. And the men who support them are criminal progressive hippies.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-03-12 1:08:23 PM


No, the point is to show you what it looks like when I apply your same logical constructs to a different set of pre-conditions. It's an example of comparative reasoning.

No, it's an example of crass hyperbole. For such a comparison to be valid, the two countries must have comparable laws and comparable legal systems with comparable protections. Kim-Jong-Il is a dangerously paranoid dictator who imprisons, starves, or shoots anyone he doesn't enslave. North Korea's mode of government and Canada's are completely incompatible. It is perfectly possible to live in Canada without breaking the law. There? Who knows?

I already understood before writing it that you'd reject it as an apples to oranges comparison carte blanche.

But you wrote it anyway.

Of course it isn't. It demonstrates that your arguments are shallow.

No, it demonstrates the ridiculous lengths to which you will go to make a point.

If the law is the law is the law in Canada, then why isn't the law is the law is the law in North Korea? How do you draw the moral and ethical distinction?

See above. And who says everyone in a North Korean jail cell has actually broken the law?

When is it noble to break the law? When isn't it? You don't advance any theory or reasoning on this question.

Because none was requested. Generally though, it is noble to break the law when the good done exceeds the harm done. It is tough to make that claim, though, when you're peddling dope you know will be smoked by teenagers.

You simply dismiss any and all civil disobedience as criminals and drugged-up hippies.

In this country, generally, yeah. We have it pretty good, and the ones manning the barricades are usually bitter losers.

You would say the distinction might be that drugs cause harm to society as a whole. But why can't the Taliban say that about women learning to read? Maybe Afghani women learning to read will destroy their Islamic culture.

Islamic theology is in no way threatened by female literacy (or the female clitoris, come to that). The wife of Mohammed (peace be upon him) was an accomplished businesswoman. The strictures of the Taliban are actually tribal traditions that predate Islam, as for that matter are the burqa and the niqab. As to dress, Islam requires only that the faithful "dress modestly." In its purest form, it's a surprisingly tolerant religion.

For them, women's literacy is a crime. I see no reason why you would support the Afghani women on this matter.

I can give you one very important reason: The Taliban are not Afghanistan. They're merely an especially virulent (and violent) sect thereof. Afghan women enjoyed considerable freedom before the Taliban seized power--violently, of course. They then proceeded to alienate the entire world, going so far as to destroy ancient statues that centuries of their Islamic ancestors had found perfectly inoffensive.

They are simply criminals if they learn to read. Period. End of story. And the men who support them are criminal progressive hippies.

Blah, blah. More outrageous hyperbole. This is what happens when you substitute fury for reason, and ignorance for fact, people. You become a mouthy twerp like Mike Brock.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-12 2:08:42 PM


Okay... so North Korean law is not acceptable because it's "too arbitrary"?

Wahabbiest sects of Islam are not "true Islam"?

And Taliban law is not legitimate because it doesn't represent Afghanistan?

You're a rationalization machine, Shane!

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-03-12 2:42:22 PM


Why compare this to North Korea or the Taliban? Emery would be in jail in any country in the world for his actions, except possibly Mexico or Colombia where the local drug lots would have killed him.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-03-12 2:48:22 PM


welcome to the more-heat-than-light forum on Marc Emery:

"Emery would be in jail in any country in the world for his actions...." opines Mr. Pike unequivocally.

Yet on March 3, 2010, we have this news item from Montreal:

"a Canadian seed-seller named Richard Baghdadlian, one of the few cases in history where a Canadian has faced charges for selling marijuana seeds, has just wrapped up in a Quebec courtroom.

A judge sentenced the wealthy Montreal businessman to two years less a day to be served in the community.

According to the few press reports available about the trial, court evidence showed Baghdadlian's online pot seed company was doing "booming business". His company, Heaven's Stairway, made about 3.5 million dollars between 2000 and 2005, through popular websites like Overgrow.com.".....

Posted by: palinurus | 2010-03-12 4:27:06 PM


Go ahead and keep making things up outrageous and contrarian shit, Mike. Compare us to North Korea, Afghanistan, the Third Reich. Continue putting the saving of lives on a level with throwing acid in the faces of schoolgirls. Churn that mud, sow that dissent, reap that crop of soul-withering bitterness. It won't stop the Justice Minister's hand from dancing across that piece of paper.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-12 4:27:35 PM


Maybe this guy had enough sense not to sell across the border like Emery did. Moreover, he was successfully prosecuted.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-03-12 4:35:41 PM


'Prince of Pot'? This guy is a joke. He'll be the prince of something else with his attitude when they throw him jail in the US. What a goof.

Posted by: PPO | 2010-03-12 5:02:53 PM


I don't think you're a Nazi, Shane. Or a supporter of the DPRK.

You do have serious authoritarian tendencies. When your moral preconditions are met, you fully endorse forcing others to observe them, with force.

You have stated people have no natural rights, only the rights the state gIves them. That's an authoritarian position when you break it down.

It may not be authoritarian on the level of Stalin, or even Hugo Chavez. But it's on the scale nonetheless. No matter how mitigated your version may be

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-03-12 5:17:30 PM


If the gov't agrees to the extradition request, they should return the vast amount of tax revenue they received from Marc Emery when he was selling his seeds.

I bet most of you anti-marijuana people are also the same ones who scream about the gun-registry 'stealing your rights'. And worst of all, you probably don't even understand why holding those two positions makes no sense.

Posted by: LobbyCanada | 2010-03-12 5:59:11 PM


Not at all, we need the guns to keep people like Emery at bay. People like him bring in the bad elements, and we the people have to fight back.

Oh yeah, like the government will give back any tax money. Pu-leeze.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-03-12 6:26:02 PM


You do have serious authoritarian tendencies. When your moral preconditions are met, you fully endorse forcing others to observe them, with force.

Enforcing compliance with the laws of any society must always be backed with the threat of force, physical or otherwise. They have no teeth otherwise.

You have stated people have no natural rights, only the rights the state gIves them. That's an authoritarian position when you break it down.

No, it's a realist position. You can award yourself all the "natural" rights you like, but the courts will only enforce those written on paper. Attempting to twist and expand the written rights to encompass your "natural" rights isn't likely to work either.

It may not be authoritarian on the level of Stalin, or even Hugo Chavez. But it's on the scale nonetheless. No matter how mitigated your version may be.

Everything is on the scale, Mike; by definition, it includes everything. This statement is completely meaningless, as is your whole post. You're making it all about the debaters, rather than about the topic. That is the mark of the amateur.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-12 9:01:34 PM


If the gov't agrees to the extradition request, they should return the vast amount of tax revenue they received from Marc Emery when he was selling his seeds.

How do you figure that? They were the proceeds of crime. In fact, the government has a legitimate case for swooping in and taking the rest.

I bet most of you anti-marijuana people are also the same ones who scream about the gun-registry 'stealing your rights'. And worst of all, you probably don't even understand why holding those two positions makes no sense.

Can the wedge-issue tactic, Lobby; it isn't gonna work. Lame, lame, lame, lame, LAME. Firearms have legitimate uses and the law recognizes that, placing limits on how and where they may be used. The same thing with marijuana. It may be used, but only under medical supervision. You can't smoke dope recreationally, and I can't use Granville Street as a shooting gallery.

P.S. I think the registry is a dumb law, but I comply with it, and I certainly don't buy illegal guns from gangsters. Compare this to marijuana smokers who DO buy their product from gangsters, thus funding organized crime. But then, I suppose I'm less of a narcissist than the average pothead...over the average libertarian.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-12 9:07:44 PM


I wonder how Harper will answer his You Tube questions, since 6 of the top ten are demanding legalization. I bet he pulls an Obama.

And on another note, I was bang on about Rahim Jaffer as well. A $500 fine? Sweet deal, where do I sign up? Ahh the conservative hypocrisy party is the line on the right.....

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-03-12 11:22:19 PM


And on another note, I was bang on about Rahim Jaffer as well. A $500 fine? Sweet deal, where do I sign up? Ahh the conservative hypocrisy party is the line on the right.....

Are you saying the Tories arranged the terms of the plea bargain? I thought judicial discretion was something you approved of. You specifically wanted the book thrown at this guy for doing something you don't think should be a crime (coke possession), simply because he was a Tory. Who's the hypocrite?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-12 11:28:05 PM


Negative Shane, what I am saying is why didn't the party stand up and say WTF? Anyone in the party. But I wouldn't be surprised if there was some wheeling and dealing going on. Lets see if that judge isn't appointed to something nice in the future. Hard to tell now.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-03-13 12:17:35 AM


Emery has done more harm than good to the decrim movement. He is egotistical, arrogant, and greedy. His pompous, confrontational approach has undermined those who operate through less 'in-your-face' tactics to move towards decriminalization in Canada. He has brought nothing but a negative light to the entire marijuana issue

If Americans started offering mail-order handguns to Canadians, what would our response be?

Hopefully, our Justice Minister signs the extradition papers soon so we can be rid of this moron.

Posted by: slipknot | 2010-03-13 2:18:47 AM


Shane and Zebulon: you guys need help. If you are not just cops paid to write anti-Marc Emery screeds, you both appear to be suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder...either that, or you both have a man-crush on for Emery.

The sheer quantity messages you guys have posted on the same subject...it has all the hallmarks of a stalker.

Get help. I mean that.

Posted by: Concerned Psychiatrist | 2010-03-13 5:50:54 AM


That sounds like an act of extreme desperation to me, one easily ignored and even laughed at. Emery is a criminal, unworthy to share the same space as the virtuous citizens.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-03-13 6:54:04 AM


And I suppose you consider yourself a "virtuous citizen" Zebulon?

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-03-13 7:30:24 AM


Of course. I impose no burden on society, and help whenever I can, the exact opposite of that drug dealer Emery.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-03-13 8:21:03 AM


Negative Shane, what I am saying is why didn't the party stand up and say WTF? Anyone in the party.

Well, Steve, let me put it this way. How many "law-abiding" pot smokers intend to stand up and protest the lenient terms of Marc Emery's plea bargain, when the maximum sentence for what he has done is life in prison? Out of respect for the law they so pointedly claim to abide by?

Lets see if that judge isn't appointed to something nice in the future. Hard to tell now.

Yes, especially since the terms of plea bargains, as well as which charges go forward and which are dropped, are worked out between the Crown and the accused, not the judge.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-13 9:31:15 AM


Shane and Zebulon: you guys need help. If you are not just cops paid to write anti-Marc Emery screeds, you both appear to be suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder...either that, or you both have a man-crush on for Emery.

Eww. Freud dude, the man is like a raisin. As in as shrivelled and wrinkled as. And if you look back through the thread, you'll find that's the worst I've said about him...most of my remarks have been about the validity of the pot law itself or the terms of the extradition treaty, not Marc Emery.

The sheer quantity messages you guys have posted on the same subject...it has all the hallmarks of a stalker.

That's because we're the ones everyone else challenges, you dipshit. Now, do you have anything substantive to add, or was that just you venting some vague feeling of frustration you can't quite articulate?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-13 9:41:23 AM


"Negative Shane, what I am saying is why didn't the party stand up and say WTF? Anyone in the party.

Well, Steve, let me put it this way. How many "law-abiding" pot smokers intend to stand up and protest the lenient terms of Marc Emery's plea bargain, when the maximum sentence for what he has done is life in prison? Out of respect for the law they so pointedly claim to abide by?"

Well there's an apples to oranges argument. Most pot smokers support legalization, not harsher punishment. Most Cons support harsher punishment, unless its one of their own, then they shut up. See what I'm getting at? Its all about vested interest. Its how they hope to get votes. I hope it blows up in their faces, but we will see. Also, it is not a life in prison offense in Canada, or the states for that matter. When they come for your guns Shane, we will see how much you like the "laws" then. Laws are subjective, and not always beneficial to anyone, except for a few people or institutions. They will come to take your guns someday Shane. If we follow the trend, it is going to happen. Are you going to be fine with that? Literally, laws are made to be broken. There is a huge industry built on it. What would happen if everyone stopped breaking the laws? They would make new ones, of course, to keep the system going. They do it all the time. No one person or group is to blame, it is the nature of the beast.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-03-13 4:26:10 PM


dear Concerned psychiatrist:

In my view, a professional would not use so may hip hop phrases, are somewhat glib in your your unsolicited analysis and are spamming for case work over the internet on a discussion website,

If I was a better person than I am i would not doubt you are a real psychiatrist, but view you as a drug wonked Wipehead tossing out fag bait flags to your intellectual betters in an argument

Please, what year did you graduate with a degree in the psychiatric sciences and from what accredited institution ?

Posted by: 419 | 2010-03-13 4:48:04 PM


419: want to guess what medication CP prescribes for everything?

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-03-13 4:53:25 PM


Well there's an apples to oranges argument. Most pot smokers support legalization, not harsher punishment.

What they support is irrelevant. They would happily have seen the book thrown at this one guy just because he once carried the Tory brand and given get-out-of-jail-free passes to everyone else. You are guilty of the same hypocrisy you accuse the Tories of.

See what I'm getting at? Its all about vested interest. Its how they hope to get votes. I hope it blows up in their faces, but we will see.

Or it could be because Tories are naturally less inclined to march up and down the streets yammering in protest, because they've actually gone through a process called "growing up."

Also, it is not a life in prison offense in Canada, or the states for that matter.

Yes, actually, Steve, it is:

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (1996)

Section 5

(1) No person shall traffic in a substance included in Schedule I, II, III, or IV or in any substance represented or held out by that person to be such a substance.

(2) No person shall, for the purpose of trafficking, possess a substance included in Schedule I, II, III, or IV.

(3) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2)

(a) subject to subsection (4), where the subject-matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule I or II, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.

AND ALSO:

Section 6

(1) Except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall import into Canada or export from Canada a substance included in Schedule I, II, III, IV, V, or VI.

(2) Except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall possess a substance included in Schedule I, II, III, IV, V, or VI for the purpose of exporting it from Canada.

(3) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2)

(a) Where the subject-matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule I or II, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.

Marijuana and viable seeds are in Schedule II.

Furthermore, according to Marc Emery, since he has sold more than 60,000 viable marijuana seeds, he qualifies for the death penalty, although in practical terms his life is safe because Canada will not extradite without an assurance he will not receive it; he omits that detail, of course.

So there it is, in black and white. In addition to being a criminal and a hypocrite, you're also a liar. Have you no personal honour at all?

When they come for your guns Shane, we will see how much you like the "laws" then.

Who said I liked "all" the laws? The point is I don't turn criminal simply because I disagree with them. And I certainly wouldn't start selling AK-47s via mail order if they took away my duck gun.

Literally, laws are made to be broken.

Spoken like a true criminal, Steve. Does that include the law that says I can't use any of those guns on you? You may have ideas as to what constitutes a moral crime, but so does everyone else, and they're all different. Laws are made to prevent the kind of chaos (read: anarchy) that would ensue otherwise.

What would happen if everyone stopped breaking the laws? They would make new ones, of course, to keep the system going.

Of course! Everything's a conspiracy. It's all about control. Steve, did you know that marijuana can induce psychosis, and that one of the signs of psychosis is delusions of persecution? Perhaps CP should be looking at you instead.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-03-13 8:08:52 PM


1 2 3 Next »

The comments to this entry are closed.