Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« UK voters take note of the Greek crisis | Main | No new dawn for the Liberal Democrats »

Thursday, May 06, 2010

Mandatory minimums and a lack of basic common sense

The government is reintroducing its mandatory minimum sentencing for cannabis growers. NDP Libby Davis hits the nail on the head:

New Democratic Party MP Libby Davies, a vocal opponent of mandatory minimum sentences for drug-related crimes, warned Wednesday that mandatory terms for drug crimes will cost billions because they will "clog up" the prison system.

Moreover, Nicholson has refused to supply any evidence that mandatory minimums deter crime, she said.

"He could not offer anything," said Davies. "This approach that they're running with is based on this U.S. experience that has been a colossal failure both politically, economically, and from a justice point of view. Why would we be crazy enough to repeat that in Canada?"

Two studies prepared for the Justice Department, one in 2002 and the other in 2005, say that mandatory minimums do not work.

In my graduate program at the University of Edinburgh they talk a lot about the importance of policy learning. This is the process by which politicians or officials take ideas that are of interest in other jurisdictions, study it, discern its successes and failures, then try and apply its lessons to their own jurisdiction. It is a method that is full of potential and pitfalls, but it is something that anyone who is interested in public policy should be active in.

This appears to be what the federal government has done: Looked at a policy in another jurisdiction, discovered that it did not work, and then decided to apply it anyway. It doesn’t matter if you are pro legalization of pot or not. This is something that goes beyond the issue of drugs and society. This is about basic common sense.

This policy does not work; all data show that it does not work. And the government has provided no evidence to the contrary. So why in the name of whatever you find holy is the government going ahead with this plan?

Minister Nicholson says that this policy will "send a message" that "if you sell or produce drugs, you'll pay with jail time."

Personally I think it sends the message that government policy and basic logic is not on speaking terms.

Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on May 6, 2010 | Permalink

Comments

oh yea, you also agree cannabis will never go away under prohibition as well. So you should be in full support of regulation...

Once again, the idiot light blinks. Zero or one. All or nothing. Nothing in between.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-07 12:00:22 PM


Hey isn't Monday, May 10, Emery's last day before he goes to jail? I won't celebrate since he did this voluntarily.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-05-07 12:18:32 PM


"...Both you and i agree the only harm possibly caused by the USE of cannabis is to the user..."

Baker thanks for all your help today,

pot smokers routinely share their drug
more than one Wipehead uses the same dose
pot smokers buy and sell to each other
thats a crowd already
and their drug must be grown and delivered
thats an industry- thats a world full of dope right there- new novice players taking it up everyday who won;t quit till trouble appears
do the math=
you are so darn reasonable today maybe you will see the forest and the trees are aspects of the same thing.. and if you look before 420, so is lumber and sawdust, termites and reforestation chainsaw oil... pic nic tables and popsicle sticks

Ask Marc Emery if the tumbling domino factor of the pot industry didn,t reach around & bite him in the ass.


Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-07 12:41:14 PM


Baker -
"LOL no. What i am saying is, Both you and i agree the only harm possibly caused by the USE of cannabis is to the user."
Shane-
"a) That’s not what you said, or what was even being discussed;"

SEE HERE SHANE....

BAKER -
"...fact is, cannabis use cant possibly hurt anyone but the user...."
SHANE -
"thanks Baker for that observation
We knew you'd get it right at some point"

"Actually, marijuana does provoke psychotic breaks and associated violence. Granted, this is rare, but more common than among those whose only drug is the more “dangerous” caffeine."

Not according to your posts from earlier when you concurred with me that "cannabis use cant possibly hurt anyone but the user".

"Harm reduction shifts the responsibility away from the user and onto society."

LOL no, it shifts the responsibility off of society, more specifically the tax payer/the innocent victoms of cartels in the situation of cannabis prohibition/regulation, and onto that of the user. With regulation the cannabis user would be paying tax's, tax dollars wouldnt be wasted on a victomless, extreamly safe activity. And cartels would loose the single largest source of income they have. Currently prohibition places the burdon on society, making them deal with the massive costs of cannabis enforcement, making society deal with these super rich gangs and cartels (which then cost more to crack down on due to prohibition), making society loose out on billions in easy tax's that could offset the tax burdon of the regular joe.

"Again, nothing but opinion and bald lies. I never said the things you said I said."

Lets go back...
Baker-
"...fact is, cannabis use cant possibly hurt anyone but the user...."
Shane-
"thanks Baker for that observation
We knew you'd get it right at some point"

Shane-
"If we get all tokers in Canada and the US to stop toking I’ll bet the drug violence in Mexico would drop to almost zero."

Yea, you never said those things shane.. Phh lol. So are you saying you were making bald lies, because im only saying what YOU said.

Posted by: Baker | 2010-05-07 12:47:28 PM


lol just me or does 419 get a little more crazy each day?

Posted by: Baker | 2010-05-07 12:54:34 PM


-shane
"That’s not what you said, or what was even being discussed; the subject under discussion was the efficacy of imprisonment"

Ok so back to the first point? Look into this study.

Article-
(AP)
"Study links drug enforcement to more violence"

"A systematic review published Tuesday of more than 300 international studies dating back 20 years found that when police crack down on drug users and dealers, the result is almost always an increase in violence, say researchers at the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy, a nonprofit group based in Britain and Canada."

Where is your evidence that they DO work? There's the results 300 studies right there technically. Where is 1 supporting your claims?

Posted by: Baker | 2010-05-07 1:12:09 PM


lol, oops, url:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5guOEw7_J3ArANWgM4t1QiLG_6jnAD9FB7R0G3

You should finally read it shane.

Posted by: Baker | 2010-05-07 1:30:12 PM


SEE HERE SHANE....

BAKER: "...fact is, cannabis use cant possibly hurt anyone but the user...."

SHANE: "thanks Baker for that observation.We knew you'd get it right at some point"

That was 419. I knew you couldn’t write. I didn’t know you couldn’t read.

Not according to your posts from earlier when you concurred with me that "cannabis use cant possibly hurt anyone but the user".

See above. Man, the way your brain is wired, I can actually hear the fuses blowing.

LOL no, it shifts the responsibility off of society, more specifically the tax payer/the innocent victoms of cartels in the situation of cannabis prohibition/regulation, and onto that of the user.

Harm reduction involves the mitigation of the effects of drug abuse. The addict isn’t going to mitigate the effects of his habit, any more than he bothers to mitigate the habit. It’s all on society’s dime, Baker.

With regulation the cannabis user would be paying tax's, tax dollars wouldnt be wasted on a victomless, extreamly safe activity. And cartels would loose the single largest source of income they have.

What makes you think potheads would pay taxes on legal pot when they can get illegal pot for less? They’ve been willing to break the law and fund the cartels up to now.

Currently prohibition places the burdon on society, making them deal with the massive costs of cannabis enforcement, making society deal with these super rich gangs and cartels (which then cost more to crack down on due to prohibition), making society loose out on billions in easy tax's that could offset the tax burdon of the regular joe.

Give your head a shake, Baker. Estimates of the value of an unregulated, undocumented industry that does not publish quarterly reports are notoriously fantasy-ridden. They say pot’s not addicting, but after watching tokers try every kind of end run imaginable, from medical marijuana to unprovable conspiracies to “tax ’n’ regulate,” rather than simply quit, you gotta wonder.

Lets go back...

Yes, let’s. To the point where you fucked the dog up the ass, sideways, with a 19-inch zucchini.

Yea, you never said those things shane.

Actually, I did say that. A point you try to dismiss by burying it bullshit. Consider your surrender accepted, Baker.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-07 1:47:12 PM


LOL being very mature shane, How about you debate the facts of the study. Or present research into your position? Oh yea because it a completely useless person who cant back a single point he makes with actual research or data. We dont live in a fantasy world based on your mind, its time you looked at the facts of life. Ignorance and vulgar terms are no excuse. Educate yourself its easy.

Posted by: Baker | 2010-05-07 1:55:03 PM


Fact is manditory mins do nothing to reduce drug crime or any crime for that matter, and infact in most cases cracking down on drugs instigates violence. And in the case of cannabis, the only violence or harm to others is caused by in insane profits funneled to organized crime through prohibition. Cannabis itself is not the problem, its the prohibition of it that kills people. Time to stop hopping a policy will just happen to somehow work after 80 years of complete failure. Time to get smart on crime.

But i mean, if you want to be Einstein's definition of insane, by all means shane give er. But remember, your on the same side as organized crime on this issue, have fun.

Posted by: Baker | 2010-05-07 2:04:44 PM


Organized crime, Shane, 419, and zeb. All support cannabis prohibition... Strange bed fellows no? Perhaps we should be looking into this.

Posted by: Baker | 2010-05-07 2:10:56 PM


Easily hundreds likely thousands, and im speaking only of those whom have some sort of celebrity there are thousands more who are not in the public eye.

Translation: You don’t know and can’t prove it, but you believe it, because the alternative is too lonely and too depressing. And I notice you didn’t address the difference between onetime users and current users.

You have seen lists dont act ignorant all of a sudden shane.

But the proof to back up those lists? Remember, current use?

How do you feel being less successful then many many stoners shane?

I feel fine, since I’m more likely to lead a normal family life. Remember, current users.

PS, look up a special called "stiletto stoners". Educate yourself.

Look up “responsibility.” Educate yourself.

Yea when someone is high/drunk at work. Im not saying people should be high at work, and have said many times it should be regulated just like alcohol.

Regulating alcohol hasn’t prevented drinking on the job (which technically isn’t illegal for most people anyway).

People using it on their own time has nothing to do with their performance at work just like people whom drink a beer or two after work.

A beer or two after work over a lifetime won’t bake your brain. A toke or two after work over a lifetime will.

The product doesnt matter, and even tho it was cannabis seeds, he paid income tax's like a regulate business, everything.

“The product doesn’t matter”? Maybe not to an outlaw like you who is so desperate to gain some credibility in his stupid “hundreds of thousands of successful and highly intelligent and articulate stoners” that the bets he can do is a criminal. And since ALL the profits of his business are the proceeds of crime, the government has the right to seize it all. Every penny.

Sure, he was “successful,” as you count such things…but he owes more money to the government than I ever will.

And it was very successful, more successful then any business you have ever created most likely.

So are the cartels. How much faster are you willing to run in this race to the dregs, Baker?

Business is business.

Would you take that expansive view if a professional hit man knocked on your door and announced his intention to rub you out?

And the fact smoking cannabis, even large amounts, does not take away ones ability to be successful.

In crime.

Cannabis doesnt either, infact has been shown to stimulate brain cell growth and to mitigate damage cause by other things.

Then why are all the potheads on this forum semi-literate fucktards? I have yet to see even one of these “hundreds of thousands” of “highly successful” potheads on this board. There are many intelligent and articulate writers here, but few if any admit to smoking pot. This is why it’s not a good idea to be hasty in elevating questionable lab results to the status of “settled” science, Baker.

Does that change the fact they still have completed university degrees? The fact is stoners get educated, and cannabis doesnt stop them.

Education does not equal intelligence, or even common sense. I’ve debated numerous examples of “educated” stoners and there wasn’t a single one I couldn’t waste with words. I even handed a professor his ass; in spite of his “education” he was all spluttery and indignant and went on at length about how he felt about things, and what a savage I was for not agreeing with him. Is this what “education” does to people, Baker? Make them into petulant and childish bigots?

Are you retarded? How about all the women whom say "dam i shouldnt have fucked that guy last night".

Women get buyer’s remorse with or without alcohol. They are in the delicate position of potentially facing an unwanted pregnancy. It’s not that they didn’t want or enjoy the sex itself. It’s that they soaked their frontal lobes in whisky and so didn’t reflect on the consequences down the road.

You are arguing against the very properties of being drunk, people black out all the time and cant remember entire nights.

That doesn’t mean they transformed into something they’re not meanwhile. Drink shuts down your frontal lobes (inhibitions, thinking, higher brain functions) first, and then moves back to memory, coordination, emotions, and ultimately the midbrain. Its function is that of a simple depressant. It doesn’t rewire your brain; it just puts it in neutral.

Cannabis however does not cause blackouts, does not cause people to do things they normally wouldnt (ie. the classic lamp shade on head).

That’s pretty much the definition of psychosis, actually.

You obviously kno nothing about the legal drugs, why are you attempting to argue about the illegal ones?

I know how to spell “know.” God, you’re a shithead. I think you should bring around some of your “extremely successful, highly intelligent” pot-smoking friends, because you’re clearly not one of them.

PRODUCED, important word shane.

No, unimportant. Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, or doesn’t count. Another trait of the instant-gratification dope fiend crowd—the belief that only things that affect them actually exist.

Like you have said the use cant possibly hurt anyone but the end user.

Idiot light. Idiot light. DOUBLE idiot light, actually, because it was 419 that said that. Remember what I said about the busted inputs?

How about we just look at cannabis rallies lol…

How about we don’t?

…would be a better indicator of cannabis users deminor then random rallies of your choosing lol.

Okay, let’s talk about the gun scare at Toronto 420.

So you believe the violence in mexico would be almost 0 if the illegal production stopped? WELL THATS CALLED REGULATION YOU IDIOT.

Firearms are regulated; has that stopped the black market for firearms? Have you proved that lawless tokers would suddenly start obeying the law if offered a choice that would cost them more money? NO YOU HAVEN’T, YOU FUCKING MORON.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-07 2:11:06 PM


"Firearms are regulated; has that stopped the black market for firearms?"

Cannabis is completly prohibited, yet makes it into JAILS lol. You dont like the gun reg because it does nothing to accomplish its goals, just like prohibition of cannabis buddy.

Posted by: Baker | 2010-05-07 2:13:19 PM


Ok so back to the first point? Look into this study.

Sorry, Baker, you can't introduce the same evidence twice as if it's new each time. This study has to do with increased enforcement, not increased prison terms.

Where is your evidence that they DO work?

The lowest crime rate in 30 years. That is established fact. The conclusions of this think-tank are just someone's opinion.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-07 2:13:41 PM


Close tag.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-07 2:13:59 PM


lol, oops, url:

It's okay, Baker. I found it even with your neolithic incompetence. Glad you pot users are successful, highly articulate, and intelligent, and that pot doesn't affect your ability to perform. Yes, sir.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-07 2:15:16 PM


"Have you proved that lawless tokers would suddenly start obeying the law if offered a choice that would cost them more money?"

Look at MM cards in the states. People WILL get licenced to smoke legally and the dispensary business there is booming. I bet Canadians would walk into a shop if made legal. Have you proved they wont? lol

Posted by: Baker | 2010-05-07 2:15:17 PM


Cannabis is completly prohibited...

No, it's regulated. It's available with prescription.

yet makes it into JAILS lol

Along with everything else, including guns. Corruption is responsible for that, not laws.

You dont like the gun reg because it does nothing to accomplish its goals, just like prohibition of cannabis buddy.

Once again, the idiot light blinks, and the great data cycle churns round and round.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-07 2:17:05 PM


LOL being very mature shane, How about you debate the facts of the study.

How about YOU? You haven't even quoted it. You couldn't even get the link right on the first try. That's how useless you are.

Or present research into your position?

You mean like crime stats that are falling like rocks? Are we supposed to ignore that, and listen to the soothing sounds of one think-tank's voices?

We dont live in a fantasy world based on your mind, its time you looked at the facts of life.

You mean like "actions have consequences," "people who break the law are criminals," and "no one is responsible for me but me"?

Educate yourself its easy.

Apparently it's more than you could manage.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-07 2:20:29 PM


lol, until you actually post research and factual information not your own rhetoric you have nothing, only your own opinion, have fun buddy. Ill take it that no research actually supports your opinion you have presented because your too lazy to even give the slightest reference. Have fun being an imbecile.

Posted by: Baker | 2010-05-07 2:24:00 PM


"A systematic review published Tuesday of more than 300 international studies dating back 20 years found that when police crack down on drug users and dealers, the result is almost always an increase in violence, say researchers at the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy, a nonprofit group based in Britain and Canada."

BZZT YOU LOOSE!

Posted by: Baker | 2010-05-07 2:24:38 PM


Shane Matthews: I'm not a pot smoker. Nor am I a libertarian. And, most certainly, I am not anti-social.

Those who throw people into cages, or who kill them, or expropriate them - people who have not violated any other person's life, liberty or property - have no ground to call themselves anything but anti-social. How did Joe Potsmoker's smoking of pot, in his living room, do anything to your life, liberty or property? It didn't.

You're response - save your breath - will be something like: "Yeah, but he bought it from a guy who uses violence, so the smoker endangers me". That's irrational. On that ground, you should go to jail if your ancestors were slave owners, or if the guy who sold you a shirt used the money to hire a hit man.

Posted by: Paul McKeever | 2010-05-07 2:29:56 PM


until you actually post research and factual information, only your own opinion...

Cut the prima donna routine, Baker. I've posted more facts in the past than you could possibly enumerate, from unbiased sites. History books. Crime statistics. You, on the other hand, can't do any better than celebrity lists and a couple of think tanks who admit their conclusions "seem counterintuitive, but..."

Sorry, but when I want to learn the merits of vaccination, I ask a real doctor, not Jenny McCarthy.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-07 2:30:12 PM


Shane Matthews: I'm not a pot smoker. Nor am I a libertarian. And, most certainly, I am not anti-social.

So what made you think I was talking to you?

Those who throw people into cages, or who kill them, or expropriate them - people who have not violated any other person's life, liberty or property - have no ground to call themselves anything but anti-social.

What if they're selling biological agents? Or nuclear weapons? Or explosives to known terrorists? As before, Paul, you demonstrate the utmost simplicity of thinking. Running a society takes more wisdom than evinced by this elementary level of cogitation.

Yeah, but he bought it from a guy who uses violence, so the smoker endangers me". That's irrational.

Tell it to the families of the two innocent bystanders in the Surrey Six. Or, for that matter, any innocent caught in the crossfire. The truth is never irrational, although it is inconvenient for a great many people, because it often forces a change in thinking.

On that ground, you should go to jail if your ancestors were slave owners...

Remote past offered as proof of present danger. Do you not realize how inane that is? Was this the first thought that leaped into your head, and did you give it the least scrutiny? Because it sure doesn't look like it.

or if the guy who sold you a shirt used the money to hire a hit man.

If I knew there was a reasonable probably he would use that money to hire a hit man, then, yes. Like drug users are under any illusions about the kind of people they do business with.

Honestly, does no one think anymore?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-07 2:36:36 PM


Dude, your the one not thinking.. Its ridiculously sad if you believe the things your saying.

Posted by: Baker | 2010-05-07 2:44:43 PM


P.S. Did that study you love to quote examine long-term trends, Baker, or only short-term spikes? Or does it even say? Did you think to ask? No. You never think at all. If ever you did, you probably came to some conclusions about yourself that unsettled you so much that you resolved never to think about anything again, ever. That would certainly explain your glib insolence and ceaseless parroting.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-07 2:46:33 PM


"A systematic review published Tuesday of more than 300 international studies dating BACK 20 YEARS found that when police crack down on drug users and dealers, the result is almost always an increase in violence, say researchers at the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy, a nonprofit group based in Britain and Canada."

READ YOU IMBECILE!! "20 years"

Wheres your study? I must have missed the link.

Posted by: Baker | 2010-05-07 2:49:24 PM


"...lol just me or does 419 get a little more crazy each day??..."

doth say the wise and ever profound Baker
to which I reply with all due respect

- it's just you

Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-07 2:49:42 PM


Please shane, tell us what drugs/activity's have made you the way you are, so we avoid them at all costs.

Posted by: Baker | 2010-05-07 2:51:46 PM


Sadder still that you blame others for your own choices. If you are truly a rudderless piece of chaff, do us a favour and blow away. You can come back when you learn how to steer.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-07 2:51:58 PM


Anyway, ill let you wallow in your ignorance. Time to rip some games on on my banging new rig, peace dumbass.

Posted by: Baker | 2010-05-07 2:53:33 PM


Hey Shane!

Do you understand the concept of "life, liberty, and property"? Think about it. Because your answer to Paul was pretty stupid.

Comparing pot smoking to selling arms to known terrorists ... damn you're stupid.

Posted by: Charles | 2010-05-07 2:57:02 PM


Hey Shane, a few polite rebuttals to your comments on my comments on your comment :)

[i]Marijuana has been illegal in Canada for 85 years.[/i]

I know, and my (admittedly snarky) comment was not meant to imply that we are criminalizing anything new with this bill. Instead, I meant to convey the idea that the definition of "criminal" is easy to change. You seem rather keen on lowering crime rates; surely you can see that if cannabis were legalized, there would be a drastic reduction in "crime" simply because all the cannabis smokers and growers (assuming they were growing within whatever legal restrictions accompanied legalization) would no longer be criminals.

Of course there would still be a black market, just as there is with alcohol and tobacco. Repealing alcohol prohibition decimated the black market. Why wouldn't the same happen for cannabis? My answer to comebacks along the lines of "Pot smokers already buy from illegal sources. Do you really think they are going to change?" is "Yes. It won't be overnight, but legal distribution will eventually take over, just as it did with alcohol."

[i]People who grow and distribute drugs tend to be repeat offenders. Actually, they tend to be career offenders--the very type we want to come down hard on.[/i]

So that's the hardcore 10% of offenders we both agree should be cracked down on. You are still painting the other 90% with the same mandatory minimum sentence brush. What about them?

[i]Actually, Canada's property crime rate is significantly higher.[/i]

The Government of Canada stats I linked to contradict your statement, and you did not link to any stats.

[i]But if the focus of your objection is that Canada policy substantially apes U.S. policy, and U.S. policy has resulted in a crime drop, and Canadian policy also has resulted in a crime drop, what is your objection again???[/i]

My objection is that we have successfully reduced crime without aping an overly punitive and extremely expensive policy.

[i]How many thousand? And can you actually back this up? Because real penalties for simple possession in the U.S., as opposed to theoretical maximums, tend to be not much harsher than Canada's.

. . .according to the Justice Department statistics I read, over 50% of incarcerated Americans are locked up for violent crime. Drug offenders contribute only 19% to the total, and as noted above, these are hardline pushers who frequently have violence and weapons charges to go along with their trafficking charges.[/i]

Check out this page: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1763

Appendix Table 17 lists incarceration rates "by most serious crime". I assume that violent crimes are considered more serious than drug offenses, and therefore the numbers shown for drug incarcerations involve non-violent offenders. The violent drug offenders would be group into the "violent crime" category.

95,079 drug offenses out of 182,333 total offenses is 52%.

I was unable to find up to date stats for possession offences, but this page suggests that a full 10.8% of federal inmates in 2002 were there for simple possession: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/dcf/correct.cfm

Of course, none of these stats breaks down what drugs people were arrested for.

[i]No, that has to do with hippie judges who think that convicted felons should get better housing than some taxpayers.[/i]

Nice straw man. I made no comment on the quality of life prisoners should be given. I was pointing out that California's penal system is having serious budget and overcrowding problems, and at the same time they are blowing space and money on imprisoning non-violent offenders.

Cheers!

Posted by: MJ | 2010-05-07 4:52:12 PM


Oops, how the heck do you do BBCode on here?

Cue ad hominem attacks about how I couldn't possibly be right about anything because I don't know how to make italic text :\

Posted by: MJ | 2010-05-07 4:54:24 PM


“Extremist? You’re a lying sack of shit. You know the statement you just made is bullshit. Pot smokers pay the expenses of murderers and fuel the violence. That sounds like accessory to murder to me.”

I’m a lying sack of shit am I? You’re delusional. By your logic, we should also be after your church as well. Religion fuels violence and murder like no other, except the monetary system. The money you give to your church goes to pay your priests to molest and kill children, who babble such nonsense as this gem, straight from your Arch Bishop (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sls5dF6I6AI&playnext_from=TL&videos=AX_himjeYUg), who try to enforce stupid contraception beliefs on the poor that causes further misery, to the wars in the name of god, to the persecution of those that don’t fit your narrow views. No one would put as much effort into this argument with out some sort of vested interest. What’s yours? How about your 2 amigos? You know what my interest is. Are you trying to save me?

“Of course. No one is responsible for what you do except everybody else”

Of course I am responsible for my own decisions, or at least the ones I can control. It is when you start telling me that I must follow your moral beliefs that we start to have problems. And that’s what this is to you. Crusader Shane.

“That doesn’t erase the fact that you are an accessory to murder. That’s just what you tell yourself to convince yourself it’s okay”
Right back at you buddy.
“Bold words, outlaw. Do you need any further proof that you have a criminal mentality, and would have even if there were no laws at all? The flaw is not in the law; it’s in you.”
If you mean “criminal mentality” to be one who wants freedom from the opinions and beliefs of others, then that’s me. Hey dumbo, if there where no laws, there would be no criminals. The flaw is the law.

“And by “failure,” you mean “reducing addiction rates by 50%,” am I right?”
I don’t know where you got that stat. But it is highly suspect. And yes, it is still a failure, until we deal with the root cause of the drug problem, its never going to change. Even if it is legal. At least if its legal, it will be out in the open where we can really make an attempt to deal with the problem.

“Lots of people, like you, do not think at all. It’s all about fuh-fuh-feelings and how the world needs to get off your nuts.”

Ah, the Shane defense. It was lame then, and it’s lame now. You do not think. It is obvious. God does your thinking for you. You are subservient to an imaginary creature. There is little logic in your religion, its all about fuh-fuh-feelings you asshole.

“Don’t tempt me. Would we even notice they were gone?”

Would we notice if your church was gone?

“Our armies are composed of volunteers, the great majority of whom will tell you they believe in what they’re doing.”

Because we teach our children that it is good to die for your Country, or your God. Both imaginary constructs. Also, poverty has a big roll in the volunteerism in the military. If you cared at all about your children, you would never allow them to join the military.

“Of course! It’s always MUCH easier to find a product when the supply is restricted.”

It is not about how easy it is to find. It’s about how you find it. In a society that actually gave a shit about people, they wouldn’t force people to deal with what you call the criminals, to get something as harmless as pot.

“Nor will the war against crime. It’s a balancing act. Of course, you’d like to see that war fail too, wouldn’t you?”

I would like to see all wars fail. And it’s funny how you term crime as a war. Is that so you can fuh-fuh-feel better about killing people? I could solve the root cause of most of the crime that exists today, with one simple action. End the money system.

“Screamed the blood-spattered dope fiend”
Screamed the blood splattered zealot.
“Are you arguing those are good things? Man, you are messed up, aren’t you?”

No you idiot, I am saying you and your religion are hypocritical. You preach against intelligence in all those areas. Or if you actually preach the right thing, like against greed, you ignore it and fill up your bank accounts at the expense of others. You idiots scream about the horrors of homosexuality, then turn around and fuck little boys. You support the church, so by your logic, you support the abuse of children. Are you getting the picture yet?

“Actually, part of the Christian faith is penance and absolution. All sin, including priests, but a difference is recognized between the remorseful and the flippantly provocative.”

No, penance and absolution are part of the Catholic faith, not all Christians follow that doctrine. I believe, and correct me if I’m wrong, that according to your faith, only a priest can communicate with God. Only a priest can absolve your sins. So you can just get out there and sin your ass off, then a quick visit to the priest and you’re good to go. Do you not see a problem with that?

“Pretty much the whole Christian world, including places as far apart as Russia and South America. Did Aslinger and Company have them all on speed dial?”

Boy, you are really coming off the rails. You answered your own question with the term “Christian world”. And it just carried on from there, because people were, and are, stupid ignorant beings for the most part.

“Actually, the Christianization of Europe was accomplished largely through missionaries and was mostly peaceful. In fact, early Christians braved fierce persecution.”

Oh really? Explain the Crusades? The Inquisitions? Witch burning? The Middle East. And all the other wars and atrocities committed in the name of Christ. Peaceful my ass.
Like the persecution of homosexuals? Of abortionists? Of any religion that is not yours? Of any position that doesn’t meet your holinesses position? Hypocrites.

“Can you PROVE that this was the result of Christian values? Because up to now you’ve been parroting the common view that this was the result of racism and xenophobia.”

Nope, not at the moment. I was just trying to think of the religious expressions of others being quashed by your religion. So perhaps my analogy is incorrect. I will give this some thought and research when I have the time. I’m sure it won’t be too hard.

“Then it should be no problem for you to produce that piece of Church policy that forbids it.”
Sure, no problem. Here you go.

-If you have a copy of the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (and you really should), section 2291 makes it quite clear that, yes, Marijuana is indeed "a grave offense".-
Taken from this website. http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=214554

“I know; it sucks to be reminded you’re a blood-soaked scumbag, doesn’t it?”

Right back at you again, bible thumper.

“How do you know? This is an unregulated, undocumented industry. Do Mexican growers embed a unique identifier code in their marijuana’s DNA that makes it easy to trace? Do drug dealers normally invite such traces? Babble, babble, thrash and scrabble.”

How do you know it is? I know because I smoke pot, and I know what pot looks like that has been processed for transportation. Mexican pot is generally substandard. We call it “ditch weed”. I haven’t seen Mexican pot in Canada since the 80s. Since then, we have learned to grow a far superior product here in Canada, and no one is going to trade good weed, for shit weed. There might be some, but not very much. Ask any Canadian pot smoker when the last time they smoked Mexican weed was, and they will say the last time they vacationed in Mexico. It just doesn’t make it to our shores very often. Why would it when the market for their product is local. And we have a much better product here?
“No, the users and their desire provide the market. Sorry, but you can’t escape that reality. It’s all you, baby”

That’s right, the users and thier desire provide the market. Your laws make it a black market. That is the reality, its all you, baby.

“What, no mention of priests that time? I thought it was a Christian initiative. No wait, it isn’t. Hold up, yes it is. No, wait…”

Ha ha, you a funny man. Lets look at the beliefs of the politicians and law men that brought this in. Without a doubt, almost all religious men. And those that weren’t where most likely liking their paychecks.

“Uh huh. And the laws against stealing are responsible for the deaths of anyone who’s murdered by a mugger. Babble, babble, thrash and scrabble”

No, the monetary system is responsible for that. When you force people to need money to survive, this is one of the aberrations or distortions that arise from it.

“IT’S MY BODY, AND I’LL TOKE IF I WANT TO! TOKE IF I WANT TO!!! Dude, that is so 1960s. Like squaresville, man. Grow the fuck up, would you”

All that says is that the position in 1960 is still valid today. You’re the one who professes his love for an imaginary being, and leads his life by this imaginary beings supposed utterances. Do you believe in Santa Claus Shane? The Easter Bunny? No? Why? I would say you are the one who needs to grow the fuck up.

” But they don’t, so they can’t, and the guilt is still yours”

Now I’m guilt ridden am I? Again with your religious projections. The argument of “If you all stopped buying, they would stop selling” is ridiculous, to say the least. Hence the reply. Maybe if you all stopped praying to imagination, maybe the world would have a better chance at peace.

“This is a recording…CLICK”

Oh that’s so clever. Aren’t you a clever child? Maybe you could use the phrase “I’m rubber, your glue….” It’s about your speed.

“When that money is used by armed criminals to wage campaigns of violence that often snare innocent bystanders, yeah.”

You are truly fucked up. How do you sleep at night with that kind of thinking? Armed criminals are adults. Fully aware of what they are doing. Children molested by your buddies do not do what happens willingly. Or are duped by them into believing it’s alright.

“So by all means, let’s add more, huh? Do you even think before you post this piffle? Your last synapse died of loneliness, didn’t it?”

Did you? Where did I say, “lets add more”? I merely pointed out your hysterics. I propose a solution to that violence; you propose to let it continue. Stay the course you say, regardless of how many people die, or have their lives destroyed by your laws. Insanity.

“Apparently you do, because you never stop yapping about it. Just part of your endless quest for people to blame for your own criminality.”

Yes, I am bringing it up, because I want people to see where you are coming from, and to see the weakness of your argument. You might as well drop the pretense and just get on here and say “God says you shouldn’t smoke weed or you will go to hell”, because that is where all this comes from in you. I am not blaming anyone. I am blaming the system we have set up for ourselves that cause these problems. If you don’t understand that, well, that’s up to you.

“And you and other stoners alone know better, huh?”

Another BS statement. Lots of stoners are believers. I would say anyone with a modicum of common sense and intelligence would reject your theories of divine governance. Athiesm is the fastest growing “religion” in the western world. Makes sense as the western world also has or had the best education system.

“I thought you said you didn’t care what the Church had done. I’ve already listed the good works they’ve done. Noticeably absent in your reply is anything worthwhile you have done."

Ok, here is what I do for the common good of the people in my area. I offer my café computers to anyone over 55 for free. On Tuesdays, I teach the elderly how to use their computers, for free. I am running for council here in September on a platform to use the money we have in surplus ( at present about 2 million) to build hydroponics greenhouses to provide free as possible food to everyone who lives here. I may not win of course, but I actually do care about the people I can help. How about you Godboy? What do you do besides tossing some change in the plate every Sunday?

“Of course! We’d all be living in a Venus Project Shangri-La; thus saith the stoner. (And the blood-soaked murderer.)”

Nice try retard. Try giving it some thought next time. What do you think the world would be like with out the concept of God? You can’t even imagine it, can you? You blood soaked fanatic.

“Really? I was under the impression that great strides in science were made under the auspices of Islam in the Middle Ages. The Buddhist Chinese did pretty good too. And despite dropping the ball in a number of cases (notably Galileo’s), once the Renaissance was in full swing the Church offered little resistance. It even made some contributions, notably the discovery of modern genetics by the monk Mendel.”

Your impression is wrong. Although there was some forward movement, in general religion has worked to maintain the status quo, to maintain their power. Progression is anathema to religion.

“It’s never about religion. Religion was just the hook on which a few murderous individuals hung their causes to give them a sheen of respectability. Sort of how like old potheads are cloaking their cause in the flag of libertarianism. You know the drill”

The blinders are on firmly today ay Shane? No, they didn’t massacre the Saracens because of their religion. Or the Jews. Or women. Or Native Americans. So in conclusion, your religious belief and the problems it has caused is far worse than anything pot has done, and yet here you are, pounding the stump for prohibition. Perhaps a gaze in the mirror is in order when you accuse others of being “blood soaked”.



“Extremist? You’re a lying sack of shit. You know the statement you just made is bullshit. Pot smokers pay the expenses of murderers and fuel the violence. That sounds like accessory to murder to me.”
I’m a lying sack of shit am I? You’re delusional. By your logic, we should also be after your church as well. Religion fuels violence and murder like no other, except the monetary system. The money you give to your church goes to pay your priests to molest and kill children, who babble such nonsense as this gem, straight from your Arch Bishop (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sls5dF6I6AI&playnext_from=TL&videos=AX_himjeYUg), who try to enforce stupid contraception beliefs on the poor that causes further misery, to the wars in the name of god, to the persecution of those that don’t fit your narrow views. No one would put as much effort into this argument with out some sort of vested interest. What’s yours? How about your 2 amigos? You know what my interest is. Are you trying to save me?

“Of course. No one is responsible for what you do except everybody else”

Of course I am responsible for my own decisions, or at least the ones I can control. It is when you start telling me that I must follow your moral beliefs that we start to have problems. And that’s what this is to you. Crusader Shane.

“That doesn’t erase the fact that you are an accessory to murder. That’s just what you tell yourself to convince yourself it’s okay”
Right back at you buddy.
“Bold words, outlaw. Do you need any further proof that you have a criminal mentality, and would have even if there were no laws at all? The flaw is not in the law; it’s in you.”
If you mean “criminal mentality” to be one who wants freedom from the opinions and beliefs of others, then that’s me. Hey dumbo, if there where no laws, there would be no criminals. The flaw is the law.
“And by “failure,” you mean “reducing addiction rates by 50%,” am I right?”
I don’t know where you got that stat. But it is highly suspect. And yes, it is still a failure, until we deal with the root cause of the drug problem, its never going to change. Even if it is legal. At least if its legal, it will be out in the open where we can really make an attempt to deal with the problem.
“Lots of people, like you, do not think at all. It’s all about fuh-fuh-feelings and how the world needs to get off your nuts.”
Ah, the Shane defense. It was lame then, and it’s lame now. You do not think. It is obvious. God does your thinking for you. You are subservient to an imaginary creature. There is little logic in your religion, its all about fuh-fuh-feelings you asshole.
“Don’t tempt me. Would we even notice they were gone?”
Would we notice if your church was gone?
“Our armies are composed of volunteers, the great majority of whom will tell you they believe in what they’re doing.”
Because we teach our children that it is good to die for your Country, or your God. Both imaginary constructs. Also, poverty has a big roll in the volunteerism in the military. If you cared at all about your children, you would never allow them to join the military.
“Of course! It’s always MUCH easier to find a product when the supply is restricted.”
It is not about how easy it is to find. It’s about how you find it. In a society that actually gave a shit about people, they wouldn’t force people to deal with what you call the criminals, to get something as harmless as pot.
“Nor will the war against crime. It’s a balancing act. Of course, you’d like to see that war fail too, wouldn’t you?”
I would like to see all wars fail. And it’s funny how you term crime as a war. Is that so you can fuh-fuh-feel better about killing people? I could solve the root cause of most of the crime that exists today, with one simple action. End the money system.
“Screamed the blood-spattered dope fiend”
Screamed the blood splattered zealot.
“Are you arguing those are good things? Man, you are messed up, aren’t you?”
No you idiot, I am saying you and your religion are hypocritical. You preach against intelligence in all those areas. Or if you actually preach the right thing, like against greed, you ignore it and fill up your bank accounts at the expense of others. You idiots scream about the horrors of homosexuality, then turn around and fuck little boys. You support the church, so by your logic, you support the abuse of children. Are you getting the picture yet?
“Actually, part of the Christian faith is penance and absolution. All sin, including priests, but a difference is recognized between the remorseful and the flippantly provocative.”
No, penance and absolution are part of the Catholic faith, not all Christians follow that doctrine. I believe, and correct me if I’m wrong, that according to your faith, only a priest can communicate with God. Only a priest can absolve your sins. So you can just get out there and sin your ass off, then a quick visit to the priest and you’re good to go. Do you not see a problem with that?
“Pretty much the whole Christian world, including places as far apart as Russia and South America. Did Aslinger and Company have them all on speed dial?”
Boy, you are really coming off the rails. You answered your own question with the term “Christian world”. And it just carried on from there, because people were, and are, stupid ignorant beings for the most part.
“Actually, the Christianization of Europe was accomplished largely through missionaries and was mostly peaceful. In fact, early Christians braved fierce persecution.”
Oh really? Explain the Crusades? The Inquisitions? Witch burning? The Middle East. And all the other wars and atrocities committed in the name of Christ. Peaceful my ass.
Like the persecution of homosexuals? Of abortionists? Of any religion that is not yours? Of any position that doesn’t meet your holinesses position? Hypocrites.
“Can you PROVE that this was the result of Christian values? Because up to now you’ve been parroting the common view that this was the result of racism and xenophobia.”
Nope, not at the moment. I was just trying to think of the religious expressions of others being quashed by your religion. So perhaps my analogy is incorrect. I will give this some thought and research when I have the time. I’m sure it won’t be too hard.
“Then it should be no problem for you to produce that piece of Church policy that forbids it.”
Sure, no problem. Here you go.
-If you have a copy of the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (and you really should), section 2291 makes it quite clear that, yes, Marijuana is indeed "a grave offense".-
Taken from this website. http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=214554
“I know; it sucks to be reminded you’re a blood-soaked scumbag, doesn’t it?”
Right back at you again, bible thumper.
“How do you know? This is an unregulated, undocumented industry. Do Mexican growers embed a unique identifier code in their marijuana’s DNA that makes it easy to trace? Do drug dealers normally invite such traces? Babble, babble, thrash and scrabble.”
How do you know it is? I know because I smoke pot, and I know what pot looks like that has been processed for transportation. Mexican pot is generally substandard. We call it “ditch weed”. I haven’t seen Mexican pot in Canada since the 80s. Since then, we have learned to grow a far superior product here in Canada, and no one is going to trade good weed, for shit weed. There might be some, but not very much. Ask any Canadian pot smoker when the last time they smoked Mexican weed was, and they will say the last time they vacationed in Mexico. It just doesn’t make it to our shores very often. Why would it when the market for their product is local. And we have a much better product here?
“No, the users and their desire provide the market. Sorry, but you can’t escape that reality. It’s all you, baby”
That’s right, the users and there desire provide the market. Your laws make it a black market. That is the reality, its all you, baby.
“What, no mention of priests that time? I thought it was a Christian initiative. No wait, it isn’t. Hold up, yes it is. No, wait…”
Ha ha, you a funny man. Lets look at the beliefs of the politicians and law men that brought this in. Without a doubt, almost all religious men. And those that weren’t where most likely liking their paychecks.
“Uh huh. And the laws against stealing are responsible for the deaths of anyone who’s murdered by a mugger. Babble, babble, thrash and scrabble”
No, the monetary system is responsible for that. When you force people to need money to survive, this is one of the aberrations or distortions that arise from it.
“IT’S MY BODY, AND I’LL TOKE IF I WANT TO! TOKE IF I WANT TO!!! Dude, that is so 1960s. Like squaresville, man. Grow the fuck up, would you”
All that says is that the position in 1960 is still valid today. You’re the one who professes his love for an imaginary being, and leads his life by this imaginary beings supposed utterances. Do you believe in Santa Claus Shane? The Easter Bunny? No? Why? I would say you are the one who needs to grow the fuck up.
” But they don’t, so they can’t, and the guilt is still yours”
Now I’m guilt ridden am I? Again with your religious projections. The argument of “If you all stopped buying, they would stop selling” is ridiculous, to say the least. Hence the reply. Maybe if you all stopped praying to imagination, maybe the world would have a better chance at peace.
“This is a recording…CLICK”
Oh that’s so clever. Aren’t you a clever child? Maybe you could use the phrase “I’m rubber, your glue….” It’s about your speed.
“When that money is used by armed criminals to wage campaigns of violence that often snare innocent bystanders, yeah.”
You are truly fucked up. How do you sleep at night with that kind of thinking? Armed criminals are adults. Fully aware of what they are doing. Children molested by your buddies do not do what happens willingly. Or are duped by them into believing it’s alright.
“So by all means, let’s add more, huh? Do you even think before you post this piffle? Your last synapse died of loneliness, didn’t it?”
Did you? Where did I say, “lets add more”? I merely pointed out your hysterics. I propose a solution to that violence; you propose to let it continue. Stay the course you say, regardless of how many people die, or have their lives destroyed by your laws. Insanity.
“Apparently you do, because you never stop yapping about it. Just part of your endless quest for people to blame for your own criminality.”
Yes, I am bringing it up, because I want people to see where you are coming from, and to see the weakness of your argument. You might as well drop the pretense and just get on here and say “God says you shouldn’t smoke weed or you will go to hell”, because that is where all this comes from in you. I am not blaming anyone. I am blaming the system we have set up for ourselves that cause these problems. If you don’t understand that, well, that’s up to you.
“And you and other stoners alone know better, huh?”
Another BS statement. Lots of stoners are believers. I would say anyone with a modicum of common sense and intelligence would reject your theories of divine governance. Athiesm is the fastest growing “religion” in the western world. Makes sense as the western world also has or had the best education system.
“I thought you said you didn’t care what the Church had done. I’ve already listed the good works they’ve done. Noticeably absent in your reply is anything worthwhile you have done.
Ok, here is what I do for the common good of the people in my area. I offer my café computers to anyone over 55 for free. On Tuesdays, I teach the elderly how to use their computers, for free. I am running for council here in September on a platform to use the money we have in surplus ( at present about 2 million) to build hydroponics greenhouses to provide free as possible food to everyone who lives here. I may not win of course, but I actually do care about the people I can help. How about you Godboy? What do you do besides tossing some change in the plate every Sunday?
“Of course! We’d all be living in a Venus Project Shangri-La; thus saith the stoner. (And the blood-soaked murderer.)”
Nice try retard. Try giving it some thought next time. What do you think the world would be like with out the concept of God? You can’t even imagine it, can you? You blood soaked fanatic.
“Really? I was under the impression that great strides in science were made under the auspices of Islam in the Middle Ages. The Buddhist Chinese did pretty good too. And despite dropping the ball in a number of cases (notably Galileo’s), once the Renaissance was in full swing the Church offered little resistance. It even made some contributions, notably the discovery of modern genetics by the monk Mendel.”
Your impression is wrong. Although there was some forward movement, in general religion has worked to maintain the status quo, to maintain their power. Progression is anathema to religion.
“It’s never about religion. Religion was just the hook on which a few murderous individuals hung their causes to give them a sheen of respectability. Sort of how like old potheads are cloaking their cause in the flag of libertarianism. You know the drill”
The blinders are on firmly today ay Shane? No, they didn’t massacre the Saracens because of their religion. Or the Jews. Or women. Or Native Americans. So in conclusion, your religious belief and the problems it has caused is far worse than anything pot has done, and yet here you are, pounding the stump for prohibition. Perhaps a gaze in the mirror is in order when you accuse others of being “blood soaked”.






Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-05-07 5:29:37 PM


Whoops posted the same thing twice, my bad. Makes for a long read.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-05-07 5:30:45 PM


Oh one more parting shot. Religion can cause psychotic breaks. If you want to maintain the ban on pot for that reason, it only makes sense to ban religion too.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-05-07 5:43:29 PM


Note to the webmaster. I am re-posting this, as I totally screwed the pooch on the last attempt. Please delete the previous copy of this, if you like. Thanks. Here it is again, cleaned up a bit.

“Extremist? You’re a lying sack of shit. You know the statement you just made is bullshit. Pot smokers pay the expenses of murderers and fuel the violence. That sounds like accessory to murder to me.”

I’m a lying sack of shit am I? You’re delusional. By your logic, we should also be after your church as well. Religion fuels violence and murder like no other, except the monetary system. The money you give to your church goes to pay your priests to molest and kill children, who babble such nonsense as this gem, straight from your Arch Bishop (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sls5dF6I6AI&playnext_from=TL&videos=AX_himjeYUg), who try to enforce stupid contraception beliefs on the poor that causes further misery, to the wars in the name of god, to the persecution of those that don’t fit your narrow views. No one would put as much effort into this argument with out some sort of vested interest. What’s yours? How about your 2 amigos? You know what my interest is. Are you trying to save me?

“Of course. No one is responsible for what you do except everybody else”

Of course I am responsible for my own decisions, or at least the ones I can control. It is when you start telling me that I must follow your moral beliefs that we start to have problems. And that’s what this is to you. Crusader Shane.

“That doesn’t erase the fact that you are an accessory to murder. That’s just what you tell yourself to convince yourself it’s okay”

Right back at you buddy.

“Bold words, outlaw. Do you need any further proof that you have a criminal mentality, and would have even if there were no laws at all? The flaw is not in the law; it’s in you.”

If you mean “criminal mentality” to be one who wants freedom from the opinions and beliefs of others, then that’s me. Hey dumbo, if there where no laws, there would be no criminals. The flaw is the law.

“And by “failure,” you mean “reducing addiction rates by 50%,” am I right?”

I don’t know where you got that stat. But it is highly suspect. And yes, it is still a failure, until we deal with the root cause of the drug problem, its never going to change. Even if it is legal. At least if its legal, it will be out in the open where we can really make an attempt to deal with the problem.

“Lots of people, like you, do not think at all. It’s all about fuh-fuh-feelings and how the world needs to get off your nuts.”

Ah, the Shane defense. It was lame then, and it’s lame now. You do not think. It is obvious. God does your thinking for you. You are subservient to an imaginary creature. There is little logic in your religion, its all about fuh-fuh-feelings you asshole.

“Don’t tempt me. Would we even notice they were gone?”

Would we notice if your church was gone?

“Our armies are composed of volunteers, the great majority of whom will tell you they believe in what they’re doing.”

Because we teach our children that it is good to die for your Country, or your God. Both imaginary constructs. Also, poverty has a big roll in the volunteerism in the military. If you cared at all about your children, you would never allow them to join the military.

“Of course! It’s always MUCH easier to find a product when the supply is restricted.”

It is not about how easy it is to find. It’s about how you find it. In a society that actually gave a shit about people, they wouldn’t force people to deal with what you call the criminals, to get something as harmless as pot.

“Nor will the war against crime. It’s a balancing act. Of course, you’d like to see that war fail too, wouldn’t you?”

I would like to see all wars fail. And it’s funny how you term crime as a war. Is that so you can fuh-fuh-feel better about killing people? I could solve the root cause of most of the crime that exists today, with one simple action. End the money system.

“Screamed the blood-spattered dope fiend”

Screamed the blood splattered zealot.

“Are you arguing those are good things? Man, you are messed up, aren’t you?”

No you idiot, I am saying you and your religion are hypocritical. You preach against intelligence in all those areas. Or if you actually preach the right thing, like against greed, you ignore it and fill up your bank accounts at the expense of others. You idiots scream about the horrors of homosexuality, then turn around and fuck little boys. You support the church, so by your logic, you support the abuse of children. Are you getting the picture yet?

“Actually, part of the Christian faith is penance and absolution. All sin, including priests, but a difference is recognized between the remorseful and the flippantly provocative.”

No, penance and absolution are part of the Catholic faith, not all Christians follow that doctrine. I believe, and correct me if I’m wrong, that according to your faith, only a priest can communicate with God. Only a priest can absolve your sins. So you can just get out there and sin your ass off, then a quick visit to the priest and you’re good to go. Do you not see a problem with that?

“Pretty much the whole Christian world, including places as far apart as Russia and South America. Did Aslinger and Company have them all on speed dial?”

Boy, you are really coming off the rails. You answered your own question with the term “Christian world”. And it just carried on from there, because people were, and are, stupid ignorant beings for the most part.

“Actually, the Christianization of Europe was accomplished largely through missionaries and was mostly peaceful. In fact, early Christians braved fierce persecution.”

Oh really? Explain the Crusades? The Inquisitions? Witch burning? The Middle East. And all the other wars and atrocities committed in the name of Christ. Peaceful my ass.
Like the persecution of homosexuals? Of abortionists? Of any religion that is not yours? Of any position that doesn’t meet your holiness's position? Hypocrites.

“Can you PROVE that this was the result of Christian values? Because up to now you’ve been parroting the common view that this was the result of racism and xenophobia.”

Nope, not at the moment. I was just trying to think of the religious expressions of others being quashed by your religion. So perhaps my analogy is incorrect. I will give this some thought and research when I have the time. I’m sure it won’t be too hard.

“Then it should be no problem for you to produce that piece of Church policy that forbids it.”

Sure, no problem. Here you go.

-If you have a copy of the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (and you really should), section 2291 makes it quite clear that, yes, Marijuana is indeed "a grave offense".-

Taken from this website. http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=214554

“I know; it sucks to be reminded you’re a blood-soaked scumbag, doesn’t it?”

Right back at you again, bible thumper.

“How do you know? This is an unregulated, undocumented industry. Do Mexican growers embed a unique identifier code in their marijuana’s DNA that makes it easy to trace? Do drug dealers normally invite such traces? Babble, babble, thrash and scrabble.”

How do you know it is? I know because I smoke pot, and I know what pot looks like that has been processed for transportation. Mexican pot is generally substandard. We call it “ditch weed”. I haven’t seen Mexican pot in Canada since the 80s. Since then, we have learned to grow a far superior product here in Canada, and no one is going to trade good weed, for shit weed. There might be some, but not very much. Ask any Canadian pot smoker when the last time they smoked Mexican weed was, and they will say the last time they vacationed in Mexico. It just doesn’t make it to our shores very often. Why would it when the market for their product is local. And we have a much better product here?

“No, the users and their desire provide the market. Sorry, but you can’t escape that reality. It’s all you, baby”

That’s right, the users and there desire provide the market. Your laws make it a black market. That is the reality, its all you, baby.

“What, no mention of priests that time? I thought it was a Christian initiative. No wait, it isn’t. Hold up, yes it is. No, wait…”

Ha ha, you a funny man. Lets look at the beliefs of the politicians and law men that brought this in. Without a doubt, almost all religious men. And those that weren’t where most likely liking their paychecks.

“Uh huh. And the laws against stealing are responsible for the deaths of anyone who’s murdered by a mugger. Babble, babble, thrash and scrabble”

No, the monetary system is responsible for that. When you force people to need money to survive, this is one of the aberrations or distortions that arise from it.

“IT’S MY BODY, AND I’LL TOKE IF I WANT TO! TOKE IF I WANT TO!!! Dude, that is so 1960s. Like squaresville, man. Grow the fuck up, would you”

All that says is that the position in 1960 is still valid today. You’re the one who professes his love for an imaginary being, and leads his life by this imaginary beings supposed utterances. Do you believe in Santa Claus Shane? The Easter Bunny? No? Why? I would say you are the one who needs to grow the fuck up.

” But they don’t, so they can’t, and the guilt is still yours”

Now I’m guilt ridden am I? Again with your religious projections. The argument of “If you all stopped buying, they would stop selling” is ridiculous, to say the least. Hence the reply. Maybe if you all stopped praying to imagination, maybe the world would have a better chance at peace.

“This is a recording…CLICK”

Oh that’s so clever. Aren’t you a clever child? Maybe you could use the phrase “I’m rubber, your glue….” It’s about your speed.

“When that money is used by armed criminals to wage campaigns of violence that often snare innocent bystanders, yeah.”

You are truly fucked up. How do you sleep at night with that kind of thinking? Armed criminals are adults. Fully aware of what they are doing. Children molested by your buddies do not do what happens willingly. Or are duped by them into believing it’s alright.

“So by all means, let’s add more, huh? Do you even think before you post this piffle? Your last synapse died of loneliness, didn’t it?”

Did you? Where did I say, “lets add more”? I merely pointed out your hysterics. I propose a solution to that violence; you propose to let it continue. Stay the course you say, regardless of how many people die, or have their lives destroyed by your laws. Insanity.

“Apparently you do, because you never stop yapping about it. Just part of your endless quest for people to blame for your own criminality.”

Yes, I am bringing it up, because I want people to see where you are coming from, and to see the weakness of your argument. You might as well drop the pretense and just get on here and say “God says you shouldn’t smoke weed or you will go to hell”, because that is where all this comes from in you. I am not blaming anyone. I am blaming the system we have set up for ourselves that cause these problems. If you don’t understand that, well, that’s up to you.

“And you and other stoners alone know better, huh?”

Another BS statement. Lots of stoners are believers. I would say anyone with a modicum of common sense and intelligence would reject your theories of divine governance. Athiesm is the fastest growing “religion” in the western world. Makes sense as the western world also has or had the best education system.

“I thought you said you didn’t care what the Church had done. I’ve already listed the good works they’ve done. Noticeably absent in your reply is anything worthwhile you have done."

Ok, here is what I do for the common good of the people in my area. I offer my café computers to anyone over 55 for free. On Tuesdays, I teach the elderly how to use their computers, for free. I am running for council here in September on a platform to use the money we have in surplus ( at present about 2 million) to build hydroponics greenhouses to provide free as possible food to everyone who lives here. I may not win of course, but I actually do care about the people I can help. How about you Godboy? What do you do besides tossing some change in the plate every Sunday?

“Of course! We’d all be living in a Venus Project Shangri-La; thus saith the stoner. (And the blood-soaked murderer.)”

Nice try retard. Try giving it some thought next time. What do you think the world would be like with out the concept of God? You can’t even imagine it, can you? You blood soaked fanatic.

“Really? I was under the impression that great strides in science were made under the auspices of Islam in the Middle Ages. The Buddhist Chinese did pretty good too. And despite dropping the ball in a number of cases (notably Galileo’s), once the Renaissance was in full swing the Church offered little resistance. It even made some contributions, notably the discovery of modern genetics by the monk Mendel.”

Your impression is wrong. Although there was some forward movement, in general religion has worked to maintain the status quo, to maintain their power. Progression is anathema to religion.

“It’s never about religion. Religion was just the hook on which a few murderous individuals hung their causes to give them a sheen of respectability. Sort of how like old potheads are cloaking their cause in the flag of libertarianism. You know the drill”

The blinders are on firmly today ay Shane? No, they didn’t massacre the Saracens because of their religion. Or the Jews. Or women. Or Native Americans. So in conclusion, your religious belief and the problems it has caused is far worse than anything pot has done, and yet here you are, pounding the stump for prohibition. Perhaps a gaze in the mirror is in order when you accuse others of being “blood soaked”.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-05-07 6:47:36 PM



Mandatory minimums: nobody has to serve them
guess what the magic way of avoiding jail is ?

Answer will shock the average Wipehead.

BTW Brother Zebulon:
Marc Emerys' last day of freedom is _Sunday-
the Lords day
& as he has to surrender himself to the WOD turnkeys by 9 am PT _Monday
Monday doesn't qualify as a day of freedom although Monday is his last freedom sunrise,
Look in again Tuesday
and we'll do a recount
if this is not to your
complete satisfaction..

& Sunday is _your last opportunity
to recant and sign the nearest
" Free Marc Emery" petition sheet
I know Sundays are usually pretty busy for you..
and you might not get around to it
but do it for Jodie
-she collects autographs


Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-07 8:57:00 PM


this weekend is a bad one for the Wipeheads of the Dominion of Canada-
- anti pot bill S-10 is coming
- their hero Marc Emery is going
- public sympathy for their cause is gone

you can imagine how angry, sad and frustrated the Wipeheads are seeing everything they wanted get denied, every one of their dreams get crushed, everyone of their minor advances of the last 40 years get rolled back ten fold.

We were able to extract this splendid Wipehead comment from his majesty, Marc Emery, the Prince of Pots' website just today, signed and time stamped .. it greatly outshines the stoner apologists here in sheer drug rage gumption.

We offer this as vox populi gold - & we salute Western Standard Freedom Fighter # 003 his Majesty the Prince of Pot as he goes forth with his court date with destiny, and he leaves this unknown soldier, substance abuser bard of barf lost cause guardian of stoner values behind to overgrow the government in his absence:


******** happy 4:20 everybody **************

May 06
Marijuana is Safer

Having used both substances going on 35 years I can say in all honesty that marijuana is obviously safer and far more enjoyable. To prove the point I suggest we all drink ourselves into a stupor, stumble down to our local MP's office and throw up on them.
Submitted by Paul Goodman () on Thu, 05/06/2010 - 18:33.

*************************************************

I will try to collect my winning wagers this week from dozens of stoners who put big money on the table that their prince would walk free and marijuana would be legalized before he slept one night in a US jail. But like like all stoners they are tragic bullshitters, dishonourable in every way, so collecting may be difficult but I'll get my winnings eventually.

Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-08 10:13:02 AM


419: it is ironic that the druggies speak of being denied their liberty while being enslaved by their drug addictions. Drugs weaken them to the point of children - call it de-adultization. They ruin relations with others because all they crave is their next fix. Yes, they are dishonorable. Worse, they do nothing to redeem themselves - they merely expect others to accept their ways. If they had any critical skills, they'd analyze why the black, native, women's and gay rights movements succeeded and why theirs has failed miserably.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-05-08 10:42:21 AM


Sad but true Brother Zeb'
agree or not, these groups you mentioned actually had something of value to protect and promote- and it shows

they didn;t make excuses,
they made progress
so history will have something good to say about:
--Black power & pride
--Native power& pride
--Womens power & pride
--Gay power & pride

but wipehead power ?
wipehead pride ?

none so far to comment on
and its too late anyway

See you at the Undercover Agents Golf Tournament!


Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-08 11:14:20 AM


Oh right, I nearly forgot about that. I'll put my brand new Ping clubs into my new Audi. I'm so glad that Mr. Harper seized all that drug money for his agents - we don't know what to do with it all. Thank goodness for luxury goods.

What about the forthcoming seminar on how to oppress druggies more effectively? They brought in a former Apartheid era South African Police officer. He apparently has lots of experience dealing with stubborn people. I'm appalled by this because we don't need this level of brutality to deal with druggies. They're far too lame, simplistic and unchallenging to manage - they're like kindergarteners.

Oh, and bye bye Emery, you're off to jail.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-05-08 11:33:30 AM


Are you 2 assholes still here? So what is your angle 419. You a godboy too? Zeb? Keen on Hey-Zues?

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-05-08 11:33:33 AM


well Zeb...
thanks to Marc Emery and his computers the cops seized during every one of their raids on him from 1995- 2005 law enforcement officers have the contact information of basically..

>> every pot grower
of consequence
in North America.

Now that he has served his primary purpose as heat magnet for the crimimal underclass, he can go away to the gulag while the cops pick off the cultivators, vacuum out their assets & then warehouse them all at leisure..

Whether pot ever goes legal or not- all these little chiselers have to be knocked out of play.
None of them quit growing , most of them talk and _all of them are sloppy in mfg concealment, contraband distribution and hiding their assets.

So the little marijuana Furer, his main staff his grow house infantry, cultivator supply lines, international allies and wipehead supporters are all tagged & boxed in- ready for the takedown.

$5 billion pot sales a year over 20 years is
$ 100,000,000.00 - one hundred billion -
this operation was well worth the cost and effort to plug that leak.

Believin' Stephen above & wipehead blowhards like him might wish to settle their affairs before they are sent off to the work camps- if you have a dog Steve, figure out where you will be parking him for the rest of the decade

Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-08 12:35:26 PM


It is nice when the criminals made the cops' job easier by their sheer stupidity. Oh well, more time on the links for the sober people. Are we going skeet shooting later? How about we try falconry sometime?

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-05-08 2:09:48 PM


Zeb did you read page 22 of you know what?

50 % of Canadians have tried pot
40 % of them abandoned it when they grew up

10% of the Cdn population have mental illness issues, cognitive problems,addictive personalities, and /or resort to criminal behavior to make ends meet - it's in this sketchy 10% where the Wipeheads fit in..
They are the left behinds Big Steve wants to help..

Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-08 3:25:26 PM


READ YOU IMBECILE!! "20 years"

That just means it considered studies up to 20 years old. It doesn't mean that the individual studies examined long-term trends.

Criminals often respond to stress with violence. That doesn't constitute a reason to make life easy for them.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-08 4:44:02 PM


Please shane, tell us what drugs/activity's have made you the way you are, so we avoid them at all costs.

Yes, I can understand why the idea of being a law-abiding Christian with a happy family life would bring a rictus of revulsion to your face. How much better to be a blood-soaked scumbag.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-08 4:45:11 PM


Do you understand the concept of "life, liberty, and property"? Think about it. Because your answer to Paul was pretty stupid.

I understand it perfectly fine. Do you understand the concept of "personal responsibility"? Because you spend remarkably little time talking about it.

Comparing pot smoking to selling arms to known terrorists ... damn you're stupid.

Actually, you're the stupid one, because you missed a good chance to tell us why the comparison was stupid, and furthermore, to lecture us on the difference between responsible and irresponsible business practices. You're given a perfect opportunity and you waste it like an unpracticed dullard.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-08 4:48:34 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.