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

You are the left behinds, your just too stupid to know it. So, what is the "you know what?" The Watch Tower?
You guys know each other from church? Hang out on christianchildmolesters.com? Members of NAMBLA? There must be some reason you take such glee in the misery of others. Spit it out. Come on, explain why putting some one in jail for 5 years for a minor pot charge gives you such a stiffy. You are sad examples for humanity. Losers.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-05-08 4:50:09 PM


That was desperate even for a proponent of drug legalization. It looks like drugs do not open minds, but rather close them. We, the sober people, were right all along.

May the persecution - oops, I mean prosecution - of the drug culture continue for another few centuries.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-05-08 5:08:11 PM


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.

But it hasn’t been, and until it has been, you have no case, therefore no reason to state this other than laying a smoke screen.

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.

Using that logic, we could burn all the law books and then the crime rate would be zero. Once again, the one-dimensional thinking.

Of course there would still be a black market, just as there is with alcohol and tobacco. Repealing alcohol prohibition decimated the black market.

Of course! That’s why the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has a budget in the billions. That’s a lot of enforcement expense for four perfectly legal products.

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."

But alcohol Prohibition lasted less than fifteen years; most people who bought illegally during Prohibition had bought legally before. But today’s pot smokers have NEVER bought from anything but illegal sources. There is a large difference.

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?

You’re not tracking, pal. Virtually ALL drug growers and pushers are hardcore. The mandatory minimums are for production and distribution. Penalties for possession will be, if anything, lightened. I think that’s bullshit personally, but we are debating the proposed legislation as it stands, not as we wish it would.

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

In 2004, the property crime rate of the United States was 3,517 per 100,000. Canada’s for the same period was 3,991. Particularly telling are the not only the burglary rates, as a I mentioned, but also auto theft. Property crime in Vancouver is sky-high, and it is estimated that 80% of all crime in the city is junkies stealing to feed their habits. And no one is talking about legalizing heroin and crack.

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

But not by as much, and not as successfully, which is the point.

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.

You are not permitted to make assumptions when collecting statistics. And the link to my statistics is here. Counter that, if you can.

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:

Those statistics are for jails, not prisons. Jail is where you get sent if your sentence is short, always less than two years and often much less. Most convicted of simple possession would thus end up here, rather than state or federal prisons.

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.

The “non-violent offenders” bit again. You guys harp on that again and again, chanting it like a mantra. THIS is the straw man, MJ. The fact of the matter is that being an accessory to murder IS a violent offence, even if they were never in the room or even if they were unaware any given individual had died at all. I believe this falls under “aiding and abetting.” Other “non-violent” offences include stealing cars, burgling homes, insurance fraud, investment fraud, embezzlement, and bank and credit card scams.

But okay. Since you feel that prison is too full of non-violent offenders, I offer you an alternative. We can just break off some of their fingers. That would make it much more difficult to ply their chosen trade, provide them with incentive not to do so, and save beaucoup bucks.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-08 5:51:49 PM


Looks like Steve is waving his white flag

"...explain why putting some one in jail for 5 years for a minor pot charge gives you such a stiffy..."

Yo Believie Stevie, minor pot charges have never been handed five years- that's reserved for major pot charges, S-10 just makes it a sure thing. Why would anyone except a Wipehead equate primary sexual arousal with incarceration ?

"... You are sad examples for humanity. Losers..."

Yo again, public safety prohibitionists have prevailed again, that's called winning Steve, Not losing. ... Guess who lost?

Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-08 6:01:26 PM


You haven't won shit mouthpiece.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-05-08 6:11:41 PM


You are right Steve-
we will have to await two final a details that are inevitable before your Titanic is completely shoved under the surface of the North Atlantic:

1_ Bill SD-10 passing in its main form into law sometime in the next few days- like you know it going to happen
2_ your beloved Prince of Pot surrendering to the crown for transfer to the American authorities Monday morning bright and early- on schedule in tears while the media are somewhere else covering a cat-up-tree story

and while the social trash trucks are at the curb
double bag these stale dated prizes for disposal

a_ Rev.Chris Bennetts constitutional challenge to gain his exemption to smoke pot for religious reasons failing

b_The Emery retail & www Empire floundering under the teary direction of St Jodie the Inept

c_Societal rejection of the Wipehead creddo and their tax support to extinguish the Drug Culture worldwide.

d_the remake of Reefer Madness starring Brad Pitt

Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-08 6:28:52 PM


It’s sometimes uncomfortable to confront a new idea. In 1966 if a man was caught, convicted and found guilty of the indictable criminal offense of being homosexual he was facing a penalty of 14 years and could certainly be fired from his job or blackmailed by foreign agencies. Their were terrible and untrue stigmas attached to the lifestyle. Then the government introduced a two year moratorium on arrests to finally fully legalize the behaviour. There was no vote on it. Not everyone thought gay life was moral but they had to accept it. It was the same with the abortion rallies in the sixties. Not everyone thought it was moral but it had to be accepted. If we left everything to voting we would have no dancing on Sunday beer with dinner or an effective Commonwealth Senate. So historically we have leaned away from criminalizing behaviour that is of no consequence to anyone else. What we’re continuing to learn with the social media is that the credibility of their outlets skyrockets when the traditional media focus on some guy wearing a costume or some kid passing a bong. That just doesn’t work now. Not when an entire medical community is following the real news, not when the real movers and shakers get it now. They understand there is no political threat to accepting legalization. It’s not a crime. Prohibition shouldn't have started in the first place. People grow it and sell it so people can buy it. Some people go to a bread dealer, some to a milk dealer. Some farmers will switch from sunflower seed or soy to hemp seed because of the greater oil content and lower fertilizer requirement. Some mills will manufacture blue jeans out of hemp instead of cotton because of the longer fiber. So there is a lot of logic. We need be concerned but not fearful. People just need to get over the old stigmas associated with a marginalized slice of society. We’ve all done that before haven’t we?

Posted by: Spanner McNeil | 2010-05-09 8:59:50 AM


How to create chaos , this is the way to do it. The people willing to take a chance will make a lot of money, some people will go the medical marijuana route . But in the end canadians will pay a heavy price in policing, court, and prison costs and society will become much more violent . People have to realize if you want freedom it has to apply to everybody , government needs to but out of peoples private lives

Posted by: don bigham | 2010-05-09 10:20:14 AM


Druggies always say how "legalization" is a public service. In fact, jailing druggies IS the public service - it gets them off the streets and into camps where they belong. If we, the better people, did not do this, then society would be harmed. It would cost more. So, like it or not (and I really don't care), druggies will continue to be persecuted - oops, I meant prosecuted - because of their evil ways. The only way to prevent it is to stop abusing drugs, pure and simple.

Moreover, "legalization" is a myth. There will always be some sort of legal sanction against drugs. No country on earth lacks a law aiming to curtail and prevent drug use, not even the allegedly "legal" places like the Netherlands, Portugal or thirteen US states.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-05-09 10:31:26 AM


Yo Citizen MacNeil :

when orgasms are cultivated in basements and smuggled in from Mexico by the tractor trailor load and hundreds of billions of dollars leak into the black market - we'll talk.

Have you bought your " Save marc Emery"
T shirt yet? hurry up. sale ends today

Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-09 10:55:18 AM


Look at MM cards in the states. People WILL get licenced to smoke legally and the dispensary business there is booming.

If they have a prescription for it. Hell, you cant even get narcotics if you have a prescription. What news is this?

I bet Canadians would walk into a shop if made legal. Have you proved they wont?

It's not for me to prove they won't. It's for you to prove they will. Apparently you're unfamiliar with the concept of burden of proof.

lol

LOL. Look at me, everybody, the giggling stoner. LOL. Watch the idiot light blink and blink and blink while I giggle like a lunatic. LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-09 1:25:29 PM


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

That's okay; I do.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-09 1:26:59 PM


Lets be perfectly clear on the motivations of Matthews, 419, and Zeb. This is where their argument stems from. "God says its a sin, and you will burn in hell for smoking it". That's it folks. They may dress it up by bringing other fallacies to their argument, but there is the core. This is what forms their little punishment fetishes.

The lowest prostitute on the street has higher morals than their god. If you support the christian religion (this is true of just about all major religions), you support slavery (surprised Zeb?), genocide, torture, and human sacrifice.

Well Matthews? You haven't responded to my post. You know, the one that points out what a liar and hypocrite you are?

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-05-09 1:31:34 PM


"It's not for me to prove they won't. It's for you to prove they will. Apparently you're unfamiliar with the concept of burden of proof."

LOL apparently so are you Matthews. That statement coming from you is hilarious.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-05-09 1:34:51 PM


Before we start, Steve, you copied and pasted the whole post twice. An IT specialist who can’t copy and paste, nor count for that matter, is pretty fucking embarrassing. We’ll add it to the long list of things pot smokers don’t seem able to do properly.

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.

You have never proved either of those assertions. All you’ve proven is your deep-rooted hatred for conventional society, perhaps because it will have nothing to do with you. But whose fault is that?

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...

First of all, not credible source. Second of all, my archbishop (note one word) is in Vancouver, not Brazil. You think you can just go trolling for outrageous remarks made by a member of an organization and consider the case made against the whole thing? Using that logic I could use BudOracle’s remarks to prove the case that all stoners are raving mad lunatics.

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.

No, last thread you were saying that your environment was responsible for the choice you make. And when did I ever put my moral beliefs on the table? I provide facts, research, and most importantly of all, relevant history. You’re the one beating us over the head with his personal morality, especially your stupid Venus Project.

Right back at you buddy.

“I know you are, but what am I?” Typical. Why is it pot smokers are all either nineteen or act like they are?

If you mean “criminal mentality” to be one who wants freedom from the opinions and beliefs of others, then that’s me.

No, what you want is freedom from the consequences of your actions, both to yourself and to others. Because you really could not care less.

Hey dumbo, if there where no laws, there would be no criminals. The flaw is the law.

If there were no laws, someone could cut your stomach open and stuff your guts in your mouth, and have no blame for it. You sure that’s a road you want to travel? You gotta sleep sometime, Steve.

I don’t know where you got that stat. But it is highly suspect.

You lie. I’ve repeated it over and over on numerous threads, all of which you have read. However, as your next remark proves, it’s not a case of you not knowing the facts; it’s a case of you knowing them, and not caring.

And yes, it is still a failure, until we deal with the root cause of the drug problem, its never going to change.

Ignore the results; it’s a failure on a moral level, so saith you. All or none. The idiot light blinks on and on.

At least if its legal, it will be out in the open where we can really make an attempt to deal with the problem.

And what exactly is the problem? Are you actually acknowledging that drug use is a problem? Doesn’t that mean you have a problem? One you refuse to give up?

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.

“I know you are, but what am I?” This point goes to me.

Would we notice if your church was gone?

You certainly would; you’d have one less traditional institution to rail at.

Because we teach our children that it is good to die for your Country, or your God.

Not in my schools, they didn’t. In fact most teachers are conspicuous Leftists and pacifists. And frankly I doubt it was any different for you.

Also, poverty has a big roll in the volunteerism in the military.

Ah, yes, the “economic conscript” argument. Funny, most of the people I served with were not conspicuously poor.

If you cared at all about your children, you would never allow them to join the military.

Who are you to question the love others give your children? Do you even have any?

It is not about how easy it is to find. It’s about how you find it.

No. We are talking about reducing use, not in reducing use in the correct way (according to you). You’re trying to make a moral argument out of it again because the hard numbers don’t support your position.

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.

No one forces them to do anything. They have every right not to buy pot. Using this logic, you’ll say it’s society’s fault that burglars have to rely on illegal fences to sell stolen goods. Another moral argument.

I would like to see all wars fail. And it’s funny how you term crime as a war.

It’s funny that you term drug regulation as a war.

Is that so you can fuh-fuh-feel better about killing people?

Who’s doing the killing? Gangsters. Where do they get the money to buy their guns? From you.

I could solve the root cause of most of the crime that exists today, with one simple action. End the money system.

You couldn’t solve yourself out a phone booth, Bottrell. You’re a delusional utopian. And ending the money system wouldn’t eliminate crimes of passion, which constitute the bulk of violent crimes. Here goes the idiot light again, kids, right on schedule.

Screamed the blood splattered zealot.

Draw the line, buddy. Your money funds killing; mine doesn’t. I support drug laws, but have no say in passing them; therefore you have no connection.

“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.

Translation: You’re saying they are good things. Because the Church condemns these negative behaviours, in order for you to claim that it “preaches against intelligence,” that would mean that intelligent arguments would support them.

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.

By what mechanism? How am I enriched at the expense of others? Here we go again, the old zero-sum game—in order for someone to succeed, another has to be screwed. Working-class mentality if I ever saw it.

You idiots scream about the horrors of homosexuality, then turn around and fuck little boys.

Numbers, please. You still haven’t provided numbers. You’re painting us all with the same brush. You’re no better than a redneck who calls blacks niggers.

You support the church, so by your logic, you support the abuse of children. Are you getting the picture yet?

No child I have ever known has mentioned abuse. Of course, you probably know scads.

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.

NO ONE may communicate with God according to Catholic doctrine. Messages from the Almighty are delivered by angels. And penance and absolution are part of many Christian churches, including Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran. As you would know, had you bothered to Google it. But you didn’t, because that would distract from your marathon of hate.

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?

This would be a good time for you to Google “penance.”

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.

Soviet Russia was Christian? The hate-a-thon wheels on and on.

Oh really? Explain the Crusades?

Were not in Europe, and were provoked by the mad Caliph Akim destroying the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.

The Inquisitions? Witch burning?

Nations in question already Christianized.

The Middle East.

Oil, not God.

And all the other wars and atrocities committed in the name of Christ.

Such as?

Like the persecution of homosexuals?

Disapproval is not persecution.

Of abortionists?

Are murderers. And yes, I’m fully prepared to open that can of worms. Even then, though, the Church merely registers its displeasure and mounts operations to convince people otherwise; it does not “persecute” abortionists.

Of any religion that is not yours?

Not in my lifetime.

Of any position that doesn’t meet your holinesses position? Hypocrites.

Interesting. You accuse the Church of subscribing to the same mindless hate you do yourself. Thanks to your hang-up with the Church, this has turned from a debate on sentencing to a debate on religion. I never bring up religion. You always do. That means your bag of tricks is empty and you’re reduced to chucking mud in the desperate hope that some will stick. Too bad; the Church uses teflon.

Nope, not at the moment. I was just trying to think of the religious expressions of others being quashed by your religion.

No, you were just voicing your hate. It’s the sort of thing you do quite well.

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.

For someone unskilled in, and unused to thinking, I expect you’ll find it quite impossible. Your passions always win out in the end; you never did learn to govern them.

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

Section 2291 does not mention marijuana. Did you even read it? Or did you just take this site’s word as to what it said?

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.

How does it look? Unless you buy in the form of compressed bricks—in which case you’re a trafficker—how can you tell?

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.

But the Mexican cartels and the Canadian gangs that produce B.C. Bud are certainly working together. Even the police admitted that the increase in gang violence here was precipitated by the crackdown in Mexico. However, now that the key players have been arrested, levels have dropped off to almost nothing. Vancouver has had only four homicides so far this year. This is precisely what I meant when I asked Baker if that precious study of his examined long-term trends, or only short-term spikes. Something tells me it didn’t. One-sided information from single activist sources is not noted for statistical and contextual rigour.


That’s right, the users and thier desire provide the market. Your laws make it a black market.

That they choose to patronize.

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.

More conspiracies, huh? It must be frustrating for you, convinced that all of this took place but unable to prove any of it.

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.

You’re an idiot. Valuables can and would exist even if there were no currency.

All that says is that the position in 1960 is still valid today.

The 1960s was one long party by petulant twentysomethings looking to leave their mark on the world. There was no rational reason to smoke pot. They just did it to stick two fingers up their parent’s asses. Unfortunately, this is precisely the generation that famously never grew up.

Now I’m guilt ridden am I?

No, guilty. You’re incapable of feeling guilt, but that doesn’t make you not guilty. It makes you psychopathic.

You are truly fucked up. How do you sleep at night with that kind of thinking?

Would you rather your kid sister be molested or murdered? And do you think that murder victims simply give up the ghost willingly? Don’t question my thinking, Steve. Unlike you, I am capable of the act.

Did you? Where did I say, “lets add more”?

When you questioned the validity of all laws.

Yes, I am bringing it up, because I want people to see where you are coming from...

You have never proved that is where I am coming from, though, have you? I never used religion to justify my position. You, on the other hand, have convinced yourself that I do, simply because your one-bit, non-thinking brain cannot grasp the concept that I might have arrived at this position independently of any doctrine.

Another BS statement. Lots of stoners are believers.

In them being their own gods, yes.

I would say anyone with a modicum of common sense and intelligence would reject your theories of divine governance.

I would say you’re an idiot. Next.

Athiesm is the fastest growing “religion” in the western world.

The same Western world in steep social and population decline, to the point where it has to import labour from other countries just to keep its numbers up? Isn’t this how Rome fell?

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.

And that is supposed to make up for the fact that you bankroll violence and murder? Keep in mind, the Church’s good works far outnumber the list of atrocities they’ve racked up in two thousand years of history. In a more compressed time frame, trying to offset lining the pockets of criminals with saying to some geezers, “This is a mouse; this is a double-click” just doesn’t add up.

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.

Getting people stoned does not constitute “help.” It doesn’t take much imagination to figure out what you suggested growing in those greenhouses.

How about you Godboy? What do you do besides tossing some change in the plate every Sunday?

Since I do very little evil (specifically, I do not give money to criminals), I have far less to offset.

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?

Neither can most societies, apparently. Even those iconoclasts who rebel against organized religion soon realize that a spiritually empty life is pretty empty overall.

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.

Details, details.

The blinders are on firmly today ay Shane?

But:

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...

So, you admit these massacres were not religiously motivated, yet insist on blaming the Church for them, and I am the one with the blinders on?

Blink, blink, blink. The one-bit mind. The idiot light blinks on and on.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-09 2:20:04 PM


People just need to get over the old stigmas associated with a marginalized slice of society. We’ve all done that before haven’t we?

There's a difference between marginalizing someone for what he is, and marginalizing someone for what he does, Spanner. And no, we do not have to accept laws we don't agree with. We have to obey them, but we are perfectly free to fight to change them. That's all the 60s activists did.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-09 2:23:36 PM


Lets be perfectly clear on the motivations of Matthews, 419, and Zeb.

Or more specifically, on your take on them. And we all know what it’s going to be...

This is where their argument stems from. "God says its a sin, and you will burn in hell for smoking it". That's it folks.

I HATE THE CHURCH! I HATE THE CHURCH! WWWAAAHHHHHH!!!!

Bet you didn’t see that one coming.

They may dress it up by bringing other fallacies to their argument, but there is the core. This is what forms their little punishment fetishes.

Fascinating, Steve. Now prove it. It is interesting to note how a member of marginalized group tries to argue against the evils of marginalization by trying to marginalized another group, isn’t it? This ought to be good.

The lowest prostitute on the street has higher morals than their god.

Who said the prostitute was low? Still with the marginalization. You stand convicted of the same crimes you blame the rest of the world for. Sad. Go back to your technology imbeciles, Steve. They at least think you're smart, if only because they don't know any better.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-09 2:28:28 PM


Lets be perfectly clear on the motivations of Matthews, 419, and Zeb.

** OK, let's then- glad to see you taking a few style points from Richard Nixon

This is where their argument stems from. "God says its a sin, and you will burn in hell for smoking it".

** Ya? you are the only one saying this Steve.
get a grip hippy

That's it folks.

** and taking a few style hints from Porky Pig

They may dress it up by bringing other fallacies to their argument, but there is the core. This is what forms their little punishment fetishes.


** Stevie Jeebie old pal.. you are wasting your advanced supernatural powers here. Have you dropped off a resume at the cannabis Culture headquarters? They might want you to light their bongs with your heat ray

The lowest prostitute on the street has higher morals than their god.

** thats capiol G on God,OK? we do the same with steve, tross in an S to divide you from the groceries & wow so I see you have been following Libby Davis's website- and doing those interviews at the HIV clinics good boy Steve.. you can only get well when you want to get well

If you support the christian religion (this is true of just about all maLets be perfectly clear on the motivations of Matthews, 419, and Zeb.


** well thanks for asking. BTW your Mom still cherishes that gold sprayed macaroni glued to a paper plate Christmas tree you made in grade four..
BTW what is a ..." maLet? " no listing
did you mean ...." Mullet? " as in haircut

Well Matthews? You haven't responded to my post. You know, the one that points out what a liar and hypocrite you are? jor religions), you support slavery (surprised Zeb?), genocide, torture, and human sacrifice.


** hey! don't I get any of your cold water hugs no more Steve? have you forgiven me or something?


Well Matthews? You haven't responded to my post. You know, the one that points out what a liar and hypocrite you are?

** Steve maybe bet him $50 to keep this moving
its at least a motivator, your dreary pot partisan mumbles don't really give us much to work with, and tomorrow is the last day for your Prince of Pot--
happy Mothers day
cut clones while you can
'cause the cops are coming for you

Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-09 2:43:11 PM


Why do so many of you feel it is your place to impose your sense of morality upon others? Growing and smoking marijuana are equally victimless crimes. NO VICTIM. Get it through your heads. Nobody is being victimized and yet Harper wants to put people in jail for mandatory terms for committing a crime against his moral sense of superiority and nothing more. What gives anyone the right to take away the freedoms of another for making choices they don't agree with?

Posted by: Meltedtime | 2010-05-09 5:41:14 PM


Why do so many of you feel it is your place to impose your sense of morality upon others?

Why do so many of you feel that morality is the overriding concern? Drug abuse has demonstrable and very real social consequences, and those concern us. But you refuse to address these, choosing instead to blame our “morality,” our “religion,” or just accuse us of fascism, everything and anything, so long as it’s subjective, unprovable, unverifiable, and untraceable. Much like the conspiracy theories you offer to explain why marijuana is illegal to start with. Throughout the entire world.

Growing and smoking marijuana are equally victimless crimes. NO VICTIM. Get it through your heads.

Drug abuse does not affect only the abuser. History has shown this time and time again. No man is an island, and nothing happens to him in isolation—unless he actually is on a desert island somewhere. Get that through your heads.

Nobody is being victimized and yet Harper wants to put people in jail for mandatory terms for committing a crime against his moral sense of superiority and nothing more.

Repeating yourself ad nauseum doesn’t do more to make your case, Dripping Clocks.

What gives anyone the right to take away the freedoms of another for making choices they don't agree with?

You never had that freedom. You never knew it. Nothing has been taken from you. You’ve simply been told you can’t have something, and to you, it amounts to the same thing. Because, and I have yet to see a pot smoker for whom this did not hold true, in the end, it’s all about you.

P.S. Why are so many pot advocates so full of 1960s clichés? Do you have any idea how long ago that decade was? Or what a laughingstock it has become to everyone but boomers?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-09 5:59:24 PM


"Before we start, Steve, you copied and pasted the whole post twice. An IT specialist who can’t copy and paste, nor count for that matter, is pretty fucking embarrassing. We’ll add it to the long list of things pot smokers don’t seem able to do properly."

Your such a petty man. Wah, he made a spelling error, wah a network issue caused a glitch that I will attribute to stupidity. Wah, people don't live up to my standards. Asshole.

"You have never proved either of those assertions. All you’ve proven is your deep-rooted hatred for conventional society, perhaps because it will have nothing to do with you. But whose fault is that?

Really? Do I have to? What religiously motivated death will I read about in the paper today? Do I dislike conventional society? Yes I do. This is what conventional society advocates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbwSwvUaRqc&feature=player_embedded

I wish conventional society had nothing to do with me. Unfortunately, I am forced to participate if I want to eat, have a roof over my head, and have access to the technology to live a decent lifestyle. Conventional society is just a farm. A farm for humans.

“No, last thread you were saying that your environment was responsible for the choice you make. And when did I ever put my moral beliefs on the table? I provide facts, research, and most importantly of all, relevant history. You’re the one beating us over the head with his personal morality, especially your stupid Venus Project.”

It is your moral beliefs (environmental) that drive your argument. It is your morals that direct your distaste of drugs, not facts. Spoken or not. So you advocate murder, to prevent murder. Because that is your core belief. This is what your god would do. You can’t sit there and tell me you got this interested in an activity you don’t participate in, in any way, because you think the facts fed to you by a very corrupt system, are so true, you have to spread the message. You have to spend hours, days, months defending your position. You provide a fact, there is a counter fact. Your view of relevant history. You think everything in the history book is true? Oh ya. You most likely do. The only time I bring up the “stupid Venus Project” is when you do. It has nothing to do with this argument. Now stop pouting. I am not beating you over the head with my morality, I am pointing out yours. Anyone have a problem with my morality? Anyone even know what it is? Does anyone here really understand the Venus Project?

“I know you are, but what am I?” Typical. Why is it pot smokers are all either nineteen or act like they are?”

But you didn’t defend yourself Shane, you just deflect. Do you deny that religion is responsible for deaths everyday, and that since you support it, you are responsible for their deaths? That’s what you say I do every time I smoke a joint. This is the point I am trying to press. You can have your facts, and opinion and believe whatever you want, but when you point a finger at me and screech “Blood Soaked Murderer”, you better look at the blood on the three pointing back at you. You support a far bloodier institution than I.

“No, what you want is freedom from the consequences of your actions, both to yourself and to others. Because you really could not care less.”

No, what I want is the freedom to not suffer the consequences imposed by others on an act that has no victims. It is only by the creation of the law, which harm has arisen. I’ll ask you again. Who is the victim when I smoke a joint? Take the law away, and where do you see the harm?

“If there were no laws, someone could cut your stomach open and stuff your guts in your mouth, and have no blame for it. You sure that’s a road you want to travel? You gotta sleep sometime, Steve.”

So, just to make this clear, your saying you think if the law against murder was repealed today, that tomorrow would erupt in chaos. I think only the religious wackos would react in such a way. And people so damaged by society that they think murder is ok somehow. Fortunately, most people know that murder is wrong. I’m not saying there should be no law against murder, our society is no where near ready for change like that. But it is quite possible in the future. What is the root causes of unnatural death on this planet Shane. What’s the big 1? #2?

“You lie. I’ve repeated it over and over on numerous threads, all of which you have read. However, as your next remark proves, it’s not a case of you not knowing the facts; it’s a case of you knowing them, and not caring.”

Did you now? Just because you repeat it doesn’t make it so. Our battles are so long, you will have to forgive me if forget the occasional point. Again, to me, the battle of facts is exhausted and it has come down to morality. I don’t see any problems in the lives of the people I know that smoke pot that are caused by pot. There are some that do, (Though I must confess, I have never met anyone like that that I can think of at this moment, how about you?) and the answer to that is that they should not smoke it if it causes a problem. Just like anything else.

“Ignore the results; it’s a failure on a moral level, so saith you. All or none. The idiot light blinks on and on.”

It’s a failure because you want to impose your morals on me, not the other way around. I’ll take none thanks. Blink blink….

“And what exactly is the problem? Are you actually acknowledging that drug use is a problem? Doesn’t that mean you have a problem? One you refuse to give up?”

Well, finally, a good question. What exactly is the problem? What is at the core of this problem? I agree drug abuse can be a problem, if by definition of problem you mean something that causes a negative disruption in your life, and/or affects those around you negatively. Yes I acknowledge that.
Let’s look at distribution first. Why are drugs from Columbia shipped around the world? Demand? No, the root cause of why drugs flow around the world is profit. Do you deny this?
Why do users do drugs? I thought this summed it up with a short description
http://www.wisegeek.com/why-do-people-do-drugs.htm
If you have anything to add, please do. So based on why people do drugs, your reaction to this is to murder others to prevent them from seeking relaxation and a slightly altered state of consciousness. Why?
We should be looking at why so many people need to seek this state. And fix that. I know what it is, but you won’t look the beast in the face.

““I know you are, but what am I?” This point goes to me.”

Again, no refutation, just deflection. Please point out the logic and evidence for your religion. Show me where it is not just about Fuh-fuh-feelings.

” You certainly would; you’d have one less traditional institution to rail at.”

Well, I meant in churches in general, all religion. What do you imagine a religion free world would look like? I think it would be incredible.

“Not in my schools, they didn’t. In fact most teachers are conspicuous Leftists and pacifists. And frankly I doubt it was any different for you”

Really? Then you aren’t paying attention. Not just schools, but the learning grounds of society. Movies, TV, and our literature are rife with patriotic and dieing for god imagery.

“Ah, yes, the “economic conscript” argument. Funny, most of the people I served with were not conspicuously poor.”

Well we live in Canada, our farmers care a little bit. And besides, how many did you know before they where getting a paycheck from the military?

“Who are you to question the love others give your children? Do you even have any?”

I do not have children. But if I did, I would never put them in harms way or encourage them to do so, because I know they only have one life, and I want them to live it. But you people who believe in an afterlife, that it will be all better after you die, if only you stroke gods’ dick, think little of killing your own. Because you think they are going to a better place. Prove it. Before you send your boys off to die in some war Shane, prove to them that there is a god. Can you prove it to me?

“No one forces them to do anything. They have every right not to buy pot. Using this logic, you’ll say it’s society’s fault that burglars have to rely on illegal fences to sell stolen goods. Another moral argument.”

You are forced to do things every day. And yes, it is a fault of society that we have burglars. How can you even argue that? Why do we have burglary?

“It’s funny that you term drug regulation as a war”

You don’t advocate regulation. You advocate prohibition. And who coined the term “War on Drugs”? And religion is all about prohibition. Is any of this connecting?

“Who’s doing the killing? Gangsters. Where do they get the money to buy their guns? From you.

Who is doing all the killing of innocent people in foreign countries for their religious and empire building beliefs? All in the name of Allah. Or God. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. How do they get the money to spread their particular little empire? From you. Again, what is the root cause of the killing in Mexico? Do you think the Mexicans are deeply concerned that I get my drugs?

“You couldn’t solve yourself out a phone booth, Bottrell. You’re a delusional utopian. And ending the money system wouldn’t eliminate crimes of passion, which constitute the bulk of violent crimes. Here goes the idiot light again, kids, right on schedule”

You can’t even see the cage you are in. Crimes of passion do not constitute the bulk of violent crime. You’re full of shit. I am trying not to discuss the VP here, but it is not Utopian. It’s just a far better way of living for everybody. It could be started right now.

“Draw the line, buddy. Your money funds killing; mine doesn’t. I support drug laws, but have no say in passing them; therefore you have no connection.”

There is no line to draw. Your money sponsors killing, in as much as mine does. And money is the root cause of all of it. I’m not saying the Catholic church is actively killing people right now, though some may debate that, but religion is definitely racking up a death toll. Why do you support drug laws, really? Why do you care? And care so much that you tirelessly promote your thoughts on the matter?
Anyway this is getting too long winded. I will finish up for now by saying; you support the drug laws because they favor your morality. Laws made up by God fearing men like you. To punish the wicked, and you decide what is wicked. Its not about the facts for you.

@419. To me your god is less than a toaster. At least I can see and prove the toasters existence. Feel free to type my name with no capital. I promise I won’t throw you in my basement and torture you forever.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-05-09 8:28:25 PM


.. in 12 hrs the Prince of Pot
will surrender to the prohibitionists..
and while he is in custody
the Justice Minister will announce Bill S-10 mandatory Minimums..

Wipeheads will have to spring their Leader of the Cannabis Community from Jail and turn back the legislative clock back. It will a long way back to zero. Best joke is millions of Wipeheads will be funding for their decline with their own tax dollars.

Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-09 9:58:35 PM


Your such a petty man. Wah, he made a spelling error, wah a network issue caused a glitch that I will attribute to stupidity. Wah, people don't live up to my standards. Asshole.

You’re such an incompetent buffoon. How come these sorts of things happen to me so rarely? Oh, wait, it’s because I care enough about the impression I make to put some effort into it instead of peppering it with LOLs like a dung-headed teenager. Moron. Moron, moron, moron.

Really? Do I have to?

If you want to be believed, yes.

What religiously motivated death will I read about in the paper today? Do I dislike conventional society? Yes I do. This is what conventional society advocates.

Cutting yourself off from society to nurse your particularly virulent brand of self-destructive nihilism is not the act of someone that people would naturally look to for an alternative to that society.

I wish conventional society had nothing to do with me. Unfortunately, I am forced to participate if I want to eat, have a roof over my head, and have access to the technology to live a decent lifestyle. Conventional society is just a farm. A farm for humans.

So move to some particularly desolate part of Saskatchewan, buy a farm there, build your own house, and become completely self-sufficient. Your ancestors did.

It is your moral beliefs (environmental) that drive your argument.

What drives it is irrelevant. Drive is nothing without direction.

It is your morals that direct your distaste of drugs, not facts.

I have a deep-rooted distaste for you. That’s not grounds for outlawing your existence.

So you advocate murder, to prevent murder.

Your twisted epistles make clear that you do not know what murder is.

Because that is your core belief. This is what your god would do.

Still no proof, I see.

You can’t sit there and tell me you got this interested in an activity you don’t participate in, in any way, because you think the facts fed to you by a very corrupt system, are so true, you have to spread the message.

I can and I have.

You have to spend hours, days, months defending your position. You provide a fact, there is a counter fact. Your view of relevant history. You think everything in the history book is true? Oh ya. You most likely do.

You think your mere questioning of history, on the grounds that it contains things inconvenient to your position, actually brings it into disrepute? Once again, the tactic of the cornered loser. Question everything. Tear down everything. But avoid hard proof at all costs.

The only time I bring up the “stupid Venus Project” is when you do.

Every time you mention the evils of the monetary system, you are indirectly referring to the Venus Project, which is your stated alternative.

It has nothing to do with this argument. Now stop pouting.

Then stop bringing it up. There shall be no more talk about the evils of money.

I am not beating you over the head with my morality, I am pointing out yours.

And doing a remarkably poor job of it, because it all boils down to assumptions you’ve made and can’t prove.

Anyone have a problem with my morality? Anyone even know what it is? Does anyone here really understand the Venus Project?

Do you really understand it? Because practically everyone else on this board, including libertarians, has dismissed it as communism without the currency.

But you didn’t defend yourself Shane, you just deflect. Do you deny that religion is responsible for deaths everyday, and that since you support it, you are responsible for their deaths?

Yes, I deny it. And you have yet to prove it. The fact that some people who claim to be religious kill people does not mean the religion made them do it. But you won’t accept that, because for your one-bit mind it’s far easier to blame what you already hate.

That’s what you say I do every time I smoke a joint. This is the point I am trying to press.

No, it’s what you do every time you buy black-market pot. If you grew your own and never sold to others, you’d still be breaking the law and inflicting all the negative consequences of drug abuse on society, but at least you wouldn’t be bankrolling the bloodshed.

You can have your facts, and opinion and believe whatever you want, but when you point a finger at me and screech “Blood Soaked Murderer”, you better look at the blood on the three pointing back at you. You support a far bloodier institution than I.

Why? Because the Church survived through several bloody and violent ages where everyone was behaving that way? Churchgoers are still members of their respective societies, and any faith is interpreted through the lens of contemporary politics. That’s why many Islamic clerics require women to wear the hijab even though it is not mentioned in the Koran—it’s a survival from pre-Islamic Arab traditions. Indonesia, the most populous Islamic country in the world, does not require the hijab.

No, what I want is the freedom to not suffer the consequences imposed by others on an act that has no victims.

You keep saying there are no other victims. The literature disputes you. But the fact of the matter is, you don’t care whether there are victims or not.

It is only by the creation of the law, which harm has arisen.

No, the extra step of breaking that law must occur before harm occurs. But you and other potheads are quite willing to do that, and for what?

I’ll ask you again. Who is the victim when I smoke a joint? Take the law away, and where do you see the harm?

We’ve been over the negative aspects of marijuana on others at length. Lost productivity, danger while driving, unpredictable effects and duration, rebound highs, psychosis, and STINK among the rest. But you keep insisting I’ve never listed anything and that there are no victims. You repeat it over and over again, an endless stoner’s rosary.

So, just to make this clear, your saying you think if the law against murder was repealed today, that tomorrow would erupt in chaos.

Do you really think the murder rate would remain the same over the long term if there were no consequences for it? You don’t know your fellow beings very well, then. But then, your support of the Venus Project makes that plain.

I think only the religious wackos would react in such a way.

You do not think at all.

And people so damaged by society that they think murder is ok somehow.

You mean, for instance, people who pay off people they know are murderers? All for a little weed?

Fortunately, most people know that murder is wrong. I’m not saying there should be no law against murder, our society is no where near ready for change like that. But it is quite possible in the future.

Can you prove that? Or do you just prove to believe that?

What is the root causes of unnatural death on this planet Shane. What’s the big 1? #2?

It depends on how you define “unnatural.”

Did you now? Just because you repeat it doesn’t make it so.

As I indicated just above, you keep asking for it. Over and over again. And then conveniently keep forgetting. That little one-bit brain can’t hold much data, it seems.

Our battles are so long, you will have to forgive me if forget the occasional point.

You forget everything, Steve. Stoners are not noted for their exceptional memories.

Again, to me, the battle of facts is exhausted and it has come down to morality.

Translation: I was right when I said this was a case of you having the facts, and not caring. Also that you prefer to keep this in the realm of the subjective and the unprovable, because only there do you have even a remote chance of victory. Because the numbers and the history just don’t line up behind your position.

I don’t see any problems in the lives of the people I know that smoke pot that are caused by pot.

I see nothing but problems in the lives of people I know that smoke pot. But they don’t see themselves as having problems however much of mess they get themselves into. Because for most of them, it’s the world that needs fixing, not them. Remind you of someone?

It’s a failure because you want to impose your morals on me, not the other way around. I’ll take none thanks. Blink blink….

Whether the “drug war” has succeeded or failed is not contingent upon what you think I do to you. You are nowhere near that important. These are the ravings of a narcissistic moonbat with delusions of grandeur.

Well, finally, a good question. What exactly is the problem? What is at the core of this problem? I agree drug abuse can be a problem, if by definition of problem you mean something that causes a negative disruption in your life, and/or affects those around you negatively. Yes I acknowledge that.

And how likely it is to happen with a given substance has a lot to do with how that substance is regulated. It’s a game of percentages, not of absolute numbers. Very few people die every year of cyanide poisoning, but virtually everyone who ingests it will die. Most people who drink alcohol will never have serious negative effects. That percentage is higher for marijuana, much higher for narcotics, lower for caffeine drinkers. That’s why caffeine is legal and dope is not.

Let’s look at distribution first. Why are drugs from Columbia shipped around the world? Demand? No, the root cause of why drugs flow around the world is profit.

And without demand, there would be no profit. Think about it. Most of these drugs are consumed in the United States by people who have a far from complete understanding about the negative consequences their pastime has on people half a world away from them. And who emphatically resist education about the same.


Why do users do drugs?

In the context of drug abuse, mostly to avoid confronting personal inadequacies. Another reason that drug abuse is unacceptable and completely avoidable.

We should be looking at why so many people need to seek this state.

Need, or want? Do you acknowledge a difference between the two?

I know what it is, but you won’t look the beast in the face.

I know what it is, and furthermore, I know that you have that problem and I do not. But you won’t look the beast in the fact, preferring to blur its image with drugs, and then work up a king-sized hate-on for the people who tell you to grow up and get a life.

Again, no refutation, just deflection. Please point out the logic and evidence for your religion.

I don’t have to. I have never offered religion as a justification for my conclusions about drugs. You are the one who has convinced himself otherwise, and you are the one who has never furnished proof, because there is none to be had. Once again, keeping things in the subjective realm, where you believe you have a chance.

Well, I meant in churches in general, all religion.

We all know what you meant, Steve. As do you. Face it—you’re a hater.

What do you imagine a religion free world would look like? I think it would be incredible.

Too bad most humans don’t share your ideas. Humanity seems not to agree with you about a lot of stuff, Steve. And you lack both the facts and the coherence to convince them otherwise.

Really? Then you aren’t paying attention. Not just schools, but the learning grounds of society. Movies, TV, and our literature are rife with patriotic and dieing for god imagery.

And also with pacifist leftist claptrap. Don’t forget most movie come out of Hollyweird, and teachers were particularly leftist and pacifist during the 1970s, when I first went to school, owing to the Vietnam War. The media spans the gamut, Steve. A recent blockbuster film, Avatar, was decidedly anti-war.

Well we live in Canada, our farmers care a little bit. And besides, how many did you know before they where getting a paycheck from the military?

The paycheck from the military was barely above minimum wage. In 1988 I was making $8 per hour. People do not go into the military to get rich; the pay is not much better than what they could get for far less work and discipline. “Economic conscripts,” my ass. You just recycled that horseshit from a pacifist blog somewhere.

I do not have children. But if I did, I would never put them in harms way or encourage them to do so...

You have no fucking idea what you’d do. Having children changes your perspective completely. You don’t have kids, so you don’t know sweet F.A. I don’t need child-rearing advice from yet another childless child expert.

You are forced to do things every day.

But not to steal, nor buy pot.

And yes, it is a fault of society that we have burglars.

Only in that we don’t hang them all.

How can you even argue that? Why do we have burglary?

Because we have people with criminal mentalities. People who feel that life has ripped them off royally, even if they can’t begin to describe how. People who are mad at the world and want revenge, even if they can cite no provocation. People like yourself.

You don’t advocate regulation. You advocate prohibition.

I advocate removal of narcotics and marijuana (once approved) from the pharmacopoeia, even with prescription? Where did I say that? Because that is what prohibition would entail--complete removal of drugs from circulation. Drugs are currently regulated, not prohibited.

And who coined the term “War on Drugs”?

I know who uses it most now.

And religion is all about prohibition. Is any of this connecting?

Religion is about discipline. Another area that egotistical self-absorbed world-haters like yourself are completely lost in.

Who is doing all the killing of innocent people in foreign countries for their religious and empire building beliefs?

It’s never about religion. Wake up and smell the hummus.

Again, what is the root cause of the killing in Mexico? Do you think the Mexicans are deeply concerned that I get my drugs?

They’re deeply concerned that they get your money. And you’re only too happy to oblige.

You can’t even see the cage you are in. Crimes of passion do not constitute the bulk of violent crime. You’re full of shit.

Numbers, numbers.

I am trying not to discuss the VP here, but it is not Utopian. It’s just a far better way of living for everybody. It could be started right now.

Yes, if only everyone in the world were more like you. But as we’ve detailed rather exhaustively, that’s unlikely to happen.

There is no line to draw. Your money sponsors killing, in as much as mine does. And money is the root cause of all of it.

Proof, proof.

I’m not saying the Catholic church is actively killing people right now...

Because you couldn’t prove it if you did. That hasn’t stopped you from calling Catholics baby killers, though, has it?

though some may debate that...

What people will debate is irrelevant. We are interested in facts, not opinions.

...but religion is definitely racking up a death toll.

Still no proof, I see.

Why do you support drug laws, really? Why do you care? And care so much that you tirelessly promote your thoughts on the matter?

Once again, the buffer overflows; a few more transistors burn out; the light dims. I’ve already given my reasons numerous times, including within this very post. The problem is you. You won’t accept my reasons because you can’t imagine yourself acting in such a manner. It requires a sense of social and personal responsibility which you utterly lack.

Anyway this is getting too long winded. I will finish up for now by saying; you support the drug laws because they favor your morality.

Thus repeating what you’ve already reiterated over and over again, each and every time without proof. Well, that’s a big surprise. I think I’m gonna have a heart attack and die from that surprise.

Its not about the facts for you.

Correction: It’s not about the facts for you. You have already admitted as much, by claiming that the “war on drugs” is a failure simply because of your opinion of my morality. You wave the facts away as you would bothersome insects, unwilling to have them disturb your carefully nurtured inner turmoil and lovingly cultivated hate.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-09 11:44:30 PM



Kudos to Mr. Marc Emery for introducing thousands of Canadians to a much Safer and Non Toxic product than either Alcohol and or Tobacco.

Cannabis.

40,000 Canadians Dead each Year from direct Tobacco usage.

4,000 Canadians Dead each year as a direct result of Alcohol usage.

Not one Canadian has ever died from direct Cannabis consumption.

Kudos to Marc Emery for saving the City of Vancouver and its hard working taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars in Policing costs during the recent Vancouver Olympics.

Thousands of Olympic Game Spectators made the wiser choice to ingest Cannabis rather than Alcohol.

This resulted in less Violence and Hospitalizations and the associated Policing costs that ALWAYS accompanies any Booze related event.

Good Luck today Mr. Emery.

Strength.

Posted by: jeff franklin | 2010-05-10 7:38:06 AM


attention all Wipehads
who have made bets with me
concerning the Prince of Pot,
his fate and freedom:

Please make arrangements for proper money transfers to my bank account as soon as Emery surrenders today 9 am Pacific time,

you will recall that Bet payoffs are due immediately after the door slams behind him,
not later in the week or when your UI cheque comes in or whatever..
deadbeats will not be tolerated

Even if for some reason Emery is released on additional bail, the deal was his _surrender and that's today.

" one motorcycle in your driveway is worth
1000 passing you by on the highway "

...thank you
the 419 Casino

Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-10 7:54:08 AM


You keep recycling the same old boilerplate, Franklin, focusing on the same old isolated talking points, as if you expect it will someday make a difference. Did you ever watch on old rerun of Gilligan's Island and really, really, really believe that they were going to get off the island this time?

Wake up. No one gives six and seven-eighths of a dime store whore's fuck about what marijuana does to YOU. They care about the effect your ingesting it has on OTHER people, even if it's just cleaning up the mess.

You don't even attempt debate anymore. You just push PLAY and that's your contribution. It'll take more than brainless drones like you to get Emery out of this one.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-10 8:03:04 AM


Ah the drug culture at work. Is it any wonder that your "plight" wins far more indifference than support. You people defeat yourselves. So Emery will go off to prison today. Hooray for justice.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-05-10 8:11:15 AM


Zeb
I just my 4 day work week cut back to three
so yes falconry with the lads from church
Hey I can't get on a DEA jet all of a sudden,
they are booked up solid all month north and south , what gives?

and you know what happens
special at noon EST today ?
direct from vancouver-
what we have been waiting for -
their loss our gain


fresh salmon for lunch

Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-10 9:14:15 AM


Kudos to Mr Emery for providing contact information to tens of thousands of Canadians when the RCMP seized his computers..Pot, Tobacco, Alcohol= rank them in safety all you want but none of them arE any good for anyone.

Thats right Turtle Franklin: Canadians don;t die from direct use of cannabis, they just fade away slowly like the image on a tshirt after successive washings and they don;t even know it.

Emery and the other fat left buzzkills had no effect on the winter olympics..none.unless you consider waving a pot leaf flag from a second story window vape lounge as significant. Nobody else seemed to have noticed

" Good luck Mr Emery" well I see you hav given uop on everything lse but luck.. wekll mayb an earthquake will jog the po;lice van off the road ,m pop open the back door and the handcuffs break off, and the Prince of Pot runs away in slow motion while the credits to " The Fugitive" roll past in your mind.

or Marc & Jodie can star together in the Wipehead remake of " The Sonny & Cher Show " They are still casting for lead roles in the
" Jim & Tammy Baker Story "

Give it up Wipeheads, someone changed the channel on you way back there.. you have been watching a microwave oven since 1994 when Emery first came to Vancouver.
The " Overgrow the Government Show" is not on anymore

Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-10 9:35:19 AM


Melted Time said"
"...What gives anyone the right to take away the freedoms of another for making choices they don't agree with?.."

you never had the right to get stoned on cannabis, so nobody took it away, you might mean you want or need to to break the drug laws and don't exactly understand the game involved. Well, that's what jail is all about- so you find the time to figure that out,, ya choices the rest of the human race doesn't agree with is called
" The Criminal Code " - either become familiar with it yourself, pay a lawyer to read it to you or you are eligible to win free macaroni dinners & a chance to participate in the orange clothing fashion show for up to - five years

Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-10 9:46:13 AM


Our government sends troops to afghanistan to kill and to die , what for? to make them free they tell us , were not free here .The government wants to fill our prisons , the land of liberty, where half the country is in jail

Posted by: don | 2010-05-10 10:29:59 AM


Shane and zebulon would of been real happy in Hitlers europe

Posted by: don | 2010-05-10 10:31:13 AM


Shane and zebulon, lets here your solution , when in the northern reserves kids that are addicted to sniffing gasoline "shold we cut of there supply of fuel" or"put them in jail hard labor " lets here some more ignorance from you two

Posted by: don | 2010-05-10 11:11:46 AM


Don

you have brilliant insight to a complex social problem that has eluded generations of scholars
and a crisp, original way of presenting your views all that and an abundance of accurate, pertinent statistical research
You should consider becoming a candidate in your riding for the Marijuana Party =
Don, you have the vision & leadership the Wipeheads of Canada _deserve

Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-10 11:52:24 AM


Thank you, Don, for yet another semi-literate pro-pot rant. Can you potheads not muster a single fully literate entity between the lot of you? To say nothing of the paranoid delusions you seem to suffer. "Half the country," indeed. Pot smokers say that marijuana does not cause paranoia, but their behaviour suggests otherwise.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-10 12:06:41 PM


Roman Catholic murderous thugs. That's all they are. Their solution is to murder anyone that doesn't see whatever, the way they see whatever.
During the second world war, they murdered approximately 700,000 orthodox Serbians. They died because they wouldn't convert to Roman Catholicism. Often they would take the ones who claimed to convert to their churches and murdered them in front of the priest.

Reference works such as "The Vatican's Holocaust" by Avro Manhattan and "Convert or Die!" by Edmond Paris present the documented facts that the Catholic church liquidated over 700,000 orthodox Serbians in Croatia, Yugoslavia, during the years 1940-1945.

In the year 2000, Pope John Paul made a mock apology for atrocities that occurred over the centuries, pretending that it was only certain members of the Catholic church who were responsible for committing the gruesome acts of torture and murder, when in fact it was the official policy of the papacy that was responsible. Furthermore, the "Pope" made no apology for, nor did he even mention, the nearly three quarters of a million innocent Bible believing Christian Serbians slaughtered by Catholics in Croatia, Yugoslavia, during World War II.

Matthews can rant all he likes about the "facts". As we all know, "facts" are distorted on a regular basis to prop up what ever point of view you want to put forth. And in the case of pot, it has gotten out of hand. On both sides. And yet Matthews continues to rant about the facts. While confessing all along that he believes in something which is not based on any facts. And his bias is formed from this fantasy. Just because he doesn't say it, doesn't mean this is not where he gets his murderous beliefs. A mans core beliefs is what forms his opinions. So understand that this is far from a battle of facts for the 3 trolls that infest every mention of pot on this site. This has a religious foundation from all 3 of them. Whether they claim it or not.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-05-10 12:10:26 PM


Emery's gone now. Mr. Nicholson signed the extradition order.

I expected to be happy with this, but yet I just feel relief. A job well done, I suppose.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-05-10 12:11:51 PM


No need to cut off their access to fuel, Don, as gasoline is already sold only to those over 16. If the adults there aren't doing enough to keep fuel out of unauthorized hands, that's their failing. Yet another consequence of lackluster enforcement. It's what happens when people shirk their responsibilities.

I do know that the solution to gas huffing among the Innu does not lie in selling pot and heroin over the counter. Substance abuse problems are seldom solved by changing substances.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-10 12:14:50 PM


Hey Steve

still at it huh?
that's braver than smart

well thats what freedom is all about
your right and privlidge
to keep pushing your snow shovel
against the dry tarmac
long after the
last trace of snow has melted

4:20 will never be the same anymore
it will only remind you
that your choices
didn't work out

Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-10 12:30:42 PM



Here you go Steve" snow shovel grease
direct from The Prince of Pots own Website


still time to make a luttle $200 bet that his majesty might still be freed - my $200 says he won;t get away and will be delivered into the hands of the Americans- starting today he's in somebody or others custody for the next few years
so much for marijuana freedom and overgrowing the government.. epic fail, but your considerable Wipehead rage and anger can still serve the Prince of Pot - he's asking for your tears and fears.. hey, you can do it !
..........................................

It's Official: Conservatives Extradite Marc Emery
By Jeremiah Vandermeer, Cannabis Culture -
Marc Emery kisses his wife Jodie goodbye before turning himself in to Canadian authorities. Marc will be extradited to the USA to face charges for selling cannabis seeds on the Internet.Marc Emery kisses his wife Jodie goodbye before turning himself in to Canadian authorities. Marc will be extradited to the USA to face charges for selling cannabis seeds on the Internet.CANNABIS CULTURE - The extradition order to send marijuana activist Marc Emery to the United States for an expected five-year prison term has been signed by the Canadian Minister of Justice, Rob Nicholson.

Cannabis Culture has learned that Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada made their decision shortly after Emery turned himself in to Canadian authorities this morning: The Prince of Pot will be handed over to the United States for selling marijuana seeds over the Internet.

Marc spoke to reporters outside of the downtown Vancouver Law Courts before turning himself in.

“If he sends me away, it will anger millions of Americans and millions of Canadians,” he told the press. “I need them to be angry, otherwise we won’t get any change on this drug war.”

Marc's lawyer and fellow marijuana activist Kirk Tousaw told Cannabis Culture that in all likelihood, Marc would be sent south across the border by the end of the week where he will eventually appear before a sentencing judge. Marc is expected to be sentenced to five years as part of a plea deal arranged with American prosecutors.


-------advertisement---------

Highly desirable NUMBER THREE SPOT in the Western Standard list of notable Freedom Fighters has suddenly become vacant - new applications for position # 003 will be considered, Position is open to any of the tens of thousands of Wipeheads out there..no skill testing question will ever be asked of short listed candidates,

Decision of the WS editors is final

Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-10 12:58:15 PM


419: I advise you not to take any money from the druggies. You don't know from where it came. It might be drug money, borne from someone's misery.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-05-10 1:11:18 PM


Roman Catholic murderous thugs. That's all they are.

Shrilled the hater.

Their solution is to murder anyone that doesn't see whatever, the way they see whatever.

I thought you said the Church wasn’t currently involved in killings, Steve.

Reference works such as "The Vatican's Holocaust" by Avro Manhattan and "Convert or Die!" by Edmond Paris present the documented facts that the Catholic church liquidated over 700,000 orthodox Serbians in Croatia, Yugoslavia, during the years 1940-1945.

Mm. Too bad professionally vetted history books don’t.

In the year 2000, Pope John Paul made a mock apology for atrocities that occurred over the centuries…

Well, that makes him a class act compared to you, because you make no apologies for the killings you bankroll, insisting to your grave that they’re everyone else’s fault.

Matthews can rant all he likes about the "facts". As we all know, "facts" are distorted on a regular basis to prop up what ever point of view you want to put forth.

Or, like Steve, if the facts don’t suit you, you simply lie.

And in the case of pot, it has gotten out of hand. On both sides. And yet Matthews continues to rant about the facts.

Know who hates and distrusts facts, Steve? Losers who want to keep the game subjective.

While confessing all along that he believes in something which is not based on any facts.

But which has nothing to do with the subject at hand, and you can’t prove otherwise.

And his bias is formed from this fantasy.

Squalled the hater who has spilled tanker trucks of ink denouncing the Church.

Just because he doesn't say it, doesn't mean this is not where he gets his murderous beliefs.

Ah! So no proof constitutes proof. What have I been saying all this time?

A mans core beliefs is what forms his opinions.

No, a man’s opinions are what form his core beliefs. You have it backwards. Shocker.

So understand that this is far from a battle of facts for the 3 trolls that infest every mention of pot on this site.

And what do you call yourself, Baker, and Oog? Actually, we could probably throw in Ben Franklin and Charles as well. All five of you lined up right behind my ass, ready to play pass the turd.

This has a religious foundation from all 3 of them. Whether they claim it or not.

It sure does for you, because you guys are the only ones who mention religion, are the only ones with the litany (specifically, a litany of hate), the only ones mentioning a rosary (specifically, the rosary of the “victimless crime”), are the ones who speak in starry-eyed terms of crushing the heads of the serpents, and who follow a self-described messiah (who, unlike the Genuine Article, chickened out at the last minute). For all the good it did him; it is now official: Marc Emery has been extradited to the United States. The Justice Minister has today ordered it. Let the wailing and grinding of teeth begin.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-10 1:51:51 PM


Bro Zeb

you're right- blood money is blood money'
it doesn't get clean just because it
moves into another wallet
nobody needs that sort of income
no matter how easy it is to get

Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-10 3:47:00 PM


419: Emery said "Go Canucks" as his last words before going to prison. I hope that they lost to the Black Hawks just for that. Emery is like King Midas in reverse, everything he touches turns to s**t (with apologies to Tony Soprano). He claims millions of supporters, but only dozens (if that) turn out. His situation attracts more indifference than opposition. His cause simply does not matter.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-05-10 4:01:09 PM


so Brother Zebulon..

are you telling me that His Majestys' final moments of freedom were absorbed with -
the mans game - hockey
and not the struggle forthat girley weed marijuana?

well, what a quitter is all I can say.

Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-10 5:29:57 PM


No, I think he just said that to curry favor with the public - trying to show that he is one of them.

Pfffffft! yeah right.

He also said that the voters should make Mr. Harper's government pay.

"I think the best thing that could happen to our movement is that the minister decides, foolishly, to extradite me. Canadians will be very, very angry and punish this government," Emery told reporters, his wife by his side and supporters carrying "Free Marc" placards standing behind him.

"If I'm extradited, I've told my supporters that every Conservative member of Parliament is to be hounded endlessly and unmercifully until they are defeated in the next or following elections. It's to be a life project for them as long as I am incarcerated in the United States or Canada."

What a petty little wimp, blaming others for his actions. In reality he should blame the Liberal Party too since he was arrested during their term in office. But it gets worse, or better, depending on your point of view:

"I think of myself as a great Canadian -- I've worked my whole life for individual freedom in this country, I've never asked for anything in return," Emery told reporters.

This guy WAS too much. He was a complete narcissist. Now he's just an inmate of the US Bureau of Prisons, as he agreed to be when he accepted his deal.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-05-10 6:12:36 PM


The History of Marc Emerys'
My Life as a Bumper Sticker


1_ " Overgrow the Government"

2_ " Become the Government "

...now


3_" Punish the Government"

...coming soon

4_ " Bitch to the Government "

Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-10 10:08:07 PM


CORRECTION
**********

snark # 4 should have read:

.................................

4_ Jail Bitch _of the US Government

.................................

thank you

Casino 419

Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-11 7:28:05 AM


lol 419, zeb, u two are funny shit. If i ever need a laugh i know where to come, thanks for that! ;)

Posted by: Baker | 2010-05-11 7:54:15 AM


Thanks baker, we were just saying the same thing about you

Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-11 8:44:44 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.