Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Welcome to the Good Life | Main | You're in for a Shock: Disturbing New Facts About Ontario's Green Energy Act »

Tuesday, September 07, 2010

Emery's Prosecutor Thinks Marijuana Laws Are Bad

The dark farce continues:

John McKay, now a Seattle University law professor, argued in the weekend article that the war against marijuana has failed, actually threatens public safety and rests on false medical assumptions.

"I DON'T smoke pot," Seattle's former U.S. attorney insisted. "And I pretty much think people who do are idiots."

But McKay added: "As Emery's prosecutor and a former federal law-enforcement official, however, I'm not afraid to say out loud what most of my former colleagues know is true: Our marijuana policy is dangerous and wrong and should be changed through the legislative process to better protect the public safety."

The DEA insisted in 2005 Emery was one of the world's "most wanted international drug trafficking organizational targets." Today McKay admits "our 1930s-era marijuana prohibition was overkill from the beginning."

The former prosecutor basically admits the problem is too big for the government to handle:

Law-enforcement agencies are simply not capable of interdicting all of this pot and despite some successes have not succeeded in thwarting criminals who traffic and sell marijuana. Brave agents and cops continue to risk their lives in a futile attempt to enforce misguided laws that do not match the realities of our society.

These same agents and cops, along with prosecutors, judges and jailers, know we can't win by arresting all those involved in the massive importation, growth or distribution of marijuana, nor by locking up all the pot smokers. While many have argued the policy is unjust, few have addressed the dangerously potent black market the policy itself has created for exploitation by Mexican and other international drug cartels and gangs. With the proceeds from the U.S. marijuana black market, these criminals distribute dangerous drugs and kill each other (too often along with innocent bystanders) with American-purchased guns.

While not exactly a pro-freedom defense of pot, i.e. that it's none of the government's business what I put in my body, it may very well be the impracticality of the pot laws that overwhelms the prohibitionists.

Posted by Richard Anderson on September 7, 2010 | Permalink


My son and I just returned from Nova Scotia, and I'm really completely disgusted over the money being wasted chasing pot smokers. The ratio of cops to citizens has to be 10 times higher than normal in that province.

When we arrived in NS, the first thing we saw was a police convoy, speeding down the highway. There was a swat van, 4X4 trucks, and several SUVs. We thought there must have been a terrorist attack, but my sister informed me it was only the drug unit, heading for a suspected grow-op. They have helicopters in the air, at all times. I can't even guess what this costs.

Nova Scotia has drug problems, but pot isn't the real culprit. There are meth labs in most every community. It's possible to find hard drugs in almost any school. The cops don't have any interest in shutting down these operations. All those resources we're paying for are focused on marijuana dealers. To add injury to insult, they aren't making the slightest dent in the supply.

Policing is becoming the biggest make work project in the Maritimes. It's become so intrusive that most locals are desensitized to it. Hardly anyone owns a gun any more, so gangs have a free ride in rural areas. Everyone thinks the cops are going to keep them safe. It makes me sick to see the total loss of privacy, free will, and freedom of choice occur in such a short time. Once one generation falls into the trap, freedoms fall like dominos.

Posted by: dp | 2010-09-07 8:49:02 AM

prohibition has been a make work project everywhere in Canada, billions of dollars spent , wasted , on a never ending war.
Whats different is Emerys prosecutor is admitting thats its wrong, usually they cry we need more money or more resources .Its unusual for a prosecutor who has built a lucrative from prohibition to admit that its a colossal failure.

Posted by: don b | 2010-09-07 9:35:25 AM

don b- I don't expect his actions to become a trend. Canadians are getting too comfortable with over policing to even notice how few liberties we have left.

Posted by: dp | 2010-09-07 11:42:41 AM

Where is Shane to lead us out of this future of misery and back to the good old 1970s where a man could proudly beat his wife and drive down the highway with a little brown road pop by his side?

Oh here he comes now, quick hide your bong...

Posted by: Paul Schroeder | 2010-09-07 6:46:05 PM

I believe Shane has probably had a nervous breakdown, constantly lying to yourself to defend the indefensible will eventually take its toll.

Posted by: don b | 2010-09-08 8:58:55 AM

Unfortunately for pot legalizers, the same basic argument for legalizing pot can also be used for legalizing other drugs: namely, that people do them in spite of the law. If that's their only argument, then it is doomed to failure, because early 90 percent of Canadians are in favour of keeping hard drugs illegal. The pot users are therefore confronted with the necessity of explaining why this argument applies to pot and not other drugs.

But of course, that isn't possible, and they lack the eloquence to craft a convincing case even if it were, so in typical fashion they'll just halfheartedly chuck mud at their opponents and then shuffle off into the shadows for another joint.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-08 9:58:05 AM

I agree the police are getting too heavy-handed, dp, but these tactics are permeating law enforcement as a whole, and are not concentrated on drugs in particular. One guy found himself facing half a dozen SWAT officers with machine guns because some neurotic Torontonian yuppie working in the next building over glanced out the window and caught him playing with a Lego pistol. An unfortunate byproduct of our paranoid age.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-08 10:01:38 AM

Emery's Prosecutor was paid to enforce the law not comment on it. When he was laid off by Bush and secured a new job as a law professor, he was paid to comment on the law not to enforce it. A carpet salesman is paid to tell you broadloom adds to the value of your home, an ex carpet saleman working for the wooden floor institute.. you get the idea, carpets are bad, and woodfloors are good
The main thing Mr McKay had to say was pot smoking is for idiots, Marc Emery is an idiot and his bid to legalize pot failed bigtime in every way. With supporters like him. who needs enemies?

It was the DEA who busted Marc Emery, as drug crimes are their job , Emery was not busted by the District Attorney of Seattle Mr McKay..Mr McKay was selling their Federal carpets while he was employed there, Marc Emery was one more felon to be processed.McKay wiped the floor with the Lyin' Cryin' Prince of Pot
You will also note Mr McKay's idea of pot legalization is for the feds to clamp down hard on every aspect of production, distribution and use -and tax and regulate it harshly- the party will be over except for some weak THC federal pot all taxed to death and patrolled much harder alcohol.

McKay is smart enough to know that the battle against the black market by the Feds will go for a very long time, and that criminal gangs will always lurk around that prize of pot..getting caught with contraband in McKays model pot society of the future will be very harshly dealt with. And that goes for the fake medical marijuana circus too.

How do Wipeheads figure McKay is suddenly on their side? He calls pot smokers idiots & is out to bust them all and extract all their money by force and jail anybody who gives him any shit.. And he's the nice guy in the straight edge camp..

yes the present marijuana laws are bad, and even worse ones will soon be enacted, that is, much worse from a Wipeheads perspective, greatly improved from everybody else's point of view.

Posted by: 419 | 2010-09-08 11:16:27 AM

My argument is focused more on the huge increase of influence the police seem to have on every day life. They're using the war on drugs as an excuse for bigger budgets, and more powers. I don't care if Marijuana remains a controlled substance, but all this attention is driving up the price, and increasing profits for the more hard-core dealers. If pot heads were able to grow their own, without fear of a squad of helicopters, and a platoon of cops breaking down their doors, maybe the gangs would lose some of their customers.

Posted by: dp | 2010-09-08 11:52:29 AM

Strange that the USA Drug War was initiated by a disgraced drunk...

Richard Nixon.

Former British P.M. Tony Blair admits to too much alcohol usage. A crutch.

Could his usage of Alcohol, his being impaired, have led to the lies and deceit that helped lead Britain into an un necesssary war in Iraq?

Alcohol induced brain damage could have led George W Bush to believe that his God had told him to liberate the Middle East through invasion, Torture and the shredding of the USA Constitution.

'Those WMD's have got to be there somewhere.' GWB. Felon, Liar and Draft Dodger.

Thank You to Mr. Marc Emery for introducing tens of thousands of Canadians and Americans to a much Safer substance than either Alcohol and or Tobacco.


Your courage is remembered Mr. Emery.

Man, it's Torture hearing Stephen Harper croon:

'I get high with a little help from my friends.'

Can you feel the CRAPer Rapture?

Posted by: jeff franklin | 2010-09-08 12:37:55 PM

The "war on drugs" is just one piece of a very large pie, dp. What allows the police to behave this way is the overarching paranoia that grips many Western societies today. The thirst for absolute security and the total abolition of all things unpleasant is absolutely suffocating. This is not some sinister conspiracy on the part of police; on the contrary, they are affected as well, them more than any.

The more urbanized a society becomes, the more neurotic and fearful it becomes. Why this should be so is unclear, but it's true. A sensationalistic media that milks incidents until they are utterly played out further exacerbates the problem. It's a self-perpetuating Frankenstein that becomes ever harder to kill. Our ancestors solved this problem, then prevalent in Europe, by fleeing to the wilderness of North America. But we don't really have that as an option anymore, and to find anything approaching it we'd have to move VERY far north and endure all the hardships our ancestors did.

As for pot smokers growing their own, that's unlikely to become an accepted part of even the proposed legalization schemes, because most of them are being sold based on the potential for tax revenue, which home growing would circumvent. It's no harder to keep home production of legalized pot illegal than it is to keep moonshine illegal. People talk of legalizing marijuana not because they find the law unjust or they think we need more pot smokers, but because they see a cash grab, or they simply can't be bothered anymore. These are not the sort of high-minded principles which drive the quest for justice, and initiatives founded on such tripe usually fail.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-08 12:38:26 PM

"....If pot heads were able to grow their own, without fear of a squad of helicopters, and a platoon of cops breaking down their doors, maybe the gangs would lose some of their customers..."

now thats classic retro wipehead delusion that's almost a almost a half century old now

the few who did grow their own pot would live in constant fear that it would get stolen from their backyards. This is already a problem where pirates grow, these people are professional rippers- they steal and sell- they determine who is likely growing and rob it just before harvest.
Backyard pot would only be for private home owners- it would be forbidden in apartments, condos or rented quarters- public housing, no way. No insurance company would cover your place if you grew pot because its a crime magnet. Califiornia is about to learn this lesson the hard way- whether pot is ever legal there or not-the insurance man will take up the slack Anybody growing pot would have to construct a steel wire mesh cage to contain it safely- like a swimming pool fence-- and a security system.. it would hardly be worth it..

BTW after legalization, >any secret unreported pot growing would bring on the battering rams ,swat teams, dogs arrest and property seizure- same as now. Crimestoppers would still be there..
and the Power company investigators.. same old heat ..

Posted by: 419 | 2010-09-08 2:08:57 PM

Alcohol and tobacco are not a psychotropic hallucinogens, Jeff, and you won't win this or any other debate by simply slagging as many people as you can find. Stop proving me right. And while you're at it, stop failing the Turing Test.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-08 2:12:00 PM

"psychotropic hallucinogen"?

You need to do some serious research if you are to receive proper retort from any of us as a respectable debater on the topic.

How incredibly ignorant.

Posted by: Paul Rube | 2010-09-08 3:31:49 PM

Jeff- Emery did not invent marijuana. He just found a way to make a lot of money off it. He's not part of the solution, he's part of the problem.

419- You're just about as screwed up as any pot head I've ever met. What the hell is a wipehead? I think I knew your father. He was the guy who used the word "groovy" after 1972.

Posted by: dp | 2010-09-08 4:08:00 PM

Aldous Huxley wrote "that he thought it strange that when Hilaire Belloc and G. K. Chesterton wrote the praises of alcohol they were still considered good Christians (Catholics actually), while anyone who suggested other routes to self-transcendence was accused of being a drug addict and perverter of mankind."

G. K. Chesterton

"Doubtless, it is unnatural to be drunk. But then in a real sense it is unnatural to be human. Doubtless, the intemperate workman wastes his tissues in drinking; but no one knows how much the sober workman wastes his tissues by working. No one knows how much the wealthy philanthropist wastes his tissues by talking; or, in much rarer conditions, by thinking. All the human things are more dangerous than anything that affects the beasts - sex, poetry, property, religion. The real case against drunkenness is not that it calls up the beast, but that it calls up the Devil. It does not call up the beast, and if it did it would not matter much, as a rule; the beast is a harmless and rather amiable creature, as anybody can see by watching cattle. There is nothing bestial about intoxication; and certainly there is nothing intoxicating or even particularly lively about beasts. Man is always something worse or something better than an animal; and a mere argument from animal perfection never touches him at all. Thus, in sex no animal is either chivalrous or obscene. And thus no animal ever invented anything so bad as drunkenness - or so good as drink."

Hilaire Belloc

"If I say that an over-consumption of alcohol is bad for the human frame, especially in age, it is no answer to give me examples of topers who have to ninety. The evil effect of over-drinking is there, demonstrable and, to any honest mind, unquestioned. It is a mere question of experiment and experience and the use of reason applied to the same. Where true conclusions are apparently contradicted by experience they are so contradicted by other forces which do not make the truth any the less true."

Posted by: Jim | 2010-09-08 6:01:05 PM

    You need to do some serious research if you are to receive proper retort from any of us as a respectable debater on the topic. How incredibly ignorant.

And you need to realize that there's more to rebuttal than simply lifting your lip contemptuously and standing there with your hands on your hips. Not to take this down to a perfectly literal Dick-and-Jane level, but this is the part where you tell us why the remark is ignorant.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-08 6:47:01 PM

dp- Every Wipehead asks what's a Wipehead..
that's how the rest of us they are Wipeheads

Posted by: 419 | 2010-09-08 7:39:44 PM

Oh Dear:

Mr. Harper is now waxing poetic on how his God is a tolerant and understanding God, relating to the planned Koran burning in the good ol' USA.

If Stevie's God is kind, benevolent and peaceful, why does Steve want to lock up Canadian non violent Cannabis imbibers? Why does Steve want to spend @ 9 Billion $$ importing a USA For Profit Prison Scheme into Canada, especially with crime stats going down?

Shirley, Steve's God would want Canadian Taxpayer $$ better spent than on a futile and pointless, USA Nixonian intiated Drug War?

One wonders, would Steve's God like to get high with a little help from his God friends?'

Can you feel the Rapture?

Posted by: jeff franklin | 2010-09-09 7:51:31 AM

"Unfortunately for pot legalizers, the same basic argument for legalizing pot can also be used for legalizing other drugs: namely, that people do them in spite of the law"

Do you really think that's the argument Shane? How many times does the argument have to be presented to you? I really wish you'd at least present the opposing position honestly.

Posted by: Charles | 2010-09-09 7:53:05 AM

To get into a debate with Shane you have to get into the mind of a madman.

Posted by: don b | 2010-09-09 8:45:27 AM

    Do you really think that's the argument Shane? How many times does the argument have to be presented to you? I really wish you'd at least present the opposing position honestly.

Let's review the argument, Charles:

"Law-enforcement agencies are simply not capable of interdicting all of this pot and despite some successes have not succeeded in thwarting criminals who traffic and sell marijuana...we can't win by arresting all those involved in the massive importation, growth or distribution of marijuana, nor by locking up all the pot smokers."

Change out "crack" or "junk" for "pot," and "junkie" or "pot smoker," and you have the exact same argument. No other country uses as much crack or heroin as the United States. So the answer to your question is yes, I do believe that's what the argument is, because that is what the argument is: "Prohibition doesn't work, period." How have I misrepresented this?

You have committed the same faux pas as Paul Rube in asserting that someone else is wrong without troubling to provide the "right" answer. At best it's lazy; at worst you're hiding something.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-09 8:56:17 AM

Friday Sept 10- the Prince of Pot will be presented in chains to a US Federal judge & sentenced for drug crimes he plead guilty to..

hurry up all ye Wipeheads and make your last minute apologies and register your ample displeasure, while you still can.. last chance to bet in our office pool how much time he gets..

these catagories are now closed:

A)receive 7 serve 5
B) receive 5-8 serve 5-7
C) receive 10- serve 7
D) picking up trash on highways in Georgia till 2020
E) stand in for Justin Beiber at Casino Rama

all thats left in the Wipehead 500 series:

A) released Time served to become PM of Canada
B) released TS to become Obamas deputy Drug Czar
C) released TS to tour the world as Victor over the United States Evil Empire of Oppression
D) released TS to spontaneously reincarnate as a
new strain of marijuana plant that flowers in the Antartic to heal penquins of beak cancer
E) released TS as the legal heir of Queen Elizabeth II as official rulers of the Libertarian Republic Mars with Queen Jodie at his side..

Posted by: 419 | 2010-09-09 9:24:47 AM

Are people still responding to you Shane? Must be newbies. And still going in circles I see. Keep up the good work, maybe someday someone besides your cheerleaders, will actually believe what you are saying. What the hell, it works for religion.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-09-10 12:17:07 PM

Guess I'll have to put you in with the rest of the slagger non-debaters, Steve. Still getting personal, still avoiding actual debate. Well, never mind. It's official: Emery just got five years. Sentence handed down today. Read it and weep.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-10 5:10:33 PM

Shane and 419 are a couple of dinosaurs , they still wish for non state sanctioned gay sex to be illegal.
Your a couple of lunatics , no matter what evidence is presented to you you still close your eyes.

Posted by: don b | 2010-09-11 8:25:51 AM

Now the rest of the baby boomers are next. Is that the message? Ancient hippies shouldn't be considered a grave danger.
Cornwall, Ont. – Danielle Cleroux, 49 and William Charles Koolstra, 67, of Cornwall were arrested on the 09th of September, 2010 for drug related offences. It is alleged that police attended their residence and located drugs in plant form, believed to be marijuana. The couple each face 1 count Possession of a Controlled Substance and 1 count of Production of a Controlled Substance. They were released to appear in court on the 09th of October, 2010 to answer to their respective charges.

Posted by: Feather | 2010-09-11 9:16:11 AM

Don is a troll. And an illiterate one, at that. But I've discovered most stoners are.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-13 10:31:17 AM

Are you saying that the law doesn't apply to baby boomers, Feather? I knew they believed they were special, but that's stretching it.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-13 10:32:18 AM

Oh Dear.

More inanity and insanity from the Puritanical Prohibitionists.

When asked for 'peer reviewed' documentaion that refutes the known/proven benefits of Cannabis, all they can do is stammer "I've got a feeling"

From CRAPer Nicholson's obtuse performance/ appearance before Parliamentary Committe's re. Bill C-15/ Mandatory Minimum's to CRAPer Harper, appearing on You Tube, looking exactly like the Ignorant rube he is, answering questions re. possible Canadian Legaization of Cannabis, it does almost make one want to drink alcohol.

Sadly, more dead and injured Canadians recently, directly due to Alcohol. Cyclists, Jazz Fest spectators and other automobile drivers all recent victims of Alcohol fueled death and destruction that occur daily across Canada.

Kudos to Marc Emery and others across this great land, who have been responsible for introducing Canadians to a much SAFER form of relaxation than could ever be achieved through Alcohol and its poducts.


5,000 Dead Canadians yearly, tens of thousands injured/maimed, hundreds of victims of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome directly due to Alcohol.

Please Mr. Harper, Stop just crooning:

'I get high with a little help from my friends.'

Help Canadians get high. Help Save Canadian lives by helping reduce Alcohol intake among Canadians. Thereby reducing $$ costs to hard working Canadian Taxpayers.

Shirley, Mr. Harper, your kind and forgiving God can see the wisdom in this??

'I was offered a joint once but I was too drunk and passed out.'

Stephen Harper.

Posted by: jeff franklin | 2010-09-13 3:18:16 PM

Re: "Puritanical Prohibitionists"

This is a recording...CLICK

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-13 8:37:59 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.