Clueless in Seattle

http://www.mapinc.org/newscc/v05/n619/a10.html?397

.
I wonder if the 70+ crowd "admires" him. They're the ones who should receive NO health care and just die, at least according to Emery.

And he even has other pot-platform people apologizing for him.

And letter writers against him:

http://www.langleyadvance.com/issues05/044205/opinion/044205le1.html

Maybe they admire the way he eats mushrooms and talks to beings from another dimension? (Gee, I'm sure glad I'm not that "educated".)

Emery is a national joke and a national embarrassment. Except to Oz, of course.

I stated clearly [i]"Dishonest or out of touch with reality for anyone to claim that there are goulags in the US. For people who either have no clue as to history, or no concept of reality when they make a comparison like that."[/i]

I didn't say if he will get off. I said he is a nutter, no if, ands or buts.

So what is it, is he a lier or a nutcase? Or both? Or are you going to say he is right?

.
Look up various definitions of hero. Then refer to the words Oz uses to describe Marc Emery.

Conclusion - Marc Emery is a hero to Oz.

He may not want to use the H word, but he sure is dropping the H-Bomb.

by jamesrl Aug 9, 2005

We have a treaty with the US. We respect their laws (offences spelled out in the treaty). They respect ours.

If I as an Ontario Citizen, get a speeding ticket in New York state, I lose points on my Ontario license. Reciprocity. A New York driver in Ontario would have the same thing happen.

What Marc does within Canadian boundaries is none of the DEA's concern. Thats for Canada to deal with. When Marc ships to the US, he breaks US law. Since drugs are part of the agreement for extradition between our two countries, then he is liable to face charges. He should not be suprised.

If I ship dangerous goods to the US, I should know what the legalities of the situation, or I could be charged. How is this any different? Only because its a "political" issue.

James

.
Talk about taking things out of context, George W Bush has nothing to do with this deal; and no one even mentioned him -- except you, over and over and over and over and over and over.......

You're obsessed with the guy. Your every thought must include him, at least if your messages are true indicators of your thoughts.

Get over it, dude. Get help.

It's called "Obsessive Compulsive Disorder". But help is available.

The Obsessive Compulsive Anonymous (OCA) fellowship offers hope to people who have felt the fury and crippling power of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). While new and effective medical and psychological treatments have helped those with this disease, the Twelve Step program of OCA has proven to be an important part of continuing recovery from OCD. Members share their firsthand struggles and recoveries from OCD, giving one another a sense of identification and the certain knowledge that they are no longer alone.This invaluable resource includes a definition of obsessive compulsive disorder; what those in OCA have discovered through participation in the fellowship; an outline of the Twelve Step OCA recovery program; personal stories of recovery.......

You're welcome.

.
There are a lot of Canadians who post messages in these threads, but only one, that I can see, has admitted to ADMIRING Marc Emery. And he claims that people all across Canada ADMIRE the guy.

How many other Canadians out there actually admire Marc Emery?

And as a point of reference, include other people you ADMIRE so we can truly measure the level of admiration this guy receives. What kind of pedestal do you put the guy on? And with whom does he share that pedestal?

It would also be interesting to see some links to articles from other Canadians who "admire" the guy -- but ones without the little marijuana leaf up in the corner, or ones that don't reference such "sources". Does anyone have such a link?

Come on all you Canadians out there - speak up and support the guy you ADMIRE.

I think they're right to characterize his crime as far below the traditional standards for requesting extradition. It isn't how things are normally done, and the place of marijuana in the war on drugs is insufficient to justify such an exception to the norm of international relations.

Maxwell, I agree that this is a silly issue for civil disobedience, and one in which such a strategy is counterproductive. Maybe the deactivated regions of the pot smokers' brains are responsible for their diminished capacity for reason. Whatever the case, they're not winning people over by exhibiting the most anarchistic behavior associated with intoxication.

Nevertheless, the DEA exceeds the federal government's role as described in the Constitution, and since that is the supreme law of the land, that is the bottom line in any issue in which the Constitution applies, meaning any issue of US law.

You are scraping the gutter again. You always say you don't know why you bother posting but then continue to do so.

There are many people who admire him, this doesn't mean that they have posters of him on thier wall, pictures in thier wallets and a chair at the dinner table for him.

Admiration dowsn't mean that someone is more important to you than anyone else. People generally admire anyone who goes to bat for the minority. The fact that 70% of Canadians are in support of his cause, it is only logical to say that many admire him.

As for who? Well it shows in the thousands that attend his hemp festivals around Canada. The people who shop at his stores, the people who offered $10,000 each of thier own money to bail him out of jail.

There are hemp fests in the US too, very large ones with many supporters.

Now you illogically group these people into the types of people who have pot leaves on thier websites. But those people also include politicians, judges, lawyers,doctors, bankers, and many other very successful people.

Take off the headband and the rose coloured glasses and see a following of many citizens from many woks of life, they aren't all losers and stoners.

I suppose one could say Timothy Leary was a nutcase too, based on that limited vision.

.
There are some very important and distinct difference between Timothy Leary and Marc Emery.

Timothy Leary was.

Marc Emery is.

Timothy Leary was a smart, highly-educated nutcase.

Marc Emery is a stupid, under-educated nutcase.

Timothy Leary was the "Legend of a Mind".

Marc Emery is only a legend in his own mind.

Timothy Leary had a song (see above) about him written and performed by the Moody Blues.

Marc Emery will just be singing the blues with moody inmates performing the "unwritten".

There ya' go -- very distinct differences.

Regarding your earlier comments about his proposing removal of senior medical support from TAX revenue.

He is FAR more toward YOUR way of thinking on these issues. He is very much like yourself in his right leaning opinion. He is also cofounder of The Freedom Party, while it rejects the term "libertarian" for philosophical reasons, it is generally considered to be a party of the libertarian right.

SO here's what he actually explains wit hrespect to those comments:

"We spend far too much of our taxpayers' money on a rapidly growing population of old people. We're spending lots of money keeping _ many many millions of old people _ alive when it would be much more honourable to let them die in a dignified way".

He claims that those over seventy should be responsible for their own health care, and should not rely on the state for funding. [b]Emery has also noted that many senior citizens are being kept alive against their wishes, citing his own father as an example."[/b]

So his REASONS for his comments, that you conveniently omitted for effect, cast a different shade on his reasoning and wishes behind it. Again, he is only working toward personal freedoms, if citizens were to pay for private insurance (which is actualy affordable as a senior)then they would be able to determine when they choose to finally pass. He believes that seniors should be allowed to choose thier time, and shouldn't be kept alive unneccesarilt and against thier will due to government imposed regulations and control of health care.

As for public schools. He is in favour of private tutoring as an alternative to government run and regulated (often limiting ability or materials)and be replaced with a deregulated system. If private schools were more comon, they would also be far mroe competetive, less selective and much more affordable than now.

Such schools would permit a parent to see the education of choice, and not be forced to send thier children to public school and get an average education.

Links? Sorry, you'd have to attend and hear him out with your own ears I guess. But I can say you'd probably find most of his views coincide with your own if not exactly, it would be well within your acceptable level of views.

But here's another link to explain a BIT his achievements a bit better anyway. (BC residents will always support a Canucks fan!)
http://www.answers.com/topic/marc-emery

by jamesrl Aug 10, 2005

The wikipedia article says he is in favour of the ABOLITION of public education. Thats not in favour of choice, which of course, any parent has today.

In terms of seniors being kept alive against their own wishes - in that respect we are no different than the US. No one must get treatment against their expressed wishes. If the person is incompetent, a living will is acceptable.

In terms of health coverage for seniors, again I would disagree. Whether its through insurance premiums or payroll taxes(varies from province to province), these seniors have paid into a system for years when they had fewer claims and if now they have greater claims than average, they should be covered. You don't change the rules in the middle of the game.

I am not impressed with simply running for office and consistently finishing well out of the running. There are marxist-leninist candidates and many other fringe parties that field candidates with no hope of winning. Heck there is a panhandler in Toronto who has run 3 times and came in 5th.

James

http://sss-web.usps.com/gxg/jsps/showStdProhibitions.jsp

.
I assume that the Canadian shipping procedures, rules and regulations are similar, if not identical, to the US, at least in regards to this kind of thing.

If I ship goods to Canada, as I often do, I must declare the contents and the value of the shipment. Furthermore, I am prohibited from shipping certain items; and when I ship things to Canada (or anywhere, for that matter), I must also declare that these prohibited items are not being shipped. Sure, I could lie about it, but I'd be breaking US postal regulations and US law. I assume the same would apply in Canada.

So it appears as though Emery is breaking Canadian postal laws, Canadian drug laws and America's drug laws.

For people that are normally too sick to eat from the chemo, it helps them eat. Helps with the nausia as well. They can live an almost normal life, instead of curled in a tetal posistion all day because of the pain and nausia.

It really does make a difference for these people, which is why I think scumbags that pretend they are sick so they can get medical usage should suffer a painful time in prison being someones beotch because it hurts a very legitamate agenda.

Until it is legalized, anyone abusing this program should be nailed harder than just a common user.

[i]a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities
one that shows great courage
an object of extreme admiration and devotion
[/]

"He is looked up to and supported because he supports people, and in Canada, people who support people are people who are supported."

Sounds like everything you have said fits the definition of hero, even if you refuse to admit it.

Personal attack aside, you still are going off on tangents that rarely address what I have posted.

I know you don't WANT him to be convicted. The FACT is that he broke a law, and this is not changed by the fact that there are other people doing the same thing. so much for making supported arguements.

And the Candian government not prosocuting people for something is not the same as condoning something. The word is "tolerated".

Now if you care to respond again, address what I have posted, not just your full bullet points list or a response to someone else through me. I am not looking for an antagonistic relationship here. You make a point, I make a counter point. We both walk away wondering how the other can be so wrong. That is what discussions are about.

I should have read Max's post before relying.

I wouldn't have bothered doing the definitions thing had I seen this was mentioned.

Oh well. Such is the life of a "slut" I guess......

by jamesrl Aug 9, 2005

My wife has MS, at a relatively advanced state, so in Canada she would qualify for medical marijauna. But as her pain is infrequent, as we have kids and frankly smoking is not the best method, we currently aren't interested in it. Perhaps at some point if things get worse, we will look for brownie recipes....

James

Sorry to hear, I know isn't an easy thing to have to deal with.

I have lost several family members, including my father when I was 17 to cancer. So when I see people abusing a program that offers another alternative for people who REALLY need it, it just burns me bad.

But that isn't what this discussion is about. It is about the average user toking down just because. I don't have an issue with at, as long as it is honest about why they are doing it and how they are getting it.

NO green brownies either, YUMMY ones :)

Also chocolates, drinks etc.

The trick with food is to make BUTTER with it and then use the butter in the food. Whereas most people just throw a bag in and mix it up..

You have continually complained about the issues I brought up, and then turn around and blame the US government, Bush, and US companies for it all instead of holding your current government responsible.

You have continually complained about how there are worse offenders out there and more will fill Marc's shoes as if this is a justification of leaving he to continue to break US laws.

Go back and read James posts. He has it dead nuts. If you knowingly break a US law, you should not be suprised when you get charged with the CRIME that you knowingly committed.

This isn't about taking care of YOUR problem, it is about stopping someone from breaking US laws. All this little man had to do was not ship to the US and he would be able to prosue is dream of a stoned Canada.

This is not a great human rights activist being persecuted, no matter how EMOTIONAL YOU GET, or how personal the attacks from you become.

There is nothing else to this case than a man broke a law and now is getting charged with it. End of story. The best you can do is pray for him to find a "loophole" as you have brought earlier.

What are you on about? If I want a holdiay, I have one.

As for Emery,I already explained that he was fully aware of repercussions and accepts them, my beef IS with Canada's government for bending over and I have said as much more than once in this thread, including my last reply to yoo. I also never said anything about Bush, as I said in my last comment. So why have you simply posted your same issues twice? I just replied to this.

What I disagree with, is the WASTE of our money and resources fro a crime that Canada doesn't see as a real crime. Nobody gets killed, raped, ripped off or anything, it's a useless law that even Canadian courts don't really agree with.

Our money is being wasted, police, courts etc. to see if our courts deem him worthy of extradition.

A Scout learns to be WISE in teh use of his resources. I don't see this as a wise use of Canada's resources and neither do most Canadians.

IN th ecase of your trafic ticket, yes, you will get a fine applied to your licence.
In Canada, there would be a fine imposed on Emery, or a minimal sentence.

Now if you were speeding in Canada, but OUR laws said that was a 10 year jail term, and your laws said it was a $150.00 ticket, we would be justified in having you arrested in Colorada to face a 10 year term for speeding in Canada?

I know you will say yes, but if it happened you would certainly would see it as ridiculous Canada overstepping thier boundaries.

Just because you CAN doesn't mean it is ethical to do so. You guys need some new laws, then these issues wouldn't even be issues, as they have not been issues here.

.
If it was, and by your selective use of a few words, it seems as though it was, I'll remind you that I didn't use a traffic ticket analogy. So you'll have to direct the question to the guy who did. I used a Post Office comparison analogy. But I understand if you forgot -- that short term memory thing, and all.

It was actually James who said "If I as an Ontario Citizen, get a speeding ticket in New York state, I lose points on my Ontario license. Reciprocity. A New York driver in Ontario would have the same thing happen."

I agree, a law broken somewhere else is a law broken somewhere else.

The reason this particular case is such an issue is due to the differences in law. Similar to the lady who was arrested for smuggling drugs through Australia and thrown in jail. Her penaties for being tried outside of Australia were incredible and contested by many.

In this case, it is a ridiculous penalty too. I mean no teven realistic, if it was even 1 yr in Canada compared to 5 in th eUS, it wouldn't be so harsh, but when facing a slap on th wrist here and facing life in the US, it's just a bit incredible.

I agree, he should face charges if he has broken a US law, but the penalty is FAR from being even somewhat realistic, and this has been his stand all along and a reason he is such an advocate of personal freedom, which apparently you support.

So seeing as you suport the personal freedom issue, and I am sur eyou also oppose such extreme sentences, how do you support your country extraditing him and TRYING to enforce such horrendous charges upon him.

It's not so much the factor of him breaking, a law, it's the ability of your government to request he face such extreme penalties in the first place, and OUR resources being wasted on it when it is deemed somewhat acceptable here.

I don't think ANYONE should be facing such charges to begin with, neither do you and neither does Emery.

MY tax money being used to enforce unrealistic laws in YOUR country really gets to me. If we both (US and Canada) deemed it a terrible offence and people were hurt or placed at risk because of it, then I would not be so opposed, I think. We need to get dangerous criminals off th estreets and a joint force has done so effectively, this is not a dangerous criminal, the guys who run US grow ops are, and they would do it with or without his help. The reasoning being stated as a way to deal with these criminals and grow ops in the US is just ridiculous. Throw THEM in jail for life. Solve the problem, not the bit players.

This has been shown as a problem due to Canada's lax laws, but these criminals exist, always have and always will and THAT's a problem you need to resolve in your OWN country, not mine at MY expense.

In this case. I MADE my point, you didn't see it, therefore we are left walking away wondering what the hell the other guys was on about.

Yes EMery committed a crime, I haven't argued that. Yes Canada TOLERATES his behavior, i have not said it is condoned. You rlaws are ridiculous an dno person shoul dbe subject to facing them, whether American or Canadian.

The REAL criminals were used as an 'excuse' to arrest Emery, THAT's wrong. It has been said that this will help reduce organized crime and these people who protect thier ioperations with guns and booby traps. YOU are much smarter than to believe such crap. They are simply going after th ewrong guy to make a point.

As I said to Max, this reminds me of the Autralian lady who was arrested for drug smuggling and was sitting in jail within minutes of her arrest, it was a ridiculous sentence to face in a foreign counrty, whether she had actually done it or not (which is really irrelevant to this example).

If yuo had penalties even remotely close to being acceptable, fines, even a few years in jail it would not be a big deal.

When MY tax dollars are WASTED on something to help another country do nothing but prove a point, that bothers me. Nobbody is any safer with him off the streets, and that's the qualifying factor in my mind. There was no plausible reason for it iother than a law had been broken, a law that most people don't care about, a law where nobody is placed at risk or harmed in any way. It's not even as bad as petty shoplifting, a shoplifter steals property from someone. Someone may even by physically harmed!

- See new thread

.
By the way, I won't bother posting your questions and such, but this is in reply to a message in a maxed out thread.

In all seriousness, and with all flaming aside.

I'm on the record as being opposed to America's war on drugs, but for a variety of reasons. I'm also on the record as being in favor of legalizing marijuana use and its regulated sale, but for the broader issue, not the narrowly focused one of just wanting to smoke some wacky. (William F. Buckley, by the way, is also in agreement with me.)

Having said that, I also believe that only an idiot would openly, blatantly and defiantly ignore the drug laws of the USA. Like them or not, agree with them or not, they are what they are. I dislike our tax laws about as much as the idiot Emery (and others) dislikes our drug laws. But if I stand on principle, so to speak, and refuse to pay my taxes, spout off about it at every opportunity, and publicly defy them and the authorities, I'll go to jail. And in the case of taxes, just like in the case of marijuana, I would be hurting my own case -- and my own cause -- by practicing such stupidity.

Change can be implemented, to be sure. But the methods used in such attempts should be carefully measured. There's a time for some calculated civil disobedience, such as Martin Luther King's and Rosa Parks' defiance of unjust laws of the 1960s, and then there's a time for measures of a different sort. And there are times when practicing civil disobedience is actually hurting your own cause, because you won't have a huge groundswell of public support on your side. The former just won't work without the latter. Emery is an idiot because he doesn't see the distinction. And regardless of what you might claim, he does not have such a groundswell of public support, not in Canada, and especially not in the United States.

Moreover, he's a Canadian who's practicing his civil disobedience on another nation's turf. And the guy's a total moron for not understanding that. That makes him unworthy of any sympathy from me. In fact, it makes him not only an idiot, but it makes him a flaming idiotic criminal. If I use my still to make and sell moonshine to my neighbors, it's one thing. But when I start shipping the stuff to Canada, and do it openly and defiantly of their laws, those guys would have every right to request that I be sent there to suffer the consequences. And according to the treaty between the USA and Canada, the local authorities would probably be more than happy to oblige. Make a point in your own friggin' country. But when you do it in another's, it's a whole new ball game.

But you know what, Oz? You used this as yet another opportunity to criticize America. You know it, and I know it. And without resorting to flaming, but only to make a point, UP YOURS.

The IDIOT in this case is Marc Emery, no more, no less. And regardless of the outcome of this, he should be hung by the toes and dipped into a vat of boiling oil for being so STUPID. And then you go and take his side and use it as an excuse to spout off -- yet again -- about the demon America. Sorry, dude. Not this time. And people wonder why I can't see much of a difference between you and Emery.

(Okay, so maybe I did finish with a flame. But you deserved this one.)

He's not demonstrating and smoking in people's faces just for the sake of smoking some wacky. That's where you've missed the argument of his arrest. He is practicing his true political faith and beliefs, he therefore should not be imprisoned for doing so, according to Canadian law.

Canada's court should not be able to allow his extradition, which I feel may actually be the end result and it will probably be business as usual, with a few changes as always.

The court has sided with his views on that basis several times and thus leaves him alone.

So all he has to do is win over Canadian courts, not US courts.

EDIT: sorry,how rude of me, I forgot to flame you! prick! :P

.
He's doing it -- whatever IT is -- on USA turf. Keep it in Canada, Marc, you brain-dead stupid idiot.

You said, "Canada's court should not be able to allow his extradition."

But guess what, THEY ARE. Your gripe should be targeted north of the border, not south.

And the guy is an IDIOT practicing his civil disobedience in the USA, with or without the "blessings" of the Canadians. What a total IDIOT. He's lost too many brain cells.

Flame of the day: Read my mind.

Addiction, in macroeconomics, defines a static demand (with the assumption that addicts are generated by the populace at nearly the rate they die). Static demand means that no matter how high the price, as long as the price is attainable, even if it requires pawning all one owns, the buyers will pay the required price. Any honest economist knows this. Attempting to prohibit, with the force of government, that kind of demand, can result in nothing other than "armed criminals" & "lethal booby-traps." I just do not know how to explain this any more clearly. Physiological side effects of drugs do [b]not[/b] cause crime. Economic side effects of the impossible pipe dream of totally eliminating drugs, by force, cause drug-related crimes. Is it too simple to believe? Too straightforward to accept? Why are there still illegal substances? Would somebody who thinks that drug prohibition is a good, practical idea, please explain this to me? I am completely baffled.

by jaqui Aug 30, 2005

recent example of how it doesn't work.
it was called prohibition.

making booze illegal didn't stop it, so prohibition was repealed. how long do you think it will take before the current prohibition will be stopped and the items controlled through licensing?

My best friend's dad has a compassion club card, HIV and Hep C, and undergoing Chemo.

It's expensive and NOT the quality of teh 'CHEMO WEED' known on the street.

The other growers, legal growers, were basically left to thier own devices. They cannot gain access to the seeds needed, legally, they can not get access to the right hydrophonic systems LEGALLY, they are left with small ops that offer little hope.

In essence, compassion club is a failure due to NO government support, they are simply left to do thier thing. Well done Canada.

But I suppose it's a false hope of a beginning anyway, just like decriminalization, that does nothing but afford the city a way to make some money.

Emery's actions have caused the death of........

Emery's actions have disrupted the lives of......

GWB is responsible for thousands of US and Iraqi deaths, directly. He sent them to war.

GWB is responsible for disrupting th elives of MILLIONS around teh world.

Now if he had screwed over Americans or the US government, it's not my problem, when he takes his cause to a world stage, it is my concern.

Get a life and think again.

Well I believe I hadn't brought up Bush until you decided to compare Bush's intelligence, or else I did as an example of your suggestion that Emery is my hero, and therefore KNOWING that Bush is your hero it was an obvious comparisson. How many people's death has GWB been responsible for THIS year, lets make that THIS WEEK? Don't say none, we all know GWB started the war, willingly and unjustly.

And yet you support his lunacy, no matter how wrong, unwanted and uncalled for it is.

Whatever Max, why do you even bother posting?

...that there were such serious drug problems before Nixon created the DEA that there is any excuse for the continuing existence of the DEA "should suffer a painful time in prison being someones beotch because it hurts a very legitamate agenda."

"But I suppose it's a false hope of a beginning anyway, just like decriminalization, that does nothing but afford the city a way to make some money."

It also discredits decriminalization and legalization movements among all but the most attentive, perceptive observers.

breaking an agreement with another contry over. You were all bent out of shape at the thought of the US not taking the anwr agreement seriously? Or do you get to be the one to pick and chose which to honor and which to snub your nose at?

You don't get to pick and choose which law you like. You get the laws changed that you don't like.

I HAVE said that the law IS worthwhile and I support it's use, wen actually USEFUL, or to rid the entire world of a criminal.

I don't support it's use in this case especially considering the offence and sentence attributed to it. If the guy was running a meth lab and killing people, if he was protecting his drugs and stolen goods with a gun or booby traps, then I agree cooperation between both nations helps track and get these people out of society's way. They pose a severe threat to human life.

I also believe VERY sctrongly on the VICLASS/VICAP computer system that allows us to track these people around the globe and bring murderers, child molesters and serial killers to justice. These systems work, lives are saved, entire cities have been relieved of danger and many desereving criminals have been taken to jail.

But as I've said time and time again, I feel this is a complete waste of tax payers money, it is ademinstrative action, not a resolution to anything, they should not be albe to use the agreement in such a meaningless and token manner unless in a full national or international investigation to bring down a threat.

As for ANWR, I see that as yet ANOTHER example of how the US does as it chooses and ignores the basis for international agreements when it suits thier needs.

So yes, ANWR AND Emery have been just another way of the US saying, FU, we'll do what we want anyway.

One can assume that it was his chosen figure of speech, an example, an extreme perhaps, but it echo's his feelings well doesn't it? It got your goat, I suppose his comments hit home, just as they were intended.

We'll call it an Emeryism? LOL :D

Never seen that done before, noooooooooo.
But to put it into perspective, andnot in reference to Russian prison camps specifically.

Another definition for Gulag is;
"A place or situation of great suffering and hardship, likened to the atmosphere in a prison system or a forced labor camp."

He does see the US government as imposing great suffering upon it's own people and the rest of the world. Guess what? So do many Canadians, Americans, British, Spanish, German, Fench, Swiss, Asutralian and many others around the world.

The world is nuts? Or are you just starting to gain perspective on how the world really views America's government?

by jaqui Aug 10, 2005

saying it works as intended by the people that developed the program.

was just commenting on it's existance, and how even before decriminalisation started the program could help avoid criminal charges for possesion.
( the cops can't tell the difference between crappy medical weed and street weed by look, just like everyone else, they have to test* it. )

* testing methods differ.. cops use labs.. peopleuse papers and flame. ;)

The only way the cops know is by the cards now, you're right.

I read it to mean that it was a good solution for those who need real help, but it isn't.

by jaqui Aug 29, 2005

medical weed issue is completely innaccurate, for me.

there were 2 reasons I stopped smoking it.
1) I would "tune out" and not notice anyone or anything.
2) it intensified all sensations, specially pain.
I have constant pain from scoliod curvature in my back. the pain can be exhibited as hypertense muscles to debilitating rib out of socket.
I don't need either intensified thanks. :)

by jdclyde Aug 10, 2005

It did not "get my goat". What it DID do was show me this person is either dishonest or is out of touch with reality, thus someone to be dismissed.

When you lie or intentionally distort the truth, anything you say or do has no crediblity.

If your out of touch with reality, again, no crediblity.

[b]So all he accomplished with his RANTINGS, was to have rational people like myself DISMISS him and everything he says from that point on.[/b]

I have not argued with you on many of the points, and have actually agreed with many. You just seemed to take any disagreement as total disagreement.

If someone "sees" something a certain way, but is still wrong then you HAVE to question [b]why [/b]he is wrong.

Now are we on the same page with why he IS a nutcase? I don't believe for a second that the entire world hates America, nor believes half the crap that Emery was saying. Why are some many people coming to the US every year if they really think it is such an evil, vial place? To better their lives by going to an evil place? Then what does that say about the shape of the rest of the world?

Hey, I live here. It can't be ALL that bad!

Beyond that, I believe in rule of law. You can not have a civilized society without laws to regulate behaviour to a point or it will go back to the wild west. Times DO change, and the laws should be changed to match the times. If you don't like a law, you change it, not break it. That was my ONLY other point.

You can't let people pick and chose which laws they will follow and which they won't.

by jdclyde Aug 10, 2005

I STILL have to wonder WHY the US is just NOW interested in him.

As you have said, the Canadian government has tried numerous times (11 was it?) to shut him down but were unable to for various reasons. (loopholes)

Do you not see it even REMOTELY possible that the Candian government ASKED the US government to take care of this politically charged issue FOR THEM? After all, what better way to solve this issue than with someone Candians believe is heavy handed anyways? Who will take the most heat, the Candians for following agreements as they HAVE TO or the Americans for CHOOSING to take this man on?

I know that due to popular demand they are not prosocuting people for pot. Does that really mean they changed their mind against someone they tried 11 times to lock up?

It really never does pay to make an enemy, because even if they can't do something directly there are always other ways to get to you.

Just a thought.

Second thought, if Marc thinks he has such a good case and is in the right why is he fighting extradition in the first place? Day in court? Or doesn't he think he has as good a chance in US courts as he did in Candian? Think what it would do for his "cause" if he WON in US courts?

But I used to pay close attention to marijuana laws in the United States, and the last I heard, seeds lack the [i]controlled substance[/i] THC, and cannot be prosecuted by the DEA. Obviously, that is no longer the case, at least for Canadians under US jurisdiction. Does anybody know the story of that change? Are US citizens also now prohibited from carrying seeds?

"...which laws they will follow and which they won't."

I believe it's much more important to prohibit people elected to government from picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution they will respect and which they won't.

by jdclyde Aug 10, 2005

Watching for who will vote which way is a little late in the game for me as far as new laws go. I missed out on the whole "free love" daze of the hippie days. The laws were already on the books for me.

Fact, there are already way too many laws that limit OUR behaviour and they seem to think we need more? Stop writting laws and do NOTHING congress. Stop trying to legislate everyones well being and let us live as we may depending on what we make of things.

Right now there are lots of things between Congress and the courts that is hitting the fan and it is all BS. The courts don't write law, and need to be reigned in, HARD! Congress needs to stop using the "comerse" clause to do anything that they want.

As for the Constitution, it is a disgrace the way people want to change the meaning as fits them, but think it is wrong to make REAL changes as the world changes. The intention of the Constitution does not change from year to year. If something doesn't fit, then AMMEND it, not bastardize it.

AB, where would you recommend I go to find such a candidate that will faithfully follow the Constitution and keep government in it's place?

I haven't researched all the precedents, but my impression is that extradition is generally reserved for violent criminals - terrorists or revolutionaries, especially. And if some of them have been drug dealers in the past, they are extradited because of their [b]direct[/b] role in violent crimes, either as perpetrator or organizer.

I see you have been thinking and have some very valid comments.

THis is what I feel in THAT regard.

1) I VERY highly doubt that Canada has looked upon the US for this. Canadian courts MAY want to see him taken down, but they strongly oppose th eharsh sentences passed out in teh US. I would give it a very small percentile of a possibility. .00001% about as much as you have considered it I think, it's just not gonna happen.

2)As for Marc's defense.

His defense is based on Canadian law, I don't know if he would see the same options in the USA. He can probably beat out a Canadian court based on his political beliefs, but I don't think that would help him too much in the US, though obviously it would be HIS take on the issue.

The Canadian government entered the agreement, which was supposed to enforce a cooperatiove war on drugs. I am suer nobody at the time expected it to be 'misused' in this fashion though.

As I had mentioned before, this is TWO agreements that I have recently notice US abuse of. This and ANWR, 'whatever works in US best interests' is when these worthy agreement are trashed or abused.

This is not really relevant to teh war on drugs, no drug dealers are stopped, even temporarily impeding supply wil increase demand, raise cost and increase crime in the USA.

Apparently, as stated by US officials, this will help stop the organized crime and growers who protect thier crops with guns and booby traps. Uh, sure....do they really think people are that stupid? NO we aren't all as out of touch with reality as 'the authorities' seem to be. Authority on what is what I question?

The international systems for tracking serial killers, repeat offenders and dangerous persons across borders has been very effective, ViCLass and ViCap.

This is just a jopint cooperation on a war on drugs, one where the two party's involved have completely different views of and those differences are EXTREME not slight.

But what I think you don't see is: "I don't believe for a second that the entire world hates America, nor believes half the crap that Emery was saying. Why are some many people coming to the US every year if they really think it is such an evil, vial place?"

Many people are comign to teh US, Canada, ENgland and many other countries too. Some for work, America has big companies with lots of opportunity.

Many on Vacation, people want to see what it's all about.

Many actually DO like America.

But anywhere I've been around teh world, you mention the USA and teh eyes roll. Everyone's got soem story about America's government, dealing with American businesses, understanding American people etc. Each and every one of them is happy to NOT be in America. These are mainly people who aer exposed to America, they do business with Americans or have spent time there etc.

I find anyone with exposure, has damn good (and odften identical) reasons for not likin gAmerica. Most laugh (then shudder) at the though of livign there.

I spend lots of time stateside, doesn't mean I love America though.

ON that same note though, I have NEVER met someone ANYWHERE that didn't say Canada was one of the best places they have evert been, how they loved the people and the country was beautiful. Most say they want to move here, if not visit longer next time.

You have 52 states and 300 Million people, there aer a lot of reasons for people to enter the US while still not thinking it is the best place to be. People are often FORCED to conduct business there, many go there for cheaper cost of living, lower taxation etc.

But again, I have not met a single person in decades that thinks America is a good place to live. Most say, hey it's okay but SO screwed up, they do 'this and that'....etc. People don't think you have fair employers, a fair government, a fair educational system and those from more socialism focused countries think teh medical system there is a farce too.

I suppose it's what you grow up with, but those who grow up outside of America rarely would choose it as a place to live. Unless of course from repressive or communist countries where they have NO freedoms.

YOu often claim to be highly educated,. you place your own intelligence far above others around you, something I have just learned to ignroe for the most part, whatever floats your boat and all.

But to think you have a better grasp of politics and law than someone like Emery is a complete joke.

I know you haven't DIRECTLY compared his intelligence to your own, but you have certainly claimed that he is stupid basedon YOUR conclusions, thus you feel that you know better than hom and are able to judge his knowledge and ability.

This guy has accompliched more than you as far as focused success is concerned. He is a politician, activis tyand store owner and has shown his success in all areas.

He definitely knows more about US and Canadian politics and political history than you do.

He has definietly shown success in his business ventures with his stores, doesn't matter how many times he gets shut down if he manages to open for buseinss soon after, if not the next day.

He has definitely gained mreo financial success than yourself, he's made millions, CHOSE to spend it in other ways than padding his bank account, but he DOES rake it in, no matter how he spends it.

And yet, you have a longer formal education, claim to know US politics very well, and have not made millions, still work for someone else, and dream of achieving our own personal successes still. As do most of us.

So for YOU to claim HE is a failed moron is a joke. You could only hope to reach such a level of 'failure'.

.
You have no idea what you are talking about. You are a total idiot. Even your fellow Canadians are keeping their distance from you on this one.

GET A CLUE, IDIOT!

This thread has turned into the funniest ever -- and the joke is on YOU!

Do yourself a favor and just quit talking. You look more moronic with every word you spout.

.
(But like any good joke, it has an element of truth.)

What a fool you are.

You form your opinions of a man and abuse of an agreement, for someone else's personal gratification, based on a few internet articles and comments.

You had most likely never even heard of Emery before this thread and yet you feel qualified to pass judgement on how he is viewed by the people and even how MANY people aupport him?

(and don't even THINK of saying the same goes for my opinion of Bush, because we have all seen his actions and comments smeared under our noses for years)

Anyone who disagrees with Emery's arrest is a nutcase in your mind, you LOVE to categorize and group people, it makes then easier to sort out I suppose. Instead of understanding individuals you just have to lump them together, just as you lump together all of your political and world views into a convenient handful of core values.

It's like talking to a caveman, you know two or three ways of dealing with everthing that you have to make a decision on.

Anyway, I gotta get some work done for once, have a good one.

Many p0arent DON'T have choice, that's the problem. They can either pay immense sums to send thier children for a private education or simply stick them in public school. I never said he wanted CHOICE for schools.

Removing public schools, will inctrease the number of provate schools by great proportions, when there is more competition for students, there wqill be lower prices and people WILL be able to afford a mroe personal, private education fo rthier children, instead of the rich gettign smarter and the poor being kept dumb and poor by the governments substandard educational system.

AS for not changing the rules in the middle of the game, that would stop the system from EVER being improved or changed, because SOMEONE wil always lose, whether it is you moother today or you tomorrow. It has to happen sometime and yes people will be effected by it, but the long term gain will be seen in the future, as with ANY brweak teh government hands out. What about wehen Social Security disappears, all the people who paid into it for 50+ years will lose, but the next generation wins, and that's what we are supposed to be focused on, creating a better world for future generations, not having it best for US.

As for running and losing, he has actually gained a lot of support in his poorly finded campaigns, it's not because he thinks he will become mayor, or P.M,. it's to have his voice made public, and he succeeds everytime in creating interest and new followings in his patry.

HIS BIGGEST mistake, is not legalizing weed, it's taking the right wing stance, that doesn't go well in Canada. I actually think he' dfind greater support in the US these days.

.
You agree; you disagree. You are trying to support the unsupportable and justify the unjustifiable -- all at the same time. You have no idea what you are supporting. you are contradicting yourself, and even agreeing with me, but now you won't, I'm sure.

On one hand you just said (ignoring the numerous sic-sic-sic), "Removing public schools, will inctrease the number of provate schools by great proportions, when there is more competition for students, there wqill be lower prices and people WILL be able to afford a mroe personal, private education fo rthier children, instead of the rich gettign smarter and the poor being kept dumb and poor by the governments substandard educational system."

You just said that as though you support it and agree with it. (Now is when you will say that I either took it out of context or can't comprehend. HA! HA! WHAT A JOKE)

You then said, "HIS BIGGEST mistake, is not legalizing weed, it's taking the right wing stance, that doesn't go well in Canada."

BUT YOU JUST TOOK THE RIGHT WING STANCE!

What a total idiot you are. You are back-peddling, contradicting yourself, and looking like you have no idea what you are talking about. Come to think of it, you are representing yourself quite accurately.

What a friggin' joke.

Give it up.

Yes the typos were nasty on that one.

I am saying he is farther right than people think, most that aren't familiar with him think he's a hippie tree hugger, 'smoke pot and hug a tree'. But that's not really his stand at all. He does want to see freedoms and legalization was one issue he is noticed for. One problem though is that Canadians are also rather letf leaning, especially on some of the veiws you pointed out.

I didn't say I support all of his ideals, but I do support the whole presmise of legalization and recognize him for his efforts.

I still oppose his arrest requested by the US DEA, but can't really blame Canada's government because it is bound by an agreement, yet this is just abuse of that law in my eyes.

I still stand behind my comments that I think Emery is a bright and very successful man, is very educated in his field and, even though he's a little bit radical about it, he has helped many people who are facing life sentences for miniscule crimes of very minor posession. He has raised awareness and brought out the voice of the people. The government is aware of our wishes, the goverment is at least responding (though not as it is wanted to) because of Marc Emery. Many people would never have raised a voice and be heard before, now they do.

Since he started on the Vancouver scene, he went from a noname to a person everyone has at least HEARD of and knows what he does sorta. For the most part people support him too.

Just as you don't support every Republican view, but you still like Bush for what he DOES do, I can support Marc Emery, and even more importantly, object to his arrest in Vancouver (as I would pretty much anyone who did the same).

I still don't support him as P.M. (not that I could anyway) but you will vote for Bush as president based on a few values you feel are most important, and that's okay?

I said that I admired what he'd done, and that a great deal of Canadians support his cause too. I said I disagreed with the arrest for reasons other than who it was, you ran with it and decided to turn it into a love affair with Marc Emery.

If you don't know by now that I view isssues one by one, as I am free to do as a resident here, and judge each and every case based on my own values or even feelings of right and wrong, then you are the mental one here, Max.

Theworld can't be written in a book, this one has been taken way to literally by US officials and is
merely an example of US power in Canada, inhopes of slowing the influx of marijuana. Whereas you tac money should be spent taking down insead of Iraqi's, 'your' criminals and killers not ours. We don't have the same issues here so it's not Marc Emery's fault you have problems. Why are 'we' footing the bill for 'you' to make a point?

You know exactly what I meant and you just decided to be a knob as always.

Canada has NOT agreed on his extradition. They predict it may take up to two years for this to clear Canadian courts.

He has to be extradited under Canadian court order still, he goes on trial. Then he is allowed to appeal to the Supreme Court, IF he loses both THEN he goes to the US for hearings, and again is completely within his right to appeal THAT decision too.

So when I complain about our tax money being wasted, I mean it. RCMP, VPD, Court costs and MORE court costs. This will cost the people tens of thousands if not more by the time is all said and done. His chances of being extradited to the US are slim, but I am not saying it can't happen.

So the most likely scenario, he wil spend trwo years dragging this through Canadian courts at MY expense, then be let go on a technicality as Canada's laws have allowances for people with a political or religious focus behind thier motives. PLUS, it's the supreme court that has the most members in support of more relaxed drug laws.

As for reading your mind, I think it's not neccessary, you only have three or four core values that you base mankind entire existence on. It would be a limerick, not a book.

That would be a full deck, we are two short so far. But once we grant Puerto Rico and Canada statehood, we'll be there!

jdclyde: www.lp.org

Ask a Canadian how many states are in the US, 52, including Canada. :)

But Alaska should be a Canadian territory. You can have Mexico.

by jessie Aug 10, 2005

I've NEVER in my life seen a mean stoner. I've seen LOTS of mean drunks, and crack-heads and freaks on acid trips... but never in my life have I seen a mean stoner. They're more likely to neglect their kids than beat them... not that that's much better.