Marijuana Prince Marc Emery Awaits Extradition to the United States
Prince of Pot Marc Emery, in a familiar pose
We Canadians can all sleep a little bit easier at night.
That’s because Marc Emery, Vancouver’s Prince of Pot and officially one of the DEA’s most wanted kingpins, is off the streets and in prison, awaiting extradition to the United States on drug and money-laundering charges. His capture represents a major victory in the War on Drugs.
For ten years now, Emery has corrupted the very fabric of our society by selling marijuana seeds and donating virtually all of the after-tax proceeds to cannabis-friendly organizations with a mind to “overgrow the government.” A pot activist and retailer since 1994, Emery has had many run-ins with the law. 10 arrests, in addition to police raids in 1996, 1998 and 2005 of his Hemp BC headquarters would have crippled a lesser evildoer, but Emery (and I ask that my readers forgive the analogy) is as resilient as a weed, unerring in his insubordination.
In light of Emery’s contempt for authority, I would be remiss not to mention his political involvement. Two campaigns for Mayor of Vancouver, in 1996 and 2002, both mercifully thwarted. A candidacy in the Federal Marijuana Party in 2000. On the provincial level, Emery is co-founder of the BC Marijuana Party as well, which garnered as much as 3.22 per cent of the provincial popular vote in the 2001 provincial election.
On the subject of kingpins and politicians, who could forget the general who declared War against Drugs in 1969, US Commander in Chief Richard Nixon. After all, America’s invisible enemy had created a generation of indecorous pacifists, and had played so prominent a role in the demise of the US military offensive in Vietnam, that Nixon naturally felt some belligerent form of restitution was necessary. Despite the fact the first and most recognizable champion of the anti-marijuana campaign was the same man responsible for the Watergate scandal, four decades on the DEA’s position on marijuana remains largely unaltered from its 1960s state, built on the shoulders of circumstantial evidence. At this point, I take the liberty of citing some of its highlights:
“Adolescents are at highest risk for marijuana addiction, as they are ‘three times more likely than adults to develop dependency.’”
An admittedly incisive fact. However, I can’t help but wonder how much more likely adolescents are than adults to become perniciously addicted to Facebook or cellular phones, or myriad other products within their ken for that matter.
“[R]esearch shows that use of [marijuana] can lead to dependence…Marijuana use, in fact, is often associated with behavior that meets the criteria for substance dependence established by the American Psychiatric Association.”
Sadly, I fear the same could be said for coffee and chocolate, substances both potentially harmful if abused, and the principal vices of yours truly.
“In 2003, 3.1 million Americans aged 12 or older used marijuana daily or almost daily in the past year. Of those daily marijuana users, nearly two-thirds ‘used at least one other illicit drug in the past 12 months.’”
Aha! Pay dirt! Evidentiary support of the elusive “gateway effect.”
One difficulty with respect to this is, if the majority of Americans do not use illicit drugs at all, how can one prove that American marijuana users, who are by nature more disposed to take risks with substances than their drug-free counterparts, would not have been more tempted to use “at least one other illicit drug” even in the absence of marijuana?
In philosophical circles, the DEA’s data constitutes what is referred to as a false syllogism. A+B does not equal C. Damn, what a trip.
But I digress. The fact is, since the majority of North American buyers of Emery’s cannabis seeds have historically been Americans (let us presently ignore the fact that the vast majority of North Americans-and therefore prospective consumers of products furnished on this continent-are Americans), and Emery’s illegal activity represents an offense punishable in that country by years of prison time, extradition and foreign incarceration are reasonable consequences for his actions, right?
Vancouver East MP Libby Davies is one of many Canadians who feel otherwise.
In multiple open letters addressed to Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, a man with the power to overrule the extradition order, Davies decries Emery’s extradition as an unwelcome incursion on Canadian sovereignty:
“I have expressed to you on many occasions my vehement opposition to sending Mr. Emery or any Canadian to face harsh punishment in another country when we have agreed as a society that these actions are not worthy of prosecution in Canada.”
Just to clarify: Emery’s cannabis seed-sales are illegal in Canada as well as the United States. The difference is, what Canadian officials have chosen to ignore, an offense punishable by a brief incarceration only in the most extreme case, is in the United States punishable by, in Emery’s case, five years of prison time. And that sentence was handed down pursuant to a plea bargain, which cut the time of the original sentence in half.
Nicholson, cagey as his position requires him to be, has yet to tender an official response.
At least we can take solace in the knowledge that, even if the United States agrees to annul the extradition order on Nicholson’s request, allowing Emery to serve his sentence on home soil, a drug tycoon (albeit a peaceful and tax-paying one) will be locked away for five years.
Vancouver’s true gangsters, many of them armed, dangerous and peddling heroin, cocaine and crystal meth, must be breathing a sigh of relief at the attention that has been diverted from them.
Related posts:
- Save the Economy: Legalize Marijuana With the resumption of parliament only a few days away,...
- Medicinal Marijuana Smoker Files Complaint Against Restaurant Owner A restaurant owner is facing a discrimination complaint after he...
- Another Oil War? United Kingdom Versus Latin America: Oil Discovered off Falklands Oil has been discovered in the waters around the Falklands....
- Jack Layton Speaks At Medicinal Marijuana Fundraiser NDP Leader Jack Layton was the guest of honour at...
- Proroguing Parliament and Conservative Crime Legislation: A Cagey Stephen Harper Takes Two Steps Back The unabashed cowardice of Stephen Harper’s latest move may rekindle...
Tags: extradition, marc emery, marijuana
Loading ...
October 20th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Prince of Pot eh? Well alright…
I would be more thrilled about this “victory in the war on drugs” if we were arresting dealers of hard chemical drugs – you know that ones that people take and are never really sure what is in them… i mean really – E used to cost $50 a pill about 5 years ago at raves in Edmonton and two weekends ago it was selling for $2 a pill – can one really trust that the $2 pill is the same chemical as the $50 pill and that on its journey from manufacturers in Europe crushed and cut with bleach and battery acid?? At least when you look at pot you can tell that it is infact pot, hopefully with lots of white shinny crystals on it – I mean in western Canada you pay for BC bud for a reason!
So how about the Canadian government spend money on preventing the sale of drugs that:
a) actually kill people. In North America there has NEVER been a recorded death due to overdosing from marijuana. There have been accidental deaths related to driving under the influence but in more than 90% of the cases the blood alcohol level was above 0.08 and without highly sensitive hair follicle analysis one cannot know if the drivers were actually stoned when they drove or if in the past 28 – 36 days before the accident they had just smoked a joint!
b) are addictive (you can argue with me on this but I absolutely refuse to believe that weed is addictive, after about 7 years of solid personal research and then one year ago just ending the experiment!)
c) are being sold by gun toting gangsters
d) are actually ruining peoples abilities to function in daily life (again one can argue that this is the case however research shows that a high percentage of professionals in North America are daily smokers and still manage to put on their suit in the morning and do their jobs and have successful relationships)
That’s all that I have to say about that!
October 21st, 2009 at 8:30 am
Whew, Allison, “A UN report says Canada is the leading supplier of ecstasy in North America” (cbc article reproduced here: http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/illegal-drugs-canadas-growing-international-market#), perhaps the pricing is a matter of no longer having to import, but aside from that bit of knowledge:
Nice article Kyle. I don’t think we ought to necessarily be maligning “true gangsters” who are often victims themselves (social situations or addictions of their own necessitating, or at least contributing to their gangsterism). I think that the portrayal of these socially molded, often impressively inauthentic (most of us are most of the time), sad cases as bad boys and tough guys does nothing for either an understanding of their situation or improving the general situation. I doubt that their (/our) culture of capitalist machismo allows them to breath very many “sigh[s] of relief”, this story included.
Marc Emery’s case should demonstrate this very point. One group’s kingpin is another’s plant retailer. We make people bad by maligning them.
Like I said though, aside from the flippant cheap shot, good article.
There is no valid argument for any recreational substance’s illegality when it comes to personal use or trafficking. Or rather, there is but it would go like this “for the good of the country the government should control what we consume”: it is a fascist argument, in order to be valid it would include ALL substances. To differentiate between amphetamines like white sugar (kills people, arguably addictive) and cocaine (kills people, arguably addictive) is analagous to differentiating between alcohol and marijuanna (don’t get me started on trans fats). The banning of a substance is often racially motivated eg. heroin’s illegality being a result of legislation aimed at the opium recreation of the minority chinese population in BC’s early history. We should not dictate the practices of people, unless they DIRECTLY interfere with our ability to enjoy our own freedoms.
If everyone is so afraid of the guys with guns (just a note: in Vancouver they are pretty good shots, there’s like a shooting a week here in Halifax and nobody gets killed), why not take away the illegality of and thus their monopoly on “drugs” so they cannot profitably continue along the lines (pardon me) that they are on?
Frankly I’ll take freedom to over freedom from anyday. Look at Portugal’s and Holland’s drug policies and drug abuse numbers vs those of the US and the general EU. Turns out: freedom to is good for us. That’s what a liberal democracy is supposed to give me, that’s what I want. Like so many other issues of choice education is a better solution than legislation. Maybe we should allow a healthy dose of reason to help us overcome our fears, or is that banned too?
October 21st, 2009 at 1:20 pm
I totally agree Fraser, if its not illegal then the profit margin is gone. The government should just control it like they do smokes or booze, problem solved… plus you end up with a lot of happy, mellow stoned people! Far better than aggressive, violent drunks.
As I have actually been away from the rave scene for the better part of the past 5 or 6 years, and even before that was far to scared to put chemical drugs into my body (and yes this includes many prescription drugs) I hadn’t actually been aware of the transition of manufacturing of E from Europe to Canada. Very interesting.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Nice article. THC acts on endogenous cannabinoids that help regulate our pain perception among many other things. There is no known physiological mechanism by which one could become addictive. The thing is, if Emery gets to do the five years here he will only do in reality around 18 months. No that you heard if from me, but you will never serve more than 18 months on your first trafficking bust if you are busted for weed. Even if he was granted a five year american sentence he would be out well within that time. As I understand it the letters sent to Nicholson are what most people would call red herrings. That is, actions that appear as though they could be effective when in fact they are known by the authors that they are ineffective. The Federal Justice Minister has only the power to halt an invalid extradition if there is reason to suspect evidence tampering or harsh and unfair treatment in the destination country. Further, there is issue, since the crime could have been charged under both provincial and federal laws. There are a smattering of Provincial laws that Emery violated that would stick to him better than the trafficking and, with fines would allow the province to make a profit. If the Province wants him they could negotiated with the Feds to drop any charges that the Feds would want to place but see the province can simply fine him upon his return. As for stopping Emery from going to the states the Minister only has the power to enforce our treaties in this respect and that does not grant him powers of interference. Only a Judge could halt that order, since charges originated abroad, and the judge would only enforce our due process clauses with evidence submitted by Emery’s lawyer. (This little bit of legal trivia makes all that letter writing white noise look as stupid as it is). I for one am more irritated as to think that an MP would write letters in such a manner as to think that her electorate is so stupid and sheepish as to believe that she was presenting their interests. Oh well I guess it is true.
As for Emery there is really no hope for him. If there was the papers would be filled with legal analysis and something actually capable of getting him off. Instead all you see is letter writing campaigns and vague ramblings about fairness and justice from people who while believing in the former know nothing of the mechanics of the latter. Pity really, I actually like Emery and believe that, morally, he is right on this. The sad thing is he’s going to be martyred for it. This is the nation that we live in. Until Canadians grow some, or get what Billy Bob Thorton calls “the gravy” our government will resume dictating to us what is good and bad for our own bodies like little school children and treating us like we don’t know better and don’t need our research interpreted to the public. Of course so long as we stay so ignorant of our civics, what’s to stop them from running over us?
Cheers
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:53 pm
It certainly looks like my story has incited some conversation, even a bit of controversy, just as I had hoped. I ask everyone to keep in mind though, that this story was written with irony, and posted in the “humorous” category for a reason. Much of the language that I use, though it may appear partial to the prohibition argument, is really intended to demonstrate the fallibility of the DEA’s position on marijuana, and to challenge the perception that Marc Emery is an “evildoer.”
In recent times, Marc Emery has been released from the North Surrey Pre-Trial Centre on bail, and awaits extradition to the United States.