Comments on: Marijuana Prince Marc Emery Awaits Extradition to the United States

By: The Author (Kyle Farquharson)

The Author (Kyle Farquharson) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:53:46 +0000

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.

By: Travis Martin

Travis Martin — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:49:16 +0000

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

By: Alison Regan

Alison Regan — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:20:14 +0000

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.

By: Fraser Nelund

Fraser Nelund — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:30:42 +0000

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?

By: Alison Regan

Alison Regan — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 02:48:58 +0000

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!