Marc Emery on the Police State

[BubberMiley]

The issue of the decriminalization of the use of marijuana is the primary addiction of Dr. Greenthumb. His use of pot is secondary and unimportant.

Thank you for paraphrasing your previous post nicely. It made it clear that you apparently don't have much of a point to make, other than the pointless personalization of an argument with an anonymous person.

[Pliny]

Thank you for paraphrasing your previous post nicely. It made it clear that you apparently don't have much of a point to make, other than the pointless personalization of an argument with an anonymous person.

I'll let Dr. Greenthumb comment. You are missing the dynamics of previous discussions on the matter but thank you for responding, your standing is noted.

[eyeball]

...I see that there are much more serious abuses of freedom occurring right now, including:

- Violations of freedoms of speech/expression, as illustrated by the actions of the human rights commissions, CRTC regulations, various news reporting gag laws, actions by Canada Customs w.r.t. Little Sister's book store

- Violations against various economic rights (which, while not actually part of our constitution, probably should be)... including excessive taxation/spending, violation of property rights, right to work laws, etc.

Why do I consider these violations more important? Because, for most people, prohibition laws really only affect recreation...

Speaking of excessive taxation and spending...

The United Nations has estimated the value of the global market in illicit drugs at $400-billion, or 6% of global trade...

No one knows how much governments spend collectively on failing drug war policies, but it's probably at least $100-billion a year...

Source

Treasury Board ((Canada's) documents show 73 per cent of the $368 million spent on targeting illicit drugs in 2004-2005 went toward law enforcement initiatives.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/15/drug-strategy.html

Most of this goes towards fighting pot and I'm pretty certain this doesn't count prosecution and incarceration etc etc, and Harper proposes to throw even more money at this hopeless moral engineering project.

It might be easier to take you seriously if Canadian governments were spending this kind of money kicking down people's doors and throwing them in jail for excersizing their right to free speech, but they're not so... Your list of perceived abuses looks pretty silly actually.

Edited July 25, 2008 by eyeball

[segnosaur]

Speaking of excessive taxation and spending...

Treasury Board ((Canada's) documents show 73 per cent of the $368 million spent on targeting illicit drugs in 2004-2005 went toward law enforcement initiatives.

Most of this goes towards fighting pot and I'm pretty certain this doesn't count prosecution and incarceration etc etc, and Harper proposes to throw even more money at this hopeless moral engineering project.

I never claimed that there were no expenses involved with the 'drug war', or that that money was well spent.

But if you compare it to the total government budget (including discretionary areas that the government shouldn't be involved in) its a fairly minor expense. (Compare that $400 million against the $1 billion gun registry program, or the $1 billion/year subsidy to the CBC.)

It might be easier to take you seriously if Canadian governments were spending this kind of money kicking down people's doors and throwing them in jail for excersizing their right to free speech, but they're not so... Your list of perceived abuses looks pretty silly actually.

Actually, people can go to jail for trying to exercise those particular rights. If I try to publish something that (for example) violates a court-ordered gag law, I can be thrown in jail for contempt of court. If I decide that I should have more control over my finances, and start to withhold some of my taxes, I will be fined by CRA, and if I don't pay the fine will probably end up in prison.

The only reason why you have the government "kicking down people's doors" over drug offenses (and not over free-speech or economic issues) is that the people who use drugs do violate the law, (even if its an unfair law). In the case of free speech or economic rights, people may disagree with the laws, but they still usually follow them begrudgingly.

[Pliny]

The only reason why you have the government "kicking down people's doors" over drug offenses (and not over free-speech or economic issues) is that the people who use drugs do violate the law, (even if its an unfair law). In the case of free speech or economic rights, people may disagree with the laws, but they still usually follow them begrudgingly.

Good point.

And Eyeball...drugs are only ONE issue. The Conservatives never made the laws regarding them. They are charged with upholding the law and can't just ignore precedent or majority opinion. If the law didn't exist there would just be rules. No showing up for work stoned. No smoking on the job. No excuses for sloppiness or irresponsibility when you exhibit symptoms of pot use. No associating with people who demonstrate any of these violations of responsibility to others and their safety. It would be much harder to find a job under those circumstances than if there were a law of prohibition, and as you know I don't support prohibition at all.

So my argument is not about a single issue. I would never advocate voting for more government which is what is being advocated by Marc Emery. If the Communist party promised to legalize the use of marijuana he would support it. I can't.

[DrGreenthumb]

The issue of the decriminalization of the use of marijuana is the primary addiction of Dr. Greenthumb. His use of pot is secondary and unimportant.

That statement I can somewhat agree with, it is the decriminalization that is important to me, more so than my "use of pot". I will use pot, mushrooms and whatever other substance i want to regardless of the law.

It is the very idea that some politician or police officer has been given the right to control what I do with my own body. It is not just pot criminalization I oppose either it is the criminalization of personal consumption that bothers me. I believe that no substance has ever been made safer by prohibiting it, even with harder drugs prohibition only increases the risks of adulterated product, and creates risks that were never even there at all without the prohibition(turf wars, debt assaults and murders etc). The very idea of some ottawa assholes sipping on rum and cokes or a martinis, while they craft new ways to "punish" people who use other intoxicants that are far less harmful than alcohol offends my sense of justice.

The Conservatives absolutely are a huge threat to personal freedoms because they aim to force their own religion based morals on the rest of us through the use of the criminal justice system. I absolutely support the right to own "property" and "property" should include whatever plants we can grow. It is not just the currently illegal plants that I am talking about either. It is not enough for the conservatives to enforce outdated laws based on racist hysteria against already illegal naturally medically active plants, they want to basically make all natural health products that compete with Tony Clements pharmaceuticals illegal. See Bill C-51.

You say the conservatives never "made" the drug laws, but that is irrelevant, they have stepped up the enforcement and increased the search and seizure powers of the police. They have introduced a new law allowing cops to demand urine or blood samples and charge people with "impaired driving" even though there is no evidence that pot impairs people. This is nothing more than an underhanded way to further persecute people who use cannabis. Anyone who has used Cannabis within a month of the test will test positive for THC, regardless if they are currently "high". One more way to attack us and make it harder for us to find meaningful employment. I certainly doubt they will be laying any impaired driving charges against people who test positive for "legal" drugs like antihistamines, or pharmaceutical pain meds, even though they are known to impair motor skills.

When thousands of Canadians are charged every year by human rights commissions for things they have said then talk to me about the dangers and threats to free speech they pose. Personally I don't think people should be allowed to incite hatred of other groups of people because of their own bigotry, or homophobia. The main reason we have prohibition laws in the first place is because bigots like Emily Murphy in Canada, and Harry Anslinger in the states were allowed to infect the populations with their racism and hatred using the media of their time. I wish a human rights commission had existed back then to lock up those racist scum. If they had not been allowed to spew their hatred of the chinese, mexicans and blacks humanity around the world would probably still have the legal right to own any medicinal plant they wanted to.

Cherry pick the numbers however you want but the total cost of the gun registry taken over its history and its future is and always will be FAR less than the cost of the drug war. You are comparing the entire cost of the gun registry to the cost of one year of drug war enforcement which is completely dishonest.

Also, don't give me that bullshit about people who disagree with the economic laws, or free speech limitations obeying the laws being the reason cops don't come kicking down their doors. People say vile racist things every day or work "under the table" for cash to avoid paying taxes.

In short the freedom to use my body however I so choose is the most important freedom of all because without that freedom I do not "own" myself. If I do not own myself who "owns" me? If someone owns me I am not a free man, I am simply a slave. Limits on Economic freedoms are of course less important because it is only a limitation on the ammount of wealth you can obtain from society, not an infringement on your right to own yourself.

[segnosaur]

It is the very idea that some politician or police officer has been given the right to control what I do with my own body.

Really? And I don't like the idea that some politician in the NDP may end up being given the right to control what I do with my property and/or money. I work a solid 40 hours a week. I make decisions that often involve scrimping in order to guarantee my future. And here the NDP wants (through higher taxes and social spending) to tell me what's going to happen with the money I've earned.

The Conservatives absolutely are a huge threat to personal freedoms because they aim to force their own religion based morals on the rest of us through the use of the criminal justice system.

Once again, other than drugs, just what 'personal freedoms' do you really think are in jepordy?

I absolutely support the right to own "property" and "property" should include whatever plants we can grow.

Except the NDP, through their ideas of higher taxes/social spending, would seek to take away your property. So you may still have your pot plants, but you won't have any other money left in the bank.

It is not just the currently illegal plants that I am talking about either. It is not enough for the conservatives to enforce outdated laws based on racist hysteria against already illegal naturally medically active plants, they want to basically make all natural health products that compete with Tony Clements pharmaceuticals illegal. See Bill C-51.

Actually, no, they don't.

Bill C-51 does not make natural health products illegal. (In fact, the idea that it does was started by a company that just happens to sell so called 'natural health care products'. This is rather like expecting an unbiased opinion on the health effects of smoking from a cigarette manufacturer.)

What C-51 does do is that it allows better enforcement to ensure makers of 'natural' products are not A: making bogus claims (such as having sugar pills cure cancer), and that B: their products are actually safe (i.e. not contaminated).

When a big drug manufacturer wants to market something new, they have to prove that it works, and that, as well as they can tell, it does not actually harm anyone (Yes, mistakes do sometimes get made, but the vast majority of drugs have no unexpected consequences once they are made available.) Personally, I'd prefer to know that if I take a vitamin pill its not actually contaminated with rat poison. (As much as I think government should be limited in scope, I do think that ensuring the safety of our food and medicine is something they should be involved in.)

http://www.ottawaskeptics.org/topics/alter...on-summer-leave

Basically, what people want to do is prevent cases like the following:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/baby-d...5321684868.html

...a baby who died after they treated her with homeopathic remedies.

They have introduced a new law allowing cops to demand urine or blood samples and charge people with "impaired driving" even though there is no evidence that pot impairs people.

Actually, there is evidence that it 'impairs' people. For example, from: http://www.ukcia.org/research/DoseRelatedRiskOfCrashes.pdf

The degree of performance impairment observed in experimental studies after doses up to 300g/kg

THC were equivalent to the impairing effect of an alcohol dose producing a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) ≥0.05 g/dl. (Note that this study does have a 'drug and alcohol awareness' logo on it... however, the authors of the study are from mainstream universities.)

Now, it is true that there is less evidence that its a large factor in actual collisions, possibly because people using pot are possibly less likely to engage in risky behaviors like driving). However, it does cause impairment.

Edited to add:

There is one more problem with your posting. Here, you are claiming that pot does not cause impairment during driving. Its debatable (although there is evidence proving your wrong). But earlier on you claimed that you are in favor of using any type of drug you see fit. I'm assuming that includes drugs like Heroin and PCP, narcotics that definitely would cause impaired driving.

I certainly doubt they will be laying any impaired driving charges against people who test positive for "legal" drugs like antihistamines, or pharmaceutical pain meds, even though they are known to impair motor skills.

Actually, I believe that most jurisdictions can lay charges for "driving while impared" even if you are taking prescription or over the counter medications.

For example, after a quick search, I found in manitoba: (from: http://www.mpi.mb.ca/PDFs/DVL_PDFs/DH_DrivingImpaired.pdf)

Tranquillizers, antidepressants, sleeping pills and similar drugs can affect driving ability even if taken in the prescribed dosage. Accordingly, if you continue to drive while impaired by any medication, you can be charged with driving while impaired

When thousands of Canadians are charged every year by human rights commissions for things they have said then talk to me about the dangers and threats to free speech they pose.

First of all, even if one person is charged unnecessarily, then to me its to much.

Secondly, the effect of charging that one individual can and does have an effect on all of us, from the chilling effect on other free speech to the lack of ability to engage in dialog on the ideas that might have been presented.

Personally I don't think people should be allowed to incite hatred of other groups of people because of their own bigotry, or homophobia.

In that case, you are actually against freedom of speech, because the freedom of speech involves the right to say things that are distasteful.

Cherry pick the numbers however you want but the total cost of the gun registry taken over its history and its future is and always will be FAR less than the cost of the drug war. You are comparing the entire cost of the gun registry to the cost of one year of drug war enforcement which is completely dishonest.

I also pointed out the massive subsidies to the CBC, in addition to the cost of the drug registry. Subsidies to the CBC (which are taken out of my tax money, even though I don't think I've used any of their services for years) dwarf those figures you gave for drug enforcement.

Also, don't give me that bullshit about people who disagree with the economic laws, or free speech limitations obeying the laws being the reason cops don't come kicking down their doors. People say vile racist things every day or work "under the table" for cash to avoid paying taxes.

I never said that all such actions would result in jail time. (Come to think of it, in a lot of cases, drug use wouldn't either... since judges often give probation or small fines.) But some would.

Your example of someone 'working under the table' would end up in jail, if they were caught and refused to pay any outstanding taxes.

Limits on Economic freedoms are of course less important because it is only a limitation on the ammount of wealth you can obtain from society, not an infringement on your right to own yourself.

Except you don't obtain wealth from society. Wealth is generated by the actions of the individuals within society.

Edited July 25, 2008 by segnosaur

[GostHacked]

If you do not think pot impares you, then you are a damn fool. Really.

I am a long time smoker. It impares you. I can't do my job at work if I am blazed out of my mind. Hell, I got guys fired because of it, they drive heavy machinery where I work. Saftey first. I don't drive while stoned. It is just retarded. Just like drinking and driving. It does not impare you like alcohol does, but your reaction times are absolute crap when driving like alcohol.

I have driven drunk and stoned before. Dumb.

I have been hungover/drunk or stoned at work before. Also dumb.

Basicly some of these laws exist because some people are absolute morons when it comes to taking drugs and drinking alcohol. They have no common sense about it and cannot do it responsibly. I really love that smoke after work. Like most people enjoy a beer after work. But I always make sure I am in good condition for working the next day as well. If everyone had common sense about it, it might not be such a problem that law enforcement needs to get involved to tell you idiots that you are doing it wrong.

I'd love to see all drugs legalized. Then you will see who have control and who does not. I also think that drugs like cocaine and heroine are very dangerous. I have never indulged in either, but I have taken many other drugs in my lifetime. I prefer weed. All other drugs make me feel really odd. I know I am odd to begin with, but ..

So please have some common sense and responsibility when taking your chemicals. There are others out there, doing it right, having a good time, and not driving into other cars because they took a cab, bus, or someone got the DD job.

Edit .. It has been years since I have been blazed at work. It was in a call center. I could not even do THAT simple job stoned. Lesson learned.

Edited July 25, 2008 by GostHacked

[DrGreenthumb]

If you do not think pot impares you, then you are a damn fool. Really.

I am a long time smoker. It impares you. I can't do my job at work if I am blazed out of my mind. Hell, I got guys fired because of it, they drive heavy machinery where I work. Saftey first. I don't drive while stoned. It is just retarded. Just like drinking and driving. It does not impare you like alcohol does, but your reaction times are absolute crap when driving like alcohol.

I have driven drunk and stoned before. Dumb.

I have been hungover/drunk or stoned at work before. Also dumb.

Basicly some of these laws exist because some people are absolute morons when it comes to taking drugs and drinking alcohol. They have no common sense about it and cannot do it responsibly. I really love that smoke after work. Like most people enjoy a beer after work. But I always make sure I am in good condition for working the next day as well. If everyone had common sense about it, it might not be such a problem that law enforcement needs to get involved to tell you idiots that you are doing it wrong.

I'd love to see all drugs legalized. Then you will see who have control and who does not. I also think that drugs like cocaine and heroine are very dangerous. I have never indulged in either, but I have taken many other drugs in my lifetime. I prefer weed. All other drugs make me feel really odd. I know I am odd to begin with, but ..

So please have some common sense and responsibility when taking your chemicals. There are others out there, doing it right, having a good time, and not driving into other cars because they took a cab, bus, or someone got the DD job.

Edit .. It has been years since I have been blazed at work. It was in a call center. I could not even do THAT simple job stoned. Lesson learned.

Most people WON"T drive if the pot is impairing them. Part of the the effect of the "high" is often characterized as paranoia, you feel more impaired than you actually are. An hour after smoking a joint, most regular users would not still feel the effects, they would not be "blazed" as you put it. Until tests can determine with as much certainty as a blood alcohol test the individual's level of "impairment" all these roadside tests can determine is if the person has used cannabis within the last 2 months. A simple witchunt. If you say you still blaze sometimes this bill SHOULD worry you.

Just because you could not do your job high does not mean that other people should be punished because they can. A lot of people function perfectly well and are quite sucessful in life even though they use cannabis regularly. I am in full favour of business owners being able to hire or fire anyone they choose no reason required. It's their business.

Edited July 26, 2008 by DrGreenthumb

[eyeball]

Basicly some of these laws exist because some people are absolute morons when it comes to taking drugs and drinking alcohol. They have no common sense about it and cannot do it responsibly.

No, these laws basically exist because of past racism and bigotry as DG pointed out. The history of drug prohibition is pretty clear. As for morons, you cannot legislate stupidity away - if you could we wouldn't have prohibition!

[eyeball]

The only reason why you have the government "kicking down people's doors" over drug offenses (and not over free-speech or economic issues) is that the people who use drugs do violate the law, (even if its an unfair law). In the case of free speech or economic rights, people may disagree with the laws, but they still usually follow them begrudgingly.

Who violates the law?

At the time I was traveling across Canada smoking cannabis in front of 18 police stations in ten provinces to demonstrate that there was no pot law. It would seem the Vancouver Crown Attorneys agreed, because they declined to file charges against me and the matter was theoretically dropped.

(Marc Emery)

Why would you begrudingly follow laws designed to take away your right to free speech? Either you truly believe in your heart you have the right to call someone a nigger or you don't. You've made it pretty clear that if even one person is arrested for doing so its one too many. You should be just as willing to travel across Canada and holler out nigger in front of 18 police stations as Emery was to likewise challenge the right of the state to...break the law apparently. Isn't it against the law to not uphold it?

What a freakin' rabbit hole this whole issue has gone down.

Edited July 26, 2008 by eyeball

[Pliny]

That statement I can somewhat agree with, it is the decriminalization that is important to me, more so than my "use of pot". I will use pot, mushrooms and whatever other substance i want to regardless of the law.

Well, carry on. But take care. You won't be of much use in the slammer. Consider as well that the role of the State in our lives must be reduced not increased. I think you are well aware of that regarding your single issue but miss the point on the whole.

[eyeball]

Consider as well that the role of the State in our lives must be reduced not increased. I think you are well aware of that regarding your single issue but miss the point on the whole.

I think its you who has missed the point Pliny. Its captured in the old when they come for the potheads and no one speaks up who's going to speak up when they come for you.

I really have a hard time imagining anyone that's run afoul of some over-zealous cop or legal system on a moral crusade is going to be very enthusiastic about expanding the role of the state. This just doesn't scan.

[Pliny]

Who violates the law?

Why would you begrudingly follow laws designed to take away your right to free speech? Either you truly believe in your heart you have the right to call someone a nigger or you don't. You've made it pretty clear that if even one person is arrested for doing so its one too many. You should be just as willing to travel across Canada and holler out nigger in front of 18 police stations as Emery was to likewise challenge the right of the state to...break the law apparently. Isn't it against the law to not uphold it?

What a freakin' rabbit hole this whole issue has gone down.

Laws are laws. Rules of decency and respect can be laws as well but they debase law if they become law.

The fact remains that Marc Emery has no concept of freedom and will vote out of self-interest even if it means the furthering of the march toward the totalitarian state. I say that because socialism is by definition an evolutionary process toward the totalitarian state. Our nation is socialist and we must counter the increased influence it has on our lives and not simply vote for benefit, privilege and whatever largesse appeals to our interest. The people will ultimately decide what is acceptable in society. Perhaps that is Emory's greatest fear, if left to public discretion the use of pot would not be socially condoned except in it's most private usage and never socially acceptable except as an expression of a lack of direction, since smoking pot is all that is necessary to the achievement of happiness.

[Pliny]

I really have a hard time imagining anyone that's run afoul of some over-zealous cop or legal system on a moral crusade is going to be very enthusiastic about expanding the role of the state. This just doesn't scan.

Yes. My point exactly. Why would Emery endorse the NDP - our most socialist party?

As for pot and it's legality, it is simply one issue. Although I believe society is increasingly willing to tolerate it's recreational use they still perceive it's daily use an abuse and something not socially acceptable.

One of the big reasons governments like to make rules regarding it's legal use is that they want to ensure everyone makes it to work when they should. Drugs and the abuse of alcohol can make workers undependable. Employment and withholding taxes are a few of the criteria that they feel responsible toward in order to keep the economy vibrant and happening. They blame each other if the economy slumps, you know, and take credit when it thrives. It is almost as if they controlled it.

Edited July 26, 2008 by Pliny

[eyeball]

Laws are laws. Rules of decency and respect can be laws as well but they debase law if they become law.

Laws are laws? What do you mean? That you have to follow them no matter what out of decency and respect? Even when they become debased? It sounds like you're locked into an irreversible downward spiral.

The fact remains that Marc Emery has no concept of freedom and will vote out of self-interest even if it means the furthering of the march toward the totalitarian state. I say that because socialism is by definition an evolutionary process toward the totalitarian state. Our nation is socialist and we must counter the increased influence it has on our lives and not simply vote for benefit, privilege and whatever largesse appeals to our interest. The people will ultimately decide what is acceptable in society.

No, you've simply described the evolution of a state. Our nation was statist long before it became socialist. What you are describing is just as inevitable in right-wing nations and states.

Perhaps that is Emory's greatest fear, if left to public discretion the use of pot would not be socially condoned except in it's most private usage and never socially acceptable except as an expression of a lack of direction, since smoking pot is all that is necessary to the achievement of happiness.

I suppose anything is possible. Look at how long public discretion forced something as basic as sex into the shadows and margins of acceptability. Humans are notoriously stupid.

Edited July 26, 2008 by eyeball

[eyeball]

Yes. My point exactly. Why would Emery endorse the NDP - our most socialist party?

Because they're the only party endorsing and end to the war on drugs maybe?

As for pot and it's legality, it is simply one issue. Although I believe society is increasingly willing to tolerate it's recreational use they still perceive it's daily use an abuse and something not socially acceptable.

One of the big reasons governments like to make rules regarding it's legal use is that they want to ensure everyone makes it to work when they should. Drugs and the abuse of alcohol can make workers undependable. Employment and withholding taxes are a few of the criteria that they feel responsible toward in order to keep the economy vibrant and happening. They blame each other if the economy slumps, you know, and take credit when it thrives. It is almost as if they controlled it.

It almost seems as as if you support it. Do you put economics before virtue? When they control the potheads and no one speaks up who's going to speak up when they come to control you Pliny?

[Pliny]

Because they're the only party endorsing and end to the war on drugs maybe?

And also the party that would be the most interventionist in people's lives. Don't you get that point?

It almost seems as as if you support it. Do you put economics before virtue? When they control the potheads and no one speaks up who's going to speak up when they come to control you Pliny?

Support what? I'm sorry I don't know what you are referring to there.

Economics before virtue? A bit off track, I think.

I think if I speak for limiting government in size and mandate no one will be going after anyone.

[GostHacked]

Dr

Most people WON"T drive if the pot is impairing them. Part of the the effect of the "high" is often characterized as paranoia, you feel more impaired than you actually are. An hour after smoking a joint, most regular users would not still feel the effects,

An hour after my beer, I should be ready to drive as well. Common sense is what is needed here. If you feel more impared than you actually are, that means you are IMPARED.

[DrGreenthumb]

Dr

An hour after my beer, I should be ready to drive as well. Common sense is what is needed here. If you feel more impared than you actually are, that means you are IMPARED.

5 minutes after your beer you should be fine to drive. 1 Beer will not impair your ability to drive enough to make it dangerous. You will not be charged with impaired driving after 1 beer. Your blood alcohol will be below .08 which is generally accepted as the ammount of alcohol in your system that will make you too impaired to drive a motor vehicle. After 3 beers 1 hour probably wouldn't be enough time for your blood alcohol to drop below .08.

After 6 beers you are even more impaired and it will take even longer before you are ok to drive. Lots of times people who drink a lot wake up still impaired the next day.

This is not the case with cannabis. It makes no difference wether I smoke 1 joint or 10, in a hour after the last puff, I will be completely straight again. You do not get more and more high if you keep smoking more. Once you are high, smoking more will not continue to get you progressively more high the way drinking more alcohol will continue to get you more wasted. All actual studies done on cannabis and driving have shown that cannabis users do not cause increased accidents on our roadways the way drunks do anyway. In fact quite the opposite is shown. Cannabis enhanced drivers most often drive more slowly and carefully and are in fact LESS likely to cause an accident than even completely straight people who have a tendency to road rage and take unnecessary chances. There is absolutely no agreed upon level of THC in one's system that seems to indicate impairment for most people, in fact there is no scientific proof that cannabis impairs people at all. Cannabis users tend to be better at video games that require good eye/hand co-ordination, and fast reflexes, and also tend to be better at making music, just because you feel that you are impaired from using it certainly can't be taken as scientific evidence that everyone gets impaired when they do.

The drug impaired driving roadside test is nothing but a continuation of the witchhunt against cannabis users, and THC in somebodies system is not at all and indicator of impairment, it is only an identifier of a person who has used cannabis within a couple of months of the test. A high level of thc in the system, no matter how high it is does not indicate impairment. This is just about the conservatives hating people who use cannabis and this is their way of persecuting us some more. They are mad that we keep disobeying their Harper/daddy. This paternalistic government needs to be booted out. I don't need a Harper daddy to protect me I'm a grown man for christ sake.

Edited July 26, 2008 by DrGreenthumb

[eyeball]

And also the party that would be the most interventionist in people's lives. Don't you get that point?

No I don't, I just can't imagine any worse intervention into people's lives than arresting them for unfounded bigotry I guess.

I think if I speak for limiting government in size and mandate no one will be going after anyone.

I think you're dreaming. I think your limited government could just as likely start going after people who want to expand its mandate. That's pretty much what happened in Chile. There's no reason why the same couldn't happen here.

[Pliny]

No I don't, I just can't imagine any worse intervention into people's lives than arresting them for unfounded bigotry I guess.

No worse intervention into people's lives? Really? Does Siberia or the Holocaust ring any bells or how about what happened in Chile?

I think you're dreaming. I think your limited government could just as likely start going after people who want to expand its mandate. That's pretty much what happened in Chile. There's no reason why the same couldn't happen here.

Now why would people want to expand the mandate of the government? That could only happen if the government were "the people".

Yes, I am dreaming. I think my dream is better than no dream.

[segnosaur]

...in fact there is no scientific proof that cannabis impairs people at all.

I have provided a reference to articles written by university faculty that shows that use of marijuana does indeed cause impairment. If you actually have evidence that that study was flawed, please present it.

Cannabis users tend to be better at video games that require good eye/hand co-ordination, and fast reflexes

I'm sure you'll be quite willing to provide a reference, from scientific studies, confirming that people currently under the influence of marijuana continue to have good reflexes/co-ordination.

By the way, time and time again, you've made mistakes in this thread, including:

- False claims that a person wouldn't be arrested for impaired driving if using prescription drugs (they would... I provided a reference too.)

- False claims that C-51 prohibits 'natural medicine'. (It doesn't; it just deals with false claims/contamination)

- False claims that marijuana doesn't cause impairment (it does, even if it does cause users to avoid driving)

- Claiming its OK to drive when using marijuana, but also mentioning that you should have the right to use anything (does that include driving while under the influence of heroin?)

In addition, you made the claim that the conservatives are a "a huge threat to individual liberties" (your exact words). You've been challenged to provide examples/evidence for what rights (apart from drug use) are actually in immediate danger. I'm still waiting to hear what's been threatened.

Or have you actually realized that you don't actually have a leg to stand on?

Once again... if you think you should have the right to use marijuana... fine. But don't claim that libertarians and those that favor general freedom should support the NDP. Some of us freedom-lovers realize that there's more to freedom than just the right to use drugs. And until the NDP starts to support policies that allow me to maintain more economic freedom (lower taxation/spending) and more freedom of speech, you can't claim that they're a party that truly favors 'freedom'.

[segnosaur]

The only reason why you have the government "kicking down people's doors" over drug offenses (and not over free-speech or economic issues) is that the people who use drugs do violate the law, (even if its an unfair law). In the case of free speech or economic rights, people may disagree with the laws, but they still usually follow them begrudgingly.

Who violates the law?

Ummm.... I'm not really sure what the point of your question is.

I'm referring to the people who use drugs.... they are violating a law (even if it may be an unfair/unnecessary one)

Why would you begrudingly follow laws designed to take away your right to free speech?

Several reasons...

- Because for the most part I do not have the resources to violate the law in the first place, nor the resources to mount a legal defense if I do get arrested. I don't have access to a major media outlet to challenge government organizations like the CRTC, or gag laws, or to set up a business in quebec to test their sign laws, or one of several areas where our freedom of speech is being violated

- Because, I currently have no need to engage in things that violate free speech laws. I believe that people should have the right to say "All redheaded stepchildren are evil" (or whatever might get me in trouble with various human rights commissions)... however, I don't actually believe that; so me uttering those words would basically be a lie on my part.

- Because, I have other responsibilities in my life, and feel I can better enact change in other ways

Either you truly believe in your heart you have the right to call someone a nigger or you don't. You've made it pretty clear that if even one person is arrested for doing so its one too many. You should be just as willing to travel across Canada and holler out nigger in front of 18 police stations as Emery was to likewise challenge the right of the state to...break the law apparently. Isn't it against the law to not uphold it?

First of all, I notice that you seem to be concentrating on this one element of potential rights abuses. I have, in fact, gave several areas where the NDP would further erode my freedoms, including economic freedoms.

Secondly, your argument (that I should be willing to actually get arrested in order to justify my sense of free rights) is a bogus argument.

The fact is, I actually do take steps to try to advance the cause of freedom...

- I vote for the party which is most likely to enact change in the direction that gives greater freedom

- I have written to my MP over particular censorship laws that I felt strongly about

- I have done my best to educate people regarding the issues.

I do not feel its necessary to engage in cheap 'publicity stunts' in order to try to bring about the freedoms I wish I had.

(In fact, while Emery was willing to risk arrest, most drug users probably don't have such high-minded principles, pun intended, preferring to keep their drug use hidden from the authorities with the goal of avoiding prison. Heck, even Emery wasn't all that idealistic, given the fact that he was willing to accept a plea deal with the American government, and is fighting extradition there. If he really thought that freedom was so important, why doesn't he turn himself over to the U.S. and say "Do your worse, I know I'm in the right"?)

[Pliny]

Careful, segnosaur...they 'll be calling you a bully next. Just kidding. ha ha!

Excellent argument!