Prince of Pot extradited

[normanchateau]

In any case this seems off topic, and unrelated to the terrible precedent set by our own government persecuting Canadian citizens on Canadian soil for laws in foreign countries (many of which border on obscene by our standards).

What's bizarre here is that the US government was willing to have Emery imprisoned in Canada but the anti-libertarian Harper government chose to extradite him:

http://www.straight.com/article-323466/vancouver/open-letter-ndp-mp-libby-davies-extradition-marc-emery-us

[Shady]

What's bizarre here is that the US government was willing to have Emery imprisoned in Canada but the anti-libertarian Harper government chose to extradite him:

http://www.straight.com/article-323466/vancouver/open-letter-ndp-mp-libby-davies-extradition-marc-emery-us

His understanding is wrong. But it all boils down to one simple principle. Don't break the law. But especially don't break the law of another country. And definitely don't brag about it.

He got what he deserved, and it's a good message sent to any other would-be drug dealers out there.

[Oleg Bach]

Pot is now greed weed engineered by very clever crimminals..It is now no longer the pot out of the 70s..it is NOW a narcotic - I say to hell with the prince of pot - let him rot and give him all the damned dope he needs. He is an impaired fool.

[normanchateau]

His understanding is wrong.

Whose understanding is wrong? Mr. Harper's, Mr. Emery's or Ms. Davies'?

[Oleg Bach]

Whose understanding is wrong? Mr. Harper's, Mr. Emery's or Ms. Davies'?

You mean who is dellusional? I would safely say who ever is smoking dope.

[normanchateau]

..it is NOW a narcotic -

What is your definition of a narcotic?

[bloodyminded]

What is your definition of a narcotic?

It's a legal term, and nothing more. For example, if caffeine were illegal and a controlled substance, it would be deemed a narcotic.

[dre]

What's bizarre here is that the US government was willing to have Emery imprisoned in Canada but the anti-libertarian Harper government chose to extradite him:

http://www.straight.com/article-323466/vancouver/open-letter-ndp-mp-libby-davies-extradition-marc-emery-us

No its a TERRIBLE message that puts ANYONE that disseminates ANYTHING at risk, and potentially subjects all kinds of Canadians to the whims of repressive regimes and repressive policies in foreign countries.

If a Canadian sent an email to a person in China that had political speech in it that was illegal there, they are breaking Chinese law in the same way Mark Emery broke US law. Under this absolute shit pile of a decision that person could be extradited to China to face the same persecution for that subversive political speech that a Chinese person would face. Again the person would have broken no laws in the jurrisdiction they are subject too.

Thats just one example, but theres literally endless possibilities.

No Canadian should ever be extradited to a repressive regime for acts that are completely legal here. End of story. Canadians do not fund our criminal justice system for the purpose of subjecting us to Foreign laws. This decision is LOSE LOSE for everyone... we lose tax revenue and we are spending tax dollars enforcing repressive laws in a foreign country.

[BubberMiley]

That is completely false. There are over 1200 white tailed deer in Winnipeg..

I'm looking at a delicious bunny eating dandilions in my back yard as we speak.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I'm looking at a delicious bunny eating dandilions in my back yard as we speak.

Would it be illegal to set up some snares?

[eyeball]

But it all boils down to one simple principle.

[Oleg Bach]

DOPE AND BOOZE MAKE EVIL PEOPLE RICH- It's a drag to be subjugated.

[bush_cheney2004]

....He got what he deserved, and it's a good message sent to any other would-be drug dealers out there.

Besides.....Emery can be an even bigger martyr for maryjane from a jail cell....like others famous drug dealers. LOL!

[DrGreenthumb]

. You CAN however serve food or alcohol without cigarette smoke, and the thousands of carcingenic compounds found in it. People in any workplace have at least some baseline standard of air quality.

Also Im not buying your "People can just CHOOSE not to work there" argument at all. No matter how much unneccesary danger an employee inflicted on its workforce they will always be able to find staff... often by drawing from people who arent aware of the risks, or are too desperate to turn down the paycheck.

NUmber 1 if welding exhaust and mining dust, fibrelass dust, etc can be exhausted to a satisfactory level to have at least some baseline standard of air quality ", then why can't cigarette smoke? You can go to work on your bike too, but most choose to drive their car which belches out about 400 smoke packs worth of poisonous smoke on the way there.

People can choose to accept the risks or not accept them, that is called choice, or freedom, look it up. You ever think that they might find that staff from among the millions of people who.... gasp! choose to smoke themselves??

[DrGreenthumb]

What's bizarre here is that the US government was willing to have Emery imprisoned in Canada but the anti-libertarian Harper government chose to extradite him:

http://www.straight.com/article-323466/vancouver/open-letter-ndp-mp-libby-davies-extradition-marc-emery-us

That is because Harper's Missionary Alliance church tells him to hate people who use pot. The whole reason for this charade is that first the Canadian Police, the Liberal Party, (Cotler could have stopped this BS long ago), and now the Theo-COns aren't willing to accept the will of the majority of Canadians. The sentences handed down by our courts reflect how important our people feel these laws are, but those who get off on a powerful state would rather ship our citizens off to a jurisdiction that will punish them more harshly. They hate that people are not willing to accept their control over us anymore and are trying to crush our spirit, and damage our movement by taking away our most vocal advocate of freedom. Long Live Marc Emery, and all freedom fighters. Down with the dominating state.

[dre]

NUmber 1 if welding exhaust and mining dust, fibrelass dust, etc can be exhausted to a satisfactory level to have at least some baseline standard of air quality ", then why can't cigarette smoke? You can go to work on your bike too, but most choose to drive their car which belches out about 400 smoke packs worth of poisonous smoke on the way there.

People can choose to accept the risks or not accept them, that is called choice, or freedom, look it up. You ever think that they might find that staff from among the millions of people who.... gasp! choose to smoke themselves??

NUmber 1 if welding exhaust and mining dust, fibrelass dust, etc can be exhausted to a satisfactory level to have at least some baseline standard of air quality ", then why can't cigarette smoke?

It can... You can keep the air clean with robust ventilation systems, and I have no problem with establishments doing that provided theres testing done from time to time to make sure the air is clean.

People can choose to accept the risks or not accept them, that is called choice, or freedom, look it up. You ever think that they might find that staff from among the millions of people who.... gasp! choose to smoke themselves??

None of that shit matters. In the modern world we have standards on workplace conditions and safety, because when we didnt have them people didnt live very long. The fact that theres idiots out there that are either too stupid to care about their own health too desperate to refuse a job on that basis doesnt change the fact that all of those morons are going to come crying to ME, and the rest of the tax paying public to pay for their healthcare when they get sick, so society is a stakeholder in those decisions.

[DrGreenthumb]

doesnt change the fact that all of those morons are going to come crying to ME, and the rest of the tax paying public to pay for their healthcare when they get sick, so society is a stakeholder in those decisions.

Again, this fall-back argument rings hollow, because there are so many more dangerous things that we allow that cost our health care system just as much or more. We allow skydiving, mountain climbing, hockey, fatty foods, energy drinks, etc etc etc etc. So when I hear people whining for a ban on all those things then i will believe that is their sincere reason for bitching about the smokers all the time. Until then I will correctly assume that they are just trying to force other people not to do things that they personally don't like. Do we ban everything that might cost the health care system money, or just the things that whiny special interest groups bitch about? That is not a free society. It has gotten so far out of hand that a chain smoking pub owner, can't even legally open a bar that caters to other smokers, even if he is the only worker, and calls his pub "non smokers keep out"

At least smoker's pay a hefty health surtax on every pack of smokes they buy. I'm fine with taxing unhealthy behaviour to recover future costs, just not ok with the state telling people how they may use their own bodies.

[Shady]

Again, this fall-back argument rings hollow, because there are so many more dangerous things that we allow that cost our health care system just as much or more. We allow skydiving, mountain climbing, hockey, fatty foods, energy drinks, etc etc etc etc.

This comparison between playing sports and food with marijuana is ridiculous. Playing sports is a good thing, and the benefits far exceed any negatives. Encouraging people to be physically active is part of healthy living, regardless of the tiny percentage of people who get injured. And there are no toxins or carcinogens is say a hamburger. Just bread, ground beef, lettuce, tomtato, etc. Which of those do you wanna ban? And all of those things can be enjoyed in moderation without any concerns. However, marijuana, especially smoking marijuana is on a much different level. Scientific and medical evidence tell us this. Give up on your stupid crusade.

Besides, it's not like marijuana isn't readily available. And it's not like you can't smoke it, in the privacy of your own home anytime you want. You just can carry in around with you, smoking it in public. Kind of like ALCOHOL!

[dre]

Again, this fall-back argument rings hollow, because there are so many more dangerous things that we allow that cost our health care system just as much or more. We allow skydiving, mountain climbing, hockey, fatty foods, energy drinks, etc etc etc etc. So when I hear people whining for a ban on all those things then i will believe that is their sincere reason for bitching about the smokers all the time. Until then I will correctly assume that they are just trying to force other people not to do things that they personally don't like. Do we ban everything that might cost the health care system money, or just the things that whiny special interest groups bitch about? That is not a free society. It has gotten so far out of hand that a chain smoking pub owner, can't even legally open a bar that caters to other smokers, even if he is the only worker, and calls his pub "non smokers keep out"

At least smoker's pay a hefty health surtax on every pack of smokes they buy. I'm fine with taxing unhealthy behaviour to recover future costs, just not ok with the state telling people how they may use their own bodies.

It has gotten so far out of hand that a chain smoking pub owner, can't even legally open a bar that caters to other smokers, even if he is the only worker, and calls his pub "non smokers keep out"

Of course not. Allowing that guy to serve the general public would be no different than allowing a restaurant to serve contaminated drinking water, or a daycare with asbestos insulation or lead paint on the walls.

Until then I will correctly assume that they are just trying to force other people not to do things that they personally don't like.

You would be wrong in my case. I would vigorously oppose any move to ban tobacco. But workplace air quality standards are just good common sense. For me its not about smoking or cigarettes, its about air quality in places that serve the public. If that air quality can be achieved by using robust ventilation systems while still allowing cigarettes then that would be fine with me.

Do we ban everything that might cost the health care system money, or just the things that whiny special interest groups bitch about?

The important difference here is that when you eat too many cheese burgers you harm yourself but you dont harm everyone else in the restaurant or the employees preparing the food.

[Guest TrueMetis]

You would be wrong in my case. I would vigorously oppose any move to ban tobacco. But workplace air quality standards are just good common sense. For me its not about smoking or cigarettes, its about air quality in places that serve the public. If that air quality can be achieved by using robust ventilation systems while still allowing cigarettes then that would be fine with me.

Air ventilation systems that could do that would cost 10's of thousands of dollars.

The important difference here is that when you eat too many cheese burgers you harm yourself but you dont harm everyone else in the restaurant or the employees preparing the food.

Having worked in fast food I wouldn't be to sure I think just working in the back of one of those places takes years off ones life.

Edited May 25, 2010 by TrueMetis

[eyeball]

And it's not like you can't smoke it, in the privacy of your own home anytime you want. You just can carry in around with you, smoking it in public. Kind of like ALCOHOL!

Are you saying you wouldn't report your neighbor to the police if pot smoke was wafting out of his airspace into your's? Your position on the simple principle that's at stake here sort of mandates that you do don't you think?

What if you could smell his batch of pot brownies baking in the oven?

[DrGreenthumb]

You would be wrong in my case. I would vigorously oppose any move to ban tobacco. But workplace air quality standards are just good common sense. For me its not about smoking or cigarettes, its about air quality in places that serve the public. If that air quality can be achieved by using robust ventilation systems while still allowing cigarettes then that would be fine with me.

Glad to hear it, I wouldn't expect anything less. In fact before the bans many business owners spent BIG BUCKS investing in just such equipment, but that did not satisfy the whiners. They just can't be honest about how much smoke is actually a health threat. Of cousre prolongued exposure to a smoky room on a regular basis could harm you, but the odd little drift of smoke encountered irregularly will do NOTHING! No more dangerous than standing by a campfire roasting marshmallows.

The important difference here is that when you eat too many cheese burgers you harm yourself but you dont harm everyone else in the restaurant or the employees preparing the food.

But you do cost the health care system MORE than smokers do. You also do not pre-pay for that healthcare with a huge tax on each burger, like smokers do. Also people who use alcohol ARE a threat to others all around them because they get aggressive, stupid, and then get behind the wheel and drive around. Yet THEY are allowed to gather and imbibe in a public place. I never see the behaviour from my pot-smoking friends or even the tobacco smokers(unless they are also drinking) that I put up with from the drunk assholes who get out of hand at socials and other alcohol events. Seriously if alcohol is not bad enough to prohibit, I'm not sure what is, certainly not pot.

[maple_leafs182]

Besides, it's not like marijuana isn't readily available. And it's not like you can't smoke it, in the privacy of your own home anytime you want. You just can carry in around with you, smoking it in public. Kind of like ALCOHOL!

So you think it's okay for people to smoke it but if they get caught smoking it they should have to face some sort of penalty.

[ZenOps]

Yeah, they banned campfires again this year in a lot of national parks.

Of course not really for health reasons, but its still quite the restriction.

This is Canada - it is cold. Even cavemen were allowed to create a fire for heat.

[Wild Bill]

Air ventilation systems that could do that would cost 10's of thousands of dollars.

Having worked in fast food I wouldn't be to sure I think just working in the back of one of those places takes years off ones life.

Actually, while they weren't as expensive as you implied they were still not cheap. Casinos and bars/clubs used them for years and they worked great!

There was an issue a decade or so ago in Hamilton where clubs invested in such ventilation systems to keep the air "pure" in the non-smoking areas. However, despite promises from the local politicians that the status quo would be maintained for some years the local council suddenly up and enforced total non-smoking!

This meant that all those clubs had spent the money on ventilation systems for nothing! They had no time to recover their investment and essentially it was a dead loss. That hurt!

As a matter of interest, while the clubs ran with smoking and non-smoking areas at no time did anyone ever see the non-smoking areas full and the smoking areas empty! You ALWAYS saw a full up smoking area with a line up to get in while the non-smoking area held only a few patrons!

It was pretty obvious that non-smokers were not fervent patrons of the clubs anyway. Perhaps it was the music. Their tastes may have run more towards Walter Ostanek. Whatever, when the scene became totally non-smoking we did NOT see a big increase in non-smokers coming out now that the air was "pure"! Rather, what we saw was pretty well just the smokers, who would run out to the alleys between sets to grab a puff. Within a few years, their numbers started to decline. They drifted away to other forms of entertainment where they could also indulge their habit.

It was conclusive that in general non-smokers didn't want to go to clubs anyway! What's more, attendance went DOWN and not UP when smoking was totally banned! Clubs had been struggling from other factors as well and the non-smoking rules seemed to be just the final straw. They started going bankrupt in droves!

Politicians became very embarrassed. They had bought the line that non-smoking rules meant that thousands of non-smokers who only stayed away from clubs and music because of the smoke would come out in herds to fill non-smoking clubs. The club industry would be even healthier, making downtown areas fun and filling municipal tax coffers!

No one mentioned that non-smokers never came out to the non-smoking areas before, no matter how well ventilated.

So here in Hamilton they threw a bone, allowing clubs to stay open till 2:00 AM instead of 1:00. Big deal! Now the owners had to stay open to an empty house for an extra hour!

This was a decade ago and things have recovered a slight amount. The scene seems stable, although nowhere near as large as it used to be. With non-smokers not filling in the slack, you have to wonder why they did all the bitching! It only makes sense if the real goal was never to protect non-smokers from passive smoke but rather to remove places where smoking could be practiced.

Clubs featuring cover bands and dancing had been a thriving form of entertainment for over a century. Now it is a shadow of its former self. Some clubs do remain but in my mind they are not as "healthy" in other areas but smoking. We see mostly hiphop clubs where odds are high that someone will shoot someone else with an illegal gun (likely unregistered!) or techopop 'raves' where a girl has to watch her drink to be sure someone doesn't spike it with a 'date rape' drug. Oh well, at least there's no passive smoke!

Ned Flanders won another one!