Paul Emery Arrested in Canada by order of USA DEA

[crazymf]

My problem is that while it's illegal, it is a criminal offense to posses or traffic it and people should be prosecuted.

Except Emery wasn't traffiking weed: he was selling seeds, which contain no THC. That would be like the Yanks busting the local greenhouse for carrying poppys.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Irrelevant what he did. He busted some laws or they wouldn't want him. If we ever legalize dope, it'll be interesting if they let these scumbags back out of jail.

[Black Dog]

Irrelevant what he did. He busted some laws or they wouldn't want him. If we ever legalize dope, it'll be interesting if they let these scumbags back out of jail.

I think what he did was highly relevant. If what he did was not against Canadian law, then the U.S. can't extradite him. That's the question.

Why "scumbags"?

[crazymf]

Why scumbag? Are you saying that Paul Emery is an upstanding citizen?

If the DEA took a regular citizen off the street that wasn't breaking laws, then I'd be up in arms BIG TIME. If he's innocent, let the courts decide.

Scumbags break laws. Dope is illegal. You deal dope/seeds to grow dope/whatever, and the law is broken, you're a scumbag, 'in my opinion'. Most of us actually believe that law and order works and support that. If the laws that enabled the DEA are actually not good, time will tell and they will be changed. I also believe that.

[Black Dog]

Why scumbag? Are you saying that Paul Emery is an upstanding citizen?

Again: it's Marc Emery. And yeah, sure. Who did he hurt? As near as I can tell Emery is an entrepeneur.

Scumbags break laws. Dope is illegal. You deal dope/seeds to grow dope/whatever, and the law is broken, you're a scumbag, 'in my opinion'. Most of us actually believe that law and order works and support that. If the laws that enabled the DEA are actually not good, time will tell and they will be changed. I also believe that.

Blanket support for "The Law" is great in fascist dictatorships (as an aside, I find the law and order fetish among conservatives to be distinctly at odds with their suppossed belief in personal freedom and limited government), but it's important to question why the law is the way it is. If there's no rational reason for maintaining cannabis prohibition (something the cops and governmenet tacitly acknowledge by selectively enforcing the laws), then the law itself should be reconsidered. Especially a law is as fatally flawed and demonstratably ineffective as prohibition.

[Trial-and-Error]

Why scumbag? Are you saying that Paul Emery is an upstanding citizen?

If the DEA took a regular citizen off the street that wasn't breaking laws, then I'd be up in arms BIG TIME. If he's innocent, let the courts decide.

Scumbags break laws. Dope is illegal. You deal dope/seeds to grow dope/whatever, and the law is broken, you're a scumbag, 'in my opinion'. Most of us actually believe that law and order works and support that. If the laws that enabled the DEA are actually not good, time will tell and they will be changed. I also believe that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you still moralizing? Whatta drag? How counterproductive! Give it up. Better still, if you think that we should be obeying American law, then for gawd's sakes, go down there and live under it. But wait, the current U.S. administration needs you here in Canada where there are insufficient numbers of people who tow the Yankee doctrine. They needs you so that taking us over in every possible way will be made more easy. You, my friend, are a Bushco dupe. But aren't you in some great company, a la backboneless Martin who's just about completed his metamorphasis into a Bush lapdog. Gawd how I worry about where this country is heading when I see "leadership" like his and thinking like yours.

You talk about marijuana being dope. And alcohol is..................what, exactly? Dig around a little and see if you can find out the stats on how devastating alcohol is to individuals and society as a whole? Not a problem for you I can see, cuz alcohol consumption is not against the law. The point is you cannot outlaw any substance and win. They proved it with alcohol and the same applies to all other drugs.

Education. Let me repeat, education is what will win the war on drugs, not laws. I can drink myself into the grave if I so wish. No law against it. I was brought up in a home where the liquor cabinet was well stocked and unlocked. Alcohol was treated nonchalantly, neither demonized nor glorified. It was just there and dipped into from time to time--occasionally on the weekends and most invariably at parties. Drinking and driving was never an issue either. It just wasn't done. And so it is in a great many homes. Others are not as fortunate. Alcohol is abused and children follow suit--just as they follow suit in homes where it's not abused. It's all in education and example.

How should we handle people who are incapable of controlling alcohol consumption--for whatever reason? Should we throw them in prison and punish them? Of course not. What useful purpose would that serve? None whatever. You don't cure an alcoholic thorugh punishment. And you don't cure drug users of other types of drugs by punishing them either. It's just soooooooooo barbaric, unproductive and a devastatingly bad use of money. It's all in education. Prevention, my dear, prevention. And those who you don't catch in that phase, you help---------you do not punish. The same applies to marijuana and all other substances. Wasting resources--human and monetary resources is counterproductive. Skip your moralizing and focus on pragmatism. You'll save far more lives and spend far less money on "the problem."

Besides, you give me a moralist and I'll give you a phoney. Truly moral people simply practice good moral behaviour--they simply ARE. Truly moral people want to help and see no useful purpose on turning against fellow human beings. I don't believe in punishment period! Ya first want to pour as much money as possible into prevention (something that people have a hard time gittin' their feeble minds around cuz they can't see it--too intangible to qualify for their support); failing which, rehabilitation with heart and empathy; failing which incarceration--not as punishment, but to protect society. Once in protective custody, offenders should be treated humanely and not as animals. Treat someone as an animal and the end product are wild animals.

And then, oh puhllllleeeese, dig into the subject of war on drugs. It is fraught with deceit, lies and hypocricy. Follow the money. The U.S. for instance, far from fighting the war on drugs embraces them to make money to fight wars that Congress has been loathe to finance.

Don't spew your moralistic meanderings on us. Think prevention. Think education. Oh, for gawd's sakes, just think, period.

I randomly searched a few links just to get you started on the process of sorting through this mess. But allow yourself the freedom to google on your own. You might glom onto something that will get your mind in gear.

How I do deplore moralists who weigh us all down. Fight the good fight; don't waste your time trying to corral others.

Try pragmatism. You'll like it.

[Black Dog]

Trial-and-Error: after that post, you can bogart the bong any time.

[crazymf]

Again: it's Marc Emery.

His mother should have named him Paul. I keep calling him that. Sorry.

Blanket support for "The Law" is great in fascist dictatorships (as an aside, I find the law and order fetish among conservatives to be distinctly at odds with their suppossed belief in personal freedom and limited government), but it's important to question why the law is the way it is. If there's no rational reason for maintaining cannabis prohibition (something the cops and governmenet tacitly acknowledge by selectively enforcing the laws), then the law itself should be reconsidered. Especially a law is as fatally flawed and demonstratably ineffective as prohibition.

Black Dog and Trial and Error-

Nice arguments. I agree with a lot of it. However, don't brand me as a moralist. People like myself are called 'law abiding citizens'. I knew the argument for alcohol would come up, it always does when this debate starts. You're absolutely right about people trenching themselves with booze. That's the slang term for that and dope is the slang term I use for marijuana, whatever.

Just today I found out one of my employees was busted driving for lunch for no insurance. In Canada, insurance is mandatory as you know. She was whining about it and the fine and so forth. I mentioned that she should have been fined more. Why? So next time she remembers what a hardship it was and perhaps will cover herself.

It's merely a law. A law that says insurance must be on your vehicle. People need to buy into laws so that we can 'know' that the other person has insurance. Laws put everyone onto the same playing field. They tell us how to behave.

Without laws, anarchy prevails. I certainly don't want to have to tell other people how to live and conduct their lives. That's their business, under the umbrella of laws.

I view laws as 'standards' that we all have to live by. If you don't want to live under those set of standards, that have been decided on by lawmakers over hundreds of years, then you deserve to be in the klink. The laws of this land are what the citizens of this land are compelled to abide by, like them or not.

There are means to change laws and I agree maybe some should be changed. Until they are, we have to live by them. I am a technical person (electrician) and if everyone in my trade did not practice to the same standards, we would be killing each other on a regular basis. That's why I view laws as I do.

Until someone changes the law on dope, Emery goes down, and I agree with it. At least he's going down on Uncle Sam's buck, not ours. I think it's a good deal that my tax dollars aren't being spent prosecuting this, yes, scumbag.

If the country eventually gets enough dopeheads in the federal government, perhaps the law will change. As I've made clear, I don't think dope lends itself to a good productive life and that's my opinion. If it wasn't against the law, I could bitch about it as you are now, but the law would still be the law.

[Black Dog]

Until someone changes the law on dope, Emery goes down, and I agree with it. At least he's going down on Uncle Sam's buck, not ours. I think it's a good deal that my tax dollars aren't being spent prosecuting this, yes, scumbag.

I don't think so. The manpower and resources used in the course of the investigation, bust, detention, and legal wrangling will all be on our tab.

The laws of this land are what the citizens of this land are compelled to abide by, like them or not.

If the law mandated, say, slavery, or complleld Jews to wear yellow stars of David at all times, or gave police the right to use deadly force to stop traffic violations, would you agree with that because, hey: it's the law? Probably not. Laws are tools to ensure the smooth operation of society. Some of them work. Others do not.

The point of the law is to serve society, not the other way around. And when a law does more harm than good, creates more problems than it solves, and simply doesn't make sense, citizens have a moral obligation to stand up in protest and, if neccesary, disobey unjust laws. Marijuana prohibition is a prime example. And, in my opinion, blanket acceptance of the law is a recipe for totalitarianism.

[crazymf]

I don't think so. The manpower and resources used in the course of the investigation, bust, detention, and legal wrangling will all be on our tab.

Maybe some costs are ours, but the thread is about the Americans grabbing him. You're saying they grab him, extridite him, which I understand hasn't happened yet, prosecute him and incarcerate him all using our money? I think the truth is somewhere between you and I.

If the law mandated, say, slavery, or complleld Jews to wear yellow stars of David at all times, or gave police the right to use deadly force to stop traffic violations, would you agree with that because, hey: it's the law? Probably not. Laws are tools to ensure the smooth operation of society. Some of them work. Others do not.

The point of the law is to serve society, not the other way around. And when a law does more harm than good, creates more problems than it solves, and simply doesn't make sense, citizens have a moral obligation to stand up in protest and, if neccesary, disobey unjust laws. Marijuana prohibition is a prime example. And, in my opinion, blanket acceptance of the law is a recipe for totalitarianism.

Agreed. You make all sides of the debate.

We do not have to agree with, but we have to accept all laws that are in place. By virtue of the fact that they are laws in place, we would be criminals otherwise. However, in our society we are free to work to change the ones that aren't acceptable or working properly. We are not too far apart here.

I happen to agree with this law because I don't smoke dope and don't see a need to change it. I respect your opinion, however, and if the law is changed, have at 'er. That would be your choice, law or no law. Just don't look for support from me if you get busted.

[Guest eureka]

The question of auro isurance is an interesting thing to look into wrt compulsion and the results of that - related to prohibition, I think.

I don't have any recent statistics, but, quite a few years ago, the numbers with Auro insrance were lower after it became mandatory than when it was not. Only by a few pwecentage points but still a significant commentary.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Black Dog,

Both you and crazymf are right.

We do not have to agree with, but we have to accept all laws that are in place. By virtue of the fact that they are laws in place, we would be criminals otherwise

and

And when a law does more harm than good, creates more problems than it solves, and simply doesn't make sense, citizens have a moral obligation to stand up in protest and, if neccesary, disobey unjust laws.

are seemingly in conflict, but if one is going to knowingly break an unjust law, one must also be prepared to 'martyr' oneself. Martin Luther King and Ghandi both knew that they risked jail. (tough to lump a pot advocate in with these two, but the theory is the same)

Until such laws are changed, (and I am in favour of legalization) people like Emery must be fully seized of the potential consequences of their actions. Perhaps it would be different if the seeds were free, but he did make substantial money from their sale, and that is why I favour legalization. The most feared, and notoriously powerful 'gang' that has 'trump power' in law enforcement is the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. They would clean up the 'pot industry' in a hurry if it was legalized. They would force 'grow ops' out of residential areas and enforce minor accessibility far more than the police have the ability to.

[Black Dog]

Maybe some costs are ours, but the thread is about the Americans grabbing him. You're saying they grab him, extridite him, which I understand hasn't happened yet, prosecute him and incarcerate him all using our money? I think the truth is somewhere between you and I.

Nope.

Vancouver police armed with a search warrant have raided a pot-seed store run by Marc Emery, the head of the B.C. Marijuana Party.

The warrant was executed on behalf of the U.S. government.

(from the initial CBC story)

We do not have to agree with, but we have to accept all laws that are in place. By virtue of the fact that they are laws in place, we would be criminals otherwise. However, in our society we are free to work to change the ones that aren't acceptable or working properly. We are not too far apart here.

Sure: by the strict definition, disobeying an unjust or immoral law would make one a criminal. Just like, a sthelonius said, Thomas Jefferson, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and even Jesus Christ were all criminals in their day. Scumbags all, by your logic.

I happen to agree with this law because I don't smoke dope and don't see a need to change it. I respect your opinion, however, and if the law is changed, have at 'er. That would be your choice, law or no law. Just don't look for support from me if you get busted.

Whether you smoke dope or not isn't relevant. The issue still affects you through the taxes you pay to support the police, lawyers, judges and prisons, resources that could otherwise be directed towards real crimes (you know: one's where people are actualy harmed).

[crazymf]

Sure: by the strict definition, disobeying an unjust or immoral law would make one a criminal. Just like, a sthelonius said, Thomas Jefferson, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and even Jesus Christ were all criminals in their day. Scumbags all, by your logic.

So if you deem the traffic law that says you need to actually stop at stop signs to be immoral, then it's ok to disobey it? You are then a martyr?

No, you're still a scumbag and you'll kill people because you don't obey the law. When there is some form of 'consensus' that a law doesn't work, change it. When laws don't conform with basic human rights, they need changed.

Most of us in Canada don't think smoking dope is not a basic human right. When we do, the law will be changed.

[Black Dog]

So if you deem the traffic law that says you need to actually stop at stop signs to be immoral, then it's ok to disobey it? You are then a martyr?

No, you're still a scumbag and you'll kill people because you don't obey the law. When there is some form of 'consensus' that a law doesn't work, change it. When laws don't conform with basic human rights, they need changed.

Again: by your logic, all the historical law-breakers/martyrs described above are "scumbags".

The difference is running a stop sign is illegal because of the potential for harm to come to others: that makes it a prime example of a "good" law. It's hard to argue that such a law is immoral because it seeks only to protect individuals from the actions of others, not to protect individuals from themselves.

As for "consensus" its hard to reach a consensus when people seem to be rooted to the notion that the law is the law and must be obeyed because it's the law.

Most of us in Canada don't think smoking dope is not a basic human right. When we do, the law will be changed.

Smoking dope isn't really the issue so much as allowing what people can or can't do to themselves. Getting pissed drunk isn't a basic human right, yet it is legally sanctioned. Weed is no different.

[Sir Chauncy]

I'm not entirely certain on this one. Was he ever over the border plying their trade or was it strickly done from Canada.

If only in Canada then he broke no American laws. Americans broke their own laws in that case.

If only from Canada then he is Canadas to deal with and should never be handed over to those Kangaroo courts down south.

SC

[crazymf]

Again: by your logic, all the historical law-breakers/martyrs described above are "scumbags".

The difference is running a stop sign is illegal because of the potential for harm to come to others: that makes it a prime example of a "good" law. It's hard to argue that such a law is immoral because it seeks only to protect individuals from the actions of others, not to protect individuals from themselves.

As for "consensus" its hard to reach a consensus when people seem to be rooted to the notion that the law is the law and must be obeyed because it's the law.

Laws are not guidelines. They are laws. They have to be obeyed or you can be a criminal or at the least face recrimination for it of some kind. We don't have the luxury of deciding which laws we have to obey or not. That's what keeps society on an even keel. Only in retrospect are people martyrs for pushing for reform of laws. Otherwise, they are criminal lawbreakers. ie. scumbags

Smoking dope isn't really the issue so much as allowing what people can or can't do to themselves. Getting pissed drunk isn't a basic human right, yet it is legally sanctioned. Weed is no different.

If you so desire to get pissed, that IS your right as it is LEGAL. Forget the ramifications and so forth. That's a different extended argument.

Dope is ILLEGAL. That's the difference. Many judges agree with me on this.

It's hard enough to get through the day without getting killed because some idiot thinks he's above the law.

If you want to start a new thread about cell phone use in cars, which is legal, I'll be all over it. We can switch places.

[Black Dog]

Laws are not guidelines. They are laws. They have to be obeyed or you can be a criminal or at the least face recrimination for it of some kind. We don't have the luxury of deciding which laws we have to obey or not. That's what keeps society on an even keel. Only in retrospect are people martyrs for pushing for reform of laws. Otherwise, they are criminal lawbreakers. ie. scumbags

That disobeying the law comes with consequenses is self-evident. That's not the issue, which is whether those consequenses are appropriate or the law itself is just.

As for people like, well, Jesus, being scumbags, I think that thinking speaks volumes for itself.

If you so desire to get pissed, that IS your right as it is LEGAL. Forget the ramifications and so forth. That's a different extended argument.

Dope is ILLEGAL. That's the difference. Many judges agree with me on this.

Well, if that wasn't the case, we wouldn't be having the discussion, now would we?

Anyway, like I said, the end result of this thinking is totalitarianism. Any government can enact any ridiculous law and people like you will accept it. I find that view totally at odds with the conservative position you maintain elsewhere. For instance, by your own logic, you should be welcoming same sex marriage with open arms.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Black Dog,

Any government can enact any ridiculous law and people like you will accept it. I find that view totally at odds with the conservative position you maintain elsewhere. For instance, by your own logic, you should be welcoming same sex marriage with open arms.

Touche.

crazymf,

Only in retrospect are people martyrs for pushing for reform of laws. Otherwise, they are criminal lawbreakers. ie. scumbags

I find it difficult to imagine Martin Luther King Jr. a 'scumbag' for being so bold as to sit at a 'whites only' lunch counter (which, at the time, was against the law). If 'blackish' people had just shut up and obeyed the law, there would still be segregation. (Mind you, there is an element of society that would approve) Some 'unjust laws' need to be changed, and the only way to do that, or call attention to them, is to break them.

By the way, I do believe the majority of Canadians are in favour of changing the 'pot laws', whether decriminalization or legalization. But, as with most things in a 'democratic society', the concensus needs to be overwhelming, especially on issues such as this one or capital punishment. 51% just won't cut it.

[crazymf]

That disobeying the law comes with consequenses is self-evident. That's not the issue, which is whether those consequenses are appropriate or the law itself is just.

Agree with first statement. Second statement is a 'separate' issue, of which I may also agree with you.

Anyway, like I said, the end result of this thinking is totalitarianism. Any government can enact any ridiculous law and people like you will accept it. I find that view totally at odds with the conservative position you maintain elsewhere. For instance, by your own logic, you should be welcoming same sex marriage with open arms.

It is your opinion that perhaps this law is rediculous, and mine is that it is still a law. That's almost completely different slants on the debate. My personal opinion on the matter aside, I agree with you that if the general will of the people can change this law. It hasn't happened yet, so let's defer this debate until there's more substance for it.

Same sex marriage: You're right. I don't agree with it. However, I abide by the will of the people, which I'm not sure has been served in this case. Am I willing to martyr myself and get into a same sex marrige to make my point??? Not likely.

By the way, I do believe the majority of Canadians are in favour of changing the 'pot laws', whether decriminalization or legalization. But, as with most things in a 'democratic society', the concensus needs to be overwhelming, especially on issues such as this one or capital punishment. 51% just won't cut it.

No consensus on SSM. We didn't get to vote did we?

I find it difficult to imagine Martin Luther King Jr. a 'scumbag' for being so bold as to sit at a 'whites only' lunch counter (which, at the time, was against the law). If 'blackish' people had just shut up and obeyed the law, there would still be segregation. (Mind you, there is an element of society that would approve) Some 'unjust laws' need to be changed, and the only way to do that, or call attention to them, is to break them.

This doesn't disagree with what I said. You're hung up on my term 'scumbag'. Replace it with 'law breaking citizen' and re-read what I said. At the time, he was. The law turned out to be unjust in pretty much everyones opinion. It wasn't at the time.

[Black Dog]

It is your opinion that perhaps this law is rediculous, and mine is that it is still a law. That's almost completely different slants on the debate. My personal opinion on the matter aside, I agree with you that if the general will of the people can change this law. It hasn't happened yet, so let's defer this debate until there's more substance for it.

But should every law require a mass upheavel on the part of the populace for it to be changed? I don't think so because, if so, nothing would ever change. What's needed is common sense and a little backbone at the political level.

Same sex marriage: You're right. I don't agree with it. However, I abide by the will of the people, which I'm not sure has been served in this case. Am I willing to martyr myself and get into a same sex marrige to make my point??? Not likely

But what of a marriag ecommissioner who refused to perform a ceremony based on his personal beliefs? Martyr or scumbag?'

(I realize the limitations of this argument. I believe SSM is a "good" law because it extends freedom and does not limit it. Like pot use, no one is affected by SSM except its participants.)

This doesn't disagree with what I said. You're hung up on my term 'scumbag'. Replace it with 'law breaking citizen' and re-read what I said. At the time, he was.

There's a reason that term is problematic. You're making an uneccsary moral judgement on the charater of someone based on their non-compliance with the law, which, as we've established, can be immoral and unjust.

The law turned out to be unjust in pretty much everyones opinion. It wasn't at the time

Nonsense. The law was unjust from the get go, it just took some time for that fact to be recognized. That recognition didn't suddenly and magically transform the law from a "good" law to a "bad" law.

[Trial-and-Error]

Again: by your logic, all the historical law-breakers/martyrs described above are "scumbags".

The difference is running a stop sign is illegal because of the potential for harm to come to others: that makes it a prime example of a "good" law. It's hard to argue that such a law is immoral because it seeks only to protect individuals from the actions of others, not to protect individuals from themselves.

As for "consensus" its hard to reach a consensus when people seem to be rooted to the notion that the law is the law and must be obeyed because it's the law.

Laws are not guidelines. They are laws. They have to be obeyed or you can be a criminal or at the least face recrimination for it of some kind. We don't have the luxury of deciding which laws we have to obey or not. That's what keeps society on an even keel. Only in retrospect are people martyrs for pushing for reform of laws. Otherwise, they are criminal lawbreakers. ie. scumbags

Smoking dope isn't really the issue so much as allowing what people can or can't do to themselves. Getting pissed drunk isn't a basic human right, yet it is legally sanctioned. Weed is no different.

If you so desire to get pissed, that IS your right as it is LEGAL. Forget the ramifications and so forth. That's a different extended argument.

Dope is ILLEGAL. That's the difference. Many judges agree with me on this.

It's hard enough to get through the day without getting killed because some idiot thinks he's above the law.

If you want to start a new thread about cell phone use in cars, which is legal, I'll be all over it. We can switch places.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Crazy, crazy, crazy. The thought just occurred to me that in choosing your handle, your subconscious mind was at work. Whatahoot!

But, not to worry, there are still a few of us here who're willing to help set ya straight. Damn decent, doncha think?

You nearly drove me over the divide last night when I read some of your pennings on the topic of whathisname being threatened with extradition to the U.S. I sure did want to make an immediate response, but dya know, your offerings fairly wasted me. Zapped the energy from my soul. So I went to bed.

Lo and behold this morning, the following little gem landed in my lap, so still tired from last evening, I thought I'd forward this along instead.

But here's a warning t' ya. If you and some of the others here don't get a grip I'm going to have to split this popsicle stand and take my erudition elsewhere--to a group with the capability of understanding, recognizing and utilizing plain common sense. This is not rocket science. But I can say with no undue modesty that never before landing here and reading what some of you eggheads have to say have I felt like such a mental giant!!!!! A fawking mental giant!!!

Now before I lose my cool, start reading the quote......

To understand the war on terror, it helps to compare it to the war on drugs. Both “wars” use the same basic scam: implement government policies GUARANTEED to create a problem and then charge gullible taxpayers billions to fight a “war” against the problem (which of course can’t possibly succeed because the problem is perpetually sustained by the government policies).

As long as US government prohibition policies guarantee massive drug profits to millions around the world, the war on drugs will remain an expensive, endless exercise in futility. Similarly, as long as US government foreign policies guarantee massive suffering to millions of Muslims around the world (who have little economic, military or political power) the war on terror will remain an expensive, endless exercise in futility.

Any success eliminating individual terrorists (or drug dealers) merely creates job openings for a long line of eager applicants. If the incentive remains, replacements will line up. In fact, eliminating individual terrorists (or drug dealers) is worse than ineffective. Like natural selection, it tends to weed out the weaker, less ruthless, less efficient in favor of stronger, more ruthless, more efficient replacements.

Oh, fer gawd's sake, go the mile. Read the rest of the story.

Commonsense stuff

just a bit more to go.......stretch that mind........strightforward stuff, no? ..........and just plain good common sense. Now, doesn't that feel good? Refreshing, eh wot?

And what about that bonus! Insight into Bushco's war in the ME--you know the one......that heinous, diabolical and ILLEGAL war where killing, maiming and traumatizing innocent men, women, and children is the preferred method of spreading freedom and democracy. Didn't it make you weep?

But Buschco's best weapon? The one he and his ilk use against you. What is it? Why, the stupidity of the unthinking masses--of course. He and his kind rely on it--and d ya know what, the masses never disappoint.

And don't ...............I beseach you........... hurl any more pap about obeying laws. Get to the meat of the matter. Challenge yourself. Dig. Deep. Deeper.

[crazymf]

Again: by your logic, all the historical law-breakers/martyrs described above are "scumbags".

The difference is running a stop sign is illegal because of the potential for harm to come to others: that makes it a prime example of a "good" law. It's hard to argue that such a law is immoral because it seeks only to protect individuals from the actions of others, not to protect individuals from themselves.

As for "consensus" its hard to reach a consensus when people seem to be rooted to the notion that the law is the law and must be obeyed because it's the law.

Laws are not guidelines. They are laws. They have to be obeyed or you can be a criminal or at the least face recrimination for it of some kind. We don't have the luxury of deciding which laws we have to obey or not. That's what keeps society on an even keel. Only in retrospect are people martyrs for pushing for reform of laws. Otherwise, they are criminal lawbreakers. ie. scumbags

Smoking dope isn't really the issue so much as allowing what people can or can't do to themselves. Getting pissed drunk isn't a basic human right, yet it is legally sanctioned. Weed is no different.

If you so desire to get pissed, that IS your right as it is LEGAL. Forget the ramifications and so forth. That's a different extended argument.

Dope is ILLEGAL. That's the difference. Many judges agree with me on this.

It's hard enough to get through the day without getting killed because some idiot thinks he's above the law.

If you want to start a new thread about cell phone use in cars, which is legal, I'll be all over it. We can switch places.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Crazy, crazy, crazy. The thought just occurred to me that in choosing your handle, your subconscious mind was at work. Whatahoot!

But, not to worry, there are still a few of us here who're willing to help set ya straight. Damn decent, doncha think?

You nearly drove me over the divide last night when I read some of your pennings on the topic of whathisname being threatened with extradition to the U.S. I sure did want to make an immediate response, but dya know, your offerings fairly wasted me. Zapped the energy from my soul. So I went to bed.

Lo and behold this morning, the following little gem landed in my lap, so still tired from last evening, I thought I'd forward this along instead.

But here's a warning t' ya. If you and some of the others here don't get a grip I'm going to have to split this popsicle stand and take my erudition elsewhere--to a group with the capability of understanding, recognizing and utilizing plain common sense. This is not rocket science. But I can say with no undue modesty that never before landing here and reading what some of you eggheads have to say have I felt like such a mental giant!!!!! A fawking mental giant!!!

Now before I lose my cool, start reading the quote......

To understand the war on terror, it helps to compare it to the war on drugs. Both “wars” use the same basic scam: implement government policies GUARANTEED to create a problem and then charge gullible taxpayers billions to fight a “war” against the problem (which of course can’t possibly succeed because the problem is perpetually sustained by the government policies).

As long as US government prohibition policies guarantee massive drug profits to millions around the world, the war on drugs will remain an expensive, endless exercise in futility. Similarly, as long as US government foreign policies guarantee massive suffering to millions of Muslims around the world (who have little economic, military or political power) the war on terror will remain an expensive, endless exercise in futility.

Any success eliminating individual terrorists (or drug dealers) merely creates job openings for a long line of eager applicants. If the incentive remains, replacements will line up. In fact, eliminating individual terrorists (or drug dealers) is worse than ineffective. Like natural selection, it tends to weed out the weaker, less ruthless, less efficient in favor of stronger, more ruthless, more efficient replacements.

Oh, fer gawd's sake, go the mile. Read the rest of the story.

Commonsense stuff

just a bit more to go.......stretch that mind........strightforward stuff, no? ..........and just plain good common sense. Now, doesn't that feel good? Refreshing, eh wot?

And what about that bonus! Insight into Bushco's war in the ME--you know the one......that heinous, diabolical and ILLEGAL war where killing, maiming and traumatizing innocent men, women, and children is the preferred method of spreading freedom and democracy. Didn't it make you weep?

But Buschco's best weapon? The one he and his ilk use against you. What is it? Why, the stupidity of the unthinking masses--of course. He and his kind rely on it--and d ya know what, the masses never disappoint.

And don't ...............I beseach you........... hurl any more pap about obeying laws. Get to the meat of the matter. Challenge yourself. Dig. Deep. Deeper.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We used to call people like you hippies. Don't know much, but everything is wrong and needs fixed. People before you were idiots, blah, blah, blah.....

Give your head a shake.

[Black Dog]

We used to call people like you hippies. Don't know much, but everything is wrong and needs fixed. People before you were idiots, blah, blah, blah.....

Give your head a shake.

Wow. Insightful.

[crazymf]

To begin with, TakeaNumber is so closed minded liberal that I won't find common ground to even start a dialogue with. Next, attitude sucks. Insulting me with every reply doesn't garner any respect whatsoever.

That's my insight on that.

[Trial-and-Error]

To begin with, TakeaNumber is so closed minded liberal that I won't find common ground to even start a dialogue with. Next, attitude sucks. Insulting me with every reply doesn't garner any respect whatsoever.

That's my insight on that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But, you see, my dear, you don't need to insult anyone. You ARE the insult!