Paul Emery Arrested in Canada by order of USA DEA

[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.

<{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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not up to the challenge, Crazy? Well, let's see, by a show of hands, is anyone surprised? By the way, I've been meaning to ask, how the hell do you get around when you have to walk with your head (in a manner of speaking) up your backside? Hey, I'd say that's a pretty challenging activity--and you do it mighty fine, too. I like to end on a positive.

[appleseed]

Hey all, for anyone interested, there's a documentary coming out about Emery and the evolution of Canada-US relations called Escape to Canada. Hope it's as good as teh trailer!

http://trailervision.com/trailer.php?id=15...e3660d6af9bf45a

[crazymf]

Not up to the challenge, Crazy? Well, let's see, by a show of hands, is anyone surprised? By the way, I've been meaning to ask, how the hell do you get around when you have to walk with your head (in a manner of speaking) up your backside? Hey, I'd say that's a pretty challenging activity--and you do it mighty fine, too. I like to end on a positive.

Don't let the door hit you on the a**.

[Shady]

This is ridiculous. MLAT means that Canada will assist Americans in apprehending citizens of either nation that have broken American laws in America. It doesn't mean that American laws apply here

You're exactly right. I will shed no tears for Mr. Emery. He clearly broke American drug laws by selling marijuana seeds in the United States. If we expect other countries to respect our laws, we must show the same respect to other countries.

However, this is just another example of the anti-American zealots, using any issue they can, to spread their rabid anti-Americanism (and in some cases anti-Semetism). I wish there was half the outrage when Iranian officals murdered a Canadian journalist.

Canadian journalist 'beaten to death'

Iran has acknowledged that a Canadian-Iranian photojournalist was beaten to death after her arrest outside a prison in Tehran. Vice President Ali Abtahi said Zahra Kazemi died "of a brain haemorrhage resulting from beatings". Ms Kazemi, 54, was detained on 23 June for taking pictures of Tehran's Evin prison. She was later pronounced dead after falling into a coma

BBC

Talk about misplaced priorities!!!!!!!!!

Can you imagine what these same zealots would be saying if this happened in America by American authorities? Pathetic.

[Trial-and-Error]

This is ridiculous. MLAT means that Canada will assist Americans in apprehending citizens of either nation that have broken American laws in America. It doesn't mean that American laws apply here

You're exactly right. I will shed no tears for Mr. Emery. He clearly broke American drug laws by selling marijuana seeds in the United States. If we expect other countries to respect our laws, we must show the same respect to other countries.

However, this is just another example of the anti-American zealots, using any issue they can, to spread their rabid anti-Americanism (and in some cases anti-Semetism). I wish there was half the outrage when Iranian officals murdered a Canadian journalist.

Canadian journalist 'beaten to death'

Iran has acknowledged that a Canadian-Iranian photojournalist was beaten to death after her arrest outside a prison in Tehran. Vice President Ali Abtahi said Zahra Kazemi died "of a brain haemorrhage resulting from beatings". Ms Kazemi, 54, was detained on 23 June for taking pictures of Tehran's Evin prison. She was later pronounced dead after falling into a coma

BBC

Talk about misplaced priorities!!!!!!!!!

Can you imagine what these same zealots would be saying if this happened in America by American authorities? Pathetic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stick to the bloody subject, will ya? Whatthehell has a Canadian journalist beaten to death in Tehran got to do with Emery? But then neocon-type brains tend to be small making it difficult for them to keep things organized. And that's okay, but just try a little harder next time.

Now will you and crazy kindly run along and hook up with your own kind. I'm starting to feel contaminated from the sleeze that you're both spewing.

Try to remember, now. The U.S. is the U.S., has its own laws and while in their territory all peoples are subject to them. Canada is Canada and it, too, has its own laws under which Emery lives. I am hoping to gawd that the Canadian authorities have sufficient guts to stand up to the Yanks on this. Besides which, the CIA is steeped in drug trafficking. You really oughtta check these things out, but then, I know, small brains can take in so much, so parrotting becomes a habit.

Now, run along and play--but elsewhere.

[Shady]

Whatthehell has a Canadian journalist beaten to death in Tehran got to do with Emery?

I'm just pointing out the lack of priorities, and the misplaced outrage. When a Canadian journalist is killed by Iranian officials, you people barley make a sound. However, you have no problem coming to the defense of a drug dealer. Just an observation. I guess if it doesn't involve the American government, it's just not important.

The U.S. is the U.S., has its own laws and while in their territory all peoples are subject to them. Canada is Canada and it, too, has its own laws under which Emery lives

Are there laws in America which prohibit the sale and/or distribution of marijuana seeds?

The answer, yes.

Did Emery sell and/or distribute marijuana seeds in the United States?

The answer, yes.

No further questions.

[BHS]

Now will you and crazy kindly run along and hook up with your own kind.  I'm  starting to feel contaminated from the sleeze that you're both spewing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pardon? What are you attacking me for? The portion of my post that was quoted is relevant to the conversation and completely accurate.

Since your post is nothing but complaint and adds nothing relevant to the thread, why don't YOU bugger off? Wanker.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear (whoever is over 12 here),

The U.S. is the U.S., has its own laws and while in their territory all peoples are subject to them. Canada is Canada and it, too, has its own laws under which Emery lives.

This is correct, but the US isn't trying to prosecute Emery for sending drugs out of Canada, just for bringing them in to the US (not that a seed is a harmful substance or a drug itself, per se)

Now, if the Canadian authorities caught someone smuggling hashish (an incredibly delicious derivative of marijuana) into the country, from say, Pakistan, I would expect that the person should be tried in whatever country that they are caught in. If it is not the 'offended country', they should be free to issue a warrant and capture that person should they step foot in that country. They should also be free to petition for extradition, but if that is refused, they shouldn't be able to use main force.

If the person involved in international smuggling is caught in their own country, perhaps they should be tried jointly.

[BHS]

...(an incredibly delicious derivative of marijuana)...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This made me laugh out loud. Ahh, highschool.

[Black Dog]

I'm just pointing out the lack of priorities, and the misplaced outrage. When a Canadian journalist is killed by Iranian officials, you people barley make a sound. However, you have no problem coming to the defense of a drug dealer. Just an observation. I guess if it doesn't involve the American government, it's just not important.

What a load of crap. There was a huge outcry from the left over the Kazemi affair.

Are there laws in America which prohibit the sale and/or distribution of marijuana seeds?

The answer, yes.

Did Emery sell and/or distribute marijuana seeds in the United States?

The answer, yes.

No further questions.

The question, though, is if it is a crime here in Canada. That's how extradation works, see. Now, since Emery was going about his business for some time with the full knowledge of the Canadian authorities, I think there's a case to be made that, sinc ethe authorities allowed him to operate, the alleged offense doe not constitute a crime worthy of extradition.

[BHS]

The question, though, is if it is a crime here in Canada. That's how extradation works, see. Now, since Emery was going about his business for some time with the full knowledge of the Canadian authorities, I think there's a case to be made that, sinc ethe authorities allowed him to operate, the alleged offense doe not constitute a crime worthy of extradition.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's an interesting take. It's not against the law if the authorities don't investigate it.

[PocketRocket]

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?

I think even you yourself would agree that there's a big difference between simple traffic signs and laws that are intended to enforce moralistic viewpoints.

  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. 

So how do you come about achieving consensus??? How was consensus achieved to overturn the prohibition???

Basically, a large portion of the population kept on drinking bootleg liquor. Many people got rich peddling this liquor. Many got killed in the same trade.

I think the parallels are obvious.

A law will only be overturned if it is challenged, both in the courtrom, and in the court of public opinion.

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

When you consider the fact that anti-pot laws are the direct result of ignorance and misinformation which were combined with some serious financial capital to spread innacurate propaganda about the substance several decades ago, and the popular myths resulting from said propaganda have been perpetuated by government ever since, then it can definitely be argued that current anti-pot laws are as much of a sham as was the prohibition. Perhaps moreso.

Do a Google search on the history of anti-pot laws, and how they came into being.

You'll be surprised.

The same facts can be used to argue against your "not a basic right" standpoint thusly;

Do we have a right to know the truth about WHY something is illegal????

If so, then that right has long been withheld from us.

Secondly, in the privacy of our own home, do we have a right to avail ourselves of mild intoxocants if we so choose???

If so, then that right too has been trampled twofold both by denying us the right to use said mild intoxicant, and by justifying the ban with falsehoods.

You are saying that we should obey all laws blindly until those we disagree with have been changed.

History shows that undesireable laws are changed by activism.

Myself??? I choose another alternative.

The eleventh commandment:

"Don't get caught".

[crazymf]

Yeah ok, go with that. Don't get caught. Good moralistic habits to teach your kids. That helps.

I don't disagree with anything you say except you fail to face the facts. Until the law is changed, it's the law. This dude didn't stay in his home with his dope and has to face consequences.

[Black Dog]

That's an interesting take. It's not against the law if the authorities don't investigate it.

Well, as the validity of laws are dependent on their enforcement, for the authorities to not enforce a law (remember: this isn't simply a case of not getting caught: the authorities new what Emery was up to and chose to do nothing about it), then logically a law that is able to be volated without consequenses is, in effect, null and void.

[BHS]

Well, as the validity of laws are dependent on their enforcement, for the authorities to not enforce a law (remember: this isn't simply a case of not getting caught: the authorities new what Emery was up to and chose to do nothing about it), then logically a law that is able to be volated without consequenses is, in effect, null and void.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So what then, the RCMP have the final say on Canadian law? Seems to me, that when law enforcement is given the authority to pick and choose which laws they will enforce, it the same as letting them write the law. If we allowed them to investigate their own actions (for instance, police shootings) with the same impunity, they would be de fact judges, juries and executioners.

Are you really in favour of this? Or is your argument merely a ruse meant to gloss over and legitimize your dislike of a particular segment of the law?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

Seems to me, that when law enforcement is given the authority to pick and choose which laws they will enforce, it the same as letting them write the law. If we allowed them to investigate their own actions (for instance, police shootings) with the same impunity, they would be de fact judges, juries and executioners.

Are you really in favour of this? Or is your argument merely a ruse meant to gloss over and legitimize your dislike of a particular segment of the law?

I can give you several examples of the police 'selectively upholding laws', or ignoring them, as they see fit. Stolen bicycles, for one. The local police told me that they do not bother with stolen bicycles anymore, as it isn't worth their time. I pointed out a 'homeless' crackhead (that I see almost everyday) to one officer, and told him that the mountain bike he was riding was probably worth about $3,000 dollars, and was likely stolen. The officer told me that stolen bikes are only returned to the owner in probably less than 5% of the time, so they don't waste manpower on them anymore.

Possession of crack-cocaine...in the area around my business, people smoke crack in full view of my front doors almost everyday. I have given up calling the police. I have been told by the police several times that; eyewitness reports don't represent reasonable cause for arrest, the crackhead can stuff their pipe and crack inside some clothing and the police risk a lot by searching them, the crackhead will probably never show up in court, or pay the fine, etc......

One of my customers had to shuffle by a group of 8-10 people smoking crack right beside my front door, so I called 9-11. The police never showed, I had to call them back 25-30 min later and report that they had all moved on. They thanked me, because they could then cancel the call.

While all this stuff I describe is illegal, the police have deemed it a 'non-priority', and for some of the arguments, I can't blame them. I do not envy them for a second.

[Black Dog]

So what then, the RCMP have the final say on Canadian law? Seems to me, that when law enforcement is given the authority to pick and choose which laws they will enforce, it the same as letting them write the law. If we allowed them to investigate their own actions (for instance, police shootings) with the same impunity, they would be de fact judges, juries and executioners.

Are you really in favour of this? Or is your argument merely a ruse meant to gloss over and legitimize your dislike of a particular segment of the law?

Given that law enfocrcement bodies have the final say on whether or not to priosecute the law, they are, de facto, the final arbiters of the law. Am I in favour of this? Not necessarily. But in this particular case, we have an individual arrested at the behest of a foreign government for a crime that was not deemed by the local authorities to be worthy of prosecution, which makes a strong case for his remaining here. In general, though, I support wholesale reform of Canada's drug laws, not technicalities and hold this as an example for the need for such reform so that Canadian citizens are not victimized by another government for activities their own government can't be bothered to halt.

[BHS]

I can give you several examples of the police 'selectively upholding laws', or ignoring them, as they see fit. Stolen bicycles, for one. The local police told me that they do not bother with stolen bicycles anymore, as it isn't worth their time. I pointed out a 'homeless' crackhead (that I see almost everyday) to one officer, and told him that the mountain bike he was riding was probably worth about $3,000 dollars, and was likely stolen. The officer told me that stolen bikes are only returned to the owner in probably less than 5% of the time, so they don't waste manpower on them anymore.

Possession of crack-cocaine...in the area around my business, people smoke crack in full view of my front doors almost everyday. I have given up calling the police. I have been told by the police several times that; eyewitness reports don't represent reasonable cause for arrest, the crackhead can stuff their pipe and crack inside some clothing and the police risk a lot by searching them, the crackhead will probably never show up in court, or pay the fine, etc......

One of my customers had to shuffle by a group of 8-10 people smoking crack right beside my front door, so I called 9-11. The police never showed, I had to call them back 25-30 min later and report that they had all moved on. They thanked me, because they could then cancel the call.

While all this stuff I describe is illegal, the police have deemed it a 'non-priority', and for some of the arguments, I can't blame them. I do not envy them for a second.

That's not the point. Your examples illustrate situations of illegal activity that the police don't have the manpower to investigate properly. In my book, that doesn't make the activity any more legal, but Black Dog appears to be saying otherwise.

[BHS]

Given that law enfocrcement bodies have the final say on whether or not to priosecute the law, they are, de facto, the final arbiters of the law. Am I in favour of this? Not necessarily. But in this particular case, we have an individual arrested at the behest of a foreign government for a crime that was not deemed by the local authorities to be worthy of prosecution, which makes a strong case for his remaining here. In general, though, I support wholesale reform of Canada's drug laws, not technicalities and hold this as an example for the need for such reform so that Canadian citizens are not victimized by another government for activities their own government can't be bothered to halt.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's an interesting twist. So now the enforcement of law is "victimization" of the perpetrator.

[Black Dog]

That's an interesting twist. So now the enforcement of law is "victimization" of the perpetrator.

It can be, sure. If a "crime" is so insignificant that it can be carried out with the full knowledge of the authorities, in which no individual was harmed and, indeed, the domestic authorities benefitted from (Emery's business pays its taxes, after all), then I would say a case where said individual can face anything from 10 years to life in prison in another country for the same offense is victimization.

That's not the point. Your examples illustrate situations of illegal activity that the police don't have the manpower to investigate properly. In my book, that doesn't make the activity any more legal, but Black Dog appears to be saying otherwise.

You'll note I hasd no examples of incidences where law enforcement was prevented from carrying out their duties. Obviously, given the size of the bust in which Emery was grabbed, the resources were always there. No, prior to Uncle Sam's request, Emery was allowed to go about his business, again with the full knowledge of the authorities. Which says a lot about the seriousness of the offense and the viablity of the law in question.

[BHS]

I suppose. It hardly makes sense to bust a guy for selling seeds in a city where drug addicts shoot up in a government-run facility designed for that very purpose.

[crazymf]

It can be, sure. If a "crime" is so insignificant that it can be carried out with the full knowledge of the authorities, in which no individual was harmed and, indeed, the domestic authorities benefitted from (Emery's business pays its taxes, after all), then I would say a case where said individual can face anything from 10 years to life in prison in another country for the same offense is victimization.

BD, BD, BD.....you've been sampling.

You're saying that the Canadian government happily collected taxes from a person that was breaking laws in the USA with full knowledge of his activities? That's a stretch.

We've all heard the old laws of yesterday about not letting your horse crap on main street and such. I don't think the dope law is there yet, but maybe in 50 years it will be and we'll all laugh about it.

This Emery fellow should be happy he didn't get caught with seeds in his suitcase flying out of Thailand.

[Black Dog]

You're saying that the Canadian government happily collected taxes from a person that was breaking laws in the USA with full knowledge of his activities? That's a stretch.

Emery Seeds presumably had a business licencse and, as Emery has not been chargesd with any tax evasion or other such offense, I assume that he was, in all other respects, a law-abiding, taxpaying citizen. He conducted his business in the open (he had a public web page for selling seeds, for crying out load) so its ebntirely reasonable to presume he was doing so with the knowledge of the authorities. If you have evidence to the contrary, then by all means...

[crazymf]

There's lots of fringe companies around. I had some whacko in my business the other day wanting me to retail this stuff to my clients.

http://www.med-marijuana.com/

Your assumptions in your post are not your usual ramblings. Don't forget, when you assume something, it's usually wrong.

[Black Dog]

There's lots of fringe companies around.

Emery's seed selling emprie is alleged to be the world's largest, with annual revenues claimed at around $2.5 million US. It was profits from the seed company that allowed Emery to finance the BCMP, as well as publish Cannabis Culture magazine and operate Pot-TV on the Internet.

Emery himself has been arrested before for amrijuana related offenses.

Hardly someone operating on the fringes.

Your assumptions in your post are not your usual ramblings. Don't forget, when you assume something, it's usually wrong.

Not true. An assumption is not a wild guess, but is a conclusion drawn based on circumstansial evidence. For example, you haven't produced anything to counter my claims, so I can reasonably assume you have no such evidence to present.