Where do I send my check for his ticket to hell, where he belongs.

Good on you Kate.
This blog is your domain and it gives people an area to share there idea's and thoughts about the day to day situations we all share/endure.
By not accepting Chris's ramblings and personnel attacks you have not censored the man, just have set the metaphorical bar to high for the person to reach.
Take care and thank you for your time and efforts.
Glen

Good on you Kate.
This blog is your domain and it gives people an area to share there idea's and thoughts about the day to day situations we all share/endure.
By not accepting Chris's ramblings and personnel attacks you have not censored the man, just have set the metaphorical bar to high for the person to reach.
Take care and thank you for your time and efforts.
Glen

Once again, we see how truly 'free' the folks on the left like Chris want 'free speech' to be. When they have a point to make, all other voices are to bow to Zod and let them take over the discussion.

Censorship? Hardly. But someone who can't follow the rules can.t really be expected to grasp the difference between concepts like censorship and editing. The latter was what Kate did - she merely edited out inappropriate materials, based on the established policies of SDA. I'd also expect that the editors of Sports Illustrated would cut portions of letters that deal with abortion rather than the latest baseball scores.

Racism? Violence and insults are the last resorts of those who know they have no valid arguments to make, and who have no logical or rational basis upon which to construct an explanation of their position. I note that no justification is given for using that word; it's just tossed out as if somehow Chris Bennett's word should be accepted because He Is Omniscient.

I have to admit that I'd like to hear what excuse Mr. Bennett would offer for his disregard of the SDA rules on comments. It's been a long time since I sat through a rigorous proof of how a circle has four corners........

Thank god he's gone never to be seen (here anyway) again ... his windbag nature spoke for him. I'm thinking he discredited himself with your readers very early on yesterday. Most of us saw the length of the posts and just ignored them after the first one! Pot smoker V Conservative blogger - Game, Set and Match to the Blogger!!!

As for the central issue Blogs and the media - if only the libs could hand you a "Rathergate" type story. However, I'm sure your day is coming.

I was watching the Rolling Stones concert last night and had to leave early because I developed a headache from the pot being smoked by a group of tweens next to me. When they weren't smoking pot, they were chain smoking tobacco.

I wonder if we can force young pot and tobacco smokers to contribute extra health taxes in order to cover their anticipated high health care costs by the time they reach fifty?

Good for you, Kate - that 'Take a number- Line forms on the Left' is perfect.

Free speech is not about preaching, because preaching rejects questions, dissent, criticism. Free speech is about debate, it means that you are free to present your opinions, if and only if, others may discuss and debate them with you. If you reject this right of debate, then, you are not engaged in 'free speech' but in 'unfree speech' - i.e., preaching. And guess what - preaching is, in itself, censorship. It refuses dissenting opinions.

Racism??? Man - he needs to get out, to go for some long runs in the evening.

Congrats Kate, you do excellent work. Don't give another thought to it. Love your attitude, line up to the left. ^_^

Remember Kids: JUST SAY NO TO TROLLS.

Troll, troll, troll your boat.

Tis is going to get out,...

Here is Chris Bennet's last post, August 14/2005, on Kate's Marc Emery smear featuring the photoshop of MP Irwin Cotler in Wehrmacht Colonels uniform.

Chris seemed pretty coherent to me.

"After reading this rather lame attempt to discredit Marc Emery and the cannabis reform movement in general for the comparisons being made between the current crack down and scapegoating of the cannabis culture and that of the horrors faced by the Jews from the Nazis only a generation ago. Such comparisons are best made before they are completely fulfilled and realized, rather than afterwards when they will be of little use to the victims. History often repeats, especially when history is not regarded for the important lessons it holds.

Only a few years ago, the American Politician Newt Gingrich (a former pot smoker) suggested that anyone smuggling more than an ounce of the herb into the US should be executed, and former Los Angeles police chief Daryl Gates said something to the effect of "Casual drug users should be shot". Republican Representative Dan Burton backed the death penalty for drug traffickers, but when his son Dan II was convicted of felony possession of marijuana with intent to distribute in 1994, the elder Burton asked the judge for leniency. Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham also advocated the death penalty for drug dealers, until his son Randy was convicted of having 400 pounds of pot. He pled for mercy for his son. Also, there seems little talk on foreign policy, in either Canada or the US, about the execution of drug dealers and users in a number of eastern and middle eastern countries, like China, where their organs are sold afterwards, with the fatal shot depending on the need for what organ was to be salvaged and sold, often to foreign recipients (more money in that than soap).......

Considering this, is not the Drug War Holocaust already happening and on the threat of intensifying due to the combination of the War on Terror with the War on Drugs? Are the ideas of "Drug War Executions" not almost acceptable on the American political scene already as they have become in other countries in the Mid-East, Asia and Africa ?

The US Prison system currently holds 2.5 million people, that is 1 in every 120 Americans. Comparatively in Canada the ratio is about 1 in every 750. The reason for the over 600% increase in jail population per capita in the US is directly related to the failure of the War on Drugs. With 5% of the World's population, America harbors more than 25% of the World's prisoners, making the one time Land of the Free the world's leading jailer. ( I ask anyone, is there any greater definer of freedom than the amount of people a country holds in its prisons?) Irwin Cotler wants to bring American style drug laws to Canada and if he is successful then we can begin to see massive increases in people jailed for non-violent victimless drug offenses and our jail populations grow by 100%, 200% , 300% until we reach the 600% increase that is being experienced in the USA.

People like Kate who are afraid of this analogy, hold that the difference in numbers is too much, so the analogy does not hold true. I don't see the need to wait till marijuana users are being taken out and shot on a daily basis, as the usefulness of the analogy will be defeated when the numbers reach those proportions, as well be the chance for change. What is important is to note that the systematic events which lead to cultural genocide are in place, and the fertile ground for an increase in these violations of human rights and liberties has already been laid.

As a blogger, Kates entitled to her own views, But one wonders how a Canadian Justice Minister such as Irwin Cotler, a former human rights lawyer and a man so familiar with cultural scapegoating and persecution would be overcome with the same sort of evil he started out to fight against.

Even a 100% increase in per capita prison populations would be astounding to most Canadians. But a 600% increase in the prison population of our closest neighbor? and Cotler instead of alarming Canadians to this horrible fact, tries to bring Canada on board to the American war on Drugs, and seems intent on seeing a number of Canadians sent to the American Gulag to face 10 years or more for watering plants, selling seeds or using medical marijuana. Further, the direction Mr. Cotler is taking Canadian marijuana policy and his decision regarding the extradition of people associated with this plant goes against that of the Canadians Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs which recommended legalized regulated marijuana distribution and the conclusions of the similar House of Commons report which recommended decimalization, as well as every major Canadian poll on this subject. Mr. Cotler has betrayed Canadian Values and in this area his loyalties lay with the White House Admiinistration and he is the Canadian perpetuator of their insane War on Drugs.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it Kate."

Sincerly Chris Bennett,
Manager of Pot TV

Posted by Chris Bennett at August 22, 2005 03:07 PM

"Apparently, heavy marijuana use dimishes respect for private property."

The hell it does. Mr. Bennett was likely a complete yutz long before he ever sparked up his first joint. I met his type at parties when I was younger -- they were the ones who would ignore everyones' advice and try drinking the bong water.

As a big fan of Mr. John Stuart Mill, it's difficult to accept censorship as a general practice especially in the blogosphere. But this guy takes the cake and Kate not only did the right thing but did it in the right way; it is clearly not her general practice. If you follow the thread yesterday, he posts and posts, Kate responds with a light and general warning and invites him to continue posting but in the comments section of an earlier posting, he posts and posts, another warning this time a little more directed, post and post, another warning but this time with the threat of being banned... and now he posts and posts no more.

For the record, this guy is no representative of the left, progressive, centre-left. Please don't give him to us!

TB
Cerberus

I'll take your word for it, TB. You're definitely no Chris Bennett. BTW, sorry I ripped into you so hard in the thread about the left-right stuff. I do have a bit of a strong antipathy thing when it comes to the left. Long story, so I won't tell it here. Perhaps one day on my own blog...

Then, when I see openings to put the Bennetts and MWWs of the world in their place via my blog, I certainly will. With imaginary brass knuckles. You'll be advised when it happens. ;-)

"I wonder if we can force young pot and tobacco smokers to contribute extra health taxes in order to cover their anticipated high health care costs by the time they reach fifty?"

The exorbitant tax on the cigarettes should about cover it, if they do reach 50, but just to be on the safe side, legalize marijuana and tax the living hell out of that too.

Can we make great big fat people pay extra too? They tend not to die as fast as smokers, but they're sickly, so they eventually take up more health care dollars.

Jeez, what are these guys smoking?....oh yeah.

:

Pretty ironic considering the guys main defence against the negative media attention that he and Emery have prompted by their own comments is one giant smear campaign.

You know you're onto something when someone makes such vehement efforts to undermine and attack your credability. It's a matter of survival for poor old Chris. By his twisted logic, if you smear Kate, the verbatim media quotes reported in many newspapers will simply go away in a big puff of smoke.

This type of harassment is pathetic and speaks to their character as if anyone had any doubts remaining.

Marc Emery's loose talk about being surrounded and persecuted by Nazis doesn't play well on Main Street; But the Prince of Pot and his
minions could care less. Emery and crew are in full battle mode to
respond to Zev Singer's illuminating article ever since it hit the
street. They've already posted rebuttals on their forums, sent out
letters of outrage, and are glad
to have more attention and publicity. It gives them the opportunity to
solicit cash from home and abroad. Their personal attacks on the
Justice Minister have been vile and they continue unabated. Until
this Saturday, the Main Stream Media have been just another tool in their
recruitment effort to find the disaffected and persuade all the
midnight tokers this is WAR. The language Marc Emery and his
supporters use isn't just colorful or politically incorrect. It's a
strategic choice to make his plight appear bigger than it really is,
as it it were a fight between Good (all cannabis users in the
Universe) and the Evil Nazis (governments, the Justice Minister, and
anybody else that doesn't support Marc Emery or his radicalism and
incitement.) It's time for other news organizations to wake up and shine some
light on what's going on on his web-sites. Emery, a man who has a habit
of labelling others as Nazis, like to dish it out but he can't take
it. You are either with him or you are a Nazi. Whether he wants to
admit it or not the prince of pot is inciting
hatred by his words. The Holocaust analogy serves no other purpose
that to be hurtful to the memory of the millions who died and there's
a word for it. It's called Jew-baiting. Canadians need to wake up and
see what Emery has spawned, where right is wrong and wrong is right,
and do something about it. Or are they all too stoned to care?

Ooops part of my first paragraph where the ":" is got cut off.

The (first) point I wanted to make was that Bennett is skimming these comment records for peoples emails and sending them crazy spam emails attacking Kate. It's really pathetic. I just got one.

Stephen: "BTW, sorry I ripped into you so hard in the thread about the left-right stuff." Which one? or was that a general comment on all of them? ;-)

"Perhaps one day on my own blog..." Looking forward to trolling, er, I mean "Stephen McAllister-ing" your blog when it's up. double ;;-)

Now, can we stop being nice with each other and get back to business...

TB
Cerberus

1) Is kate guilty of censorhip?

Yes. She removed Mr Bennetts posts.

2) Is she racist?
Well, a quick google on "Kate McMillan Racist" yeilds results of a good number of people who think so. After reading her comments pertaining to residential schools I tend to agree.

So, Ujokerz, all comments all the time are OK? I was enjoying the discussion of subject of the post and he hijacked it for a different subject. Kate asked him, rather politely, to continue his postings but one a relevant subject posting. When he refuses, she took action. If you read through Kate's blog, you will see that she lets a lot of diatribe pass on all sides of every spectrum before taking the measures she did here.

TB
Cerberus

Speller - because someone writes in a 'coherent manner' doesn't mean that what they are saying has any validity.
I could go through Chris's post, conclusion by conclusion, and point out the fallacies of every one of his statements. No- I'm not going to do it; I have better things to do with my time.
But - just one example - Chris says:

(" I ask anyone, is there any greater definer of freedom than the amount of people a country holds in its prisons?)"

He's wrong; you can't correlate the two variables: 'freedom' and 'the amount of people in prisons'. Canada, for example, has far less freedom of speech than in the US, and jails far fewer of its citizens. It doesn't jail them for financial reasons, covered up by dysfunctional socialist ideology.
And the attempt to set up a holocaust-cannabis correlation is mind-boggling in its invalidity.

So- I've got other things to do, but, point by point, his assumptions are ALL invalid - logically and empirically.

Re:The (first) point I wanted to make was that Bennett is skimming these comment records for peoples emails and sending them crazy spam emails attacking Kate. It's really pathetic. I just got one.

Thanks Ted. I just received a massive rambling e-mail from the same sh-t for brains. Some people are just so wrapped up into fighting wind mills they forget the donkey they are riding on will die before the battle is over.

The salient point I picked up from Bennetts first cut and paste paragraph of his e-mail, I and all the other people that have called his fecal matter. We must be a racist and or intolerant.
On thing certain about this sites owner (Kate) and the vast majority of the posters/readers they are not. They are just willing to call Bullsh-t with a mouthful and then spit it out.

Unfortunately Bennett has moved from the position of a person with a different opinion (which he is entitled too) to a man on a confused mission flailing around to get attention. Which is to bad because a good discourse is needed on what direction this country is going concerning illegal drugs.

Ted just put Bennett where he belongs, on your blocked list.

Seems that Mr. Bennett has decided to up the ante and harass those who took up the cause in support of Kate. Several of us have received e-mails (titled 'Small Minded Blogs', how insipidly clever and original....) from Bennett with an excerpt from SDA in which he (with amazing ineptitude) thinks he proves Kate is slandering aboriginals. Of course, Bennett expects that we'll 'see the light'. I can see things clearly enough without your help, Mr. Bennett.

I stand by my original question. What, Mr. Bennett, makes you feel you are above the clearly stated rules for commenting on this blog? And why do you feel it necessary to now take spew your bile into the 'in boxes' of people who obviously aren't going to support you? The only reason I can think of for the latter is harassment; and in a nation whose hate crimes laws are drawing the noose ever tighter, you may want to think VERY carefully about such things.

ET, I'm ready to read your fisking of the individual points of Chris Bennet's reprinted post.

I think the connection between the nazi's victims(most weren't jewish)and the victims of prohibition are that they are both political prisoners/victims.

The ideology of the nazis and the original marijuana prohibitionists were/are the same. The difference of cource is scale of execution. Eugenics. Racism.

These vile unjust prohibition laws were enacted without demonstrating necessity or harm prevention.

ET, if you care about the facts behind the marijuana laws you might read this piece on prohibition.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

I just received one such propaganda diatribe from the insufferable Mr. Bennett, along with two readers' forwarding of same, with denouncements.

I will not bother to read Bennett's email. I will, however, set up a file just in case it becomes necessary to use the communication against him in court.

If you, Kate, don't have a copy, but wish to have one for possible future legal reasons, I'll be only too happy to oblige.

TB, you won't be able to prove that one out of eight million blogs is Stephen McAllister's. The alter ID will deny it.

The highlight of his email is a quote he's lifted directly from a CBC news item and attributes to me as evidence that I'm "racist".

As they say - you can't make this stuff up.

That's the sort of thing that got me going- lefties falsely accusing conservative-leaning people like us of such terrible things. As it's a frustration I've carried for over a decade with no way to respond, it was tough to exercise self-discipline. That's why I believe I'll have to set up my own blog.

If Marc Emery is so confident of his own righteousness, he should have nothing to fear from being the U.S. justice system. The U.S. Federal courts are generally quite meticulous and strict about the rules of evidence and about legal procedure applied to criminal proceedings.

Is he contending he is innocent, or does he expect American courts to adopt an "Alice in Wonderland" definition of criminal conduct? Is he a coward?

Like most on the left, hurling slurs and labels anytime somebody disagrees tends to work very well for them. The Librano$ have relied on it over the decades anytime somebody dared question multicult, or preferential treatment given Quebec/Aboriginals. The US will just point to his ranting and raving as the product of a delusional mind. He'll become the poster boy for what drugs can do to the brain.

grass is natural. Booze isn't
You are against something that grows in the world naturally but you approve alchol that is manufactured.
I am against chemicals. I hate all chemicals including Aspirin because of my past.
Let them smoke but go down on all chemicals severely.
I'm 56 and I have gone through the sixties with my sanity still intact.
Ask me about chemicals.
Ask me about grass.
I will give you scary stories about chemicals.
I will give you stories about smoke that will make alchol look like chemicals.
Understand the whole story before you condemm.

Just because you don't like the drugs some people use is no reason to put them in a cage. Caging a human who is not hurting anyone is wrong. It is right to break an unjust law to change it.

If you think he should go to jail and the best reason you can come up with is he was doing something illegal then answer my question Kate, so we can get past this legal/illegal nonsense and get down to the real issue of wether the law is wrong. I've asked it severall times but you seem afraid to answer it. That can only mean that you know you are wrong or you are racist and don't want everyone to know.

Should Rosa Parks have moved to the back of the bus because "that was the law"? Should the slaves have stayed in the south and obeyed their "masters" because slavery was legal?

I want Kate to answer these two questions. Any of the rest of you want to chime in lets hear it.

I can honestly say "no" to both questions.
But if your comparing Major Human Rights cases to prohibition of marijuana, you are way out of line.
I smoke myself, quite a bit actually. But i am sorry, he broke the law. If i am correct, the United States policy on marijuana is pretty obvious to everyone. He is not above the law.

So there you go, 2 "no"s
...and a "What the hell are you talking about Rosa Parks and Slavery for?"

Pedophilia is illegal and i really dont want to see someone "stand up to the man" on that issue.

BTW
Nice site Kate, keep up the great work!
I'm originallly from Saskatoon and just recently found your site.
Feels like....Home :)

"It is right to break an unjust law to change it."

And also to accept the consequences for doing so. Someone engaged in principled civil disobedience recognizes that what they're doing is illegal and EXPECTS to be punished for it; they don't whine that "X is wrong and therefore it ISN'T the law." Sorry, there's something called the legislative process and it doesn't always give you your desired result. Tough: no one ever gets 100% of what they want.

I happen to agree to some extent that draconian laws against marijuana are counterproductive and stupid, but I also don't know if those laws will ever be changed because it seems many of their opponents are equally counterproductive and stupid. Ranting about censorship and racism is not going to win you political allies: instead, it's going to alienate people who would otherwise be open to reasonable arguments.

I believe there is an entire political party devoted to the "cause", complete with tax deductable campaign financing status.

And yet, with all the resources available to the Marijuana Party, how close did they come to electing any MP's?

That should be a clue as to just how low on the radar marijuana legalization is for the majority of people - somewhere between the outrage of able bodied parking in handicapped zones and removing the GST from the sale of tampons.

Besides that there is already a complaint procedure at SDA.Go to archives and click on June 2005,scroll down to the 14th and the procedure is spelled out very plainly and simple enough for even a pot head to understand.

Bryan first of all I'm not sure if someone who equates selling pot seeds to pedophelia is capable of having a reasonable conversation, but I'll try anyway.
You don't see a bunch of people defending pedophiles when they are caught. Are you simple enough to believe that Cannabis users don't love their children? Child molestors disgust us as much as they do you. It disgusts us that the police and justice system spend so time and money persecuting us, who are hurting noone when Car thieves and violent offenders are being turned out on the street time after time, if they are ever caught at all.
Marc Emery should have the right to go before our courts to prove this is an unjust law and is indeed an unconstitutional violation of our rights. The so called "crime" occured on Canadian soil anyway, and that is definitely the jurisdiction of the Canadian court system. They are trying to circumvent his constitutional rights to a trial of his peers because the cops and crown like the american sentences better.

DaveJ: Thousands of us do accept the consequences every year, we have no choice. Many of us have neither the knowledge of the court system or money for lawyers. We are told by the crown if we just plead guilty, they might only lock us up for a little while instead of a long time. We love our families and want to be back with them as soon as possible so most people take the deal.
We also have the charter of rights and freedoms, you should read it sometime, quite an important document. The charter of rights says that yes you do have the right to challenge laws that are unconstitutional, and every Canadian, even Marc Emery is guaranteed that right even if you personally don't like it. That is the whole point of the comparison the past civil disobedience against unjust laws and what marc is doing. How many of us have to be sacrificed before the government has to be made accountable for all the damage they are causing? The law has already been ruled unconstituional by the Alberta court of appeal. The supreme court denied the crowns appeal. The law was also ruled unconstsitutional by the Ontario court of appeal. An law once ruled unconstitutonal is considered dead from its enactment. They have actually been illegally charging people with Cannabis offences since 2001. When the smoke clears and we have won I hope every who ever had his life ruined by the cannabis prohibition sues this government's ass off. They'll have to put a hefty tax on Cannabis to pay for all the lawsuits

And Kate you still didn't answer those questions?
So what is it? Afraid of the real debate over weather the law is just, or are you stuck on "never break any law even if it is oppressive and unjust?" I think you would have told Rosa to get her ass back there and shut up so you wouldn't have to face up to ideas or anyone different than you. Seems to me a lot of the people on this site would prefer a world where everyone was just like them, and the drug war is an example of the lengths they will go to make it that way.
You kinda just ordered Chris Bennet to the back of the bus, didn't you. I can't believe the callousness of you people, Chris's wife is facing Extradition herself for watering plants in a legal medical marijuana garden in California. He knows firsthand the suffering this law is causing. They want to put this mother of a very young Canadian boy in jail for 10 years for watering plants! In a state that had voted to legalize it! Give the guy a break already.

I am a Libertarian and I am quite prepared to make the arguments Milton Freidman and Dr. Thomas Szasz have expounded for 40 years.

I make my arguments based on our Natural right to own drugs as the valuable property that they are.

And I will teach you guys all a lesson in morality too if you like.

Friedman and Szasz admire Thomas Jefferson who left humanity with the wisdom that in order for the state to control our medicines and our diets the state had to control ideas about those substance too.

That the entire classification of drugs is based on demonization not pharmacology is evidence of controlled ideas.....How free are people who live in states where lies are legislated into truth?

Temperance, prudence, justice and fortitude are the four cardinal virtues of St. Thomas Aquinas. Drug prohibition doesn't measure up to a single one.

Vainglory is wanting your way so badly you would willingly harm another to get it.

Giving someone a criminal record for vice activities is vainglory defined.

"Were the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potato as an article of food. Government is just as infallible,[sic] too, when it fixes systems in physics. Galileo was sent to the Inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere.... It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." --Thomas Jefferson--

The Bennetts of the world want to promote marijuana use and all that, but Bennett is a case against that with his behavior. Only makes people suspect that marijuana will do something bad to their brains and they'll end up stark raving mad like him and Marc Emery. Great strategy on their part, no?

"Marc Emery should have the right to go before our courts to prove this is an unjust law and is indeed an unconstitutional violation of our rights."

That US law is a violation of Canadian law? Huh? As for "our" rights, are you saying everyone in Canada (or the world?) is a party to this case, or that courts are free to adjudicate for those not actually before them?

"The so called "crime" occured on Canadian soil anyway, and that is definitely the jurisdiction of the Canadian court system."

Ever hear of concurrent jurisdiction? Moreover, extraterritorial legal action is hardly unusual; indeed, it's even more common on the civil rather than the criminal side.

"They are trying to circumvent his constitutional rights to a trial of his peers because the cops and crown like the american sentences better."

Is everyone who is sought for extradition to another country entitled to a full-scale jury trial in Canada before they're rendered over to the country charging them? Sorry, but that's 1) incorrect and 2) insane.

"Many of us have neither the knowledge of the court system or money for lawyers."

Call me crazy, but I assume that Canada, being both a relatively socialist and highly legalistic country, has public defenders who are available free of charge?

"We are told by the crown if we just plead guilty, they might only lock us up for a little while instead of a long time."

Having worked in the criminal justice system myself, it bears pointing out that most people who plead guilty do so because they are, in fact, guilty. Unless and until the law is changed, that's the way it works.

"We also have the charter of rights and freedoms, you should read it sometime, quite an important document."

Thank you for condescending. As you could easily know from some of my other comments here, I'm an American attorney with a particular interest in comparative constitutional law, and I spent six weeks at McGill in 1999 doing not much else but looking at the Charter.

"The charter of rights says that yes you do have the right to challenge laws that are unconstitutional, and every Canadian, even Marc Emery is guaranteed that right even if you personally don't like it."

Are you saying you have the right to determine in a Canadian court whether US law violates the Charter? Where on earth would that authority come from? Or are you saying that it's the Canadian extradition statutes themselves that are unconstitutional because Canada extradites people to countries where the law isn't identical to Canada's?

Since when is seeing the truth through the lies madness? Chris has spent a good portion of his life studying this issue, and knows a lot more about the issue than any of you. Albert Einstein said that insanity is repeating the same thing over and over agin and expecting different results. Alcohol prohibition was a complete failure and cannabis prohibition is an even bigger one. All it has done is to breed disrespect for the law and those who enforce it. We know we are not criminals for our association with a plant. Cannabis prohibition was enacted to achieve racsist ends, and to allow legal persecution of the chinese. We know these things to be fact. Scientific evidence has proven all the reefer madness propaganda false, yet you people are so stubborn you can't admit you are wrong even when it has been proven by science. Just because you keep repeating a lie does not make it any more true. If we left it to people like you we'd still be teaching our kids that the world was flat. Slavery would still be an acceptable practice, and we'd still believe that the sun revolved around the earth.

First of all Marc was selling seeds IN CANADA, he does not go to Amerikka for obvious reasons. Should Canada request the extradition of American bullet manufacturers if a Canadian walks into kmart in north dakota and buys a box of shells? If he kills someone with those bullets should the bullet manufacturer be charged with conspiracy to murder? Maybe Amerikka should also extradite every Canadian who had a direct tv system since they were stealing the signal from the states? The internet is NOT Amerikkan soil. If the states wants to enforce their unjust laws on their citizens that is one thing, but they shouldn't try to force us to follow their ignorant path. Basically the americans were violating their own laws by ordering someting that was illegal in their country so if anything they should go after Marc's customers and leave Canada to decide for itself what if anything to do about Marc.
Yes I am saying that Canadians are subject to the protection of the Canadian Charter . Are you saying that because gay marriage is illegal in USA that the american government should be able to extradite Canadians for marrying homosexuals? we are a seperate country and we have the right to make and enforce our laws the way WE see fit and the hell with what Amerikka wants.

DrGreenthumb, since you repeatedly refer to my country as "Amerikka," I'm afraid I have to presume you're not actually a rational person with whom I can have a reasoned argument. That's a rebuttable presumption, of course, but it's a shame because as I said before, I don't think we're all that far from each other on at least this one issue: I said above that I don't think marijuana prohibition is a particularly good policy and it should probably be changed, but in the midst of your ranting you seem to have not even noticed. You realize you're managing to piss off your natural allies by being gratuitously insulting, yes?

"The internet is NOT Amerikkan soil."

Selling to people in the US is as much an act within the US as if I was standing in Canada and shot someone on the other side of the border. That doesn't mean one or the other is ousted: they both have jurisdiction should they decide to exercise it. That's what concurrent jurisdiction means. Do you truly believe that no act can ever have cross-border legal consequences?

"Yes I am saying that Canadians are subject to the protection of the Canadian Charter."

In Canada, not everywhere in the world.

"Are you saying that because gay marriage is illegal in USA..."

You mean, outside my home state of Massachusetts?

"...that the american government should be able to extradite Canadians for marrying homosexuals?"

Gay marriages outside Massachusetts are void. They're not a crime; they're just legally meaningless.

"we are a seperate country and we have the right to make and enforce our laws the way WE see fit and the hell with what Amerikka wants."

Do you think you live in Romania under Ceaucescu, in some fantasy world of "self-sufficient" autarky? The reality is that some acts have effects in multiple jurisdictions. Why do you think Microsoft has had so much interaction with DG VI, the competition directorate of the European Commission? I mean, it sounds like you might say, isn't MS incorporated and headquartered in the US? If you don't see the analogy, we really are talking past each other.

As for whether the federal government in the US can ban medical marijuana in states that allow it, I happen to agree with the dissent in the recent US Supreme Court case on that question, but since you've already cariactured me, I suppose you'll continue making the perfect the enemy of the good. Until legalization advocates like yourself recognize that politics is the art of the possible, what you've said so far seems sad confirmation that you'll continue to make yourself more enemies than friends.

Dave I'm glad you see that prohibition is wrong but you still don't seem to understand that Marc was in Canada when he filled those orders. The people who ordered the seeds chose to break the law in America. Marc broke the law in Canada, if its even a law here, over 40 seed banks are currently operating in Canada and the last time someone was charged and convicted of it was in 1968. If a Canadian buys bullets from an American company then proceeds to kill someone in Canada with those bullets, does that mean that the American who sold the bullet should be held liable for the death?? Is it a conspiracy to commit murder? Would Canada have the right to extradite the bullet seller?
You are right, i should spell America correctly, no need for name calling. We in the cannabis culture are subjected to it constantly. Pothead, stoner, hippy and the list goes on, so forgive me if out of anger I sometimes respond in kind.

It is the holier than thou attitude of a lot of people on this site that infuriates me. What if some non-harmful part of your culture were suddenly deemed unnaceptable by the state and prohibited. Some say they feel persecuted for being Christian, so imagine how you'd feel if they were locking up thousands of christians per year for going to church. Then you might understand the persecution we feel and see where Marc was coming from in comparing the drug war to nazi policies of state enforced hatred of a minority.

One thing I'd like to point out is that pot is completely legal for me as it has been prescribed to e by a doctor for my severe arthritis condition, and I have all the medical documentation. Many of the people that ordered seeds from Marc are medical users as well, and living in states that voted to legalize medical Cannabis. The American Feds used some bullshit interstate commerce law to circumvent the states right to have medical Cannabis laws in place, much like they are trying to over rule Canada on the same issue. The DEA administrator has publicly stated the political nature of Emery's arrest, and that in itself is grounds to block the extradition. I don't think America has any business telling other countries to obey treaties when they routinely break treaties and international law themselves.

-------------------------------------------------

Dr.Greenthumb said:

Dave I'm glad you see that prohibition is wrong but you still don't seem to understand that Marc was in Canada when he filled those orders

--------------------------------------------------

Dave J, it seems like you're wasting your time.

I'm just an average guy with little interest in this whole Emery dispute, and no strong views on MJ legalization. I found your posts explaining the concurrent jurisdiction and extradition elements of this case quite coherent and valuable. I also appreciate your reminder that citizens engaged in civil disobedience should be fully prepared to pay the price of that disobedience.

I'm convinced that it is proper for him to stand trial in the US.

Dr. Greenthumb appears incapable of understanding your patient, polite and well-reasoned argument. Or unwilling to understand it. That's a shame.

Thanks for that, Mike, but I'm going to continue to try to get my point across even if it turns out to only amount to a rhetorical exercise, i.e., articulating what I have to say so it's actually clearer in my own mind.

"Dave I'm glad you see that prohibition is wrong but you still don't seem to understand that Marc was in Canada when he filled those orders."

Of course I do. You seem to think that no act can ever have legal consequences in more than one jurisdiction. That's simply mistaken.

"The people who ordered the seeds chose to break the law in America. Marc broke the law in Canada, if its even a law here..."

You really just don't get it, do you? A sale is a transaction: it involves at least two parties and if they're in multiple jurisdictions than more than one jurisdiction's law may be implicated on both sides, because each one is effectively crossing the border to interact with the other. Go back to my simple example: if I'm standing in Canada, and shoot across the border and kill someone in the US, who do you think has jurisdiction to prosecute me? The answer is that both countries do.

"over 40 seed banks are currently operating in Canada and the last time someone was charged and convicted of it was in 1968."

Whatever: that's completely beside the point, which you don't seem to understand really has little or nothing to do with marijuana for me, and everything to do with the rule of law. If I commit an act with international effects, which is a crime in only one of the multiple countries involved, that doesn't mean it ceases to be illegal there too.

"If a Canadian buys bullets from an American company then proceeds to kill someone in Canada with those bullets, does that mean that the American who sold the bullet should be held liable for the death??"

Um, that analogy doesn't work (it would also help if you were clear on whether you're talking civil or criminal liability). Selling ammuntion is legal in both countries. We don't hold car dealers liable for car accidents. But even if it weren't, it's hard to see how you hold the seller of a product liable for what their customers do with it afterwards. As I understand it, Emery is being charged with selling into the US, not with posession or use (or attempted posession or use) by his customers.

"Is it a conspiracy to commit murder?"

It most certainly is not, either under Canadian criminal law or that of any US state. A conspiracy is an agreement, an actual "meeting of the minds" for the purpose of committing a particular criminal act. It therefore requires that someone posess the intent to commit that act, or they're not a party to the conspiracy. In your example, the purchaser may already have the murder in mind, but the seller is just selling bullets. If the purchaser said, for example "can I buy these to kill John Doe," and then the seller sold them, well, then you'd have a conspiracy. And it would appear from the limited facts of your hypo that both the US and Canada would have jurisdiction to prosecute.

"Would Canada have the right to extradite the bullet seller?"

IF there actually was a conspiracy--as in my modified facts above--yes, even if the seller never set foot on Canadian soil. The conspiracy was formed in the US, but criminal acts pursuant to the conspiracy were committed in Canada, so both jurisdictions would, it seems, be able to prosecute both the conspiracy charge AND the inchoate act (the murder), because conspirators are liable for all the crimes carried by their co-conspirators either as the object of the conpiracy or reasonable forseeable in the course of carrying out that object. To illustrate, if the buyer had to break into the victim's home to kill them, then the seller would also be guilty of that burglary.

"It is the holier than thou attitude of a lot of people on this site that infuriates me."

Self-righteousness comes form every direction, and I've certainly felt no less of it from plenty of people who think legalizing marijuana would be a panacea to solve all the world's problems.

"Then you might understand the persecution we feel and see where Marc was coming from in comparing the drug war to nazi policies of state enforced hatred of a minority."

As a Jew, I think you might understand why I find Nazi analogies overblown and absurd, if not patently insulting. Say what you will about specific policies, but no matter how inappropriate these laws may be, they prohibit particular ACTS. They do not criminalize the mere fact of someone's existence.

"As a Jew, I think you might understand why I find Nazi analogies overblown and absurd, if not patently insulting. Say what you will about specific policies, but no matter how inappropriate these laws may be, they prohibit particular ACTS. They do not criminalize the mere fact of someone's existence."

As a jew I'd also expect a little more understanding of what it is like to made to suffer for your beliefs. Marc Emery never made an antisemetic statement. He critisized Nazi policies not jewish people.

B'nai Brith legal counsel David Matas said last week that despite Mr. Emery's "totally inappropriate" and "wildly over the top" language, he did not believe Mr. Emery was an anti-Semite.

"I don't think this guy is in that business," Mr. Matas said.

We in the Cannabis culture are hurting nobody, yet we are rounded up and imprisoned on a regular basis for our beliefs. Imagine if treated fat people this way for eating too much, would that also be acceptable to you? I mean sure they could grant medical exemptions like I have for Cannabis, to exempt those with glandular problems, but should people be arrested for their appetites? I'm sure we could justify the persecutions to ourselves by saying that fat people are lazy , cost our health care system money, and are not productive members of our society, the truth has never stood in the way of past persecutions. Maybe we could force them into "treatment" as an alternative to prison, and make them excersize and eat only vegetables until they are of a girth acceptable to society?

Hey, "thy Neighbor": take issue with the last thing I said and ignore the other 95%, eh? I suppose that means you agree with the rest of my points?

It seems that you just can't grasp the idea of laws you personally disagree with ever being enforced, nor that someone who thinks these laws should be changed could nevertheless find the enforcement of them while they're still on the books to be perfectly valid and legal.

"It seems that you just can't grasp the idea of laws you personally disagree with ever being enforced,"

It has nothing to do with what I personally agree or disagree with, when there is no victim, there is no crime. The are no victims of Cannabis only victims of the law. The laws against Cannabis have already been ruled unconstitutional in the Parker and Krieger cases by the courts of appeal of Ontario and Alberta respectively. Since the law was struck down by the courts in 2001, We shouldn't be even having this conversation anymore, Cannabis Laws have already been repealed by the courts. crown David Frankel admitted it in his request for appeal to the supreme court of Canada. He said "as it stands cultivation is no longer an offence in Alberta" (he didn't mention that that would include the rest of canada by extension. If its unconstitutional in Alberta its also unconstitutional in any other province) The supreme court denied his appeal anyway, even though he admitted that cultivation laws would be struck down in Alberta if they denied his appeal.
What kind of madness is it where even when we win, they still keep arresting us? Parliament has not enacted any new laws since the old ones were invalidated as unconstitutional by the courts. Judges cannot enact laws, that job is reserved for parliament exclusively. Judges can only strike them down as unconsistant with the Charter.

You people always lose me the moment you attempt to claim that marijuana use is "victimless".

Reading those Cannabis Culture forums, one hopes that many of those who are so committed to this weed don't have children in their care - for there is no way they can devote as much time to them as they need, given the hours and effort they are giving to nurturing their habit.

And dont' tell me it isn't addictive. Any substance that triggers pleasure centers in the brain has the potential to become addictive, and prompt those who who are genetically susceptable to seek more of the same. You can argue that there are plenty of legal substances that marijuana is "no worse than", but only a complete fool would attempt to argue that the drug has "no victims" outside the ones incarcerated.

"It has nothing to do with what I personally agree or disagree with, when there is no victim, there is no crime."

So I suppose parking and speeding tickets are void, eh? You are making the ever-popular layman's mistake of confusing what you WANT the law to be (normative) with what the law actually IS (descriptive). Even assuming for the sake of argument that marijuana is always victimless (an assumption that I don't share, but regardless), do you truly believe it is unlawful to prohibit any victimless behaviors in Canada? Not whether you think it is bad policy, or unjust, or even illegitimate, but whether it truly is beyond the legal power of government to do so?

"The laws against Cannabis have already been ruled unconstitutional..."

Canadian laws against such. We're talking about US law. To say that US law violates the Canadian Constitution is as much a non sequitur as it would be to say that Canadian law violates the US Constitution. Is it unconstitutional for Canada to ever extradite someone to a country that has laws different from Canada's? If so, that would logically mean Canada cannot ever extradite anyone to anywhere, despite the fact that it is obligated by treaty to do so.

"If its unconstitutional in Alberta its also unconstitutional in any other province."

Yes and no. If the current appellate case law is actually correct, yes, but precedents of courts in Alberta and Ontario are not binding on the other provinces as far as I understand it, only persuasive. I presume the Canadian Supreme Court denied review because as it stands there's no conflict among the provinces; if there were, it would be more likely to step in and decide the question.

"Any substance that triggers pleasure centers in the brain has the potential to become addictive, and prompt those who who are genetically susceptable to seek more of the same."

That's true, but actually overly generous. It's not even any SUBSTANCE; it's any BEHAVIOR. If people can become addicted to gambling, or sex, then to say they can't become addicted to cannabis is absurd. That's not to say that any of those things should or should not be banned, just that far too many of the advocates for legalizing pot seem to at least come across as thinking it's the greatest thing in the universe, with absolutely no conceivable downside, and the cure for all ills. In short, they don't convey the message of being serious people advancing a serious and thought-through policy; until and unless they ever do, they will simply to make enemies out of much of the large group of people who might otherwise be convinced to see the merits of loosening some or all restrictions.

Is it unconstitutional for Canada to ever extradite someone to a country that has laws different from Canada's?

No, I never saidit is unconstitutional to extradite but, the Treaty you keep speaking or MLAT says that Canada will NOT extradite for any crime that is not ALSO a crime here. It also will refuse extradition where there is a possibility of death penalty for the offence in the rquesting country.

Marc Emery qualifies on both counts. The law here has been struck down so what marc was doing is Not a crime here. He also qualifies for the death penalty under "Kingpin" status which the DEA has already made a point of refering to him as.

Thy Neighbor, I admit I'm not familiar with the details of the particular Mutual Legal Assistance Trety (MLAT) that Canada has with the US, so you may be right on that point. Similar provisions are neither a universal nor an entirely uncommon feature of some extradition treaties.

On the other point, the DEA doesn't charge people with crimes: at the federal level, the Justice Department does, usually in the form of the US Attorney for a particular district. While, yes, it is theoretically possible to seek the death penalty for someone under the federal "drug kingpin" statute whose crimes have not, themselves, resulted in death--at least under the terms of the statute itself, as there may be US Supreme Court Eighth Amendment jurisprudence preventing that--I do not believe it is DOJ policy to ever bring capital charges under such circumstances. Moreover, if the MLAT says Canada will not extradite if there's such a possibility, then DOJ obviously would not seek a death sentence. Prosecutors at both the state and federal levels in the US attempting extradition from countries with similar treaties routinely rule out capital charges in order to have their defendant rendered over.

Either way Marc still falls under the conditions of the treaty that deem extradition unacceptable.

Selling Cannabis seeds is no longer illegal in Canada, so the crime is NOT also a crime here.

Canada is also supposed to refuse politically motivated extradition requests which this obviously is. Consider DEA administrator Karen Tandy's remarks. "Statement from DEA Administrator Karen P. Tandy
Major North American Marijuana Trafficker Self-Proclaimed “Prince of Pot”
aka Marc Scott Emery Arrested Today

“Today’s DEA arrest of Marc Scott Emery, publisher of Cannabis Culture Magazine, and the founder of a marijuana legalization group- is a significant blow not only to the marijuana trafficking trade in the U.S. and Canada, but also to the marijuana legalization movement.

His marijuana trade and propagandist marijuana magazine have generated nearly $5 million a year in profits that bolstered his trafficking efforts, but those have gone up in smoke today.”

Emery and his organization had been designated as one of the Attorney General’s most wanted international drug trafficking organizational targets – one of only 46 in the world and the only one from Canada.”

“Hundreds of thousands of dollars of Emery’s illicit profits are known to have been channeled to marijuana legalization groups active in the United States and Canada. Drug legalization lobbyists now have one less pot of money to rely on."

She has given Canada all the reason it needs to turn down this extradition request. The MLAT treaty ststes that NO CANADIAN will be extradited on prosecutions of a political nature.

Consider this stephen. Canada has laws against Hate Literature. Stuff like white supremecy, anti-semetism etc. USA has wider reaching free speech laws. If an american website contained information deemed Hateful by Canada would America extradite their citizen to Canada to face Hate literature charges? Of course not. People in Canada would not be raising such a fuss if it was an extradition for murder, rape , or assault, the fact is most Canadians don't see selling pot seeds as a crime anymore and have more liberal attitudes toward Cannabis in general than the US does.

These are FACTS decided in court about Cannabis so please nonody try and make me re-argue any of them again. These were determined by judges after listening to both sides of the argument.

This is from the Clay case;

The findings of fact that have been accepted by the Ontario Court of Appeal would provide a standard for factual information about cannabis:

Consumption of marijuana is relatively harmless compared to the so-called hard drugs and including tobacco and alcohol;

There exists no hard evidence demonstrating any irreversible organic or mental damage from the consumption of marijuana;

That cannabis does cause alteration of mental functions and as such, it would not be prudent to drive a car while intoxicated;

There is no hard evidence that cannabis consumption induces psychoses;

Cannabis is not an addictive substance;

Marijuana is not criminogenic in that there is no evidence of a causal relationship between cannabis use and criminality;

That the consumption of marijuana probably does not lead to "hard drug" use for the vast majority of marijuana consumers, although there appears to be a statistical relationship between the use of marijuana and a variety of other psychoactive drugs;

Marijuana does not make people more aggressive or violent;

There have been no recorded deaths from the consumption of marijuana;

There is no evidence that marijuana causes amotivational syndrome;

Less than 1% of marijuana consumers are daily users;

Consumption in so-called "de-criminalized states" does not increase out of proportion to states where there is no de-criminalization.

Health related costs of cannabis use are negligible when compared to the costs attributable to tobacco and alcohol consumption.

Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it!

Thy Neighbor, as much as I find your constant self-righteous ranting annoying, as you fill in more details it does continue to sound as though Emery may have a decent case against extradition. But what province was he arrested in? As I said before, case law from appellate courts in one province are not binding on the others, so it may be that the Crown is attempting to find a province that would disagree with Alberta and Ontario.

If so, it surprises me that you would all be so stupid as to want to AVOID being a test case on the question, since the Canadian Supreme Court, if it eventually were to resolve such a potential future split of authorities, would probably agree with you. But that's marijuana-legalization advocates for you: always cutting off your nose to spite your face; always making the perfect the enemy of the good; always managing to alienate potential political allies (of whom I count myself one). Good for you. Just brilliant.

I'm not sure how pointing out the absurdities of the pot laws is going to alienate potential allies, I havn't been making any wild unproven statements. One thing that we are worried about is the possible precedent this case could set for other extraditions. This is a very slippery slope, and if we accept that the US has jurisdiction over the internet, a lot of Canadian kids could be next in line. I mentioned the downloading of music from filesharing programs and most people just laughed at me. Well maybe you laughed too soon. The US is trying to extradite an australian man right now for sharing music, games and movies on a non-profit filesharing program online. The man has already spent 18 months in an australian jail, and is set to be extradited to the US to face piracy charges.

Hew Raymond Griffiths, an alleged member of a group that copied and distributed movies, music and games, was yesterday denied special leave to appeal to the High Court against extradition. Griffiths, 42, was born in England and arrived in Australia with his family in 1970. He does not have a passport, has not left Australia and lived with his father on the Central Coast.

He was arrested on August 22, 2003, after being indicted by a grand jury in Virginia on charges of breaching copyright and conspiracy to breach copyright. He was in custody from his arrest until October 20 that year.

So Canadians, are we ready for all our mp3 downloading kids to face US charges?? Not so farfetched anymore is it??

I thought you might get a kick out of this article. Emery just dosen't know when to quit.

http://www.cannabisculture.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1147213&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1

give an idiot enough rope, and he will certinly hang himself!