Marc and Jodie Emery to campaign for Justin Trudeau and the Liberals

510 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/06/19/jodie-emery-liberals_n_5512813.h...

Jodie Emery: 

Emery told the newspaper this week that the party approached her: "I am officially amember of the Liberal Party of Canada and I have been asked to put my name in to take a shot at it."

...His wife told the Straight she expects to run in the riding of Vancouver-East, which has been held by NDP MP Libby Davies since 1997. Emery acknowledged she doesn't expect to win, but to plans to use her campaign to prove the Liberals support changes to Canada's marijuana laws.

The Liberal party is seriously committed to legalization. Jodie Emery will be an excellent spokesperson. Opponents won't be able to convince people that he won't go through with it. 

Pogo Pogo's picture

Yes and it will help the cause so much to go after Libby Davies.

Pondering

Pogo wrote:

Yes and it will help the cause so much to go after Libby Davies.

She said she knows that she will lose against her. Jodie is no threat the Davies.

She is there to give credibility to the marijuana legalization plan because as we have seen the NDP is going to claim he won't actually go through with it. 

Jodie Emery knows the issue inside out backwards and forwards, she's well-spoken and she doesn't look like a hippie.  

Justin could not have found a better spokesperson for legalization. She is better than Dana and better than Marc.

Jodie's focus will be marijuana legalization. She will pay lip service to running in the community. This way the Liberals don't have to attack Libby Davis. Of course there will be some minor criticisms for show but it is Libby's seat and the Liberals know it. 

They found the perfect riding to showcase Jodie in. They aren't going for the seat. 

Jacob Two-Two

Jodie's being used. JT will betray her in a heartbeat if he (god forbid) actually gets elected. We've already seen what his word is worth on the issue of riding nominations, where he campaigned for leader on fair and free nominations then rigged a nomination right away. Say one thing when trying to get elected, immediately do the opposite once he's actually elected. This will be the same. Justin will change his tune the second he has any power. His record, sparse as it is, still shows clearly that he is not to be trusted.

You just assume he'll do everything you want him to based on nothing at all. That's not politics. That's religion.

terrytowel

Even I can say with 100% certainty that no one can knock off Libby Davies in Vancouver East.

If Jodie wants to effect change, she should be serious about this. And run flat out in another riding, like Vancouver South. She could definately give the Cons Wei Young a run for her money.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

You just assume he'll do everything you want him to based on nothing at all. That's not politics. That's religion.

You just assume he won't do anything you want him to based on nothing at all. That's not politics. That's religion

Orangutan

Pondering wrote:

 

http://www.straight.com/news/666691/marc-emery-details-plans-end-marijuana-prohibition-justin-trudeau-and-liberals

“Elizabeth May and Libby Davies are two of my favourite MPs,” Emery told the Straight. “But there is a time when you have to make decisions about what’s really important, and stoppingStephen Harper and replacing his government is the ultimate priority"

.....

Emery described Trudeau’s position as “courageous and unprecedented”.

“Normally, they all wait until they’ve retired out of politics before they advocate the legalization route,” he explained. “Justin Trudeau is the only leader of a Canadian political party with any chance of forming the government who’s ever done this. I thought it was pretty brave of him.”

......By that time, Canada will be preparing for the 2015 federal election, which Emery said will see him and Jodie make a 30-stop cross-country tour beginning in early September.

.....

Emery claimed he has no plans to run for office, but stated he expects politics to still consume the majority of his time once he’s free.

“Getting rid of Stephen Harper and making sure Justin Trudeau is elected along with the Liberal party is a pretty major job,” Emery said. "Really, the only job that I’m going to have in the next year.”

 

Well that will liven things up!

 

Smart.  Running against a strong (and supportive) NDP incumbent in a riding that has NEVER gone Conservative (and only twice gone Liberal) and where the Conservatives have never gotten more than 18% of the vote.  Way to stop Harper Jodie!  

Jacob Two-Two

alan smithee wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

You just assume he'll do everything you want him to based on nothing at all. That's not politics. That's religion.

You just assume he won't do anything you want him to based on nothing at all. That's not politics. That's religion

Dude. The paragraph right above what you quoted explains exactly why Justin can't be trusted, and you act like I never even wrote it.

I expect better from you, alan. That's a Debater move.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
alan smithee wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

You just assume he'll do everything you want him to based on nothing at all. That's not politics. That's religion.

You just assume he won't do anything you want him to based on nothing at all. That's not politics. That's religion

Dude. The paragraph right above what you quoted explains exactly why Justin can't be trusted, and you act like I never even wrote it. I expect better from you, alan. That's a Debater move.

For the record,I don't completely trust the Liberals...Their track record on following through with promises is abysmal to say the least.

I do approve with some of the moves Trudeau has done with his party for example expelling his senators and booting out anti-choice members.

Their platform on marijuana has me listening closely.

Do I trust them? No. But he hasn't had a chance to break his promises yet.

Why the NDP hasn't taken the same stand is puzzling...I don't know why they are trying to appeal to blue Liberals since there's not much of a chance they'd ever vote NDP anyway.

For me it's a huge issue...For others it isn't. I guess that's why I want to trust him and I will admit by doing so I'm surrendering to blind faith.

I'm very much conflicted.

Jacob Two-Two

I just showed you an example of a promise Justin broke. You're better off trying to push Mulcair to take a better position on weed, which the party is heading towards anyway. Though now I'm concerned that they'll avoid doing the right thing just because they don't want to appear to be copying Justin. Still, I feel very confident that JT will not keep his word. He won't want to piss off the states, for one thing. He'll probably take some kind of action, but it'll be a far cry from what he promised, and, if history is any judge, come out with a worse policy than the NDP's in the end.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

In 2003,the Liberals chickened out of their promise to decriminalize it because of pressure from the Bush administration.

In 2015,the Democrats will still be in power...I'm not sure if it would make a difference but Canada can point out that 2 states have legalized it,one of those states share a border with Canada and by that time it's possible that a few other states will follow suit..In states that haven't made it legal,they have decriminalized it (see Massachusetts and Michigan for example) 

Because of that,we have some leverage in changing our policy and in any case,I don't buy the threat of closing the border to Canada for doing so (It might be a blow to Canada's economy but it would be a bigger blow to theirs)

There's now a precedent unlike in 2003.

What ever policy we end up with,it will still be miles above the current Tory policy.

Pondering

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
I just showed you an example of a promise Justin broke. You're better off trying to push Mulcair to take a better position on weed, which the party is heading towards anyway. Though now I'm concerned that they'll avoid doing the right thing just because they don't want to appear to be copying Justin. Still, I feel very confident that JT will not keep his word. He won't want to piss off the states, for one thing. He'll probably take some kind of action, but it'll be a far cry from what he promised, and, if history is any judge, come out with a worse policy than the NDP's in the end.

I don't trust politicians, any of them, not that I think they are bad people. I know that the minute they are elected they will be opening the books and fighting off lobbyists who are well paid to influence them as well as top bankers and CEOs. Even if they are really good people they will be faced with limitations. Platforms aren't promises they are plans and plans change. I don't interpret that as lying. I don't think there will be any serious opposition to legalization. Even the police in Canada are mostly behind it. 

I believe JT will follow through because the timing is right and it's a smart move not because I "trust" him. He isn't my boyfriend. 

DLivings

alan smithee wrote:

Con job?

Yeah,the Liberals record on truth is very low..But Trudeau is looking more like a progressive than Thomas.

When Trudeau becomes PM in 2015 we will find out if this is a 'con job'

Until then we can only make assumptions without any facts to back it.

What are some examples of what JTrudeau has said and done compared to Tom Mulcair that lead you to your conclusion?  You can't just make up stuff or listen to what someone else has said.  What are some examples?

Jacob Two-Two

I'm not saying the US will punish us because they won't need to. I think the Liberals will fold to pressure right away. Though things are changing down south in individual states, the US federal government has no plans to legalize ever. That's only partially due to social conservatives, but more attributed to the amazing versatility of hemp, which powerful Industrial interests do not want in general use. It's going to be a long time (and probably a few court battles) before they'll concede to the inevitable. Given that its really about business and money, which leader do you think is more likely to stand up to US pressure over changing our regressive marijuana laws? Because I don't think it's Justin.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

alan smithee wrote:

DLivings wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Con job?

Yeah,the Liberals record on truth is very low..But Trudeau is looking more like a progressive than Thomas.

When Trudeau becomes PM in 2015 we will find out if this is a 'con job'

Until then we can only make assumptions without any facts to back it.

 

What are some examples of what JTrudeau has said and done compared to Tom Mulcair that lead you to your conclusion?  You can't just make up stuff or listen to what someone else has said.  What are some examples?

What has Mulcair done?...No more than Trudeau and Mulcair is on the wrong side of this issue..Who's supposed to be the progressive? Compare the Liberal policy (check the pdf Pondering provided a few posts ago) with the NDP's.

DLivings

alan smithee wrote:

DLivings wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Con job?

Yeah,the Liberals record on truth is very low..But Trudeau is looking more like a progressive than Thomas.

When Trudeau becomes PM in 2015 we will find out if this is a 'con job'

Until then we can only make assumptions without any facts to back it.

 

What are some examples of what JTrudeau has said and done compared to Tom Mulcair that lead you to your conclusion?  You can't just make up stuff or listen to what someone else has said.  What are some examples?

What has Mulcair done?...No more than Trudeau and Mulcair is on the wrong side of this issue..Who's supposed to be the progressive?

You said it... can't come up with any evidence?!

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

check below

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

5

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

alan smithee wrote:

DLivings wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

DLivings wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Con job?

Yeah,the Liberals record on truth is very low..But Trudeau is looking more like a progressive than Thomas.

When Trudeau becomes PM in 2015 we will find out if this is a 'con job'

Until then we can only make assumptions without any facts to back it.

 

What are some examples of what JTrudeau has said and done compared to Tom Mulcair that lead you to your conclusion?  You can't just make up stuff or listen to what someone else has said.  What are some examples?

What has Mulcair done?...No more than Trudeau and Mulcair is on the wrong side of this issue..Who's supposed to be the progressive?

You said it... can't come up with any evidence?!

Can you?! This is about marijuana legalization..as I said,check the Liberal policy and compare...The Liberals are more progressive on this.

Sorry you can't accept the facts.

Jacob Two-Two

Pondering wrote:

I don't trust politicians, any of them, not that I think they are bad people. I know that the minute they are elected they will be opening the books and fighting off lobbyists who are well paid to influence them as well as top bankers and CEOs. Even if they are really good people they will be faced with limitations. Platforms aren't promises they are plans and plans change. I don't interpret that as lying. I don't think there will be any serious opposition to legalization. Even the police in Canada are mostly behind it. 

I believe JT will follow through because the timing is right and it's a smart move not because I "trust" him. He isn't my boyfriend. 

And if it suddenly isn't a smart move? Say if powerful corporate backers tell them in no uncertain terms they don't want this to happen? As you said, the "plans will change". See, I've been watching Liberals "change their plans" for nearly thirty years and one thing I can tell you for sure is, they never change for the better. They usually change by never being spoken of again.

voice of the damned

Jacob Two Two wrote:

Though things are changing down south in individual states, the US federal government has no plans to legalize ever. That's only partially due to social conservatives, but more attributed to the amazing versatility of hemp, which powerful Industrial interests do not want in general use.

But in the USA, it is legal to import hemp for industrial purposes. If these corporate interests are the ones calling the shots in keeping hemp illegal, wouldn't they have closed that loophole by now?

And, if the anti-hemp lobby has all this power over Canada, why weren't they able to stop Obama from signing a bill earlier this year supporting the cultivation of hemp for research purposes?

Furthermore, if it's American corporate-prohibitionists compelling the US government to pressure Canada, why haven't they gotten the government to move  against Washington State and Colorado? Those states are actually under US jurisdiction, AND are in violation of US federal law, so it should be the easiest thing in the world for Obama to smack them down. Do those corporate interests not donate money to the Democrats?

 

voice of the damned

To date, thirty-two states have introduced pro-hemp legislation and twenty have passed pro-hemp legislation. Ten states (California, Colorado, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia) have passed industrial hemp farming laws and removed barriers to its production. These states will be able to take immediate advantage of the industrial hemp research and pilot program provision, Section 7606, of the Farm Bill. Three states (Hawaii, Kentucky and Maryland) have passed bills creating commissions or authorizing research. Nine states (California, Colorado, Illinois, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Vermont and Virginia) have passed resolutions. Finally, eight states (Arkansas, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota and Vermont) have passed study bills.

Granted, farmers in those states might still risk arrest if the federal authorities fail to distinguish between recreational and industiral hemp cultivation(see the article). Still, the idea that the corporate-prohibitionists would be obsessed with legalized weed in Canada, when they can't even stop thirty-two states and the federal government from endorsing and facilitating industrial use(which is supposedly what they're really worried about), I find a little hard to swallow.  

http://tinyurl.com/kjcbewm

Pondering

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
   And if it suddenly isn't a smart move? Say if powerful corporate backers tell them in no uncertain terms they don't want this to happen? As you said, the "plans will change". See, I've been watching Liberals "change their plans" for nearly thirty years and one thing I can tell you for sure is, they never change for the better. They usually change by never being spoken of again.

Yes, if for some reason it looks like a bad idea after the election, then he won't legalize, because that would be stupid. For example, if statistics come out saying deadly accidents have doubled in the states that legalized he would have to reconsider and step back to "studying". I would totally get that. I want a leader that can adjust to changing circumstances rather than being dogmatic. I don't see any big problems arising and I think he is firmly committed on this.

The US didn't retaliate against us for taking in draft dodgers and that was way worse. They aren't building fences around the states that legalized. Like abortion for us, they just want to ignore the whole thing. I think more and more they will leave it up to individual states. 

It is a 6 billion dollar a year industry in B.C. Being the first 1st world country to fully legalize would do wonders for our reputation and tourist business including non-tokers based on catching people's attention. 

Justin has branded himself with this issue deliberately by announcing early knowing the Conservatives would pounce on it. At that point people still weren't really sure he meant it. Weeks later he admitted to toking bringing the topic back up in the news getting people to think he might really be serious. Since then he has spoken of it numerous times further cementing it indicating it is going to be part of his platform. 

He would not have bothered seeking out Jodie Emery to run if he were not serious. He would be soft-peddling it more.  

If the NDP had this policy I would be back to 50/50 leaning NDP but they don't. I'm willing to give Justin an election cycle on the chance that he will come through. I know for sure the NDP won't because they said so and I think Mulcair feels strongly about it. 

If I thought the NDP under Mulcair were dramatically different and he was going to do great things that would give me pause but I don't think that. I think no matter what he wants to do he will be very moderate once in office. 

voice of the damned

Ponsering wrote:

The US didn't retaliate against us for taking in draft dodgers and that was way worse. They aren't building fences around the states that legalized. Like abortion for us, they just want to ignore the whole thing. I think more and more they will leave it up to individual states. 

There was a certain amount of head-scratching and soul-searching after the 2012 US elections, with Canadians saying "Huh? I thought WE were supposed to be the more progressive country. How come American states are beating us on pot legalization?"

Setting aside the fact that at least one state, Alaska, had already beat us on legalization in the 70s(albeit later repealed), and that the US bas been ahead of Canada on social progress numerous times before(for 14 years they had less restrictive abortion laws than we did, for eg.), much of the nationalist hand-wringing over pot seemed to be missing the salient difference between the two political systems.

It's not a question of which system is more progressive, but a question of which is more "democratic". More precisely, which country puts more issues to a direct ballot. And on that, the US, for better or worse, wins hands down.

Huge sections of the political establishment in Colorado and Washington did NOT want pot legalized, and if it had been up to the guys in suits, it would still be a criminal offense to smoke up in those states. There are likely numerous reasons for this, but my own theory is that it's connected to electoral math, ie. the older you are, the more conservative you are about drugs, AND the more likely you are to vote. So, the politicians know that if they legalize on their own initiative, they piss off the blue-rinse crowd, who will punish them at the polls next election. And, however grateful the youthful hipsters are, most of them won't bother voting.

However, a ballot on legalization gets the pot enthusiats to the polls, and in 2012 the demographics were right for them to counterbalance the impact of the reefer-madness generation. Add to this the fact that Obama wants to keep Colorado in the Democratic column(prior to 2008, it had almost always gone Republican), and you had a "perfect storm" for pot legalization in the states that voted for it.

My own view is that the same basic demographic forces are at play in Canada, and that the best bet for legalization would be a direct-vote, not a good-hearted reliance on the progressive vision of our political elite. I am somewhat more skeptical than Pondering that JT will really go ahead and legalize.  

He would not have bothered seeking out Jodie Emery to run if he were not serious. He would be soft-peddling it more.  

I don't know if you were around for the GST debate, but the Liberals certainly weren't soft-peddling their opposition to that. Heck, they mobilized their entire senate majority to block it, thus compelling Mulroney over to London in order to beg the Queen for more aeats.

The subsequent history demonstrated that the Liberals didn't give a flying fuck about the GST, they just knew a populist crowd-pleaser when they saw one. Any Canadian who voted for them out of admiration for their stance got kicked in the face and laughed at.

And the Liberals didn't care about humiliating Sheila Copps, who had promised to resign if the GST wasn't repealed. I doubt they would have any more scruples about stabbing Marc Emery in the back.  

Pondering

voice of the damned wrote:

And the Liberals didn't care about humiliating Sheila Copps, who had promised to resign if the GST wasn't repealed. I doubt they would have any more scruples about stabbing Marc Emery in the back.  

Jodie Emery not Marc Emery, and I acknowledge that Trudeau could change his mind on this if the situation changes. I would expect him to.  I don't have "faith" in politicians. He isn't going to do it because it is the moral thing to do he will do it because it's a good political move that will put money in the coffers that he can use to spread largess. 

The GST was not repealed because it would take money out of the coffers. 

I'm kind of taken aback that people are thinking of politicians in terms of promises, trust and faith. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I'm skeptical about any politician's promises but it's a good sign when a party takes an issue such as this and puts it straight into their platform.

It was and is also courageous and a progressive approach which I'd be impressed with regardless of political colour including blue.

It's hard to break a promise when you haven't even had the chance of enacting one.

2015 is around the corner,we'll see how this plays out then.

voice of the damned

Pondering wrote:

The GST was not repealed because it would take money out of the coffers. 

I'm kind of taken aback that people are thinking of politicians in terms of promises, trust and faith. 

No, I wasnt thinking in terms of promises, trust and faith. I fully share your skpeticism about those things.

You suggested that Trudeau's alliance with Jodie(thanks for the correction) was indicative of the seriousness with which he is taking this promise. I'm saying that if the Liberals could throw Sheila Copps under the bus over the GST, they'll have no trouble doing the same thing to Jodie Emery.

Now, granted, it won't be anything as blatant as promising to legalize, and then jacking up the penalties. My own guess is that they'll maybe reduce a few of the penalties(including some of the ones that Justin the MP voted for in the first place), leave everything else alone, and try to sell that to the public as a form of quasi-decriminalization. If the media is back in one of its Canada Is Cool phases(which tend to correspond with Liberal governments), they'll help things along by talking about what a hipster Justin is, and running photos of his old man hanging out with John and Yoko.

And again, my reason for thinking this is that I believe most politicians regard drug-legalization as an electoral minefield, not to mention a bureaucratic headache. Sorta like repealing the GST woulda been an economic headache.

 

Jacob Two-Two

alan smithee wrote:

I'm skeptical about any politician's promises but it's a good sign when a party takes an issue such as this and puts it straight into their platform.

It was and is also courageous and a progressive approach which I'd be impressed with regardless of political colour including blue.

It's hard to break a promise when you haven't even had the chance of enacting one.

2015 is around the corner,we'll see how this plays out then.

As VOTD already mentioned, the Liberals have no problem putting a promise front and center in their campaigns, even making it the focal point of their pitch, and then ignoring it completely as soon as they are in power, and throwing under the bus whoever needs throwing in the process. In fact, saying they have no problem with it is an understatement. This is their pattern. It is more surprising when they HAVEN'T done this, of which the examples are few and far between.

And as I already mentioned, though Justin's time as leader has so far been short, and he hasn't had the chance to make too many promises, he has already broken one that I consider extremely significant. Justin made his promise to respect the integrity of the nomination process a centerpiece of his leadership campaign, just like the Liberals made killing the GST a centerpiece long ago. Then as soon as the opportunity arose to prove his word was good, he immediately turned around and rigged the nomination. He didn't even give a bullshit speech about how and why he'd changed his mind. He just flat-out said one thing and did another. There is no trusting this man, anymore than it is possible to trust his party. So, let's have enough of saying Justin hasn't broken any promises yet, hm? He has shown himself to be an opportunistic liar.

Jacob Two-Two

voice of the damned wrote:

To date, thirty-two states have introduced pro-hemp legislation and twenty have passed pro-hemp legislation. Ten states (California, Colorado, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia) have passed industrial hemp farming laws and removed barriers to its production. These states will be able to take immediate advantage of the industrial hemp research and pilot program provision, Section 7606, of the Farm Bill. Three states (Hawaii, Kentucky and Maryland) have passed bills creating commissions or authorizing research. Nine states (California, Colorado, Illinois, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Vermont and Virginia) have passed resolutions. Finally, eight states (Arkansas, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota and Vermont) have passed study bills.

Granted, farmers in those states might still risk arrest if the federal authorities fail to distinguish between recreational and industiral hemp cultivation(see the article). Still, the idea that the corporate-prohibitionists would be obsessed with legalized weed in Canada, when they can't even stop thirty-two states and the federal government from endorsing and facilitating industrial use(which is supposedly what they're really worried about), I find a little hard to swallow.  

http://tinyurl.com/kjcbewm

And you really think they didn't try to stop that from happening? Legalisation is inevitable but they do what they can to hold back the tide as long as they can. As you said, the US has more ballot questions and direct democracy initiatives, but they only exist at the state level and can be contained. In fact, have been contained. As long as it is still illegal at the federal level, the production of hemp will stay underground and small scale.

I think you're missing my basic point here. It's not that these industrial concerns are an all-powerful cabal who can manipulate affairs at will. It's that the Liberals are especially compliant to their pressure, and always have been. There won't have to be any threats. Just a short meeting where their preferences are made clear, and the Liberals assure them that they will toe the line like they always do.

But don't think that just because they failed to prevent a few ballot initiatives from getting passed that we're talking about a bunch of lightweights here. If hemp ever goes into full-scale corporate production we're talking about a major upheaval in industrial fabrication. The cotton industry, and other textile concerns, pulp and paper, wood and construction, glues and varnish and too many other things to mention here, all changed forever. And of course, the granddaddy of them all: the oil industry. Do you know how much plastic gets manufactured every year? Almost all of it is made with petroleum, but hemp plastic is cheaper, easier to produce, and vastly more environmentally friendly. I don't think you people are understanding the kind of money that we're talking about here. Billions of dollars ride on this. Do you really think all these corporate industries are going to shrug their shoulders and say, "Ehn. What're ya gonna do?" Not gonna happen.

As long as the laws are changing only at the level of individual states hemp production can't go large-scale industrial. Despite a few defeats, they are still keeping a lid on it. Do you really think the decades of prohibition were all about suburban prejudice? The prejudice came from widespread propaganda campaigns and they happened because of the money involved. There will be intense pressure against any attempt to change Canadian marijuana laws, because that brings things one step closer to changing the US laws, and besides, the economies of our two countries are so intertwined it would be hard to put the genie back in the bottle. There will be pressure. Count on it.

So is Justin going to stand up to this? Be the dauntless crusader for weed and piss off these fabulously rich corporate interests? make an enemy of these people right out of the gate? Not a chance. I really don't know if Mulcair would do it either, honestly, but if there's a chance, it's definitely with him. At least we know he's a fighter and he doesn't like to be told what to do. Justin is an ego-tripper who has already shown himself to be untrustworthy. There is no way he will take on this kind of fight just to legalise weed. He will do what Liberals always do: he will stall, he will deflect, he will make excuses, and in the end he will toe the line for corporate interests. If he wasn't that kind of person he wouldn't be a Liberal. If he is elected I will bet you a hundred bucks that legalisation won't happen, and the next election will come and he will still be making promises about it. That's the Liberal way.

Jacob Two-Two

Pondering wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

And the Liberals didn't care about humiliating Sheila Copps, who had promised to resign if the GST wasn't repealed. I doubt they would have any more scruples about stabbing Marc Emery in the back.  

Jodie Emery not Marc Emery, and I acknowledge that Trudeau could change his mind on this if the situation changes. I would expect him to.  I don't have "faith" in politicians. He isn't going to do it because it is the moral thing to do he will do it because it's a good political move that will put money in the coffers that he can use to spread largess. 

The GST was not repealed because it would take money out of the coffers. 

I'm kind of taken aback that people are thinking of politicians in terms of promises, trust and faith. 

It's kind of hilarious that you are shocked about people talking about trust and  faith, when it seems to me that all your excuses for supporting the Liberals are based on that very thing. You say you expect him to keep his word because it's smart, and you also expect him to change his word if things change, which makes sense in theory, but you're assuming that when plans change it will be to the benefit of the general populace, which is nothing but an article of faith. That is NOT the Liberal record. That's why I put "change their plans" in quotes, because this is just a euphemism for "reveal their real intention to never do this".

As I said before, I've been watching the Liberals "change their plans" for a long, long time, and the welfare of the public has never been the focus. They always change their plans, and always for the benefit of THEMSELVES, and to the DETRIMENT of the Canadian people. I have never, never seen them change an election promise in a positive way, for the good of the public. That's not what they do. They hoodwink the public, then betray them, to favour their own selfish goals of serving their corporate masters. Anyone who expects something different is going to be sorely disappointed.

What you are taking completely on faith is that "what is smart" for Justin to do is the same as what is smart for the country as a whole, but your blind faith is misplaced. He will do what is smart all right, but you won't be the beneficiary. He will do what is smart for himself, which is selling the people out to his corporate string-pullers.

While legalisation will generate income, it will also definitely make powerful enemies, and I think Justin has already shown (rather quickly too) that he is not the man to face that kind of heat. He's the kind of man who goes with expedience when things get sticky, and throws principles under the bus to get what he wants. If he won't keep his promises about preserving the democratic institutions of the party he professes to love, do you think he will when powerful corporate interests are massing against him? No frickin' way. Only a fool would believe that.

Unionist

The Liberals have spent Canada's history lying, cheating, and selling out on a large variety of fronts. Not surprising, because they need the votes of humble folk, but they need to serve the interests of the wealthy and powerful few.

But it seems strange to spend so much time condemning the Liberals on this particular issue - when they are the only ones who have even made legalization an issue.

Jacob says if we can trust anyone on this, it's Mulcair, because he's a fighter. Perhaps. But please note that the NDP's policy is to decriminalize possession - they have not pledged to decriminalize the sale or purchase of cannabis.

So if someone supports the NDP even if they think legalization is too much too soon, perhaps it would be advisable to ask why they don't advocate full decriminalization??

Unless, of course, they're saying one thing and mean something entirely different.

Brachina

 Mulcair has talked about taxing weed, so how does he do that without decrimalizing purchasing and growing. The only part he wants to keep criminalized is kerping organized crime out of it.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

You can't cut off the head of the organized crime snake without legalizing it.

It's the only recourse.

Unionist

Brachina wrote:

 Mulcair has talked about taxing weed, so how does he do that without decrimalizing purchasing and growing.

Please show me, anywhere, in recent years, where he has advocated decriminalization of buying, selling, or producing cannabis.

I was just going by the official NDP policy as per their website.

Not only do they not advocate legalization, they have not yet clearly advocated decriminalization of anything except possession.

EDIT: I believe there was a resolution out of Québec to allow personal growing of medical marijuana only. But I haven't seen where the party has yet adopted even that officially, though I stand to be corrected.

 

wage zombie

I think the untrustworthy person advocating legalization is more likely to do it than the trustworthy person not advocating it.

The NDP is losing on this issue.

Pondering

wage zombie wrote:

I think the untrustworthy person advocating legalization is more likely to do it than the trustworthy person not advocating it.

The NDP is losing on this issue.

Exactly. The rank and file would do better making a huge stink about this and insisting the party change its policy. That would accomplish two things:

1) Taking a stance as progressive as the Liberals and making it no longer unique takes some of the wind out of the Liberal sails even though they were first. People like Marc and Jodie Emery were NDP. Now that they have thrown their support behind the Liberals it will be harder to get it back but not that hard. 

2) I feel that this is top down policy that was imposed by central command led by Mulcair. That aspect bothers me a lot. It is anti-democratic on a progressive stance that is easy to take and has broad public support. Mulcair has already voiced disapproval of the Liberal position. My bet is Mulcair is joining Harper on the irresponsible fear-monguering approach to marijuana so as to appear more "conservative" and dependable and to have material to attack the Liberals on. Show me a democratic party that listens to its members. Otherwise I have no reason to believe they will listen to me once they are in power.  

Marijuana legalization really is one of the no-brainer issues of our times. We have lots of evidence on its innoculous nature and its broad benefits. It has public acceptance. If we succeeded in the war against drugs B.C. would be out 6 billion dollars. It would decimate the economy. It is absurd to have a province so economically dependent on an illegal industry that is broadly accepted and relatively harmless. 

Stop making excuses for the NDP for making such a regressive decision and make them change it if it's such a great party of the people. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

So true..Mulcair is campaigning to the centre and trying to appeal to blue Liberals.

Not only is it a bad idea but it will ensure the NDP back as the third party in Parliament.

Debater

Mulcair is one of the most opportunistic politicians I have seen in some time.  He would sell out his own mother if he thought it could get him closer to power.  I used to respect him when he was a provincial MLA in Quebec because in those days he was a maverick and an independent voice, but he sold out once he joined the NDP and went trolling for a new seat after it became clear Charest wasn't going to give him a bigger cabinet post.

The Conservatives even say Mulcair came to them a few years ago looking for a job, and while I don't normally trust the Cons, it wouldn't surprise me.  He has spent many occasions over the past year trying to smear Trudeau and join in with Harper in attacking the Liberals, so I found it rather hypocritical when he accused the Liberals of ganging up with the Cons against the NDP recently.

Mulcair was being very opportunistic in trying to use the satelite office rules for maximum advantage by playing with them right up to the edge as Jennifer Ditchburn said on P&P, and then he acted all high & mighty when he was called out for it!  And as Nik Nanos & John Ivison said on P&P last week, it has caused Mulcair's approval numbers to come down and he now ranks a distant 3rd on who would make the Best PM.

Unionist

Debater wrote:

Mulcair is one of the most opportunistic politicians I have seen in some time.  He would sell out his own mother if he thought it could get him closer to power.  I used to respect him when he was a provincial MLA in Quebec because in those days he was a maverick and an independent voice, but he sold out once he joined the NDP and went trolling for a new seat after it became clear Charest wasn't going to give him a bigger cabinet post.

The Conservatives even say Mulcair came to them a few years ago looking for a job, and while I don't normally trust the Cons, it wouldn't surprise me.  He has spent many occasions over the past year trying to smear Trudeau and join in with Harper in attacking the Liberals, so I found it rather hypocritical when he accused the Liberals of ganging up with the Cons against the NDP recently.

Mulcair was being very opportunistic in trying to use the satelite office rules for maximum advantage by playing with them right up to the edge as Jennifer Ditchburn said on P&P, and then he acted all high & mighty when he was called out for it!  And as Nik Nanos & John Ivison said on P&P last week, it has caused Mulcair's approval numbers to come down and he now ranks a distant 3rd on who would make the Best PM.

Debater, I think you slipped up. Shouldn't this be in the World Cup thread? Or Iraq? Or maybe: "Let me see if I can totally creep out some of the NDP cheerleaders so they lose it, say what they really really think of me, and get punished for it?"

Even provocation, IMHO, ought to respect the basic rules of thread drift, no?

Unless there was something about marijuana in your post that wafted right by me undetected... which would be rare...

 

Debater

alan smithee & others above were talking about how opportunistic Mulcair was for being evasive about marijuana policy and how he's trying to appeal to conservative blue liberal voters, and so I thought I would back him up by discussing Mulcair's history of opportunistic and untrustworthy behaviour.

Another point I forgot to mention is that a couple of years ago you called out Mulcair for his disgraceful treatment of Libby Davies over the Israel issue, where he allowed her to be raked over the coals in public just so that he could appeal to the pro-Israel voters.

So this reveals Mulcair's mindset when it comes to his lack of trustworthiness on many issues, including marijuana.

Unionist

Mulcair's treatment of Libby Davies was neither opportunistic nor untrustworthy. It was very sincere (I believe) vicious and cruel bullying aimed at enforcing "Israel right or wrong" in the party ranks. And it succeeded, to the extent that Jack Layton shamefully apologized to the Israeli ambassador for Libby.

In fact, I know of few if any instances where Mulcair has lied, or broken a promise. Do you?

Which brings us back to cannabis. The NDP platform, as I have endlessly pointed out to those who prefer to rant rather than read, does NOT advocate the decriminalization of purchase or sale or production of marijuana. Even the reference to decriminalization of "possession" is unclear - does that mean, for example, that the charge of "possession for the purpose of trafficking" will disappear from the Criminal Code? How much "possession" will be decriminalized?

So there's no need to worry about Mulcair's untrustworthiness on this point, since there's nothing to trust. An NDP government will not legalize marijuana. It won't even really decriminalize it (except, as I have joked elsewhere, under some "Nordic model" concept).

 

Slumberjack

Canadians by and large support decriminalization, so its no great stretch for a politician looking to make some bones to fall in behind where public opinion has been for some time.  It can't exactly be called leadership when the attitudes of ordinary people are already out in front.  It's more like going with the flow.  As for the other laggards, you can't expect much out of them anyway because their brains have been ossified by too much inhaling from the power bong.  Trudeau is simply trying to score some by taking a position that really amounts to no great feat of decision making.  After all, people will continue to do what they've always done, which is to tend to their own needs without waiting for permission.

voice of the damned

Jacob Two Two wrote:

But don't think that just because they failed to prevent a few ballot initiatives from getting passed that we're talking about a bunch of lightweights here. If hemp ever goes into full-scale corporate production we're talking about a major upheaval in industrial fabrication. The cotton industry, and other textile concerns, pulp and paper, wood and construction, glues and varnish and too many other things to mention here, all changed forever. And of course, the granddaddy of them all: the oil industry. Do you know how much plastic gets manufactured every year? Almost all of it is made with petroleum, but hemp plastic is cheaper, easier to produce, and vastly more environmentally friendly. I don't think you people are understanding the kind of money that we're talking about here. Billions of dollars ride on this. Do you really think all these corporate industries are going to shrug their shoulders and say, "Ehn. What're ya gonna do?" Not gonna happen.

But Canada has had a 100-Million dollar a year industrial-hemp industry since 1998, and as far as anyone can tell, neither the US government nor their corporate backers have done anything to stop it.

As for the oil industiry being aghast: 

The 2012 hemp fair in Edmonton was opened by the Minister of Agriculture for Alberta. Do you really think that the government of THAT province would endorse industrial hemp if the oil industry had declared war on the plant? That is pretty much the most pro-oil government in the western world.

So, if the powers-that-be are panicked about recreational pot because they think it will lead to indutrial hemp, I'd say they've been remarkably lackidaiscal about industrial hemp itself.

http://tinyurl.com/mx2375t

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

The fact that the NDP will not even actually go through with decriminalization makes people of left wing persuasion such as myself lean toward the Liberals just like Marc Emery has.

Trudeau is a brilliant tactition...A leftist wedge issue.

Certainly, this will gain the Liberals some seats in itself.

Add to the left wing stance Trudeau has made in regards to abortion and the fact that he expelled his senators.

JT is looking mighty good.

Brachina

 Because the Maurjana party gained so many. No this will not win or lose anyone seats.

 

 I know a shit ton of weed smokers and none give three shits about this issue, why, because they smoke weed all the time without worry or concern they know they're not going to get in trouble.

 

 And I still mantain that Mulcair's position is close to legalization, I just have to do some research.

Brachina

http://www.nanaimobulletin.com/news/221843181.html

 See I knew it. I will admit that the weed is more Trudeau's area of expertise and that Mulcair has not handled the file as well as others that he is more of an expert on.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

The Marijuana Party can't win seats because it's not recognized as a legitimate or mainstream party..It's as simple as that.

And don't underestimate marijuana smokers...Legalization IS important to them.

I'm not dumping on the NDP but I question Mulcair's position which is a 'let's do nothing' approach.

It will cost the NDP votes at the expense of the Liberals.

Brachina

https://m.facebook.com/notes/dana-larsen/thomas-mulcair-statement-on-can...

 

 I see no evidence that Dana Larsen is turning liberal as rounoured. Read the above and it should clear some air. Look Mulcair is right look at actions not words. This isn't the height of Mulcair's communications, but his actions speak for themselves as does Justin's hypocriticwl ones. And I have no problem with using up to date science to craft the future regulations when we legalize it. The science could dictate things like should it count as impaired driving or not, are certain highly condensed THC safe, and so on. So we start with allowing people to own qnd distrubute small quantities of weed, then comes the science and committee work so that we have a road map for responsible legalization. 

Brachina

 There is no evidence that weed is a issue that moves voters, I've nothing that shows that, but neverthe less if its that important to you your better off voting for Mulcair, who while he hasn't done a great job making his position clear, has actions that are consist with what's right on this issue vs. Trudeau who rolled a fatty while he was cracking down on others who wanted to do the same. That's the bottom line, you will get legalization, real legalization, the purpose of the study is to build frame work for the regulations of legalization, or the half assed promises of a hypocrit, your choice. There is nothing else I can say or do to convince you.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I'll vote for the party with a progressive approach to cannabis legalization.

Hypocrite?

Could you back that up with facts?

Pages