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

510 posts / 0 new
Last post
terrytowel

Debater wrote:

Mulcair is one of the most opportunistic politicians I have seen in some time.

Really I thought that was Olivia Chow?

Unionist

Brachina wrote:

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.

It's 2 years old, and it's perfectly clear. No decriminalization of buying, selling, growing, or (potentially) possession over a certain limit. And I've seen no change in the past 2 years either.

As for Dana Larsen, he apparently has a tremendous tolerance for pain and humiliation, because his faith in the NDP has persisted even beyond being dumped as a candidate, being barred from convention, and being generally treated like an embarrassment. It's too bad he doesn't post here in recent months (couple years maybe) - I'd love to hear his real take on what's going on.

 

wage zombie

I think Dana Larsen gained a lot of respect within the BCNDP when he ran for leader.

Brachina

 Oh for the love of Canada, you people are being dense on purpose, believe whatever you want to believe, I've provided the facts in the links I posted, read them again.

Brachina

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/...

 

 Also they had a protest over weed with all the protesters smoking it infront of police and no was arrested. Weed is legal in all but name now, police don't give a shit if you smoke it.

Brachina

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/...

 

 Also they had a protest over weed with all the protesters smoking it infront of police and no was arrested. Weed is legal in all but name now, police don't give a shit if you smoke it.

lombar

Brachina wrote:

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/...

 

 Also they had a protest over weed with all the protesters smoking it infront of police and no was arrested. Weed is legal in all but name now, police don't give a shit if you smoke it.

 

The fact that some people that you could see were not harrassed is irrelevent. People are arrested for it all the time. By maintaining criminization, it is like saying "All you who CHOOSE cannabis are miscreant deviants that deserve punishment for your BAD/NOT APPROVED choices." Its insulting and you probably also know that enforcement falls disproportionatley upon the less affluent. People like myself. The NDP has lost me over this issue as well. 

I think Mark and Jodie simply plucked the NDP knives out of their backs and decided to keep trying to pursue their goals using all we have, the broken fptp political system. A Liberal promise, while not worth much, is worth a lot more than NDP silence and/or active marginalization of the issue.

So many people think this is a minor nothing issue, bunch of stoners etc, but the war on drugs creates a lot of violence in the world as well as illustrate just how undemocratic and unrepresentative our system is. 

The Liberals totally outflanked the NDP on this issue. Tales of cannabis horrors are not flooding out of Colorado, Washington or California, unless you listen to the prohibitionist parasites. The sky is not falling, the roads are not filled with carnage, and still the NDP hum and haw while people get screwed by the justice system.

cco

Brachina wrote:
Weed is legal in all but name now, police don't give a shit if you smoke it.

Weed is not "legal in all but name". It helps a lot to be white and middle-class. In 2011 there were 75,126 marijuana-related arrests in Canada, of which 56,870 (75.7%) were for simple possession -- a 14% jump from 2010. Not to mention that the impetus for legalizing goes a lot beyond simply making sure you don't get locked up for a joint. It's about taking money away from organized crime and putting it into tax coffers, among other things.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Brachina wrote:

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/...

 

 Weed is legal in all but name now, police don't give a shit if you smoke it.

If that were true,there'd be no reason for this thread.

Brachina

 There was no NDP knives in anyones back, read the other links I provided, the Emery's on the hand planted them into the NDP. They'll get thier legalization from the NDP anyways, but thier on my shit list. Not that that really means anything, but thier on the list anyways.

 

Brachina

"we're going to make good public policy it has to be based on good evidence. We have seen the evidence in Europe over the last 12 years. We've seen that even in the place where there's the greatest violence in Latin America they're saying this isn't working. We've seen the evidence out of the United States of America. All of the public health officers across this country are saying in the interest of health we need to look at decriminalization, regulation, and taxation. In the same way that we do with alcohol and tobacco because alcohol is at the top of the food chain in terms of the health damage it does."

 The above was in Mulcair's letter to Larson, he is qouting Craig Scott deputy justice critic saying it was NDP policy. Notice the part refering to taxation, you can't tax it if it isn't legal.

 

Brachina

Mulcair also said he is in favour of decriminalization of marijuana and made a point of suggesting Liberal leader Justin Trudeau was hypocritical by admitting he had used marijuana, but  voted with Prime Minister Stephen Harper to increase penalties for marijuana possession.

 

“Actions speak louder than words,” Mulcair said. “If you’re saying that marijuana can be used and can be legalized, which is what we’ve been saying for 40 years, you start with that and then you work on the rest of it. You do the best analysis possible to rate the concentrations, the strengths and the types of drugs you’re dealing with and then you can go to the extra step, but it has to be done in order if it’s going to be credible.”

 

Again notice Mulcair marijuana can be user and can be legalized, which is what we've been saying for 40 years? Notice how he's talking about legalizing it!!!

 

 Now notice that he's talking about doing anaylsis to rate the concentration, strengths, and types of drugs your dealing with and then go the extra step, but it has to be done in order, if its going to be credible, you start by decriminalizing or limited legalization in other words, do the science and then use what you learned using up to date technology to build a regulatory frame work. It makes fucking sense, its the right way to do, the rewponsible way to do it, its not instanct gratification, but doing things right the first time. Its not sexy, but its good administeration.

  Could Mulcair have made it clearer in the beginning, yes, but his position is the adult sensible one. Its based on update science, not outdated 40 year old stuff.

 

 One thing I find interesting is he meantion doing this anaylsis on drugs as in plural, not just weed really, I'm not positive, but he might be concidering analysising other drugs for how to approach dealing with them, which could lead to more then legalizing weed. 

 This is the Mulcair approach, the responsible administer, with MP salaries, instead of a wage freeze he wanted to put it to an inpendant third party, over the long term the sensible long term approach, but not instant grafication for those who did not want MPs saleries raised.But long term, a third party would keep salaries balanced, while MPs would be free to raise thier salaries when no one was looking otherwise.

voice of the damned

Brachina wrote:

Also they had a protest over weed with all the protesters smoking it infront of police and no was arrested.

The cops have been turning a blind eye to weed at pro-legalization protests for a long time. Those protests have been going on in Edmonton since at least the late 70s, the cops know all about it, are often in the area(if not right there), and don't do a thing.

But that doesn't mean that smoking weed has been de facto legal since the late 70s.

cco

Want another great example of how marijuana prohibition helps the police manufacture evidence? Take a look at this story from today.

Quote:
The police stopped the BMW car, for reasons they are not saying at this point, and smelled marijuana at the driver’s window.

Searching the car they found six bricks of cocaine wrapped in plastic and paper.

Much like in the US, "the officer smelled marijuana" has become the de facto standard for inventing probable cause. It is utterly irrefutable in court and legitimizes searches that probably came from CSIS/NSA evidence they "reverse constructed". Can't smell marijuana when the case comes to court? It just dissipated. No marijuana seized? They must've smoked it all before they were pulled over. Driver pisses clean? It must've been his buddy who got out a block before we noticed the car.

Drug prohibition is the ultimate law enforcement tool for fishing expeditions, selective enforcement ("driving while black"), and general harrassment of minority communities they deem "problematic". Just take a look at New York City, where "stop and frisk" results in tens of thousands of petty marijuana busts despite the fact simple possession isn't a crime there. They order people to empty their pockets and then arrest them for "public display"

The fact Canadian police don't enforce it against white people at large-scale gatherings means they can continue to use it against a Haitian kid they frisk in Montréal-Nord.

lombar

Brachina,

Is any of that in the NDP platform? Can you link me to any documents on their site? News articles? The "theres not enough science" argument is garbage given what we allow already(growth hormones in food, gmos, poison pesticides, alcohol, sugar, etc with piles of bodies and sick people to show). 

All that does is assume that people will have no clue what to do with it and that they need the regulations to guide them, for something that is not even toxic, meanwhile, the unregulated market is huge and booming, no rules, other than those of the black market, no piles of bodies. I do not need the government to make those kinds of choices for me. Label it so people know what they are getting. They were too cowardly to use the L word and will pay for it.

"Hey criminal(s), don't worry, we barely have the courage to utter the word LEGALIZE but count on us to do it."  Plenty of booze will flow at the election night parties however. 

 

Not that I put a lot of stock in Liberal promises (GST anyone?) but cannabis might be different because they might already be counting Colorados new taxes. 

Liberals understand the need to consider ending the prohibition of marijuana and addressing the root causes of crime to see real results.

http://www.liberal.ca/getting-smart-on-crime-and-cannabis/

 

Show me something like that on the NDPs site? Do we agree that prohibition is a failed policy? Either it is legal and a legal supply should be created or we have this prohibition. Some kind of half measure decriminalization is the worst option. If the user can have it but its still illegal to produce and distribute, the problems we have now will be worse, more gangsters, more grow ops, more drug dealers who do not ID people. 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

lombar wrote:

Not that I put a lot of stock in Liberal promises (GST anyone?) but cannabis might be different because they might already be counting Colorados new taxes. 

Liberals understand the need to consider ending the prohibition of marijuana and addressing the root causes of crime to see real results.

http://www.liberal.ca/getting-smart-on-crime-and-cannabis/

 

Show me something like that on the NDPs site? Do we agree that prohibition is a failed policy? Either it is legal and a legal supply should be created or we have this prohibition. Some kind of half measure decriminalization is the worst option. If the user can have it but its still illegal to produce and distribute, the problems we have now will be worse, more gangsters, more grow ops, more drug dealers who do not ID people. 

I completely agree with this analysis, and I wish the NDP would just copy-cat the Liberal policy now, and let people get over it before the election. However, even if they don't do this (which I'm not expecting) I will still be voting NDP because other issues (environment, economy, proportional representation) are more important to me.

Unionist

Brachina wrote:

 Also they had a protest over weed with all the protesters smoking it infront of police and no was arrested. Weed is legal in all but name now, police don't give a shit if you smoke it.

Oh, so that's why your beloved coward Mulcair refuses to call for legalization... it's already done!

Thanks for that incredible revelation, Brachina!

Wow!

Thank you!

 

Unionist

Michael Moriarity wrote:

I completely agree with this analysis, and I wish the NDP would just copy-cat the Liberal policy now, and let people get over it before the election. However, even if they don't do this (which I'm not expecting) I will still be voting NDP because other issues (environment, economy, proportional representation) are more important to me.

This thread isn't about how you choose to vote. There are plenty of other threads for that, Michael. It's about cannabis. And cowardice.

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Unionist wrote:

This thread isn't about how you choose to vote. There are plenty of other threads for that, Michael. It's about cannabis. And cowardice.

True, sorry for the off-topic comment.

Atlas

What a load of crap.

Marc Emery says he is worried about vote-splitting - and then thinks it's a good idea that his wife runs against Libby Davies?  Won't THAT split the vote in Vancouver East?

If he is truly concerned about vote-splitting, Emery should adivse the Liberals NOT to run in any of the 103 seats the NDP won last time.  If not, he is just what he appears to be:  a one-issue, pro-business millionaire who couldn't care less about real progressive politics.

Moreover, Libby has been a staunch supporter of legalizing pot for decades - unlike Trudeau, who only recently came to this conclusion (and after voting contrarily) and is clearly doing it for opportunistic, political reasons.  Why would Emery EVER think it is a smart move to take a run at one of Canada's most principled politicans on this issue?

Finally, there are more issues in Canada than pot - and many more that define who is "progressive".

Trudeau SUPPORTS corporate tax cuts; he SUPPORTS the Keystone pipeline;  he SUPPORTS free trade agreements with butchers like Honduras: he SUPPORTS the China FIPA.

He also has voted with Harper on many more occasions than the NDP, and joined with the Cons in the absolutely disgraceful kangaroo witch-hunt in the Board of Internal Eonomy to try and smear the NDP for doing EXACTLY what the Libs and Cons do.  He then REFUSED to allow his own party's mailings to be examined, and REFUSED a public hearing to examine ALL parties' mailings.

Trudeau SAYS he wants a "new" way of doing politics, and favours "positive" politics - then authorizes negative attacks on the NDP.

Trudeau is a hypocrite, a lightweight and an entitled child of privilege posing as a progressive.  He is simply not qualified to be PM.

Can you imagine him in a room one on one with Putin?!

God help us all...

Unionist

Atlas wrote:

Moreover, Libby has been a staunch supporter of legalizing pot for decades

Oh, really? Show me a quote. A reference. Some proof. Not "for decades". TODAY. No member of the NDP caucus is allowed their own voice, brain, or conscience. Prove me wrong. Show me.

Quote:
Finally, there are more issues in Canada than pot - and many more that define who is "progressive".

Oh, like opposing Israeli denial of Palestinian rights (another one that Libby got crushed on when she stepped out of line)?

Or decriminalization of sex work (whoops, Libby isn't "allowed" to talk about that any more ... she might say the right thing)?

Quote:

God help us all...

Forget it, she's missing in action.

Unionist

Hint, Atlas: Have a look at [url=http://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2012/03/28/NDP-Deputy-Leader-Libb..., and show me where the great Libby Davies dares to actually call for decriminalization or legalization or anything resembling that.

Here's what her Great Leader said:

Quote:
In a shock to many members of his own party, Mulcair told Global News reporter Tom Clark he thinks the decriminalization of marijuana "would be a mistake because the information that we have right now is that the marijuana that is on the market is extremely potent and can actually cause mental illness."

And here's what Libby said:

"..........................................."

 

Atlas

Unionist, you are so partisan you are blinded.

If you are seriously questioning Libby's work on legalizing pot or sex work, you are as dishonest as you are deluded. 

And it is a poor debater who purposefully takes out-dated quotes like the one you trotted out by Mulcair when you know he has clearly stated the NDP's policy will be one of decriminalization, measured science and ultimately legalization.  And if consistency is what you are looking for - how do you explain Trudeau's voting WITH Harper to TOUGHEN penalties on pot possession just months before he suddenly claimed to support its legalization?

My mistake - one ought not expect consistency from a Liberal...

Oh yes - what exactly is the Liberal's position on Palestine?  Irwin Cotler has defined their policy for years, and it is staunchly pro-Zionist. On sex work? Are the Libs in favour of legalizing it? Funny, haven't heard anything on that, either...

In any event, Canadians know it doesn't really matter what the Liberals say on ANY progressive issue - they have proved a miillion times that they will say anything to get elected, and then urinate backwards, as they say, after they are in power.

Want some examples?

Re-negotiating NAFTA, eliminating the GST, bringing in a national housing plan, providing national childcare, supporting the CBC, defending transfer paymets to the provinces.....all of these were promised by Liberals in opposition and betrayed once in power.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on us all...

Unionist

How utterly pathetic, Atlas, to think that someone who exposes the NDP's cowardice and betrayal must be a Liberal. Thank you so, so, so much for explaining to me how reactionary and backward the Liberals are. Gee, I didn't know. I had no idea. Wow. Thanks, bud!

Where exactly do you come from? It's either Liberals, or NDP?

No. They are identical in almost all respects. Each is worse than the other.

But I've noticed this: The most ferocious adversaries of the Liberals are the most ferocious cheerleaders of the NDP. They're indisinguishable, therefore sworn to mutual destruction.

Jack Layton understood politics better than this. He had the courage of his convictions. That's why he didn't fear to build a coalition with the Liberals and Bloc (which the cowardly Liberals then dismantled) in order to defeat Harper.

I knew Jack Layton. You, sir, are no Jack Layton.

As for cannabis - geez, are you really incapable of drumming up a single quote from Mulcair proposing full decriminalization, let alone legalization?

Yeah. I thought so. Pity.

Unionist

Atlas wrote:

If you are seriously questioning Libby's work on legalizing pot or sex work, you are as dishonest as you are deluded.

Oh Atlas. I'm not questioning Libby's work on those fronts. She has been bullied and muzzled into abject silence by your hero, Mr. Mulcair. I am Libby's supporter. Not you. Sad.

 

Atlas

Libby can't be bullied, my friend.

And you did indeed question Libby's commitment on pot:

I said: "Moreover, Libby has been a staunch supporter of legalizing pot for decades"

YOU replied:

"Oh, really? Show me a quote. A reference. Some proof. Not "for decades". TODAY. No member of the NDP caucus is allowed their own voice, brain, or conscience. Prove me wrong. Show me."

I knew Jack Layton, too. And YOU, sir, are CERTAINLY no Jack Layton...or Libby Davies.

You ARE a dishonest, deceitful and evasive propogandist.

How about responding to my points about Trudeau?

Seems someone is obsessed with Mulcair...

 

Debater

Is Libby running again in 2015?  I've read rumours here on Babble over the past couple years that she might retire from politics in 2015 now that Mulcair is leader, but I haven't heard anything yet.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Libby will be 62 when the next election is called. That more than anything else might determine whether she runs or not, Joe Comartin and her worked on issues together and he will be retiring.

Marc Emery is not a social democrat. His Marijauna Party did not get any traction because it was Marc's own brand of libertarianism that they were trying to sell.

Jacob Two-Two

Libby will definitely run in the next election. The one after that is much less certain. Atlas, Unionist does not support the Liberals or the NDP and has been very vocal about his "pox on all their houses" stance for many years. One thing he's not is inconsistent.

PrairieDemocrat15

Atlas wrote:

What a load of crap.

Marc Emery says he is worried about vote-splitting - and then thinks it's a good idea that his wife runs against Libby Davies?  Won't THAT split the vote in Vancouver East?

If he is truly concerned about vote-splitting, Emery should adivse the Liberals NOT to run in any of the 103 seats the NDP won last time.  If not, he is just what he appears to be:  a one-issue, pro-business millionaire who couldn't care less about real progressive politics.

Moreover, Libby has been a staunch supporter of legalizing pot for decades - unlike Trudeau, who only recently came to this conclusion (and after voting contrarily) and is clearly doing it for opportunistic, political reasons.  Why would Emery EVER think it is a smart move to take a run at one of Canada's most principled politicans on this issue?

Finally, there are more issues in Canada than pot - and many more that define who is "progressive".

Trudeau SUPPORTS corporate tax cuts; he SUPPORTS the Keystone pipeline;  he SUPPORTS free trade agreements with butchers like Honduras: he SUPPORTS the China FIPA.

He also has voted with Harper on many more occasions than the NDP, and joined with the Cons in the absolutely disgraceful kangaroo witch-hunt in the Board of Internal Eonomy to try and smear the NDP for doing EXACTLY what the Libs and Cons do.  He then REFUSED to allow his own party's mailings to be examined, and REFUSED a public hearing to examine ALL parties' mailings.

Trudeau SAYS he wants a "new" way of doing politics, and favours "positive" politics - then authorizes negative attacks on the NDP.

Trudeau is a hypocrite, a lightweight and an entitled child of privilege posing as a progressive.  He is simply not qualified to be PM.

Can you imagine him in a room one on one with Putin?!

God help us all...

You hit the nail on the head, here.

Legalizing cannibis will do little for the people of Vancouver East, Canada's poorest, most marginalized riding. Trudeau's right-wing, neoliberal economic policies, which are indistinguishable from those of the Harper government, will only hurt Vancouver East. 

Why is Emery, as a British Columbian, supporting the Libs as the best party to defeat Harper? The Liberals have been running third in BC since 2006 and are traditionally the third party in that province before 1993 and after 2006. The NDP is best placed to defeat Harper in BC.

I bet the Liberals and the media will be giving Emery lots of attention in her run in Van East. I wouldn't be suprised if a few Forum polls during the campaign show her competing with or even beating Libby Davies.

Its very enertaining to watch Liberals on this board berate the NDP for making Davies moderate her principled positions on weed and Israel, given that their party would muzzle her even more if she was a member of the Liberal caucus (not that she would ever associate with the Liberal Party).

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
Libby will definitely run in the next election. The one after that is much less certain. Atlas, Unionist does not support the Liberals or the NDP and has been very vocal about his "pox on all their houses" stance for many years. One thing he's not is inconsistent.

This is true. I know this to be so as well.

PrairieDemocrat15

Vote Liberal in Van East to "Stop Harper." Uggh.

I don't known much about the Emery's, but it seems they are a couple of pot business people who want to cash in on the new Big Tobacco industry legalization will create.

I don't support prohibition, but I don't support creating a new industry peddling (somewhat) harmful products to people (often to poor and marginalized populations). Becuase of necessary government regulation of pot, the industry will be very close to politicans, will lobby vigourously, and probably grease a lot of hands. If Trudeau wins and follows through on his pot promise, I expect the Emery's will be making a lot of visits to the Laurier Club.

Keeping pot a cottage industry or mandating government distribution (like alcohol) is preferable to creating the Phillip Morris of cannibis.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Debater wrote:

Boy would you get a wake-up call if the NDP ever formed power federally.  When a party actually forms government, it has to often address practical realities and deal with the burdens of office in a way that perpetual complainers like hardcore NDPers never do.

it's easy to criticise Liberals for never doing enough when they're in power when you've never actually been in power yourself and never experienced the barriers that often get in the way.  You also forget that when Chrétien was in power he had a right-wing Reform/Alliance party for an Opposition that refused to do anything progressive.  Most Canadians were also much more socially conservative in those days too, as were some of the people in the NDP (eg. Bev Desjarlais).

Oh come on, really? This isn't a Federal system where everyone has to agree. They have had majorities and then did nothing. Who do you think you are kidding?

wage zombie

lombar wrote:

I think Mark and Jodie simply plucked the NDP knives out of their backs and decided to keep trying to pursue their goals using all we have, the broken fptp political system. A Liberal promise, while not worth much, is worth a lot more than NDP silence and/or active marginalization of the issue.

Agreed, especially withthe part in bold.

Quote:

So many people think this is a minor nothing issue, bunch of stoners etc, but the war on drugs creates a lot of violence in the world as well as illustrate just how undemocratic and unrepresentative our system is. 

It is a litmus test.  If you can't get a no-brainer issue like marijuana legalization right, what good will you be on more complex issues?

Quote:

The Liberals totally outflanked the NDP on this issue. Tales of cannabis horrors are not flooding out of Colorado, Washington or California, unless you listen to the prohibitionist parasites. The sky is not falling, the roads are not filled with carnage, and still the NDP hum and haw while people get screwed by the justice system.

Good point.

voice of the damned

PrairieDemocrat15 wrote:

Vote Liberal in Van East to "Stop Harper." Uggh.

I don't known much about the Emery's, but it seems they are a couple of pot business people who want to cash in on the new Big Tobacco industry legalization will create.

I don't support prohibition, but I don't support creating a new industry peddling (somewhat) harmful products to people (often to poor and marginalized populations). Becuase of necessary government regulation of pot, the industry will be very close to politicans, will lobby vigourously, and probably grease a lot of hands. If Trudeau wins and follows through on his pot promise, I expect the Emery's will be making a lot of visits to the Laurier Club.

Keeping pot a cottage industry or mandating government distribution (like alcohol) is preferable to creating the Phillip Morris of cannibis.

Your argument is a little like saying that we should continue to ban movies with nudity, bad language, and double-beds in them, because lifting the ban would just put more money into the pockets of greedy Hollywood executives.

I do support your alcohol model for marijuana sales, but of course, even that system involves the government selling the products or private, for-profit industries.

There is also the "lottery" model, where the government controls both the production and distribution of the items, but I am not so sure that that is morally superior. You just end up with the state, rather than private companies, encouraging the public to blow their money on hopeless longshots.

 

 

cco

I'd say smoking weed is more reliable than playing the lottery any day. And I'd rather have Philip Morris producing my weed than, say, Los Zetas.

Pondering

Marc Emery has devoted his life to the legalization of marijuana. He voluntarily took a draconian 5 year sentence in the states to spare everyone who worked on the seed business with him and he did not become personally wealthy because he donated much of the profits to legalization which was the real motivation for the states going after him which they admitted publicly. 

Maybe you should do more research before slandering a man. 

"www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/pr081105.html

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.

 

quizzical

Pondering wrote:
he did not become personally wealthy because he donated much of the profits to legalization which was the real motivation for the states going after him which they admitted publicly. 

Maybe you should do more research before slandering a man. 

"www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/pr081105.html

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.

 

don't think your proof is worth much of anything in context to your comment he did not become personally wealthy. 5 million a year for over a decade doesn't equal 100's of thousands of dollars spent on lobbying in the USA.

his seed sales, worth millionjs, were on top of what the magazine made too!!!!

maybe you should do some more research, or even comprehensive reading of your own quote, before you chastize someone else for their opinion which appears a lot more informed than yours?!!!!!!!

 

 

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

Pondering wrote:
he did not become personally wealthy because he donated much of the profits to legalization which was the real motivation for the states going after him which they admitted publicly. 

Maybe you should do more research before slandering a man. 

"www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/pr081105.html

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.

 

don't think your proof is worth much of anything in context to your comment he did not become personally wealthy. 5 million a year for over a decade doesn't equal 100's of thousands of dollars spent on lobbying in the USA.

his seed sales, worth millionjs, were on top of what the magazine made too!!!!

maybe you should do some more research, or even comprehensive reading of your own quote, before you chastize someone else for their opinion which appears a lot more informed than yours?!!!!!!!

The DEA numbers are not precise and Jodie needed financial help to be able to visit him in prison in the States over the five years. 

Emery and his two associates, all charged in the United States with drug and money laundering offences, each faced a minimum 10-year sentence and the possibility of life imprisonment if convicted there.

On January 14, 2008, Emery had agreed to a tentative plea-bargain with U.S. authorities. The terms of the agreement were a 5-year prison term to be served in both Canadian and U.S. prisons.[137] In return, he demanded the charges against his friends Michelle Rainey and Greg Williams be dropped.[138]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Emery#Proceedings_and_guilty_plea

How is "their opinion" more informed? It is based on absolutely no information at all. Nothing at all. Zip. He is just making assumptions about Marc Emery's character purely on the basis that he switched from supporting the NDP to supporting Justin Trudeau.

Marc Emery has been a lifelong marijuana activist. Legalization has been his life's misson. He needs no ulterior motives to support Justin Trudeau. 

I say it is up to people casting aspirations on Marc Emery's character to come up with proof, not up to me to prove his innocence.

PrairieDemocrat15

Here is Jordie on Cambridge House International, "the world's leading producer of resource investment conferences." She talks about the marijuana industry and its future investment outlook - one of the most important issues for the people of Canada's poorest riding! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lh7CvKAY6I

She sounds like a John Manley-type business Liberal to me. Just because she deals in pot, doesn't make her some kind of economic progressive. She seems like a good fit for Trudeau Jr.'s Liberal party which seems to me to be the most right-wing iteration of the Grits since before W.L. Mackenzie King took over.

It will be a sad day for Canada if this country's most leftist MP gets replaced by Jodie Emery. If this would-be pot magnate wins the Liberal nomination, you can bet Justin will be spending a lot of time in Vancouver East (he won;t go near the DTES, though) to promote his feel-good, solve-little, flagship policy.

Give 'em hell Libby!

quizzical

Pondering wrote:
The DEA numbers are not precise and Jodie needed financial help to be able to visit him in prison in the States over the five years. 

Marc Emery has been a lifelong marijuana activist. Legalization has been his life's misson. He needs no ulterior motives to support Justin Trudeau. 

I say it is up to people casting aspirations on Marc Emery's character to come up with proof, not up to me to prove his innocence.

know lots of rich people sucking money off of others it's what they do to keep their money...

his jumping into the liberals bed is more than enough evidence on its own...then when you add his wife running against libby you pretty much have the full equation on how whacked they are no need for more proof of anything...

Pogo Pogo's picture

The simple fact is you cannot run against someone without in fact running AGAINST them.  i doubt the riding was her choice, but rather the Liberal Party.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:
know lots of rich people sucking money off of others it's what they do to keep their money...

his jumping into the liberals bed is more than enough evidence on its own...then when you add his wife running against libby you pretty much have the full equation on how whacked they are no need for more proof of anything...

Read his life story. I think it is pretty silly to think that anyone and everyone who runs against Libby is whacked simply because they are running against Libby.  Who is the whacked Green candidate?  Or is it your contention that anyone who runs as a liberal is automatically whacked? Or is it all people with money are whacked? 

Marc spent his entire life fighting for legalization of marijuana. He doesn't need an ulterior motive for supporting Trudeau. 

Marc Emery is still sitting in a U.S. prison as we speak awaiting his release. He has been in the US prison system since 2010 for selling seeds through mail-order from Canada.

What I think is whacked is thinking that a life-long world renowned pot activist would not support the politician calling for legalization.  It would be stupid for someone to devote their life to marijuana legalization, then not support the politician who openly supports legalization. The mystery would be if Marc Emery did not support Trudeau. 

Marc Emery is a lifelong libertarian. He supported the NDP when the NDP was the best bet for liberalizing marijuana law. It is the NDP that has failed Marc Emery and the people by failing to support marijuana legalization. The NDP leadership refused to allow a vote on it at their convention. The NDP has placed itself in the position of arguing that it needs more studies, that it is a dangerous substance. 

Marijuana is BCs 3rd largest industry. It would decimate the economy if it were shut down. It would put countless people out of work. Already growers and processors are sophisticated enough to develop strains specific to preventing seizures or increasing appetite or reducing pain. Imagine what could be delivered if development didn't have to be hidden.

The NDP is not the party of social justice when it continues to support the criminalization of the marijuana industry. It's a cop out to condemn Marc Emery for supporting the party that supports his lifelong goal. Marc Emery isn't the problem. The NDP leadership is the problem, and by extension the people who support them. You are looking to deflect blame. The fault lies squarely on the shoulders of the NDP and it's supporters. 

quizzical

gawk....i grew up hearing marc emery and his pot legalization advocacy live right here in BC and not several provinces away. and don't lecture me about the value of medical pot and the growers industry. you've no idea who i am or what i know.

as for deflecting the blame its not me who's deflecting anything. i think you're deflecting the liberal's 0 track record in order to convince yourself they'll do something just like how imv marc and jodie are pretending.

imv libertarianism is bs in marc's case or he wouldn't be joining the liberals and his wife wouldn't be running against libby.

and btw you're right down on libertarians when it comes to criminalizing johns and pimps but are for it in marc's case, what's up with the inconsistency?

 

Unionist

Who knows, quizzical? Maybe Libby will awake from her long deep sleep and start saying what we know she thinks (because she used to say it before she was fitted with a muzzle by Tom Mulcair). I believe it will happen.

 

Pondering

quizzical wrote:
gawk....i grew up hearing marc emery and his pot legalization advocacy live right here in BC and not several provinces away. and don't lecture me about the value of medical pot and the growers industry. you've no idea who i am or what i know.

as for deflecting the blame its not me who's deflecting anything. i think you're deflecting the liberal's 0 track record in order to convince yourself they'll do something just like how imv marc and jodie are pretending.

imv libertarianism is bs in marc's case or he wouldn't be joining the liberals and his wife wouldn't be running against libby.

and btw you're right down on libertarians when it comes to criminalizing johns and pimps but are for it in marc's case, what's up with the inconsistency?

I am not a supporter of libertarianism so I don't agree with most of Emery's politics. I'm just saying he has no need of ulterior motives to support Trudeau. He supports Trudeau because Trudeau is supporting legalization. If the NDP were supporting legalization Emery would still be with the NDP and NDPers would be defending him. It's hypocritical to attack him because he switched to supporting the Liberals based on his lifelong mission of legalizing pot.

Even now if the NDP convinced him they were 100% behind legalization and were more likely to follow through the Emerys would switch back to supporting the NDP. 

The problem here is the NDP refusing to unequivocally support legalization of marijuana. That is not the fault of the Liberals or of Marc Emery. 

zerocarbs

Brachina wrote:

 I can see his con job is working, but one only has to look at Justin's voting record to see truth. Justin will "forget" about his promise as soon as he gets his majority. How many times do you have to be lied to before people fucking learn, it doesn't matter what tue liberal party offers, its made up of corrupt liers, especially at the top.

Now look at Mulcair's voting record and who actually follows through and whose word means something. .

Great - we can choose between someone who is probably lying, or someone who is guartanteed to do nothing. Whooppee.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The NDP like most issues had decent policy voted on and passed at conventions.  Mulcair is not bound by those so instead of the NDP membership view on this issue he repeats RCMP talking points. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

The problem with the NDP is Thomas Mulcair.

I wouldn't worry about Trudeau.

Slumberjack

My personal affinity for the issue at hand, and disgust over what Marc and Jodie were forced to go through, is not enough to fall in behind this campaign on behalf of Trudeau and his merry band of Liberals.  By the same...er...token, my personal and visceral hatred of conservative ideology is not enough reason to consider helping to foist the Mulcair gang upon everyone.

Pages