Dana Larsen has NDP convention credentials revoked - III

Thanks for being generous Michelle.

I think I'll just stay out of this thread from here on in.  There is not much more I can add at this point anyway.

Well other than I just heard back about this couple from Yellowknife that are proposing that Canada change its location to somewhere off the coast of Costa Rica.  I know the vast NDP conspiracy is dead set against this, but I have to admit I am totally in favour.  Since I will have time by not participating in this thread I may sneak off and join the "Canada in its place" underground.

Oh, stop. :)

I don't mean to hijact the present conversation, but while I was composing my response to the last thread, the moderator shut it down because this one was started.  But I think that it is still important to respond to BA from an earlier post.  I would suggest that he do some research into the benefits of legalizing, regulating and taxing drugs.  He could start by reading Jack Herer's book, The Emperor Wears No Clothes.  If he has already read it then I can't believe he is making some of the statements that he is presently making. 

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

"...when other things are going on and are as or more likely more important than his singleminded obsession with legalizing far more than a bit of pot like heroin, meth and so on."

Then Cueball wrote:

"Like what? The name of the party?"

"And in a subsequent post BA wrote: Oh I don't know crazy things like job creation, environmental protection, universal health care, access to education, immigration issues, food and farming policies, poverty, equality issues, care and dignity for seniors and so many more. 

But apparently, according to you, the only issue that matters and makes you a progressive is whether someone can legally shoot smack in the foodcourt at your local mall or open up a meth cooker on a bicycle cart like one of those popscicle ones."

My response:

BA, Legalization of drugs is NOT a single minded obsession, and is just as important as all of the issues you have listed and it is much more than being able to "legally shoot smack in the foodcourt."  Your points will all be affected in a positive way by legalization of drugs.  First of all job creation: With the legalization of marijuana would come jobs in farming, packaging, distribution, and marketing among others.  This ties into food and farming policies.  With legalization of marijuana would come the proliferation of hemp production, as much of the reluctance to license hemp farming is due to its relationship to marijuana and the difficulty in distinguishing one from the other.  There is no more useful plant on earth.  It can be used to produce food, textiles, paper, fabric, and fuel.  It can provide alternative sources of energy. It is readily renewable and can grow nearly everywhere. 

With the legalization of marijuana comes better and cheaper healthcare for many who have found medical marijuana to be the most helpful to their condition.  And with the production of marijuana for medical purposes comes further employment.  Since hemp will be more available it can also contribute to prevention of disease in that it provides nutrition and reduces pollution through the alternative energy mentioned earlier. Much disease is due to stress.  Marijuana is also a great stress reliever, that is if we aren't constantly worried about getting arrested for ingesting it. 

Legalization of all drugs is important, although the legalization of marijuana, on its own, would be a huge step forward for our economy.  The prohibition of drugs is responsible for so much of the crime in our country.  If the drugs were legal and regulated and a plan put in place to supply all present addicts, our drug problem would be so much less.  I would expect that some people would still experiment with drugs, but gone would be most of the gang problem and the murders in our big cities would be reduced to near zero.  Those that experiment would be getting substances of known quality and strength and they would not be dying because they are ingesting something of questionable quality and dosage.  

Because of prohibition, our children are not being educated truthfully about the dangers of these substances.  This is not safe for our children to be uneducated.

What would be improved by legalization of all drugs.  Jobs, the environment, the economy, healthcare (both prevention and care), poverty issues, education, crime and on and on.  And all of this in one resolution!

Prohibition of drugs is harmful.  To legalize and regulate would make everyone safer and it would improve our economy.

A party that believes in "social and economic justice" should be considering the legalizaiton of drugs as one of their MOST important issues.  

The galling thing is that Jack Layton and others in the party know all of this.  Yet they avoid the issue or water it down to be ineffective.  Why? To try to appeal to the centre.  Unfortunately they are alienating many of their true supporters, those that believe in what the NDP used to believe in.  Should the NDP be satisfied with their 20% or should they be taking a chance on what they really believe by supporting a comprehensive plan for legalization of marijuana and other drugs?

Whereas I voted for the NDP at the last two opportunities (one general and one byelection), because I liked Mulcair's style and stance on most issues and because an NDP win could help energize some progressive forces; whereas the time before (2004) I voted Bloc in an attempt to unseat the Liberal creep of the day. I don't know who I'll vote for next time. But I do know this: I am capable of choosing a party and/or a candidate in a particular election, or even over decades, without getting down on my knees to one party, kissing its backside, swearing eternal loyalty to it no matter what, and viciously attacking anyone who offers a word of criticism.

Likewise, I can support, applaud, and encourage Dana in his courageous struggle, while still pointing out to him that childish exhibitionism will [b]NOT[/b] win support for his cause (notwithstanding Catchfire's reasoned analysis in the other thread).

What certain very lowlife people in the NDP did to Dana is unforgiveable - but it will not define how I vote. It's not important enough, and I don't think it characterizes the party as a whole. To [b]defend[/b] that action against Dana is to spit on any pretence of democratic party life. Dana is a far more worthy and persistent supporter of the NDP than these lowlifes could ever hope to be. If the Liberal party made them a better offer, they'd be slithering their way over there tout de suite.

I must say I sympathize with and admire the position that remind expressed above. As a staunch defender of the NDP - and of Jack Layton - it can't have been simple for her to make the statements she has made. But they come obviously from a deep place of principle. I wish the same could be said for everyone participating in this debate.

Dana did not quit the NDP. I find the level of disinformation and distortion being thrown around here to be startling. Is it to much to say that one needs to be fast and loose with the facts to defend the NDP, on almost anything?

That's right, Coyote. And thanks for having read for comprehension. At this point I dont think he does it on purpose, sadly.

Unionist, people who are defending the NDP's actions in this case are not "spitting on any pretence of democratic party life".  They're expressing sincere opinions and backing them up with arguments.  There ARE two sides to this story.  I know it feels like there's only one valid side when you feel really strongly about something like this, but that's not really the way it is.

And saying that some of the people participating in this debate are NOT "coming from a place of deep principle" is going to feel like an attack to those here who are disagreeing with you.

You got attacked a couple of times in the previous thread with similar insinuations about why you're taking the position you are, and that sucked too.  But I'm hoping that we can avoid perpetuating that in this thread.

And actual claims to fact should require sources, no? That's why I could not include a source in my post and therefore had to qualify my own same. You refer to G Scott having drummed Dana from an election campaign. Dana's web site says he resigned in the middle of the controversy, which I believe was also in the middle of the election campaign

Has anyone considered that the NDP cant afford to waste anymore time and resources on a candidate who has harmed the very cause he works for by his own choices and his own actions? I'm sure he thought videotaping himself using marijunana and other drugs was good entertainment in those days before deciding to join the NDP and representing millions of other people who want to be responsible marijuana users in a legal sense.

Daniel Grice wrote:

The language "asked for your resignation" = resign or be fired.  Resigning looks nicer on a resume.

Anyways, Dana Larsen in his own words today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFRsCKOkj6Q

It turns out he helped a whole whopping 6 delegates get to the convention.  

I do wear a hearing aid, but Larsen mentions not being "beloved by the inner core of the NDP" for what happened in the last election when quote-unquote, ...I resigned my candidacy...,  1:22 into the video. And the rest of it is all about Brad Lavigne and meanies at the convention. I did not hear him say that anyone asked for or demanded his resignation during the last election campaign, the one in which Larsen quit on the NDP and forfeited a seat to another political party as a result. It appears to me that Larsen quit on the NDP in the middle of an election campaign.

And now he's angry and making a big commotion and trying to do even more damage to the NDP after the fact. What he's doing now has more to do with giving the NDP bad press than furthering the cause for legalization. I actually think Larsen is harming the case for legalization and is not a serious contender for political office. I would vote for a new leader for my cause next marijuana advocacy leadership convention. I support legalization but no longer have faith in Dana Larsen as the leader of my cause, seriously speaking.

Oh I think it's false concern, too. As a supporter for legalization, I'm actually more concerned about Larsen representing the cause on my behalf, too. We need a better rep for legalization. Sorry Dana. You were good, but now we need someone with a realistic chance of furthering your cause and our's.

Quote:

I first asked to talk to Jack but Scott wouldn't help me to do that, he wanted me to resign quickly, and in the end I agreed to do so.

He says he agreed to do so ie. resign. Nothing about trying to speak with or contact Jack on his own like I might have done myself with a little initiative.

Does anyone feel that Dana Larsen has a shot with any party since the weasely Liberals did their dirty politicking as usual against yet another NDP candidate? Does Larsen realize he is damaged goods at this point and his political career over and dont with no thanks to his own antics and Liberals sending the tape to the CBC?

Dana has the weasely Liebrals, those Libranos made new again under Count Iggy von Schtiggy practicing US-style smear politics to thank for exposing his less than parliamentary demenour prior to the NDP giving him the shot at political office, which seems unrealistic for him at this point. Team US-style Smear(LPC) certainly arent offering Dana any job slots.

Tar. Feathers. Pitchforks!

What's wrong with Dana running as an independent candidate, that same wise choice that our faux concerned ones are always recommending we vote for instead of the NDP?

remind wrote:

We are not just the public at large here, that can be dismissed as "being crazy", nor unable to form an opinion. Many have been NDP  for decades longer than Jack Layton and Brad Lavigne, and we will survive this hostile takeover attempt.

Thank you for saying this remind.

I may disagree with you, but that is not important here, because you are showing your true colours, and that is that you really do give a damn about building a better society.

I agree with you, remind - I'm just wondering how they can ban Dana (who openly and in good faith announced what he was doing), and not investigate and ban those who covertly accepted unlawful financial assistance?

One possible approach would just be to ask every delegate where they stand on drug legalization. If they answer "in favour", then they could be required to give proof that they did [i]not[/i] receive illicit funding.

I know it sounds unusual, but surely the Party must be protected from any hint of controversy, no? And if it doesn't weed out the offenders now, then come tax time, the Party could be held liable for collusion with violation of the law.

No, on balance, I think the witch hunt, once begun, must be taken to its logical conclusion. We wouldn't want to be called "hypocrites", now would we?

Dana was screwed by the party aparatus. then again Dana rolled the dice and crapped out. others are getting away with the same but no punishment. so is it a rule violation or a muzzle on Dana.

I vote for the muzzle

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I hope the NDP realises this and that it does not take these kinds of decisions lightly.

So you agree with me that they should ban those who received the money, not just those who paid it?

Unionist wrote:

Fidel, why not read before making stuff up:

Dana Larsen wrote:

Then about two weeks before the election was actually called, I got a call from Gerry Scott, who I think had fairly recently started working on the election campaign and had just realized who I was. He called me, along with the then party secretary, and [b]alternately threatened and begged me to resign my nomination[/b]. He complained about my candidate's website, about my affiliation with the Vancouver Seed Bank, my authorship of Hairy Pothead, and so on. [b]He asked me forcefully to resign my nomination.[/b]

 

I told him no. I said if he wanted me to resign then he should have Jack Layton call me. [b]I said if Jack asked me to resign I would do it no problem.[/b] But I told him I had the support of my riding, and I was not going to resign, and he was only hired to run the campaign, not an elected person. [b]After pressuring me intensly for over an hour, he finally backed down[/b] and said he was going to keep an eye on me and that I had better not make trouble as a candidate.

I didn't hear from him again until 10 days into the campaign, when the Liberals contacted the Globe and Mail with a story that I had a "cocaine shop" and simultaneously contacted CBC with carefully edited footage from my Pot-TV shows.

[b]Gerry Scott flipped out and was ordering me to resign right away.[/b] I didn't really want to, but I could see that my campaign team was not going to be able to resist the pressure and in the heat and pressure of the momentI agreed to resign. I first asked to talk to Jack but Scott wouldn't help me to do that, [b]he wanted me to resign quickly, and in the end I agreed to do so.[/b]

Whatever you think of Dana, he's no quitter. So it's ironic that you would accuse him of abandoning the NDP when the facts show exactly the opposite.

 

Unionist,

Thanks for this.

Where does this come from - could we please have a link for it?

Thanks again Unionist.

Now focusing on the NDP, and not Dana, when Dana ran as a candidate in the last elction. if what was reported upstream is accurate:

1 The NDP itself bears some responsibility for this smoozola

2 The party initial vetting process was run unprofessionally.

3 Following their initial encounter over this, Scott should have arranged immediately for Dana to talk with Jack.

4 Barring that (No 3 just above), whoever was responsible for wielding the knife, should have acted immediately and arranged for Dana to immediately step down as candidate.

5 By not immediately and firmly dealing with the issue, Scott has to bear some responsibility for the damage inflicted on the NDP campaign as well. 

6 Why was a duly nominated candidate Dana blocked from talking with Jack Layton?

7 Could Dana not have called Jack directly? Perhaps he did not have his phone number.

8 This is indeed very strange.

9 What gives here?