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

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

check below

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 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?

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.

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.

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 [b]decriminalize possession[/b] - 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.

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

It's the only recourse.

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.

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 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...

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 [b]NOT[/b] 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).

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

 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.

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.

 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.