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

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.

 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.

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 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.

 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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...

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:

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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?!!!!!!!

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!

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.

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?

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. 

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.