Anonymous Peter, proud lefty from Alberta (and longtime wmtc reader), asks Canadian readers to "help stop the US's intrusion on the Canadian justice system and our drug policies".
I've seen lots of blog posts making fun of Mark Emery, but honestly, the situation doesn't sound amusing. The US may have some things that are worth exporting and emulating, but drug policy is not one of them.
Interested readers can read and sign the petition.
20 comments:
Mark Emery's situation is not funny, but it's hard for me to be overly sympathetic. Emery was my neighbour a few years ago, back in London, Ontario, and I can't say that I'm all that well-disposed towards him. He had a reputation as a letch, hitting on girls in my high-school (which was near his bookstore), and has a history of doing obviously inane things to make a point, then complaining when they come back to bite him.
There was also a lot of suspicion about him and the boys soccer team he coached, but I don't know if there was any real basis for the suspicions or if it's just typical London homophobic paranoia.
All that said, nothing he's done merits life in a US prison; after all, no-one in Canada's decided it even merits any Canadian jail time at all.
I obviously don't know the man personally, but justice can't be dispensed on the basis of how much we like the accused. His sexual habits aren't on trial.
I know you know this, but it just seems like everyone wants to talk about how annoying this guy is, and it's hardly the point.
"everyone wants to talk about how annoying this guy is, and it's hardly the point."
It's definitely not the point, but his poor judgement in the past means that this whole mess isn't a surprise, either. :P
I agree that the US laws on drug possession and trafficking are draconian, but Mr. Emery was well-aware of them. He chose to sell his product in the US anyway. I think he should be extradited.
his poor judgement in the past means that this whole mess isn't a surprise, either.
Right. I get that.
"He chose to sell his product in the US anyway. I think he should be extradited."
It's not that simple. Canada's extradition treaty with the US requires that the crime the accused is being extradited for is a crime in Canada as well as the US. But Emery has been doing this in Canada for years without being arrested or charged with anything.
Canadian law also requires that the accused not be facing a sentence out of proportion (by Canadian standards) with the crime, which would also argue against extradition.
And this is just as well -- some types of sex are still illegal in the US; one could theoretically get extradited to Alabama for having (the wrong kind of) sex with an Alabamian, if it weren't for these limitations on extradition.
It seems clear to me that the whole business isn't about this character selling dope seeds. It's about him taking a pro-marijuana stand, and rubbing it in the face of people who want to make him an example...and to make a Canadian an example.
MA, I agree.
"It's about him taking a pro-marijuana stand, and rubbing it in the face of people who want to make him an example"
Oh, definitely. He's hardly the only one to be selling seeds -- and it's legal in some places, for medicinal purposes. But the US hates Canadian drug laws, because they aren't draconian enough, and Emery is one of the most vocal people trying to loosen them up.
The drug laws up here are still all out of proportion with the dangers from the drugs, of course, though we do benefit from the wonderful negative example the US provides on how not to control drug abuse.
Here in Toronto, the Classic Rock radio station runs adds from "The Friendly Stranger" (a "Canabis Culture Shop") and "Home-grown Hydroponics" (for doing your own indoor gardening, of course). Out of curiousity, could someone get away with that in the US?
Here in Toronto, the Classic Rock radio station runs adds from "The Friendly Stranger" (a "Canabis Culture Shop") and "Home-grown Hydroponics" (for doing your own indoor gardening, of course). Out of curiousity, could someone get away with that in the US?
You know, I'm not up on this stuff at all, my pot-smoking days long behind me. I vaguely remember reading about a crackdown on "head shops" and paraphenalia. It all used to be legal except the actual weed itself, but that may have changed.
I'm so uninformed on this subject, I can't venture a guess. Perhaps a reader will fill us in?
Whatever the answer, enforcement will vary greatly depending on the geographic location, as everything in the US does. Certain towns will look the other way, certain towns will shut down stores, arrest and jail.
I heartily disagree. This is not an issue of an anti-drug stance, or of making Canada an example. Look past the activism for a second and skim through the laws. Selling the amounts Emery sold has for long been, and still very much is, against the law, whether or not we think Mary Jane should be set free. I'm all for legalizing pot entirely, but the fact is, it is not completely legalized yet, and the law still is the law.
By letter of law, the sale of any substance declared illegal is, obviously, illegal. The US is only involved because Emery was selling to customers based in the United States. If someone is pushing illegal substances into a country, that country does have the right to pursue charges. The issue is NOT a pro- or anti- marijuana stance (that's total BS guys), it's simply whether or not Emery should be tried for an illegal act in the country he is based in or the country he sold the illegal substance in. That's IT. The issue gets cloudy when you throw in the fact that the amount that he sold to the US falls under trafficking legislation (this wasn't an ounce of seeds, it was a LOT over a LONG period of time). That can be enough to allow international (ie US) enforcement.
In effect, it is no different than the DEA pursuing groups in Mexico who sell to the US. Many Canadians do tend to be pro-legality on marijuana, which is why this is such big news here. However, there is no legality whatsoever on trafficking the amounts that Emery was. Whether or not we agree with the laws, he broke them, and the US does arguably have a right to prosecute as he was illegally pushing substances that violate the law into their country. Like I said, no different than drug pursuit in Mexico, which, interestingly enough, few have bothered to mention. Maybe because it blows their argument out of the water.
And on extradition ...
Ever stop to think that during the course of the extradition investigation (they were on Emery for quite a while) that Canada knew what the US was doing, and withheld its own charges in order to get the extradition with the US evidence?
To be in accordance with the treaty, Canada essentially has to charge Emery, if what James is saying is correct (sounds right, I will assume it is). Emery is well known in many BC circles as a seller, and it would be very odd if under the US investigation no evidence of selling to Canadians emerged. Being this was apparantly a joint investigation between Canada and the US, that evidence could be used if Canadian charges are necessary. Treaty fulfilled, extradition happens, as it should.
Rob is right - Emery knew exactly what he was doing, and now he gets caught and cries foul. Fuck him - he knew the rules. If extradition is the price of breaking those rules, then that's what he gets. I for one could care less for laws against marijuana - if they legalize its sale, cool - but fact is it is not legalized right now (especially what Emery was doing), so the rules stand and he broke 'em anyway.
Hear that? Listen close ... world's smallest violin playing just for Marc Emery. Boo-fucking-hoo.
Fuck him - he knew the rules.
. . . Hear that? Listen close ... world's smallest violin playing just for Marc Emery. Boo-fucking-hoo.
Why so nasty, G? Your opinion on this case aside, you sound like you have another agenda here.
It seems so unlike you to call a different way of viewing an issue "total BS". I do see this as pro- or anti-marijuana. I understand you disagree, but from what I've read, that is how I see it. I don't think your position or mine deserves to be called "total BS".
In my view, when a law is unjust, I want anyone who can possibly get around it and not be held to it to do so. Just because a law is on the books doesn't mean we must wish to see it enforced, if we disagree with the law itself.
Using James's example of illegal sexual practices, I would never say, well, they knew the law in their state, why were they doing that. I would say, the law is stupid and unjust and should not be given over to.
Crabby and tired today. But hey, read the blog title: I'm a Bitch. ;-)
Joking aside, I do also get tired of "free [insert topic here]" mantra that doesn't take the rules of the game into account. Got a problem with the laws against MJ? Great, let's work together to change them. Doesn't change the fact that Emery broke the law, knowingly, while it was in place. Further, under law, he technically can be extradited.
Is there an anti-pot agenda in the actions of the Canadian police for working with the US DEA on this? Probably, and that would shock no one. While pot legislation has been in the works for some time here, there is a reason it has not been fully passed through yet. Fine, I can go with that.
But much of the rhetoric I've been hearing is from people with a pro-pot agenda [not to suggest that is the case in the comments here, this is what I've heard in-person, which plays into my comments here]. Meanwhile, the law as it stands is for the most part ignored. Maybe it's because I'm a librarian, but I'd rather look at info supporting (and opposing) both sides before making a judgment.
Hey, I'm all for the pro-pot agenda ... but I still respect the rules as they stand; hopefully they will one day be changed. But right now they are what they are, and Emery was caught breaking them ($3 million a year in seed sales is no small thing). The US had the right to investigate, and have the right to charge, as sales occurred to their citizens, and often over their property. It is what it is - them's the rules and Emery knew them. Hope the door doesn't hit him on the way out.
May not sound the nicest (as you pointed out) but you know what? It's honest and that's frankly how the issue makes me feel. And I think you know by now I am certainly not one to mince words - or my own opinion. And if it turns out I'm wrong, then so be it - aren't we all sometimes?
Anyway, time to cheer up. Posting a special edition of Pics Of The Week, which should put a smile back on my face. Drop by for a laugh, or possibly a deep groan. I'll take either or.
:-) G
May not sound the nicest (as you pointed out) but you know what? It's honest and that's frankly how the issue makes me feel. And I think you know by now I am certainly not one to mince words - or my own opinion. And if it turns out I'm wrong, then so be it - aren't we all sometimes?
Shit G, of course I know that, and I'm not criticizing you over how you sound or being nice or any shit like that. I was just wondering if you reserved some special dislike/revulsion/annoyance/something-else for Emery, and that's perhaps what you were reacting to, rather than the issue at hand. I have a tendency to do that, so I thought I recognized the syndrome. But I guess not.
I'm not big on respecting rules I don't agree with, so the "he knew the rules" argument doesn't work for me. But clearly he did know them.
I'll definitely stop by to laugh and/or groan. Have a relaxing night.
Appreciate the note on criticism - wasn't sure there. Pitfalls of blogging - no body language or voice can lead to misinterpretation. :-)
For me, when it comes to law, it's about the approach - simply circumventing a law we disagree with doesn't change the fact that it's still there. Better to focus on what needs to be done to change the laws and work towards that, than to simply circumvent, which really only creates more of mess for everyone.
That's how I see it - but hey, we're all entitled to our views and I do understand yours, even if I don't agree with it. I can agree to disagree.
BTW, how about that Giambi fellow lately ... ;-)
Have good night,
G
Then I'm extra-glad I clarified. This communication thing can be rough. And even you and I can't agree on everything. :)
I don't know, Jason might have to be tested between every at-bat these days...! ;-)
Night night.*
* X-ref Anipals, TV Funhouse
Wow! Away for a weekend and I get mentioned on the first page, you should see me blush!
Anyway this is an interesting discussion, the key thing to remember that what he was doing is selling seeds. Something which no Canadian has been charges with in over 10 years.
If the police and crown prosecuters have determined that it isin't worth charging people for a crime for over 10 years how can a reasonable person expect to be charged with it now?
In Canada the gov't has stated that they are in the process of de-criminalizing pot possesion. I don't think we can turn around and condemn somebody for selling seeds. Especially with such a draconian sentance. We already refuse to extradite people who would face the death penalty, I don't think this is that far a stretch.
I wonder how long it will be until the US starts sending armed black helicopters over the border to go after drug runners.
Peter
Also, just saw this on vive...
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20050806015123648
Even the DEA says it is political.
Peter
Ah, good story Peter, thanks.
Post a Comment