July 31, 2008 | In Politics |
B.C. Marijuana Party activist, Marc Emery, declared his candidacy for Mayor of Vancouver yesterday, as well as his intent to run in an upcoming provincial by-election in the city.
Often referred to as the “Prince of Pot,” Emery has frequently made headlines since 2005, when his mail-order marijuana seed business was raided and shut down by Vancouver police, at the request of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) – apparently, many of Emery’s customers were Americans.
Emery remains locked in a hard-fought battle to avoid extradition to the U.S., where he faces the possibility of lifelong imprisonment. If his seed business had operated exclusively within Canada, his sentence here probably wouldn’t have exceeded a month.
It’s easy enough to dismiss a man like Emery as a childish shit disturber, who barely deserves our pity, let alone our votes. But looking at his history, I can say at least one thing for Mr. Emery – he bases his ideas on solid principles which do deserve, at the very least, our consideration. He has involved himself in libertarian political activism for decades (running for office as far back as 1980), espousing a consistent and intelligent message of enhanced personal and economic freedom.
In 1984, Emery even went so far as co-founding a political party, the Freedom Party of Ontario, alongside Robert Metz, host of the London, Ontario-based radio program, Just Right, and in my opinion, one of the most sensible voices in Canadian politics.
Whether or not you agree with Emery’s pot-smoking lifestyle, I think it’s pretty clear that he isn’t motivated purely by the desire to “get high” or generate a profit (the earnings from his seed business were donated to various political advocacy groups, after all). Emery has dedicated the last several years of his life to a risky campaign of civil disobedience in an effort to do away with a law that he (and apparently most Canadians, myself included) feel is unjust. In the spirit of liberty, I have to respect him for that.
But would Marc Emery make a good Mayor of Vancouver (or provincial MLA)?
His proposed policies are soundly fiscally conservative – he advocates phasing out the provincial income tax, implementing massive spending cuts, and making up for any shortfall with a single tax on consumption. Locally, he wants to keep residential property taxes as low as possible, while reigning in spending by the Vancouver police, whose staffing levels have increased a whopping 18.6% since 2005.
In the spirit of civil liberties, Emery hopes to end Taser use in B.C., ban warrantless property searches, and of course, legalize marijuana (which would contribute to provincial consumption tax revenues in much the same way as alcohol and tobacco sales).
One area where I strongly disagree with Emery (and fear that he has taken a statist turn) is his advocacy of “safe injection sites,” particularly his proposal that the government “start free distribution … of heroin or oxycontin to addicts.” Although I tend to oppose laws targeting simple possession of controlled substances (I may elaborate on this in a later post), I feel that people who make stupid decisions with regard to substance abuse should have to put up with the consequences of their behaviour.
Although well intentioned, most “harm reduction” strategies serve to further reduce the personal responsibility of addicts, and prevent them from hitting “rock bottom,” which in many cases, is the only turning point. Sadly, addiction is a social problem that will always be with us, and one which most addicts (including those who undergo “treatment”) never permanently recover from. I am convinced that government action which shields addicts from the natural consequences of their behaviour ultimately does more harm than good.
Despite his flaws, Emery will at the very least be an entertaining presence in the upcoming elections. He’s unlikely to win either race, but with plenty of built-in publicity and a dedicated fan base of west coast weed smokers (assuming he can actually mobilize them
), he could at the very least tip the races away from less principled left-leaning candidates.
When addicts are treated as medical patients instead of criminals, it prevents everyone else in society from having to deal with the consequences of their actions. When addicts are “shielded” from having to find money to pay for their drugs, they don’t rob people. When addicts don’t have to spend all their time jonesing for the next fix, they can think about things like family, working to earn a living, basic hygiene, etc. What incentive is there for an addict who to quit drugs if he can’t get a job and a place to live because of a criminal record?
It seems to me that it’s the rest of society who are “shielded” from having to face the consequences of an addict’s choices when harm reduction programs are in place. I believe that providing medical assistance to addicts is far more likely to help them quit than by criminalizing them.
Comment by Lisa — July 31, 2008 #
I would argue that addicts shouldn’t be treated as either medical patients or criminals — but as sovereign individuals.
Don’t get me wrong — I’m not opposed to assisting addicts that genuinely want to get their lives on track (although I would prefer to see such assistance come from good Samaritans and community charities, rather than big government). I also don’t think people should be considered criminals for simple possession or use of drugs, especially given that spending time in prison sends many of these folks into a downward spiral of addiction and crime.
Whether to subsidize drug use, however, is an entirely different debate. In my opinion, the state shouldn’t make it easy to be a drug addict. Addiction, after all, is based on choices, for which people should be held personally responsible.
People who become drug addicts make a series of choices to indulge their habit over and over again, until it finally becomes an addition (it takes upwards of a year for most individuals to get physically hooked). The principles of human psychology would suggest that it is better if we don’t reward bad choices.
As for drug users who commit real crimes, they should be punished in much the same way as other criminals. In prison, they should be required to take a class, learn a skill, or do something productive that will help to improve their situation. Those who fail to be proactive in improving their own lives deserve the pain they bring upon themselves.
Comment by Jeremy — August 1, 2008 #
Mr. Emery’s next extradition hearing is schedueled for February, 2009. With the upcoming federal election here in Canada. NOW is the time to make your voice heard:
Readers can sign an online petition against Marc Emery’s extradition at http://www.petitiononline.com/Emery/petition.html or they can download a paper copy by Googling “petition opposition extradition marc emery” and selecting the link.
Comment by JR — September 1, 2008 #
This issue is no longer about making pot legal. It’s about something MUCH larger- it’s about canadian soverignty. Read this if you’re uncertain:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=e343fa43-da3c-4864-a3fd-999a218650b0&k=80077
Mr. Emery’s next extradition hearing is schedueled for February, 2009. With the upcoming federal election here in Canada. NOW is the time to make your voice heard:
Readers can sign an online petition against Marc Emery’s extradition at
http://www.petitiononline.com/Emery/petition.html or they can download a paper copy by Googling “petition opposition extradition marc emery” and selecting the link.
Comment by Kelson — September 1, 2008 #
Thanks for your comments, JR and Kelson. You have my signature.
Comment by Jeremy — September 2, 2008 #