Comments on: Marijuana Activist, Marc Emery, to Run in Upcoming Elections

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 09:07:32 +0000

Thanks for your comments, JR and Kelson. You have my signature.

By: Kelson

Kelson — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:52:18 +0000

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.

By: JR

JR — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 08:14:38 +0000

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.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 05:29:15 +0000

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.

By: Lisa

Lisa — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 06:39:35 +0000

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.