# Marc Emery



## flatearthguy (Mar 22, 2006)

So what do you guys think about the US trying to extradite this guy?   Something Canada doesn't even prosecute as a crime can get this guy life in prison in the good old US of A?  If it is so dangerous and harmful why isn't Canada in complete collapse?  Why do they have a budget surplus?  Could it be that they don't waste their money enforcing one person's version of morality onto others?   Could it be that pot makes you an independant thinker and our incredibly strong govt would be somehow threatened by it?  Start asking questions.  Are we really THAT afraid of a hippie pot smoker that we have to spend $50,000 a year,  a teachers salary, to lock him up in a cage?   Please take some time to consider our priorities on this issue.  Teach your children your values,  trust them to make decisions for themsleves and LIVE AND LET LIVE.   Issues like this make me wonder if we are de-volving instead of evolving.


----------



## Nuc (Mar 22, 2006)

If a country gets into war against Germany and Japan for example they have to beat Germany and Japan and the war is over. 

However if morons declare "War on Drugs" "War on Terrorism" and so on, they know these are wars that can't be won. This guarantees perpetual tax dollars for the "War" they are fighting. Follow those tax dollars and you will see why we have these "Wars".


----------



## Said1 (Mar 22, 2006)

flatearthguy said:
			
		

> So what do you guys think about the US trying to extradite this guy?   Something Canada doesn't even prosecute as a crime can get this guy life in prison in the good old US of A?  If it is so dangerous and harmful why isn't Canada in complete collapse?  Why do they have a budget surplus?  Could it be that they don't waste their money enforcing one person's version of morality onto others?   Could it be that pot makes you an independant thinker and our incredibly strong govt would be somehow threatened by it?  Start asking questions.  Are we really THAT afraid of a hippie pot smoker that we have to spend $50,000 a year,  a teachers salary, to lock him up in a cage?   Please take some time to consider our priorities on this issue.  Teach your children your values,  trust them to make decisions for themsleves and LIVE AND LET LIVE.   Issues like this make me wonder if we are de-volving instead of evolving.



He sold seeds throught he mail right?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Mar 22, 2006)

Nuc said:
			
		

> If a country gets into war against Germany and Japan for example they have to beat Germany and Japan and the war is over.
> 
> However if morons declare "War on Drugs" "War on Terrorism" and so on, they know these are wars that can't be won. This guarantees perpetual tax dollars for the "War" they are fighting. Follow those tax dollars and you will see why we have these "Wars".



Yeah.  And schools are a scam too "the war on ignorance" ,whatever.  And the postal service too "The war on not being able to send letters".  It's all a grand manipulation.


----------



## Nuc (Mar 22, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Yeah.  And schools are a scam too "the war on ignorance" ,whatever.  And the postal service too "The war on not being able to send letters".  It's all a grand manipulation.



OK, let's take the "War on Drugs" as an example. Can it be "won"? No, people will always use drugs. In Inuit territory where drugs and alcohol are not available they sniff gasoline. A certain percentage of the population are hardwired to get fucked up and they'll do anything, legal or illegal, to do that. You can never defeat them, you can just put a few in jail. A tiny percentage. 

Anyway, how can there seriously be a "War on Drugs" going on when you can turn on the TV every day and see commercials telling you to go to the doctor and get a FREE trial prescription to Ambien? Viagra?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Mar 22, 2006)

Nuc said:
			
		

> OK, let's take the "War on Drugs" as an example. Can it be "won"? No, people will always use drugs. In Inuit territory where drugs and alcohol are not available they sniff gasoline. A certain percentage of the population are hardwired to get fucked up and they'll do anything, legal or illegal, to do that. You can never defeat them, you can just put a few in jail. A tiny percentage.
> 
> Anyway, how can there seriously be a "War on Drugs" going on when you can turn on the TV every day and see commercials telling you to go to the doctor and get a FREE trial prescription to Ambien? Viagra?



There can seriously be a war on drugs because drugs are very damaging to individuals and society.  They shouldn't be legal.  WOuld more people try them if they were legal?  YES.  Maybe it shouldn't be called a "war" per se, but that's just a slogan.  Get over it.


----------



## Nuc (Mar 22, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> There can seriously be a war on drugs because drugs are very damaging to individuals and society.  They shouldn't be legal.  WOuld more people try them if they were legal?  YES.  Maybe it shouldn't be called a "war" per se, but that's just a slogan.  Get over it.



Why should I get over the butchery of the English language? I thought that's why we all hate rap music. It trivializes the word "War" when the government abuses it. 

And drugs are no more damaging to society and individuals than alcohol, tobacco, fast food, sex, religion, cars, etc. 

Or do you honestly think pot causes more problems in society than alcohol or tobacco?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Mar 22, 2006)

Nuc said:
			
		

> Why should I get over the butchery of the English language? I thought that's why we all hate rap music. It trivializes the word "War" when the government abuses it.
> 
> And drugs are no more damaging to society and individuals than alcohol, tobacco, fast food, sex, religion, cars, etc.
> 
> Or do you honestly think pot causes more problems in society than alcohol or tobacco?



So is this a language issue or a policy issue?  Do you even know anymore?

No it doesn't cause more problems than those.  I've smoked enough reefer kill a herd of elephants in my time,  but I'm not gonna sit here and say it's good for me, or compare it to other bad habits.


----------



## Nuc (Mar 22, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> No it doesn't cause more problems than those.



Then why should pot be illegal and alcohol legal? Tobacco? To maintain a status quo?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Mar 22, 2006)

Nuc said:
			
		

> Then why should pot be illegal and alcohol legal? Tobacco? To maintain a status quo?



To piss off hippies.


----------



## Nuc (Mar 22, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> To piss off hippies.



There are other ways to piss off hippies. Burn Joni Mitchell albums. Wear bellbottoms with your suit. Say that Hillary is a "chick". Go into a vegetarian restaurant and order prime rib.


----------



## Mr. P (Mar 22, 2006)

The war on drugs is the biggest waste of money and man power that exists. IMO
Its been ongoing for what, 35years or more? No change yet. People still use and grow it,.
they always will, moonshine anyone?

I would be fine with legalization of  Marijuana. Regulate the use as we do alcohol and tobacco, and tax it. Odd that tobacco is regulated but you can grow it yourself if you want to, legally. Same with alcohol. Why do most choose to buy instead of grow, or brew? Maybe because its legal.

Personally, I think if Marijuana was legal wed see a major decline in alcohol consumption.
Perhaps the liquor industry and their lobbyist know this to be true.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Mar 22, 2006)

Mr. P said:
			
		

> The war on drugs is the biggest waste of money and man power that exists. IMO
> Its been ongoing for what, 35years or more? No change yet. People still use and grow it,.
> they always will, moonshine anyone?
> 
> ...



I actually agree. I just felt like arguing with nuc!


----------



## Nuc (Mar 22, 2006)

Mr. P said:
			
		

> The war on drugs is the biggest waste of money and man power that exists. IMO
> Its been ongoing for what, 35years or more? No change yet. .



But somehow they think this futile war was such a success that they started a new unwinnable "War against terrorism". That will be another interminable drain on public funds


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Mar 22, 2006)

But we still should keep cocaine, opiates ,and meth, illegal.


----------



## Nuc (Mar 22, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I actually agree. I just felt like arguing with nuc!



Well, in that case, I no longer agree. Pot should be illegal. I don't even have to say why....just because it is!


----------



## Nuc (Mar 22, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> But we still should keep cocaine, opiates ,and meth, illegal.



Opiates? Tell your buddies Cheney and Karzai. Since we entered Afghanistan the poppy trade has increased.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Mar 22, 2006)

Nuc said:
			
		

> But somehow they think this futile war was such a success that they started a new unwinnable "War against terrorism". That will be another interminable drain on public funds




It's not futile to keep crack, meth, and opiates illegal.  There's no way those should be legal.

And the war on terror is totally different.  Apples and oranges.  It's seems your making the logical jump that since one thing beginning with "war on" is stupid in your opinion, then therefore everything beginning with "war on" must be bad. Are you high?


----------



## Mr. P (Mar 22, 2006)

Nuc said:
			
		

> But somehow they think this futile war was such a success that they started a new unwinnable "War against terrorism". That will be another interminable drain on public funds


Two entirely different things. One is winnable.


----------



## Mr. P (Mar 22, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> But we still should keep cocaine, opiates ,and meth, illegal.


I agree.


----------



## Nuc (Mar 22, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> It's not futile to keep crack, meth, and opiates illegal.  There's no way those should be legal.
> 
> And the war on terror is totally different.  Apples and oranges.  It's seems your making the logical jump that since one thing beginning with "war on" is stupid in your opinion, then therefore everything beginning with "war on" must be bad. Are you high?



They are both unwinnable "wars". Why is the government choosing to declare "wars" that are unwinnable? 

Terrorism is such a huge term that it can never be won. War on Iraq, maybe, War on Al Quaeda, maybe, "War on Terrorism" never. 

That's the comparison. Futility.

If they want to declare a winnable bogus "war", such as "War on Illiteracy" I'd be OK with that if they came up with a solid plan and stuck with it.


----------



## The ClayTaurus (Mar 22, 2006)

Nuc said:
			
		

> They are both unwinnable "wars". Why is the government choosing to declare "wars" that are unwinnable?
> 
> Terrorism is such a huge term that it can never be won. War on Iraq, maybe, War on Al Quaeda, maybe, "War on Terrorism" never.
> 
> ...


Kind of like "war on people who want to blow us up"


----------



## 5stringJeff (Mar 22, 2006)

MJ should be legal.  Do a search on my posts on marijuana and you'll see my reasoning.

Other hard drugs should not be legal.  Dealers should get 10+ years.


----------



## Nuc (Mar 22, 2006)

Mr. P said:
			
		

> Two entirely different things. One is winnable.



Get back to me in about fifty years. When you see I was right, you can buy me a beer.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Mar 22, 2006)

Keeping crack illegal is not futile.  Neither is defending ourselves from terrorists.  You're smoking too much, herb, nuc.


----------



## Nuc (Mar 22, 2006)

The ClayTaurus said:
			
		

> Kind of like "war on people who want to blow us up"



Then declare a war on the people who are doing it, not the act of Terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic. It will always be there, and it will be used by many different people ranging from Tim McVeigh to Osama. Terrorism will never be eradicated. That's like saying a "War on Bullets", "War on Camouflage". Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy.


----------



## Nuc (Mar 22, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Keeping crack illegal is not futile.  Neither is defending ourselves from terrorists.  You're smoking too much, herb, nuc.



I'm glad you said that. The other person who has made that unfounded speculation is Archie. Are you guys related, or just think alike? Where did I say I was smoking herb?


----------



## Mr. P (Mar 22, 2006)

Nuc said:
			
		

> They are both unwinnable "wars". Why is the government choosing to declare "wars" that are unwinnable?
> 
> Terrorism is such a huge term that it can never be won. War on Iraq, maybe, War on Al Quaeda, maybe, "War on Terrorism" never.
> 
> ...


No terrorism can be defeated, not the term but the act as defined now. Some may still occur, but overall how many people in the world do you think will support endless killing effecting many vs a toke of Marijuana, which effects no one but the user (for the most part)?


----------



## Nuc (Mar 22, 2006)

Mr. P said:
			
		

> No terrorism can be defeated, not the term but the act as defined now. Some may still occur, but overall how many people in the world do you think will support endless killing effecting many vs a toke of Marijuana, which effects no one but the user (for the most part)?



I hope you are right and I'm wrong about terrorism being here to stay. Maybe I'm cynical because these are the same people who declared a totally silly "War on Drugs". 

I think we should fight terrorism when it occurs and try to prevent it. However calling it the "War on Terror" I think is a mistake. They should say, "We were attacked by Al Qaeda and now we are going to take them on". Calling it war on terror almost seems to invite other groups currently on the sideline to join the fray. Better to win a lot of battles than lose a "WAR".


----------



## Mr. P (Mar 22, 2006)

Nuc said:
			
		

> ...
> I think we should fight terrorism when it occurs and try to prevent it. *However calling it the "War on Terror" I think is a mistake.* They should say, "We were attacked by Al Qaeda and now we are going to take them on". Calling it war on terror almost seems to invite other groups currently on the sideline to join the fray. Better to win a lot of battles than lose a "WAR".


I understand your point.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Mar 22, 2006)

Nuc said:
			
		

> I'm glad you said that. The other person who has made that unfounded speculation is Archie. Are you guys related, or just think alike? Where did I say I was smoking herb?




So you know for a fact defending ourselves from terrorists is futile?  


All your semantic flim flammery is unimpressive.  It doesn't really matter what we call the war against islamic terrorism.


----------



## Nuc (Mar 22, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> So you know for a fact defending ourselves from terrorists is futile?
> 
> 
> All your semantic flim flammery is unimpressive.  It doesn't really matter what we call the war against islamic terrorism.



What does this have to do with whether I'm smoking herb? You're losing your train of thought. Are you smoking herb?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Mar 22, 2006)

Nuc said:
			
		

> What does this have to do with whether I'm smoking herb? You're losing your train of thought. Are you smoking herb?



That was a tangential rhetorical witticism.  Focus, Foghat.


----------



## Nuc (Mar 22, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> That was a tangential rhetorical witticism.  Focus, Foghat.



Is defending ourselves from terrorists futile? First off, hate to get semantic on you again, but see if you can follow this. When Bush and the rest say that we should support our troops who are defending us, what is that? They would be defending us if they were here. They are there, which means that the United States is not being defended. If anything the people who are resisting are defending themselves and their country. "Defending our country" is another term I don't like to see abused. 

When we should have defended ourselves, like with 9/11 and the Cole bombing we didn't because people were focussed on other things. Obviously we had the intelligence to do a much better job of defending, but somehow things got lost in the shuffle.    :usa:


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Mar 23, 2006)

Nuc said:
			
		

> Is defending ourselves from terrorists futile? First off, hate to get semantic on you again, but see if you can follow this. When Bush and the rest say that we should support our troops who are defending us, what is that? They would be defending us if they were here. They are there, which means that the United States is not being defended. If anything the people who are resisting are defending themselves and their country. "Defending our country" is another term I don't like to see abused.
> 
> When we should have defended ourselves, like with 9/11 and the Cole bombing we didn't because people were focussed on other things. Obviously we had the intelligence to do a much better job of defending, but somehow things got lost in the shuffle.    :usa:



You're totally wrong.  Our enemies who would be focusing on domestic attacks are focusing there instead.  Plus  the Iraq war is a projection of power into the region to keep regimes there scared and considering whether or not they should support terror in the first place. The best defense is a good offense. Your hang up on slogans is not indicative of great intellect.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Mar 23, 2006)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x732283


Nuc is cali


----------



## Nienna (Mar 23, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x732283
> 
> 
> Nuc is cali


LOL! You may be right!


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Mar 23, 2006)

mom4 said:
			
		

> LOL! You may be right!



may?


----------



## Nienna (Mar 23, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> may?


:rotflmao:
As soon as I saw you replied, I knew what you said!

You are 100% correct, no doubt in my mind, oh testosterone god! :hail:

Is that better?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Mar 23, 2006)

mom4 said:
			
		

> :rotflmao:
> As soon as I saw you replied, I knew what you said!
> 
> You are 100% correct, no doubt in my mind, oh testosterone god! :hail:
> ...



LOL.  Silly!  You rock the house!


----------



## Nuc (Mar 23, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x732283
> 
> 
> Nuc is cali



Yeah maybe I am. 

Or maybe I'm not the only person in this country who understands English and doesn't think it's the governments job to mangle it.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Mar 23, 2006)

Nuc said:
			
		

> Yeah maybe I am.
> 
> Or maybe I'm not the only person in this country who understands English and doesn't think it's the governments job to mangle it.



The point is your word games are not actual policy criticisms.


----------



## Nuc (Mar 23, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> The point is your word games are not actual policy criticisms.



My policy criticism is very clear. The government should not declare "wars" (that are not wars) against things that cannot be defeated, for example drug use. 

Regarding terrorism I have a problem with the "War on Terror" because the term is too broad. Declare war on Al Qaeda. Declare war on a country like Iraq. Those are definable enemies. "Terror" is not. 

Think about if the US PR machine declared "War on Facism" rather than simply declaring actual war against Germany and Italy. That's a "war" which would have never been won, because facism still exists. I guess that's the point. They like declaring "wars" that will never end and can't be won. 

My question to you is "why"?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Mar 23, 2006)

Nuc said:
			
		

> My policy criticism is very clear. The government should not declare "wars" (that are not wars) against things that cannot be defeated, for example drug use.
> 
> Regarding terrorism I have a problem with the "War on Terror" because the term is too broad. Declare war on Al Qaeda. Declare war on a country like Iraq. Those are definable enemies. "Terror" is not.
> 
> ...



But if they didn't refer to them as "wars", what would your criticism be?.  We shouldn't address islamofascist terror?  We should legalize crack and meth?


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Mar 23, 2006)

You're into "final solutions",  like Hitler.


----------



## Nuc (Mar 23, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> But if they didn't refer to them as "wars", what would your criticism be?.  We shouldn't address islamofascist terror?  We should legalize crack and meth?



The so called "War on Drugs" is actually "War on the drug users we would like to lock up". It's very selectively enforced mainly against dumb hippies and blacks. It is not a serious war against drug use. Plus as I mentioned in a previous post, it is hypocrisy when drug companies can ante up and buy propaganda time on Monday Night Football to convince you to go to the doc and pick up your free trial prescription of Ambien. Gimme a break! 

If they want to declare "War on Islam" I would almost be behind that because it's more honest and that is what it will eventually come down to anyway. Let's stop beating around the bush, Bush. "Religion of Peace" my ass.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Mar 23, 2006)

Nuc said:
			
		

> The so called "War on Drugs" is actually "War on the drug users we would like to lock up". It's very selectively enforced mainly against dumb hippies and blacks. It is not a serious war against drug use. Plus as I mentioned in a previous post, it is hypocrisy when drug companies can ante up and buy propaganda time on Monday Night Football to convince you to go to the doc and pick up your free trial prescription of Ambien. Gimme a break!
> 
> If they want to declare "War on Islam" I would almost be behind that because it's more honest and that is what it will eventually come down to anyway. Let's stop beating around the bush, Bush. "Religion of Peace" my ass.



Let's just call them both Felix and be done with it.


----------



## 5stringJeff (Mar 23, 2006)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x732283
> 
> 
> Nuc is cali


Check out the DU nutjob's equivocation between us and them:



			
				DU Nutjob said:
			
		

> The Boston Tea Party was, in it's day, a terrorist act.


----------

