Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Marc Emery on the Police State


Recommended Posts

No, but do I think the manner in which freedom is not being defended is the real issue here.

Its been pointed out that the state and the police are pretty lackadaisical about enforcing the prohibition of pot and its fairly obvious many people have no problem just shrugging this off. To me this seems like a really sloppy way of treating the very concept of individual freedom and I think its this sloppiness that threatens us all the most. The door has been left wide open for bias, be it for racial, economic or ideological resaons and the abuse of power at the hands of police and the justice system.

Ok, let me get this straight...

You don't really care as much if marijuana is legalized; you just think think that the letter of the law should be followed, so if we have the laws on the books people should be arrested?

If you want to argue that having unenforced laws might lead to abuse, I'd agree... it is a potential problem. But then, there are 2 other things to consider:

- Canada has a much better record of tolerance than the U.S. While the potential for abuse is there, you're less likely to see abuses than you would in the U.S.

- Many of the other abuses of freedom I've pointed out have already been used in a biased manner. If you are going to complain about the potential of abuse due to selective enforcement of drug laws, you should be prepared to complain about such abuses happening with other laws too.

Consider for example the Little Sister's book store case... they were a gay book store that regularly had its shipments seized by customs canada. On the other hand, those same materials were freely available in other book stores in the country. It was ruled that this store was being targeted by Custom's Canada. And this was a real case, not some 'theoretical' situation where there "might" be abuse.

Or how about other abuses of free speech? Not all "negative" speech is banned. There is, in theory, the possibility of statements made by a certain individual being ruled as "hate speech" while similar statements by others is deemed acceptable because of political correctness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 188
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ok, let me get this straight...

You don't really care as much if marijuana is legalized; you just think think that the letter of the law should be followed, so if we have the laws on the books people should be arrested?

If you want to argue that having unenforced laws might lead to abuse, I'd agree... it is a potential problem. But then, there are 2 other things to consider:

- Canada has a much better record of tolerance than the U.S. While the potential for abuse is there, you're less likely to see abuses than you would in the U.S.

- Many of the other abuses of freedom I've pointed out have already been used in a biased manner. If you are going to complain about the potential of abuse due to selective enforcement of drug laws, you should be prepared to complain about such abuses happening with other laws too.

Consider for example the Little Sister's book store case... they were a gay book store that regularly had its shipments seized by customs canada. On the other hand, those same materials were freely available in other book stores in the country. It was ruled that this store was being targeted by Custom's Canada. And this was a real case, not some 'theoretical' situation where there "might" be abuse.

Or how about other abuses of free speech? Not all "negative" speech is banned. There is, in theory, the possibility of statements made by a certain individual being ruled as "hate speech" while similar statements by others is deemed acceptable because of political correctness.

You like to say Emery is not a libertarian because all he cares about is legalized pot, but that is false. Emery used to run a bookstore where he protested sunday shopping laws and sold the banned 2Live crew record. Both activities are now commonplace across Canada. Thank you again Marc Emery for standing up for freedom on many fronts. Marc sees oppression and injustice for what it is and stands up to actually change things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You like to say Emery is not a libertarian because all he cares about is legalized pot, but that is false. Emery used to run a bookstore where he protested sunday shopping laws and sold the banned 2Live crew record. Both activities are now commonplace across Canada. Thank you again Marc Emery for standing up for freedom on many fronts. Marc sees oppression and injustice for what it is and stands up to actually change things.

Hey, Emery might have been a Libertarian at one time. He may even consider himself a libertarian now. However, there are many possibilities:

- He may have actually changed his stance on certain issues (people do that some times, you know)

- He may never have subscribed to full libertarian principles, but only engaged in libertarian politics because they supported the freedoms he wanted, even if he personally rejected other elements of libertarian ideals

- He may have developed tunnel vision because he overstresses this one particular issue (partly due to his own business and legal issues)

Much like Anakin Skywalker... he may have started good (with noble principles), but he's gone over to the dark side.

Unfortuantely I cannot speak with Emery personally, but I'd be very curious how he would reconcile the anti-economic freedom and the anti-free speech aspects of the NDP with his own supposedly libertarian beliefs.

By the way still waiting to see where in C-51 that safe and effective natural products are going to be banned. I provided a link to the text of the bill. If you're so sure of your opinions you should be able to find a reference pretty well. Or ask one of your 'natural product' selling buddies. I'm sure they're experts in the field of law and politics and can find the reference for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, let me get this straight...

You don't really care as much if marijuana is legalized; you just think think that the letter of the law should be followed, so if we have the laws on the books people should be arrested?

Yes, in a roundabout way I suppose. I think its critically important that people clearly understand that they are governed by the rule of law. To be more succinct though, if we have laws on the books that are not being enforced then we should do away with them. Laws that are enforced in a whimsical manner exacerbates the potential for abuse with social dysfunction. We are only inviting even more capricousness into our political system and asking for trouble. Imagine we get a government run by Vic Towes one day and Keith Martin the next and then back to someone like Randy White. We did have Paul Martin talking decriminalization and then Stephen Harper talking about cracking down and getting tough. In the interim we've also seen a few court rulings that have many people, especially young people doubting whether pot is even illegal or not. In the meantime cops don't seem to know what else to do and they're simply taking people's pot away without charging them.

Another way of looking at it is, we better not create laws that are unenforcable. As it is we already probably have way more than we need. Use 'em or lose 'em I say.

If you want to argue that having unenforced laws might lead to abuse, I'd agree... it is a potential problem. But then, there are 2 other things to consider:

- Canada has a much better record of tolerance than the U.S. While the potential for abuse is there, you're less likely to see abuses than you would in the U.S.

- Many of the other abuses of freedom I've pointed out have already been used in a biased manner. If you are going to complain about the potential of abuse due to selective enforcement of drug laws, you should be prepared to complain about such abuses happening with other laws too.

Perhaps Canadians have a lot more tolerance for being abused. OTOH Canadians may also be more willing to abuse one another.

I am complaining actually.

Where I live there is a small group of pissed off parents (some who's kids who are addicted to crack I might add) that are forming a neighbourhood watch/action committee of sorts. The local RCMP are working closely with them and have convinced this group they are powerless to enforce drug laws and that the legal system is paralyzed. Instead the RCMP propose this group provide the community with a profile of what a drug house looks like and bascially let people's fear, loathing and intimidation do what the legal system can't. This process will apparently involve letters being circulated amongst people's neighbourhoods that are hand delivered by the police. This group is not making any distinction between pot or crack and interstingly they have clearly stated that alcohol is in their sights too. So far though they haven't described what an alcohol house looks like or proposed any sort of action to force alcohol dealers out of the community. Go figure. The group also calls for new and existing bylaws to get people to clean and fix up their houses and property, presumably so profiled houses become more obvious. In the articles this group have put to press they have repeatedly likened themselves to the generals of Stalingrad fighting against Hitler, they've described how people hate being watched and have invited neighbours to spy on one another. As I said the RCMP is working very closely with this group. I don't know what goes through your mind when Stalin, the idea of people spying on eath other and agents of the state become implicated in the same moral engineering crusade but if your high regard for liberty is any indcation I would think alarm bells should be going off.

I'm the only individual who's written letters to our local paper questioning their objectives and methods. A number of people have privately told me they also disapprove of the way the RCMP have worked with this group but they were too afraid to publicly speak out against it. The intimidation appears to be working.

Last year a similar group pressured the municipality to vote against a zoning bylaw that would have allowed a mental health and addictions facility in town. These folks really took the cake for bullshit. In public they pointed to the lack of affordable housing in town and said they were concerned that people who had to use this facility would lose the homes they were renting - their case was built on pity for and the premise that, only low income people suffer addiction or mental health, they effectively said treating them would make thier lives worse. What this group was saying to people in private however, when they were frightening people into signing their petition, was that by allowing this assisted living facility the ditches would soon fill up with needles and that weirdos would be creeping around the village at night. I publicly complained against these tactics and the villages decision through several letters to the editor and presentations to council and I was pretty much on my own in that case too. I wonder why the RCMP didn't publicly speak up about the lack of treatment for addicts? At least one did in private to me.

I promise you that if I ever see the RCMP working closely with socialists or public censorship committees on how to watch and profile capitalists or free speakers and circulating letters against them I'll be writing letters to the editor and making public presentations against that too.

Edited by eyeball
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, in a roundabout way I suppose. I think its critically important that people clearly understand that they are governed by the rule of law. To be more succinct though, if we have laws on the books that are not being enforced then we should do away with them. Laws that are enforced in a whimsical manner exacerbates the potential for abuse with social dysfunction.

Hey, I agree, getting rid of unused laws (or partially enforced laws) is a good idea.

However, I don't think it would actually eliminate the problem where the police or others in the government unfairly target individuals. After all, a certain amount of discretion will probably be needed when dealing with all laws.

Take for example assault... I'm pretty sure everyone here agrees we require a law against assault. Yet how exactly do you define assault? If I get into a shoving match in a bar, is that assault? Somewhere along the line there will have to be some policeman who has to make the distinction between something that was worthy of being classified as assault, and something that could be considered a harmless shove. Of course there's always the possibility for racism; a cop could overlook a pushing match involving white guys, but end up arresting black guys for pretty much the same thing. There's simply no way to avoid the possibility of such 'racism' occurring through direct legal means.

Another way of looking at it is, we better not create laws that are unenforcable. As it is we already probably have way more than we need. Use 'em or lose 'em I say.

Hey, since the start of the thread I've stated that it might be beneficial to reform the drug laws. I just don't see it as such a significant issue dealing with our freedom as many of the others.

I promise you that if I ever see the RCMP working closely with socialists or public censorship committees on how to watch and profile capitalists or free speakers and circulating letters against them I'll be writing letters to the editor and making public presentations against that too.

False argument. The fact is, the RCMP wouldn't have to get people to monitor and/or profile capitalists. Any such abuses or loss of freedom would come through other mechanisms. If, for example, I thought taxes and social spending were excessive and decided not to pay my tax for the year (preferring the freedom to fund my own 'social programs'), I wouldn't need to be monitored by citizens or the RCMP, I'd be caught by Revenue Canada (or whatever they call themselves these days.)

And if someone complains about "hate speech", they don't necessarily need to go through the RCMP, they can go through the human rights commissions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
False argument. The fact is, the RCMP wouldn't have to get people to monitor and/or profile capitalists. Any such abuses or loss of freedom would come through other mechanisms. If, for example, I thought taxes and social spending were excessive and decided not to pay my tax for the year (preferring the freedom to fund my own 'social programs'), I wouldn't need to be monitored by citizens or the RCMP, I'd be caught by Revenue Canada (or whatever they call themselves these days.)

And if someone complains about "hate speech", they don't necessarily need to go through the RCMP, they can go through the human rights commissions.

I wasn't making an argument, I was simply saying I'd be there to speak up if anyone came for you.

As it stands right now in Canada, if someone thinks your house looks funny the RCMP can circulate letters through your community advising your neighbours to watch you and you're not worried in the least.

With Libertarians like you for citizens who needs a tyrant?

Edited by eyeball
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we may have some good news south of the border.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/30/fra...uana/index.html

Looking to decriminalize people who have pot in their possession. But you must have under 100 grams. Damn that is just about 3.5 ounces of it. That would last me like 4 months. Who the hell carries around 4 months of supply on them for personal reasons? It does not happen. IF you have 3.5 ounces on you ... chances are you are selling and this is not a personal stash. It might get accepted if you have under 50 grams. Which is still a large amount for personal use. But then again, sometimes I have 2-3 cases of beer in the fridge.

I applaude the effort though. It does not stand much of a chance of getting passed, but at least the effort is made and awareness is made.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't making an argument, I was simply saying I'd be there to speak up if anyone came for you.

Really? Even if I decided the level of taxation/social spending was too high, and decided not to pay my taxes for a year, you'd actually try to keep me from going to jail?

As it stands right now in Canada, if someone thinks your house looks funny the RCMP can circulate letters through your community advising your neighbours to watch you and you're not worried in the least.

While that does have the potential to cause some, ahem, unfortunate situations, I don't consider it a serious transgression...

After all:

- Having libertarian ideals means that you oppose having the government interfere with your life. A neighborhood watch program (regardless of how annoying the citizens get over it) has the government playing only a minor role, if any (and citizens can, if they choose, back out of such watches if they choose). Personally, if there were a "suspicious" house in the neighborhood, wouldn't it be better to have private citizens watching it rather than dozens of extra cops?

- Consider the alternative... people become paranoid about the 'strange' house down the block, and decide to take preemptive action without any sort of police involvement, only to find the people there are totally innocent. At least with the police involved, they may act as a mechanism to prevent vigilante justice

- Even if citizens are watching some house where drug use is going on, they have no ability to actually press charges themselves. For that, the police have to get involved (which still involves all the legal protections of any other similar situation.)

Earlier you had criticized people for not wanting things like mental health and addition treatment facilities in their area. Well, welcome to the concept of "NIMBY", a concept that seems to cut clear across the political spectrum. (To be honest, I can certainly understand people's concerns over the issue... if you have paid a significant amount to live in a 'safe' neighborhood you'd hate to see your house value go down due to the presence of a drug treatment center in the area. Even if the 'risks' are overemphasized, the drop in property values could be significant. Unfortunately, I have no good solutions for situations when one person's activities (crack house, mental health center) negatively affects someone else's property. About the only solution I could think of is more use of 'gated communities', but of course that would probably be seen by many people to be a bad thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In a shot at Republicans, Frank said it was strange that those who support limited government want to criminalize marijuana.

No kidding. I suspect segnosaur, Pliny and many self-described freedom fighters routinely try to polish their Libertarian creds by publicly agreeing prohibition is wrong but privately vote for parties that practice it anyway. Kind of like some perverse modern day Uncle Tom for authoritarians or perhaps Benedict Arnold would be a better analogy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No kidding. I suspect segnosaur, Pliny and many self-described freedom fighters routinely try to polish their Libertarian creds by publicly agreeing prohibition is wrong but privately vote for parties that practice it anyway. Kind of like some perverse modern day Uncle Tom for authoritarians or perhaps Benedict Arnold would be a better analogy.

What do you mean 'privately' vote for parties? I've stated several times in this forum that I voted for the Conservative party in the last election, even though I don't agree with all their policies.

Why did I do that?

- Because even though I have libertarian ideals (believing in smaller government), I do believe the Libertarians often carry those policies too far for my liking

- Because, even if the Libertarian party itself were the best fit based on my principles, voting for them (for better or worse) would be basically a wasted vote.

- Despite not agreeing with all aspects of the Conservative party policies, they are closest to my ideals of freedom. Any of the major parties that I might support (at least that have a chance to win my riding) believe in some restriction in freedom. I just choose the lesser of 3 evils.

If the Conservative party decides to take on stronger "social conservative" aspects, if they decide to try to ban abortion, force religion in schools, increase censorship, etc. I will likely end up supporting another party. At this point in time however, the risk of that is virtually nill.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey, Emery might have been a Libertarian at one time. He may even consider himself a libertarian now. However, there are many possibilities:

- He may have actually changed his stance on certain issues (people do that some times, you know)

- He may never have subscribed to full libertarian principles, but only engaged in libertarian politics because they supported the freedoms he wanted, even if he personally rejected other elements of libertarian ideals

- He may have developed tunnel vision because he overstresses this one particular issue (partly due to his own business and legal issues)

Much like Anakin Skywalker... he may have started good (with noble principles), but he's gone over to the dark side.

Unfortuantely I cannot speak with Emery personally, but I'd be very curious how he would reconcile the anti-economic freedom and the anti-free speech aspects of the NDP with his own supposedly libertarian beliefs.

By the way still waiting to see where in C-51 that safe and effective natural products are going to be banned. I provided a link to the text of the bill. If you're so sure of your opinions you should be able to find a reference pretty well. Or ask one of your 'natural product' selling buddies. I'm sure they're experts in the field of law and politics and can find the reference for you.

I don't believe I actually said c51 bans natural health products but I may have. C51 effectively bans natural health products by putting so many restrictions and huge costs to the approval process that only the largest companies will be able to afford to enter the market. Tony Clement's pharma company will appreciate the monopoly on health care. Who decides what is a false claim BTW? Does PharmaTony get to decide? C51 will make it illegal to sell garlic pills especially if you claim that they help to ward off colds/flus, even though garlic has been used as a traditional medicine for centuries. I'm sorry but I don't think natural herbs and nutritional supplements need to be subject to the same kind of testing regime as say VIOXX does. If I believe that taking Garlic pills helps me stay healthy that should be my business, and I should be free to purchase them from any company that I feel safe using. Technically under C51 it is illegal to give your child a bowl of chicken soup if you tell them it will make them feel better. Even growing/gathering your own herbs for therapeutic purposes is illegal if C51 is passed.

Anybody with any power of observation can see that Harper's (reform) Conservative party is an authoritarian regime, and farthest on the political spectrum from libertarianism of all the political choices available. Trying to claim that either the Liberals or NDP are as bad a choice for freedom lovers is just ridiculous. Any intelligent person would laugh at such a suggestion.

Being a Libertarian does not only mean you don't believe government should interfere with your life it also means you don't believe that society (citizens) should be allowed to interfere with your life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't believe I actually said c51 bans natural health products but I may have.

Your exact quote was: they want to basically make all natural health products that compete with Tony Clements pharmaceuticals illegal. . (http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=11573&view=findpost&p=325532)

That was obviously incorrect.

C51 effectively bans natural health products by putting so many restrictions and huge costs to the approval process that only the largest companies will be able to afford to enter the market.

Except it doesn't.

Your local snake oil salesman can keep selling his herbal pills if he wants. (The government will be doing random checks, as they should with all food items, but there is no costly 'approval' process.)

The only approval process is if this snake oil salesman wants to prove his product cures something. Then, you need a clinical trial.

Oh, and just in case you are arguing that it would cost too much to get "natural products" approved, keep in mind that the market for natural products in Canada is $2.5 billion. Assuming things in the U.S. are proportional, that would mean that the total North American market for "natural products" is $27.5 billion dollars. Thats more than the research budget of the top 5 drug manufacturers in the world (companies that put out dozens of products).

Tony Clement's pharma company will appreciate the monopoly on health care.

Except the problem is, there is no pharmaceutical company in the world that has a monopoly. Here's a list of over 100 companies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharm...tical_companies. Any one of them can sell products in Canada.

Who decides what is a false claim BTW?

Ever hear of the term 'clinical trial'? The scientific method? Control groups?

Pharmaceutical companies have to go through the steps to prove their stuff works. If you want to claim that natural medicines do the same types of stuff pharmaceutical companies do, then why should they not prove it?

C51 will make it illegal to sell garlic pills especially if you claim that they help to ward off colds/flus, even though garlic has been used as a traditional medicine for centuries.

The fact that its been used as a traditional medicine does not mean that its effective. Believe it or not, not all folklore is based in reality.

Nothing keeping companies from selling garlic pills. Nothing keeping you from using them. They just can't claim they fight colds if they don't.

I'm sorry but I don't think natural herbs and nutritional supplements need to be subject to the same kind of testing regime as say VIOXX does.

Why not? People have died from using 'natural' health medicine. I've already pointed to one in a previous post. Just to remind you...

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/baby-d...5321684868.html

...a baby who died after they treated her with homeopathic remedies.

Technically under C51 it is illegal to give your child a bowl of chicken soup if you tell them it will make them feel better.

No it isn't, for 2 reasons.

Reason 1: As a private individual, any claims they make do not have any 'legal' weight. (If I tell you to take 2 aspirins to cure a headache and you end up dying from it, I'm not liable because I don't have any expertise in the field. If a doctor does so, they would be liable.) I have a friend who's a doctor who explained all that to me.

Reason 2: Because "feeling better" is a term that does not have a very specific definition. Heck, even your herbal medicine companies could continue claiming their stuff makes you "feel better". They just can't say it makes you "feel better because it cures your disease".

Even growing/gathering your own herbs for therapeutic purposes is illegal if C51 is passed.

Except it won't. From: http://www.healthycanadians.ca/pr-rp/facts-c51-fiches_e.html

Bill C-51 does not regulate growing an herb garden.

Trying to claim that either the Liberals or NDP are as bad a choice for freedom lovers is just ridiculous.

Please explain how taking away my economic choices (as the NDP would do) is improving my freedom?

Please explain how my right to free speech is improved by having a human rights commission ruling against people for hate speech?

Being a Libertarian does not only mean you don't believe government should interfere with your life it also means you don't believe that society (citizens) should be allowed to interfere with your life.

Actually, no it doesn't.

As long as individual citizens are not taking steps to cause actual physical harm to yourself or your property, their actions would be valid under liberal ideals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As long as individual citizens are not taking steps to cause actual physical harm to yourself or your property, their actions would be valid under liberal ideals.

Actually individual citizens or groups of individual citizens doing anything to impede my ability to use myself or my property however I see fit, so long as I am not harming anyone else will never be OK under libertarian ideals, I don't know where you get that from. An individual or group of individuals forcing their will upon me is "harming" me. It matters not wether it is government officials or some busybody jesus freaks, the libertarian says stay the fuck out of my life and my business to all of them.

Speaking of jesus freaks, maybe we should prohibit religion, because I have seen more people hopelessly addicted to "praise and worship" than I have seen addicted to any drug. Turns their brains to mush too. Ever try speaking to these mushheads? They still think the universe is only a couple of thousand years old, and that people can be possessed by demons. We should really pass a law to protect them from themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No kidding. I suspect segnosaur, Pliny and many self-described freedom fighters routinely try to polish their Libertarian creds by publicly agreeing prohibition is wrong but privately vote for parties that practice it anyway. Kind of like some perverse modern day Uncle Tom for authoritarians or perhaps Benedict Arnold would be a better analogy.

What party doesn't practice the law? If you are suggesting that the NDP will support the decriminalization of marijuana, which I believe all parties should do and are indeed working toward for simple possession, then you should think again. They will bring in the worst legislation if they bring in any at all. They are desperate for votes. They realize they will never even form a minority government but hey if they can get a few extra votes from an empty promise why not!

We have to agree that the party that is the most inclined toward social engineering is the NDP. If you wish the nanny state to be effectively instituted then vote for the NDP. There are a few who feel the nanny state is necessary and you are free to cast your ballot for them. If it ever happened they grabbed the seat of government you would be sadly disappointed, not only in their administration but in their determination to keep a controlled substance under the control of government. I would prefer legislation that allowed more individual choice, the NDP will never offer that. They are the protector of the worker and expect the support of the worker in their beliefs that the worker is too dumb to look after himself let alone be concerned about society so he needs the guidance and help of the State for which you will pay dearly. You would rue the day you ever even thought of voting NDP and curse Marc Emery yourself, especially if your only issue is the decriminalization of marijuana. If you think you need the nanny state and everyone should bow down to it you just might love them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill C-51 does not target Canadians' personal use of natural health products.

Link.

Actually it does. I can sell you a bag of kelp powder with one hand and a bag of empty capsules with the other. I can tell you how much to fill your capsules with and how many I eat a day. If you want me to sell you a bag of capsules filled with kelp powder however I'll have to come up with nearly $20,000 to cover the product testing, labelling, registration, identification numbers etc etc etc that Bill C-51 requires.

The minute I put my product into a capsule it falls under the regulatory purview of C-51 and the smothering embrace of Nanny. The difference between liberty and crime is a double O capsule or a 1/4 teaspoon. This is food I'm talking about, not a drug. I can't simply say each capsule contains a 1/4 teaspoon and the suggested serving is 1/2 a teaspoon I have to say two capsules a day and use the word dosage instead of serving. To do do that I have to spend thousands of dollars up front and thousands per year ever after to justify why. This has less to do with product safety than it has to do with free speech in my mind. I confirmed this in discussions with Health Canada officials. I was also informed I couldn't use the same federally and provincially inspected and licenced packaging room I use for putting kelp into bags. If I wanted to put it into capsules I'd have to use a seperate room and equipment.

I simply cannot afford this and so this bill has put me and apparently thousands of ther small producers out of business. The big corporations are laughing all the way to their new production facilities in China and their banks in the Cayman Islands. Yes, its true there is nothing legally stopping me from doing this too so the Libertarians that are busily defending C-51 are correct and likely feeling quite smug about it too.

Like I said, with Libertarians like these constantly defending the state's right to interfere with our freedoms who needs tyrants?

Link to post
Share on other sites
We have to agree that the party that is the most inclined toward social engineering is the NDP.

Okay but we have to agree that the party that is the most inclined toward moral engineering is the CPC.

What we probably don't agree on is that moral engineering is worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay but we have to agree that the party that is the most inclined toward moral engineering is the CPC.

What we probably don't agree on is that moral engineering is worse.

I'm not sure if you can make any sort of absolute statements like that. After all, there are many different ways a government can engage in moral engineering (abortion rights, censorship of sex, drug laws, forced religious observance, etc.). There are also many ways that a government can enforce social engineering (high taxes/social spending, laws enforcing political correctness, etc.) And of course each issue can be enacted to varying degrees.

Granted, an uber-religious government that has strict rules on all those issues I mentioned might be worse than the equivalent "socialist" government; however, the current Conservative government isn't exactly like that. They do not plan to bring in anti-abortion laws, they are not planning on bringing in draconian laws involving censorship of sex, etc. (Some of their supporters may hold those beliefs but the party as a whole does not.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps, but there's no way you can smoke it without being a low-life scumbag. Where I live, the RCMP tell kids that when they buy pot they're actually giving money to Osama Bin Laden.

that was good for a laugh...i thought they were into heroin?

Oh wait, they didn't have any left in Afghanistan. That is until we invaded them, then boom 100% + increase in production.

But i guess you can think that weed money goes to bin laden and that the earth is flat.(hey maybe some of it does but by no means all, and I would say less than 1% lol) Most of the stuff I've had is local, n I know a grower or 2, never have they mentioned that they sell for Jihad...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure if you can make any sort of absolute statements like that.

I can say anything I like, unless I'm trying to sell you something.

Ummmm... I really didn't expect anyone to take that statement so literally.

I meant it doesn't make logical sense to make a statement saying "Moral engineering is worse than social engineering" because of the large number of issues involved, as well as the degrees to which a government can apply either one.

For some mysterious reason you need your Nanny in case I do.

So, does this mean that you're against any sort of laws regarding labeling? What about laws regarding product safety?

Should I have the legal right to add rat poison to food products (without any sort of product warning), since any sort of requirement that prevents the sale of unsafe or improperly labeled products is requiring the government to be my "nanny"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The minute I put my product into a capsule it falls under the regulatory purview of C-51 and the smothering embrace of Nanny. The difference between liberty and crime is a double O capsule or a 1/4 teaspoon. This is food I'm talking about, not a drug. I can't simply say each capsule contains a 1/4 teaspoon and the suggested serving is 1/2 a teaspoon I have to say two capsules a day and use the word dosage instead of serving. To do do that I have to spend thousands of dollars up front and thousands per year ever after to justify why.

Don't really understand what you're claiming here.

When you say that you have to spend thousands of dollars to "justify why", are you complaining just about your inability to label something? Is there anything keeping you from simply selling your 'capsules' without claims about what exactly they're for?

Like I said, with Libertarians like these constantly defending the state's right to interfere with our freedoms who needs tyrants?

Who said I was a "Libertarian" (capital L). I have libertarian ideals... I believe we should reduce the size of government in people's lives. However, unlike many hardcore Libertarians, I believe that product safety and proper labeling is a function that governments should be involved in. (I rather suspect that the Libertarian party would be against this bill.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is, that if we are not free to consume what we want to consume we do not even "own" ourselves. The government "owns" our bodies and our minds, if they have authority over what we eat and what medicines we take. If we do not even OWN ourselves then any other property rights are meaningless. How can we "own" anything if we are owned ourselves?

There is no reason that everyone should be prohibited from drinking because some people are assholes when they drink. The same reasoning applies to any other drug. We shouldn't be punishing everyone because some people might have problems with some drugs. There is a lot less justification for marijuana prohibition than for alcohol prohibition. Alcohol is a much more powerful mind altering substance that lowers inhibitions and causes impulsive behavior. In my opinion that is still not justification to ban those who can drink responsibly from doing so.

Edited by DrGreenthumb
Link to post
Share on other sites
In addition, you made the claim that the conservatives are a "a huge threat to individual liberties" (your exact words). You've been challenged to provide examples/evidence for what rights (apart from drug use) are actually in immediate danger. I'm still waiting to hear what's been threatened.

One of Stephen Harper's most outrageous campaign promises when he ran for election in 2005 was to strip away the legal rights of hundreds of thousands if not millions of Canadians to marry by "revisiting" previous legislation. Harper kept that social conservative promise when he introduced a motion as Prime Minister calling for the CPC government to introduce legislation restoring the traditional definition of marriage, i.e., stripping away the rights of hundreds of thousands of Canadians to marry. On December 7, 2006, MPs voted 175 to 123 against the CPC motion. Most of the 123 MPs voting for the motion were Conservatives. Most of the 175 MPs voting against the motion were not. Were it not for the fact that Harper and the CPC hold only a minority of the seats, Harper's social conservative agenda would have prevailed on this issue. With a majority government, Harper's religious-based, social conservative agenda would remain a huge threat to the individual liberties of Canadians. One needs only to look at Harper's voting history to see that his religious fundamentalism often interferes with his ability to reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can say anything I like, unless I'm trying to sell you something.

Ummmm... I really didn't expect anyone to take that statement so literally.

I meant it doesn't make logical sense to make a statement saying "Moral engineering is worse than social engineering" because of the large number of issues involved, as well as the degrees to which a government can apply either one.

Are you defending the official practice of moral and social engineering?

So, does this mean that you're against any sort of laws regarding labeling? What about laws regarding product safety?

These were already covered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, who were free to pick any product off any shelf and test it for both its veracity and its quality. Bill C-51 smacks of corporate opportunism and collusion between corporate lobbyists and government officials to tilt the playing field. The government has added an enormous cost to the price of doing business by stacking the odds against small producers.

Should I have the legal right to add rat poison to food products (without any sort of product warning), since any sort of requirement that prevents the sale of unsafe or improperly labeled products is requiring the government to be my "nanny"?

Am I actually supposed to take this literally?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...