cannabisnews.com: Marijuana Bill Up In The Fall










  Marijuana Bill Up In The Fall

Posted by CN Staff on July 24, 2005 at 22:40:22 PT
By Kady O'Malley 
Source: Ottawa Hill Times 

Canada -- The controversial Marijuana Decriminalization Bill has already died twice on the Order Paper. It's up before the House Justice Committee this fall, but lobbyists say there's little support for the bill, on either side of the decriminalization debate.The highly-controversial Marijuana Decriminalization Bill C-17 has remained in suspended animation since its reintroduction last fall, despite meriting a specific mention in Prime Minister Paul Martin's most recent Speech from the Throne, but lobbyists on either side of the debate say the bill is seriously flawed, is a "half-baked measure" and should be killed.
Bill C-17, which is the latest incarnation of legislation that has already died on the Order Paper on two previous occasions, was referred to the House Justice Committee last November, but has yet to make it onto the meeting schedule. Although activist groups have criticized the government for failing to throw its political weight behind its commitment to reforming existing cannabis legislation, Justice Minister Irwin Cotler's (Mount Royal, Que.) bill, which would deal with simple possession through fines rather than criminal charges, but would increase penalties for marijuana growers, has virtually no political support on either side of the debate over decriminalization. "This bill has the distinction of being disliked both on the right and the left," noted Philippe Lucas, director of Canadians for Safe Access, an association that supports users of medicinal marijuana, who appeared before the committee that studied C-17's predecessor, C-38, in 2003. "I spoke on behalf of Canada's medical marijuana population, and out of close to 100 witnesses, there was only one group that supported the bill--the Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse. Every other activist and researcher that spoke on the bill spoke against it not going far enough, or going too far," said Mr. Lucas. That might be one reason why the current legislation has been allowed to fade into the woodwork, he said. "From the perspective of the activist community, we're not fans, and we'd rather see the bill die. The status quo may be better than anything proposed in this bill," said Mr. Lucas. For example, he pointed out that the individuals most likely to be targeted by the bill are young men between the ages of 17 and 25. "These people will be the least able to pay fines, and we also fear that visible minorities will be targeted. We plan on enforcing these fines by using the Contraventions Act, which means that non-payment of fines could lead to jail time or criminal records," said Mr. Lucas. Mr. Lucas said he also sees flaws in the provisions of the bill dealing with cultivation. "The idea of doubling penalties for personal cultivation seems to fly in the face of reason. It does nothing but re-entrench the black market," said Mr. Lucas, adding that he believes that the only policy that makes sense, and will keep marijuana out of the hands of children, is to tax and regulate it. "People forget that after alcohol prohibition, we put in place liquor distribution service and bars not to open up access, but because too many people were getting access. We control it through age restrictions, level of intoxication, and social parameters around drinking. With cannabis, we'd see the exact same thing," said Mr. Lucas, adding that he blames lobbying by-law enforcement groups for preventing the government from proposing genuine legislative reforms. "It's pretty clear that most police groups, despite having policies that speak of harm reduction, and moving towards alternate measures, seem to be opposed to the idea of lessening penalties, and losing income if cannabis gets de-prioritized. The testimony of the police chiefs and enforcement agencies may have influenced the government, combined with the knowledge that the left isn't any more pleased than the right," said Mr. Lucas. Mr. Lucas said that regardless of the fate of the bill, his group is working with MPs who are trying to put forward an 'alternate vision' for policy reform. "There are moves in the backrooms to put forward something that might be more pragmatic, and approaches the policy of harm reduction while moving away from the prohibition-only mentality," said Mr. Lucas. Mr. Lucas pointed to NDP MP Libby Davies (Vancouver East, B.C.) and Vancouver mayor Larry Campbell as high-profile supporters of a more aggressive move towards legalization. "The City of Vancouver recommends taxing and regulating all drugs, and when you have major cities considering alternate measures, but being handcuffed by the federal policy, it shows a real discontent. The federal policy sets the tone, but the provinces are on the hook to pay for that through arrests," said Mr. Lucas. For Ottawa lawyer and Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy executive director Eugene Oscapella, the battle to update Canada's cannabis law has been a labour of love for years. He said he agreed the proposed legislation has few supporters on either side of the issue. "The police don't like it, and people like me don't like it, and the big fear is that the government is eventually going to push this through, and then say, 'Look, we've dealt with it.' It's a half-baked measure that won't solve any problems," said Mr. Oscapella. Mr. Oscapella said he's not sure if the bill could be salvaged if it goes before the House Justice Committee this fall. "It would take substantial amendments, and since it's been referred after second reading, it would have to be reintroduced," Mr. Oscapella said, adding that at this point, he believes that the best hope for supporters of decriminalization might be for the current bill to die. "It has some good features, but fundamental flaws, and if it goes ahead, we won't have the chance to deal with those flaws, and the government will say that it's not going back. In a minority government, there's a chance that the NDP and the Bloc Québécois could help push the Liberals into introducing a more sensible bill if this one dies," said Mr. Oscapella. Mr. Oscapella acknowledged, though, that the failure of this bill may not necessarily lead to the introduction of legislation that he could support. "There's always the risk that the government would do nothing," said Mr. Oscapella. Although decriminalization is rarely touted as a possible election issue, Mr. Oscapella pointed out that this doesn't necessarily mean it won't be a factor when Canadians next go to the polls. "It may not be one of the great hot-button issues, but in some ridings, you only need a few percentage points to win, and if you offend the wrong people, it has the potential to become a political issue. It's hard to tell what issue will become the flavour of the moment--it has a lot to do with media attention, and the events at the time. If someone was involved in a serious accident where four people were killed, and the driver had cannabis in his system, it will suddenly become a major issue," said Mr. Oscapella. CDFP co-founder Neil Boyd, who teaches criminology at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, seems slightly more optimistic than his colleague. "The government now has a decision to make in the fall as to whether it wants to move forward with C-17, recognizing that the Conservatives and some Liberal backbenchers will oppose it. There's no doubt that groups such as NORML and Educators for a Sensible Drug Policy and many other advocacy groups are almost as disenchanted with the bill as conservatives, but on the other hand, I think it's time to move somewhere on this issue," said Prof. Boyd. He agreed that the bill as drafted has "important flaws" that need to be addressed. "But I would hope that some of the criticisms on both sides could be dealt with, and the government could move forward. This will have to be a compromise bill--it won't satisfy those who want legalization, or those who want tougher penalties. As it stands, this bill is a clumsy attempt to find a compromise, and I'm not sure why it wasn't more carefully crafted." Bill C-17 could present an opportunity for the government to simultaneously address what seem to be two contradictory points of view that are both legitimate, Prof. Boyd said. "On the one hand, we have the argument that adult Canadians should be able to use marijuana without being treated as criminals. This is a point of view that has majority support through the country, and it's quite courageous of the government to be proposing the cultivation of up to three plants as part of the bill, and saying that the issue is with the problems that large scale grow-ops produce," said Prof. Boyd. Research conducted earlier this year in British Columbia revealed that 25 per cent of grow-ops involve theft of electricity, and a lot of environmental damage, he noted. "It's a highly-unregulated industry that has many of the hallmarks of such--violence, theft, and threats to health and public security. Unfortunately what government has done in the bill is change the maximum from seven to 14 years. Currently, for large-scale grow-ops, the sentence is between four and six months. If the government was really serious about tough penalties for grow-ops, it would have put in minimum penalties. The fact that it instead went to 14-year maximum, when nobody is getting the current seven-year maximum, suggests that they're playing politics," said Prof. Boyd. To alleviate some of the major concerns of the pro-decriminalization lobby, he said there should be amendments made to the bill to make it clear that persons charged with possession will not go before a criminal court, and will not have a criminal record. "The government might also want to consider eliminating existing criminal records retroactively, and they should make it clear that they're not going to take people to court for small amounts, and not going to collect criminal records. Make it clear that marijuana use is still going to be discouraged, but is not going to be treated as a criminal offence," said Prof. Boyd. Armed with these and other recommendations for fine-tuning the bill, Prof. Boyd said he believes that there is plenty of room for movement within the existing legislation. "I'm hoping to go before the committee and tell them that," Prof. Boyd said. Canadian Professional Police Association president Tony Cannavino counted himself as a foe of the bill, although for very different reasons than those espoused by decriminalization supporters, and is delighted that the progress of the bill through the House seems to have stalled. "We're absolutely pleased that it didn't get anywhere, and we hope it is never reintroduced again in the House of Commons," said Mr. Cannavino, who pointed out that his organization would rather see a strong national drug policy that sends the right message to Canadians. "This bill is not sending the right message--there's no strong deterrent to growers, and when you really look at the legislation, where it talks about growers, and the different sanctions or penalties, it's not that big a change," said Mr. Cannavino. "The bill is inconsistent in how it deals with police discretion," he said, and he worries that the provisions related to cultivation penalties will also encourage large-scale dealers to recruit small-street dealers. "It's incoherent with the quantity of someone stopped by a police officer. It talks about under 15 grams, which is between 30 and 50 joints. That's a lot of joints," said Mr. Cannavino. Many politicians don't realize how much 15 grams of marijuana represents, said Mr. Cannavino. "I've talked to a lot of MPs and Senators, and asked, them, what do you think 15 grams represents? Ninety to 95 per cent of them don't know, and when they realize it's between 30 and 50 joints, they're shocked. And when we're talking about a plant of marijuana, and what it produces in a year, it's not like a tomato plant, it's like a tree. One plant can give a lot of marijuana over a year," said Mr. Cannavino. Although he'd rather see the bill die before hitting committee, Mr. Cannavino said he's been reaching out to potential allies over the summer, in preparation for possible hearings this fall. "We've been talking to justice and public safety ministers, and to a lot of teachers and school boards. They're very concerned also, and we want to hear them talk to the public and the media." Another law enforcement association that has been deeply involved in the debate over drug policy reform is the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. Halifax Deputy Police Chief Chris McNeil, who chairs the association's committee on drug abuse, said that with minor improvements, the bill could be improved to the point where CACP could support it. "We support the notion that there is a need for cannabis reform legislation, but we think that within that legislation, there must be room to deal with the problem, and leave discretion for a criminal charge to be laid in some circumstances," he said. It isn't just a question of the amount of marijuana that someone might have, he pointed out. "It's the fact that someone could bring 15 joints to school, and there would be no means of doing anything. We agree that there does need to be a continuum of options for the police to deal with marijuana, using discretion--from diverting people, and not charging at all for very small amounts, to charges in the appropriate circumstances," he said. The amounts specified by the bill are not inconsistent with what a typical street dealer might carry, he said. "We also have a problem with the classification of cultivation, from one to 25 plants, to 25 to 50 plants. All of a sudden, you're basically providing an opportunity for organized crime to divide it up between three houses, and have 18-year-olds watching. The idea that cultivation can be better or worse is inconsistent with the notion of being tough on traffickers," he said. In general, he said he worries that the bill sends the wrong message to Canadian youth. "The government gave a clear message that this wasn't a good thing, and now we're seeing mixed messages. Kids tell you that it's bad to drink and drive, and are more likely to toke and drive. This is nothing more than the nostalgic view of the joint you smoked in college--it's not benign, and it's not harmless," he said. Like Mr. Cannavino, he said he's prepared to come before the committee to present his concerns. "We've been talking to parents about the potential impact on kids and communities. With minor changes, we could support this bill, but I can't abandon my schools. If certain amendments could be made around cultivation, and discretion, we could back it," he said. One of the bill's few supporters is the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. Policy director Patricia Begin pointed out that the CCSA issued a policy statement in 1998 that called for converting the penalties for the possession of small amounts of marijuana to one that would involve fines under the Contraventions Act, as proposed by C-17. "The issues that we raised at that time still prevail, and it's imperative that the government move forward on the bill. Some of the appeal court decisions at the provincial level on cannabis possession have created an environment that is best described as incredibly confusing." Some young people, she said, believe that cannabis is legal, or will be when the reforms go through. "The messaging is going to be very important in terms of what the bill means, and doesn't mean, and we have to make sure that this does not sanction the use of cannabis, which is not a benign substance. There are harms associated with it," said Ms. Begin. The proposed legislation would strike a balance, she said. "We don't support legalizing cannabis, and there are reasons why the board has adopted this particular policy position, such as that the law continues to be unevenly applied, and the harm created by a criminal record outweighs the harm of marijuana use," said Ms. Begin. To that end, the CCSA meets regularly with members of the all-party drug caucus, as well as the House Justice Committee, to provide information to MPs. The association also holds an annual government relations day on the Hill, to put CCSA "on the radar," according to Ms. Begin, as well as to articulate its views on legislation and policy. "If the bill comes back to committee in the fall, particularly if there are new MPs as members, I would anticipate that the CCSA would want to make an appearance, and reiterate our policy position, as well as any other issues that might come up," said Ms. Begin. Osgoode Hall law professor and long-time proponent of cannabis reform Alan Young said he believes that there is no future for the current bill. "From the outset, when it was introduced two years ago, I never believed that it would pass. It's one of those fence-straddling bills, where the government is trying to please both sides of the debate, and ends up pleasing neither," said Prof. Young. The proposed legislation doesn't go far enough for activists, and too far for prohibitionists, Prof. Young said. "The government is going to have to make up its mind, and come up with a principled position. It can't play politics on this issue. Part of the strategy has been to say, 'Look, we're trying to help you, but we can't get this done.' The bill has already died twice, so to die a third time is consistent, and you'd think that if a bill died twice, the government would take the opportunity to push it through the third time, but instead, they put it on the back-burner," said Prof. Young. To push a bill like this through a minority Parliament requires political will, he said, and a movement of individuals willing to stand up for their beliefs, like the one that lobbied for same-sex marriage. "The gay community has become a fairly effective and powerful lobby community, but the marijuana community is completely inept when it comes to lobbying. The people who are vocal and willing to take a stand are fairly young, and have no influence, and the people who are older, and have influence, choose to remain silent. What we need is for the Pierre Bertons of the world to come forward, and explain how they were able to receive the Order of Canada while using marijuana, but few people are willing to do so," said Prof. Young. The marijuana movement is in desperate need of spokespeople from 'the establishment,' he said. "We need politicians and Canadians to realize that this isn't a hippie issue, or young people going through their first identity crisis. This is a product that has been used for thousands of years, and many people over 30 consume it regularly. You don't get things done based on principal, and what's right. Politics is about interest groups and satisfaction, and that's why this issue ends up on the back burner." Prof. Young also points to fractures within the marijuana community itself as part of the problem. "Every year, there are a number of associations formed, but for reasons I can't explain, there's never been a unified approach. It's almost like the hip-hop situation, where there is a divide between the east and west coasts. More of my time now is spent mediating and trying to placate various groups, because when you come very close to achieving your goal, it creates optimism and enthusiasm. When you fail, there is a tendency for the movement -- all movements -- to turn against themselves, and A is pointing at B saying 'You took the wrong strategy,' and B is pointing at A and saying, 'You're an embarrassment.'" Meanwhile, Mr. Oscapella admitted to being discouraged by what he sees as apathy on the part of many marijuana users. "I've been working on this for years, and I get progressively less patient with pot smokers who sit back and do nothing. I'm more interested in working with people who are doing something themselves to push for reform, or are in a position where they need to be helped, like medical marijuana users. It bothers me that I have to waste so much time on an issue when the thousands of Canadians who use cannabis are sitting back and saying, 'It doesn't bother me.' I'm not interested in fighting the marijuana issue for them," said Mr. Oscapella. But although Mr. Oscapella's openly frustrated with the current state of the decriminalization lobby, he's still prepared to take his best shot at persuading politicians to rethink the bill if invited to appear before committee this fall--and he's already working on his speaking notes. "Why do we never ask politicians to justify the status quo, and assume that just because something has always been that way, that it's the right thing to do," he asked. "I'll challenge them to show me that the current prohibitionist model works, before you start interfering with the liberty of Canadians, and fostering grow-ops. No one can do it, and if I go before the committee, that's the tack I'll take." Source: Ottawa Hill Times (CN ON)Author: Kady O'MalleyPublished: July 25th, 2005Contact: News hilltimes.com Website: http://www.thehilltimes.ca/CFDPhttp://www.cfdp.ca/Canadians for Safe Accesshttp://www.safeaccess.ca/CannabisNews -- Canada Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/Canada.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #24 posted by afterburner on July 26, 2005 at 21:18:14 PT
Let's take OUR country back!
Amen
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by BGreen on July 26, 2005 at 20:24:07 PT
Max Flowers
Every time we travel to a more enlightened destination it makes a profound difference in our lives.We bring back with us a new vibrancy and outlook on life which we are able to use to make our little part of the planet a little bit better.That's what the Netherlands did for me and I'm sure that's what Canada has done for you.Let's take OUR country back!The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by ekim on July 26, 2005 at 19:52:18 PT
follow your instincts mf we need you 
in the new Peace CoreI am so sick of seeing the poor souls in Niger looking at the camera holding a starving child while the news person recites the old saw about how a terrible the drought has been. What about the news reporter saying the Truth-- that since Cannabis was banned in Niger and the rest of the planet -----countless Millions have been starved to death.Jack Herer said Sat in Traverse City MI that most of the known world grew and ate Cannabis and added 10 years on their lives. Then Cannabis was banned and rice took over and the health of the people and the planet has been reduced. IT takes much water to grow Rice. Hilary is in charge of constructing new talking points for the dnc on what are the dems for. Ok Hillary how about \Starting and writing it in stone--- the Rolling Stone Article that your husband gave upon leaving office saying the laws against Cannabis should be changed. Are you and the Dems for that or are you like the Gopers and want to cage and starve the human race.We get mail http://lastonespeaks.blogspot.com/Our friend Paul von Hartmann, keeps tabs on the UN and sees an opportunity to ask for global common sense consensus on cannabis leading up to their meeting in September, in New York, around the issues of Development, Security and Human Rights. Check out his newly revised formal complaint and his other thoughts at Project PEACE.
http://www.compassionatemi.org
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by FoM on July 26, 2005 at 19:43:52 PT
Max Flowers 
I hope we helped. If you really want to move to Canada you should. I don't think it is a Utopia but I don't think anywhere on earth is a Utopia. I love where we live but it is because of what was important to my husband and myself so that is why we are where we are. When we moved to Ohio we knew we did the right thing but we were so homesick for a longtime. One of our closest friends moved out here and got married and raised their children until his wife died in a fluke single car accident on her way to work at a hospital. He remarried and moved to another state but spent 20 years in this area.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by Max Flowers on July 26, 2005 at 19:34:16 PT
Thanks guys
for the reassuring words. You didn't offend me Jose, just made me think even harder than I was about the relocate/don't relocate question. Some days are just good for venting the spleen on these boards I guess. peace
MF
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by FoM on July 26, 2005 at 13:01:09 PT
Max Flowers
I did a search and found some interesting info on earthquakes and volcanoes. I'm with you about tornadoes. That's why when we decided to build where we did we made sure it wasn't flat land because that's where tornadoes do the damage. West of where we live it gets flat but we live at the foothills of the Appalachian mountains. Tornadoes bounce over trees and mountains. We've never had a tornado in our area thank goodness.http://www.dnr.wa.gov/geology/hazards/volcano/http://www.pgc.nrcan.gc.ca/seismo/eqinfo/q-a.htm#can_how_oftenhttp://www.pgc.nrcan.gc.ca/seismo/recent/wc.50evt.list.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by jose melendez on July 26, 2005 at 12:12:41 PT
max
I hope I did not offend, certainly I must concede that I am as fragile as any of us.Sometimes I wonder if my outrageous and indignant actism is not a way to hide that fragility. Certainly, I wish I could say I made my sustenance from 'uh, healing herb horticulture.' If it were not for the fact that those who have taken an oath to protect and serve our fellow citizens are turning a blind eye to those who wage war against us, I would probably do just that. 
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #17 posted by FoM on July 26, 2005 at 12:04:51 PT

Max Flowers
I am not strong like Jose. I looked at the article but since I don't follow politics I don't know who he is. I came from a family that politics weren't mentioned. Politics were politics and they didn't matter just family issues mattered. Then for me came the 2004 election. That's why when Kerry lost I was so upset. I still somewhere inside believed the good person must win and it didn't happen and it reminds me not to put my energy into something that doesn't make much of a difference.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #16 posted by FoM on July 26, 2005 at 11:27:06 PT

Max Flowers
I never traveled outside the states but I never wanted to. I figured I could travel frequently and never see all the wonders of our country. The only place I would have liked to travel is to see the birthplace of civilization because the middle east fascinates me but I will never go because of the wars. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #15 posted by Max Flowers on July 26, 2005 at 11:21:59 PT

FoM
I appreciate your reponse, but when I said that I was really talking to Jose, who is obviously a real fighter. I see you as a gentle activist more than a "fighter."You said "I believe when we see something wrong in society and it stirs us we need to do something about it..." That's wonderful, but please read the George Hansen story at that link I posted, and tell me honestly if you would be willing to put yourself through that kind of hell to try to right a wrong in our society. If so, you're just as tough as Jose and a whole lot tougher than me.Maybe I'm just feeling a bit hopeless today.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #14 posted by Max Flowers on July 26, 2005 at 11:12:19 PT

FoM
I'm curious--- have you ever traveled anywhere outside the USA? You said you never wanted to, but didn't say whether you ever had. If you haven't (and I don't mean this as an insult, so please don't be offended), your view of the world would tend to be *very* limited. It changes your life and throws wide open your perspective when you travel to other countries. I've been to Mexico, Canada, Thailand, Japan, the Netherlands.Of course there is natural beauty in America, tons of it... you would be misinterpreting my comments if you thought the main reason I would go to Canada would be because of the trees. If you have family and a lot of friends and a solid support structure where you live, and own a home, you are very fortunate. If I had all those things, maybe I wouldn't think of leaving either. I do have good friends, but my family is scattered (and not exactly the snuggly loving type), I don't own a home and could never dream of it on the west coast due to the outrageous prices (yet wouldn't dream of living anywhere but the west coast).As far as earthquakes, well they don't scare me as I'm originally from southern California. Tornadoes---now THOSE are scary! Also I've never heard of an earthquake in Canada. Alaska yes, but Canada... very rare to nonexistent. Not that it couldn't happen.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #13 posted by FoM on July 26, 2005 at 11:00:35 PT

Max Flowers
You said: But don't you ever worry that you may expend your entire life "fighting the power", only to find that you are old and gray, nothing much has changed, and you've neglected to really *live* your life? I look at life this way. I believe when we see something wrong in society and it stirs us we need to do something about it but I believe we need to live fully as we work for change and that is why I can say I have enjoyed my journey thru my time here on earth. The journey is the wide eyed wonder not the destination.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #12 posted by FoM on July 26, 2005 at 10:50:47 PT

Hope 
 We do think a lot alike. I love America. I don't love what is happening to it now but it's still my home and will always be. I have been from coast to coast and there is something uniquely beautiful everywhere I've seen. I never wanted to travel outside the states but I did want to see America and I have seen America and I love my country. It's almost like I'm all the more determined to stand tall and say I love the whole USA!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #11 posted by Max Flowers on July 26, 2005 at 10:49:22 PT

Jose
I know how you feel, and make no mistake, part of me says exactly the same thing to myself daily. You're very brave and your work is exemplary, and I salute you. But not all of us are as brave or as resourceful.And it's complex, because while it could be seen as "running" away, at the same time, I ask you---why shouldn't someone from North America be free to try living elsewhere in North America? It's merely the neighbor to the north. It's just next door. In a way, it's like if an Italian decided to live in Switzerland because he liked the conditions there better. You probably wouldn't think twice about that guy. But if I decide to try life in another country, I'm "running." Do you think all expatriates are running? Maybe as global citizens, they simply want a change of scenery.All of you here know that I'm conflicted about leaving/staying if you've read my past posts.I'm proud of America's ideals as well, but increasingly I see evidence that they *are* merely "ideals" and not realities. Now before you reprimand me that they are only reality if we work to make them so, I'm aware of that. But don't you ever worry that you may expend your entire life "fighting the power", only to find that you are old and gray, nothing much has changed, and you've neglected to really *live* your life? If I were to make that mistake, I would be very pissed at myself. A big part of me just wants to LIVE, and not spend all my energy fighting (not sure how old you are, but I'm guesssing 20s or 30s? I'm 40s, and I don't have boundless energy in my soul to fight anymore). Worse still, I only just became politically awake/aware/active about 5 years ago, and I'm already very fatigued mentally and emotionally from it. Waking up out of the "American delusion" and learning what is really going on has been a fairly shattering experience for me. Maybe I'm just not so tough. Maybe everyone who is not 100% willing to go to prison for a year or ten to stand up for their beliefs should just get the F out of way (such as moving to Canada).One event that was particularly mind-blowing to me was reading about what was done to Congressman George Hansen (see http://www.totse.com/en/politics/political_spew/162713.html ). Learning that no less than a US Congressman could be wrongfully prosecuted, indicted for false charges of tax evasion, incarcerated for a total of four years with ten years of being dragged in-and-out of jail, tortured by being chained up in transport vans with shackles cutting into his ankles until they scraped through the skin into his tendons and denied basic human rights like being allowed to go to a bathroom... well, that really opened my eyes as to what kind of country we really have here. I realized, if they will do that to a CONGRESSMAN, what would they do to me, a lowly citizen?In fact, I might say that I could possibly be even more effective fighting for the cause from a different country, where I don't have to worry that they will come and get me for my political beliefs. I realize that if everyone said that, there'd be no one left to fight, but in reality not many people have the flexibility to up and relocate to another country. I'm very fortunate that I do have the choice. Not that it would be easy.So to sum up I'd say I and many others value your fighting spirit, but you should concede that not every single person has the same fight in them. At some point, one has to consider which is more important---their nationality or their humanity.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #10 posted by Hope on July 26, 2005 at 10:39:01 PT

FoM...smile
A woman after my own kind.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #9 posted by FoM on July 26, 2005 at 10:14:05 PT

Max Flowers
It does sound beautiful but we have beautiful places here too. I don't know but moving away from the states isn't what I would ever want to do. I have friends and family here and I don't know anyone from Vancouver. I like the climate down here because snow isn't my thing. I know Vancouver doesn't get snow but aren't they near a bad earthquake fault or a volcano? Earthquakes and Volcanos do make beautiful land but can be extremely bad when something happens.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #8 posted by Max Flowers on July 26, 2005 at 09:53:12 PT

FoM
I should clarify--- I didn't mean that I am thinking of moving to Vancouver itself, but to Canada. Vancouver is an amazing city with a very healthy economy, but I resolved long ago to get out of big cities and live in more rural places. I was stunned by the beauty of the Sunshine Coast, which is the area going north up the coast from Vancouver. Incredible numbers of huge green trees (firs, ashes, redwoods, pines etc), a ridiculous wealth of lakes, rivers and inlets, really cool little towns and even some decent sized cities. And the people... what a difference. You can just feel it from them, it's a different attitude, a much better "vibe" to use a quaint old term of ours. A more real (to my perception anyway) feeling of community, and much less of the vigorously autonomous attitude I see here.Here's a snippet, from a travel report I wrote and posted on a well-known cannabis site, that will give an idea of the impact BC had on me:The beauty of BC is beyond incredible. For me, it was surreal. There was one night on Saltspring Island that was stunning. Standing by a roaring fire-pit, I gazed at the view of the horizon where other forested land masses ended at the water, a huge orange moon rose in the distance and reflected in a shimmering jeweled line across the glassy water. The Venomberry/bubble hash vape I had just done minutes before made it all timeless. As if that beauty weren't enough, at this moment a gaggle of Canadian geese flew from left to right across this panorama, honking and making primal, quintessential goose-sounds which echoed off the shores. It was all too much or one man to stand. I took another long swig of my blackberry Okanagan cider and thanked the forces of the universe for that moment.And that was when I got to thinking that if I were that moved by those surroundings, I should seriously think about making them my permanent surroundings, eh? Well I have been thinking about that a lot, and the good information I was being given by vision, Dr G and their friends was encouraging to say the least. I could feel the freedom there, and from what I was told, Canadian judges/magistrates and other officials there still cherish and respect the Charter, and consistently rule accordingly. That is amazing to someone like me who is already dismayed by how little the Bill Of Rights etc means here these days.Most of all I had the sense of what it felt like to walk among a people who do not have the baggage of being from a warlike nation weighing them down. It was liberating.And Canadians are very savvy and enthusiastic entrepreneurs. The evidence of that is everywhere you look, and I had the sense that with a good idea for a service or product and an eye for a good looking logo, anyone could go far there (although I confess I was thinking mainly of my own prospects at the time). For me the feeling was sort of gold rush like, in that there was this huge place with a happy, well-to do populace and wide open spaces. Room for lots more business, in other words. That must be so nice to have not blown your national wad trying to blow other people up. It might help for me to point out that I make my living entirely from, uh, healing herb horticulture, so the job market for me is not as big a part of the picture as it would be for most people. But from what I could see, the Canadian economy was quite vibrant, but I couldn't say about the job market specifically.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #7 posted by jose melendez on July 26, 2005 at 09:36:35 PT

Max Flowers
I'm not going to run to be free. I am proud of this country's ideals, and will stay in America and fight for my freedoms against the tyrants that have bought their way into "leadership".
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #6 posted by FoM on July 26, 2005 at 09:24:56 PT

Max Flowers
What's so great about Vancouver? Are there good paying jobs and inexpensive homes to purchase? 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #5 posted by Max Flowers on July 26, 2005 at 09:15:24 PT

Hope
Thank you, but would you explain why you didn't like the last sentence? I'm just one of thousands thinking of relocating there... I'd like to hear your thoughts on why I should stay (if that's what you're thinking), because I am deliberating those very questions right now.I saw an ad in High Times yesterday, I think it was NORML's if I'm not mistaken, that showed snowy mountains and a Canadian flag altered so the maple leaf was a cannabis leaf, and saying "CANADA -- It's looking better every day" 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #4 posted by afterburner on July 25, 2005 at 22:31:17 PT

Save Us from the Nanny State!
"The City of Vancouver recommends taxing and regulating all drugs, and when you have major cities considering alternate measures, but being handcuffed by the federal policy, it shows a real discontent. The federal policy sets the tone, but the provinces are on the hook to pay for that through arrests," said Mr. Lucas.Other Canadian cities and provinces should follow the lead of Seattle, California, Vancouver, and Amsterdam and refuse to enforce the folly of federal cannabis prohibitionist laws and misguided international treaties. "Think globally and act locally."
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #3 posted by Hope on July 25, 2005 at 20:42:39 PT

Max
Except for that last sentence...that was very beautiful.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by Max Flowers on July 25, 2005 at 10:06:32 PT

Canada and driving in it stoned
I just came back from a 2-week vacation in British Columbia in which I drove around Vancouver a lot in a rented car. Vancouver is, as you guys know, a very pot-drenched city, and if prohibitionist propaganda about how cannabis makes for unsafe drivers etc had a shred of truth in it, I think I would have seen it. I was driving among thousands of Vancouverites (very stoned myself as well). Traffic was swift but orderly, skillful even (big cities usually force this to be the case). I saw no accidents, no problems, no evidence of "impairment" by stoned drivers.What I DID see and feel was a respect for freedom of the caliber that is only crowed about here in the US, but not realized in deeds. In Canada they seem to take it all very seriously and respect the people. Or maybe it's that the people respect themselves more? Either way, I'm thinking of relocating there...
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by riptide on July 25, 2005 at 07:50:30 PT

Canada
The more i hear from Canada the more they seem to be sensible at least compared to american politics.
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment