Gee, after Googling around on Marc Emery I came across this on Marc's own website written by Chris Bennett and Dana Larsen:

"Emery shared two marijuana joints with individuals who met with him in a local park after attending his speech. Although charges of trafficking are rarely, if ever, laid just for passing a joint, the police and prosecutor went out of their way to lay this charge against Emery.

The charge of trafficking carries with it a possible seven year jail sentence, for simply passing a joint to a friend. Saskatoon is one of Canada's most anti-pot regions, with strict marijuana sentences handed out often. The Crown prosecutor in the case was asking for a sentence of two years less a day.

Following his arrest in March, Emery spent three nights in jail, was forced to pay $3,500 bail and additional legal costs, as well as agree to stipulations severely restricting his rights and freedoms - all for passing two joints. Now he has been sentenced to 90 days in jail."

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/3594.html

So Marc let the dangerous precedent of Joint passing become "Trafficking" without any fight what-so-ever? This Precedent now stands for every pot smoker in Canada. Why didn't Marc Emery challenge the Law? I know Mr. Kubby played a pivotal part of the Passing of Proposition 215, possibly the Greatest Marijuana Victory to date. Marc, however, let the sharing of joints become "Trafficking in Narcotics" without even the least bit of a fight.

Now I ask, in actual effective action, considering Marc's many great accomplishments what has Marc accomplished that was as significant a Victory as the Passing of Proposition 215? And what has Mr. Kubby done that has harmed the movement as allowing the passing of two joints to become "Trafficking in Narcotics"? Where was the warrior spirit in the Courtroom in Saskatchewan?

Thats what it has always been to pass drugs to another person for money or not is called trafficking. Thats why there was nothing anyone could do.
You should really educate yourself before speaking, its the same in the states always has been.
Want proof for your uneducated mind?

Go to the L.E.A.P. site and the cops and judges will tell you the samething, did marc pass drugs to another person? if the answer is yes then its trafficking. education

Chris, ordinarily I find your anti-medpot, anti-statist arguments abstractly interesting. Like most Libertarian argument, the willing suspension of disbelief makes the logic entertaining, even appealing.

Here you exceed your own high standards of bad taste. Never mind your apparent ignorance of the realities of California justice in the Dan Lungren years (as a foreigner, you may be forgiven that): are you so desperate to mount a soapbox and hear the usual din of people jeering you, that you'd choose this occasion to do so? Given your philosophy, I wouldn't expect you to be front-and-center in appreciation of the man's accomplishments. That's OK, there are many thousands of grateful Californians willing to do so. You could, however, pass up this opportunity to sound off at his expense.

Why is any criticsm called killing his support?

Steve Kubby is asking an awful lot of people he doesn't know.

He was asking Canadians to call every government official that exists and to beg them to spare his life.

Canadians are a compassionate lot, but the idea that removing cannabis from an individual would cause his death was a little far fetched.

Steve Kubby has been removed from cannabis and his worst fears were not realized.

The skeptics were proven right when Kubby was thrown into the snake pit.

I did the Medicinal Purposes thing in Winnipeg because no one else had the nerve. We could still use somebody else to rise to the occasion here in Manitoba. I'm on probation for another two years and I'm smart enought to stay out of more trouble until my present troubles are behind me. So there is no more compassion club in the public eye in Manitoba.

I'm in Alabama North to clue you in on what I'm up against in Manitoba.

Here is a letter to the Editor published in the Winnipeg Free Press.

Letters to the Editor


Wed Feb 8 2006

Toews respects tradition



WE were moved on Monday as we watched Vic Toews take his place as minister of justice in Stephen Harper's cabinet.
Unnoticed by the national press, Mr. Toews continued a long-standing Mennonite religious practice by not "swearing" loyalty and duty, but "promising" to do so. And he was one of only a few ministers to make this promise without carrying what appeared to be a Bible or other holy book.

Mennonite people have since 1527 taught against swearing oaths and referred to Christ's teaching that "let your yes be yes, and your no be no." Our hope is that Mr. Toews' respect for his tradition will also serve to signal an era of honesty in government.


ROYDEN LOEWEN Chair, Mennonite Studies

University of Winnipeg

KEN REDDIG

President

Mennonite Historical Society of Canada


This is hard core Bible belt territory. Every seat in Rural Manitoba went to the Conservatives.

I don't blame Kubby for anything except the deception that only cannabis kept him alive.

It was too far fetched to promote yesterday, today or tommorrow.

Here is an idea of the kind of idea I promote on Vic Toews' home turf.

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n1733/a03.html

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n1861/a08.html

It was my intention to run against Vic Toews right in the heart of Bible belt central, but financial constrictions got the best of me.

That is just to clue you in that we have plenty of our own battles to fight right here north of the 49th.

You would have to explain to me what purpose the medicalizers served for me to support Steve Kubby and all the others who benefit medically from cannabis.

There is such a thing as having a drink for medicinal purposes too.

Can you imagine where the anti-prohibtion movement would have ended in the 1920's if medicnal purposes and forced treatment of alcoholics were the acceptable goals?

Asking me to support those notions when I'm up to my asshole in aligators is ludicrious. I understand the mindset I'm up against out here.

So what to do?

Compromise or fight the battle that needs to be fought?

See, I'm all for going after the 1961 UN Convention on Drugs which is the root of all our troubles.

To fight to include cannabis on the accepted list of medicinal drugs merely chops at a limb that, in my opinion, is extending the suffering of people like Steve Kubby.

10 years, even 15 years have gone into the movement. What was accomplished?

Every state in the Union can pass medical MJ initiatives and we know what the supreme court ruled. We know that the Feds are still arresting Medicinal users all over America.

The legalizers are another bunch on the list of must converts. Legalize implies the state is going to pass a law alowing you to smoke pot. Decriminalizers have some other version of granting permissions or fining people.

Milton Friedman and Thomas Szasz made the case many years ago that the persons who pay for all this medicalization is our seniors. I get up and do battle against the perveyors of the war on drugs because I want all drugs to be cheap and available to the people in our society who need drugs the most; our seniors.

So I can argue that while supporters are right to be concerned with Steve Kubby's plight, and I remind you, Canadians were very generous in supporting our American brothers and sisters in time of need.

There is nothing Canadians can do for the Kubby's other than to offer moral support now. Renee Boje still needs money for lawyers and so does Marc Emery et al.

So how about elevating the arguement to deal with all drugs instead of concentrating on the miricle that is Steve Kubby?

Do not all the seniors who suffer without drugs they can not afford not deserve the same consideration?

Because that is the fight I want to fight and win.

Separate medicine and state and that can only be done by ridding the planet of the 1961 UN Convention.

Just imagine where we would be if everytime the words medical mj appeared in the press it said 1961 UN Convention?

Americans might even actually have a clue of what the fight were really all about should that occur.

Have you ever actually read the Criminal Vode of Canada?

Passing a joint is trafficking.

The Constitutional Challanges were all made and we lost.

Liberty does not mean liberty here in Canada.....

Just like Interstate Commerce means whatever tha authorites want it to mean in America.

I went to Court and pled guilty too. If you ever read Justice Defiled By Alan Young you will understand why. I would have had to raise $10,000 plus dollars for a lawyer to do the proper battle.

I prefer the Ghandi example. Ghandi was a lawyer and new better than to waste his time and breath in Courts. He just showed up unrepresented and plead guilty. Ghandi always asked the court to impose the maximum sentence to demonstrate the absurdity. Ghandi once did 4 years of a six years stint.

Justice does not prevail in Canadian Courts any more that it does in America.

Marc, the warrior took the battle to the politicians.

You can imagine that I have implored Marc to elevate the battle to include all drugs and the 61 UN Convention too.

Marc has his own reasons for choosing to support whatever he considered worthy causes. I'm a capitalist and I understand that is just the way of the golden rule.

I would suggest that the fact you are here at this site is accomplishment enough.

The more important point at hand is that efforts so far have been slow on either side of the border in advancing drug freedom.

There are many facts that I keep to myself, about all activists. We've written up and researched everyone who's anyone in the movement. Almost all negative information gets edited out because it doesn't serve the movement.

One of the controversies is about Peter McWilliams. It is generally ascribed that he died because he asphyxiated on his own vomit because he couldn't use cannabis. This is not at all clear. Peter had AIDS, he was extremely depressed, using cannabis or not, and he was required to take many different medicines. He was suicidal in the days before his death. Those close to him knew he was not stable in that period and very vulnerable.

Typically we don't print or report on controversies like that or infighting or any other negative implicating stories.

People have their opinions about Kubby, I have mine. I have 5 years personal experience with the guy. I know the people who gave him great contributions of pot when he was desperate and grasping, yet he never offered a gram to these people from his crop of over 100 plants in the years when he was licenced. Even Kirk Tousaw, on my money, represented the Kubby's for free on their last days, so I was helping out right to the end, but Kubby rarely paid back anyone with thanks or return contributions. Kubby even quit doing POT.TV because he wanted even more money than I was paying him, even though I donated more to his freedom in Canada (that $15,000 bond that he had to be out of jail after being arrested growing pot was from me and no one else) than anyone else. Kubby was a taker, thats all I'm saying.

Everyone makes him out to be a sick man but Kubby was skiing almost every day in Sun Peaks, BC, prior to his deportation.

Meanwhile Ecoman here picks on Chris Buors, who, I repeat, went to jail serving genuinely crippled up people (one guy was in bandages, in a wheelchair, on oxygen when I visited him with Chris Buors) and genuinely sad off people. But Chris gets some people's emnity even though Chris behaved heroically on their behalf. I too have spent days and nights in jail merely proving that in other provinces pot was legal and that I was willing to go to jail in that province so others would not.

Thats fighting the fight for the cause. Steve Kubby has fought for himself. Fair enough. Everyone would do that for themselves. But this doesn't make Steve an activist. He should never have run away from California if he was fighter of freedom.

By the way, provincial court where I was convicted is not a precedent setting court room. Nothing that happens in any provincial court sets precedent. Precedents are set in appellate review courts (Court of Appeal, Supreme Court). There already are precedents set that mandate jail for trafficking, even a gram, in every province in Canada, for people like myself with over 20 convictions for marijuana related activities.

As to Proposition 215. When Denis Peron's club was raided August 7, 1996, which really galvanized the drive in California, I was with Denis for the 48 hours of that crisis and I'm sure Denis, who I remain on excellent terms with ( I supplied all the seeds to his farm in California way back in 2000-2002) would gladly tell you how good it was to have my help in those difficult days in 1996.

It seems entirely plausible to me that Kubby would be healthy, skiing, and happy, then find himself denied his meds for a week, and be dangerously ill from the first 24 hrs. His doctors statements are consistent with this. Why does the skiing point matter?

My earlier question rephrased: when his felony conviction and jail sentence was reinstated, was Kubby free pending appeal, violating house arrest, or seeking asylum? The answer casts light on comments made here that he passed on a cushy 120-day house arrest, and somehow deserves to face the music, rather than that he fled the prospect of a lengthy incarceration in Dan Lungren's justice system with no cannabis, no Marinol (which does nothing, I understand, to control tumor growth anyway) and little prospect for survival.

This is more than idle curiosity. I've been the primary editor on his Wikipedia article and one Wikinews story about Kubby, and would like to squarely address the chronology, especially as the corporate press has editorialized in similar fashion with no mention of the revocation of both the reduction to a misdemeanor and house arrest.

Someone here has got to know, surely?

Peter McWilliams did not die due to vomit or suicide. Info is in this Oct 2001 Penthouse article:
web page

So the vomit story is misinformation. Many of us were obviously misinformed about the specific cause of his death.

It is important to source info. Wikipedia is great for getting this down well. Because many people participate in the editing of articles over time, and new people especially want the sources. And multiple ones at that.

I have read other points of views and sources concerning Steve Kubby. Same for views of Chris Bennett and Renee Boje. So I take what you say about them, Marc, with a grain of salt. I don't know any of them personally. I have received emails from Peter McWilliams, Chris Bennett, and Renee Boje.

I and others at Wikipedia and Wikinews sourced the medical stuff concerning Steve Kubby. Go to this image gallery and follow the links:
http://gallery.marihemp.com/auburn2006jan31

Also these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Kubby and
Wikinews: web page

Chris Buors wrote:

Quote:

---

Steve Kubby has been removed from cannabis and his worst fears were not realized.

---

He almost died the first day or 2 before he got Marinol. His jail reports, and his doctors assessments of his medical problems are at the link below.
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/01/1799342_comment.php
web page

Kubby's doctors said that he might die. Fortunately, because we listened to his doctors (see previous posts), and not to misinformed people, we put enough media and activist pressure on the authorities to force them to at least give him Marinol (the THC cannabinoid) this time he was in jail. Hundreds of Steve Kubby media articles worldwide in the last few weeks. Google News results archived here:
http://members.fortunecity.com/multi19/e/kubby-googlenews.htm

My ONLY real problem with what you are saying Marc is that you are putting out incorrect medical info. Just like Chris Buors.

I don't put out any medical information at all because I don't trust the medical profession. They are agents of the state. I support libertating ourselves from their assertions. Each man is the best judge of his own health.

Here's what Mises had to say about those who certify us as healthy or unhealthy.

Quote:

---

"To the intellectual champions of social insurance, and to the politicians and statesmen who enacted it, illness and health appeared as two conditions of the human body sharply separated from each other and always recognizable without difficulty or doubt. Any doctor could diagnose the characteristics of 'health.' 'Illness' was a bodily phenomenon which showed itself independently of human will, and was not susceptible to influence by will. There were people who for some reason or other simulated illness, but a doctor could expose the pretense. Only the healthy person was fully efficient. The efficiency of the sick person was lowered according to the gravity and nature of his illness, and the doctor was able, by means of objectively ascertainable physiological tests, to indicate the degree of the reduction of efficiency.

"Now every statement in this theory is false. There is no clearly defined frontier between health and illness. Being ill is not a phenomenon independent of conscious will and of psychic forces working in the subconscious. A man's efficiency is not merely the result of his physical condition; it depends largely on his mind and will. Thus the whole idea of being able to separate, by medical examination, the unfit from the fit and from the malingerers, and those able to work from those unable to work, proves to be untenable. Those who believed that accident and medical insurance could be based on completely effective means of ascertaining illnesses and injuries and their consequences were very much mistaken. The destructionist aspect of accident and health insurance lies above all in the fact that such institutions promote accidents and illness, hinder recovery, and very often create, or at any rate intensify and lengthen, the functional disorders which follow illness or accident.

"Feeling healthy is quite different from being healthy in the medical sense, and a man's ability to work is largely independent of the physiologically ascertainable and measurable performances of his individual organs. The man who does not want to be healthy is not merely a malingerer. He is a sick person. If the will to be well and efficient is weakened, illness and inability to work is caused. By weakening or completely destroying the will to be well and able to work, social insurance creates illness and inability to work; it produces the habit of complaining – which is in itself a neurosis – and neuroses of other kinds. In short, it is an institution which tends to encourage disease, not to say accidents, and to intensify considerably the physical and psychic results of accidents and illnesses. As a social institution it makes a people sick bodily and mentally or at least helps to multiply, lengthen, and intensify disease."

---

Marc made the point about having the will to live with Peter McWilliams.

I'm afraid no doctor can measure that.

So the opinions of doctors ought to be taken with a grain of salt.

"The argument is all about whether medicalization of cannabis was a good idea. I say the proof is in the pudding. 15 years of activism dowm the tubes at the US Supreme Court."


There's the "medicalization of cannabis" argument - Soros style.

Then there's the "liberation of medicine" argument (medicine CAN involve herbs and DOESN'T require a doctor) - that would be a combination of the "all cannabis use is medicine" argument made by Peron and Kubby and others, and my own "medicine doesn't require doctors to be legit" arguments I will make the next time I'm in court (combined with other arguments made by other compassion clubs and massage therapists and herbalists and Traditional Chinese Medicine people).

These two arguments are seperate, but you seem to have the two confused.








"So what happens in America? On Soros, Lewis and Sperling go with medicalization efforts. Why? You would need another Civil war in America to assert states rights. I doubt cannabis will be the reason the States would fight the Federal government."

I'm against the Soro's style medicalization argument, and so are a lot of other cannabis activists. It's not fair to lump all the med-necessity activists into one group.






2) No one has a guarentee they will not be arrested tommorrow.

"I was tried in Canada and did not recieve a fair trial. No one does. Fair trials, according to English Common law and the Magna Carta flew out the window in Canada years ago."

Yes ... but med-pot users get more fair trials in Canada than in the USA - in the US you're not even allowed to mention "medical necessity" when it comes to pot cases ... therefore it would be reasonable for people like Steve Kubby to come up here.






"No one in America recieves a fair trial anymore either. All the safeguards of liberty were circumvented to persecute the drug war. Americans keep voting their approval on all of this. Just like they voted to continue the war in Iraq."

The question was "was it right for Steve Kubby to come up to Canada" - and from the above statement I would say it's probably the move any adrenal cancer patient would have made.





"3)Marc Emery is a little smarter than you give him credit for. He was wise to put himself in the position of ultimate decision maker about where the money was going to go. People who donate understand that. In my opinion, Marc did not spend his money as wisely as he could have. Neither does Bill Gates, George Soros, John Sterling and Peter Lewis. If only I was in charge of all their money!"

I guess you don't understand the concept of "cut your losses" either.







"What is to be gained by Marc attacking a sick caner patient sitting in jail?
Did he not explain the folly of Steve wasting five years just to end up exactly where he would have been had he stayed to serve his sentence?"

He had the chance to research his case and prove that the felony charges were phony. I guess you both missed that part of it. Also, he could very well have set a precident that other medical-necessity cases could have taken advantage of - nobody could have predicted how cold-hearted the refugee system could be up here.







"There are many faction in this struggle David. The medicalizers have been dealt blow after blow yet they beg for more state control. The medicalizers ought to give their heads a shake and throw their lot in with the repealers if they want progress."

There's "medicalizers", "medical liberators" and "repealers". You want to believe there's only two groups so you can pretend that the whole world is wrong and you're right ... but there's three groups.




"Steve Kubby represents the ultimate folly of working with the government to medicalize cannabis. Look what the State did to your ultimate champion."

215 was a buffer against the police, an opportunity to get research done and a step towards medical liberation ... not an end-goal.








"Lorretta Nall, bless her heart, went to Washington D.C. and did everything she could to draw attention to the case of the little presidentially honored cripple kid dying at the hands of an uncaring state. I still remember the last line Lorreta blurts out on the film. She says that her impression was that no one in Washington gave a rat's ass about that kid. The cripple kid trumps the 59 year old cancer patient any day of the week."

They all need our help. The sick and the healthy. You're using every excuse you can to attack Kubby ... "that guy's sicker" ... just because somebody is more ill, it doesn't delegitimize helping other sick people.






"So if Marc Emery lost any respect it was from activists beating the dead horse of medicalization. As evident, the proof is in the pudding 15 years later, Steve Kubby is sitting in jail without cannabis."

Nobody's made any progress. That doesn't make either of the goals of medical liberation or repeal any less valid.






"4) Abolishionists had the advantage of having the law and the moral support of the people on their side on the slavery issue. Canada on the otherhand has extradition treaties with America and we are both signators to the UN 1961 Convention."

Canada has also signed Univeral Human rights treaties guaranteeing Dignity to all, anti-genocide and anti-slavery treaties that are WAY more important than any of the anti-drug treaties. I'm afraid you can't fall back on those treaties as an excuse why we should not help people like Steve Kubby.







"Canadian policy was and is to refuse extradition whenever the death penality would be invoked."

1) In this case, it very well might have been a defacto death penalty.

2) Canada's policy is fuct and should be changed. When did you become such a defender of statist BS?






"Do you know what happens to those who refuse to fight when they are called upon under war time conditions? They line you up against the wall and shoot you as a coward. So the draft dodgers had that arguement to make."

Nobody got shot for dodging the Vietnam war ... but they were facing serious jail time.





"Marc has made the case plenty of times now that he alone could not finance the billion dollars activists have plans on spending. 4 million over the years went where Marc judged it would do the most good. No one could hope to satisfy everybody. Where is all the money from the seed salesman now? I bet they are all doing a thriving business and those individuals are contributing nothing so far as we know. They are in fact riding on Marc's coattails too."

I don't think you know what you're talking about. I know there are activist seed salesmen. I'm not going to out them here because that would bring the heat on them, but I can assure you you're wrong and would bet you money on it too if you would like to lose that money just come here and I'll introduce you to some of them.





"5) I don't see any "united we stand" faction in this movement."

You're debating with one of them.







"In fact, there are too many divides and the idea is to convince all that we must adopt one goal."

Cafe's, compassion clubs and safety for all harmless people. We could all unite to win those goals.






"To my way of thinking that means we must support repeal of drug prohibtion itself instead of trying to take the issue on one illgal substance at a time."

Then get out there and interact with the public ... lead by example ... don't just spend all your time telling other activists what they should be doing.






"We need to educate the activists before we set out to educate the public."

You need to get more convincing arguments before you "educate" anyone. If you haven't noticed, most people here end up disagreeing with part of your program sooner or later.






"Time will tell which direction this movement will take. It is my hope that Marc will emerge to lead an even stronger movement should he be sucessful in defeating the extradition order, or whether he has to serve 10 years."

Marc is one of many leaders of this movement. The tendancy to deify one person in a movement is unhealthy.





"This is all pure politics and it happens in every movement. To me, this is all good that the laundry get washed in public. This is where the arguements need to be forwarded."

Yes, well, when you get adrenal cancer and are facing time in a US prison, I'll remember you said that and I'll take a few kicks at you then, when you're vulnerable and facing death.