I've just added a Wikipedia stub for Cannabis legalization in Canada. Please have a look and contribute to it what you can. I know little about the topic, except that Canada is now at the forefront of the struggle, and this should be recognized in an article.

Please also see my thread on Wikipedia in general.

Too bad you did not ask before you took those kinds of actions.


We support the repeal of cannabis prohibition around here.



"Legalizer" is a derogotory term just like homophobe is.


Republicans call George Soros a legalizer when they want to sat something bad.


How does anything get "legalized?" The word implies that the government willl one day pass a law permitting me to smoke cannabis.

Did the government pass a law to permit people to drink alcohol? No the law prohibition alcohol trade was repealed.

People who use the word "legalize" are revealing that they accept that the government does have the right to control substance and the ideas people have about them.


Kind of like people who use the word homophobe to imply they are superior to people who reject homosexuality as a moral activity.

Words are important.

Word hurt and words heal.

Wikipiedia.......a politcal encylopiedia of propaganda.

I did ask, actually, in the talk page on the article, for a discussion of what the title should be. The term legalize is more forward that merely reschedule, and I thought it comprehensive enough (though, again, I'm open to suggestions, please bring them to the talk page). I also raised the issue in various places even before ever creating the outline page.

I take your point, though- the goal is the repeal of prohibition. Nevertheless, this would be- in the most minimal scenario- an act of law.

Finally, I'd like to persuade you to give up this paranoid notion of Wikipedia as some sort of propaganda machine out to get you. If you need additional insight, please see Wikipedia, Neutral point of view. The whole reason I am here is that Wiki is precisely the thing CC should be more involved with.

Well, you got a real tough row to hoe.


I don't know how many times I have seen people here comment that they were not happy with Wikipiedia had to say.

Chris Bennett I believe was changing the page on Marc Emery and commenting that someone there was changing it back almost immediately.

You can read for yourself what Carol from Ka Kline had to say about the same thing.

She corrected a few sentences and they were all changed back.

I have seen for myself the purpose of the site is to slag people with negative propaganda.

This is an activists site.

We are attuned to bullshit from all vested interests.

I already know what I'm going to say if anyone ever brings up what Wikipiedia has to say about me.

Wikipiedia is a political propaganda rag. that's it that's all.

Personally I don't give a rat's ass what anybody prints agaisnt me.

You saw for yourself I can not only defend myself from the homophobe accusations, I can totally destroy them.


Same thing with the Chomsky quote that was in there..

Obviously anybody who doesn't like what you have to say can use it against you by taking statements out of context and who knows how long that horseshit stood?

What are people supposed to do? Go to Wikipiedia everyday just to make sure some idiot didn't slag them again?

I got enought to do just flushing the e-mail news that same idiot signs my name to and I got enough to do finding out where said idiot has used my name to post things in more unfavorable light.

Like I said, when you link me to "accusations" of homophobia made by sock puppets, just how much respect do you think you deserve?

Like I said, I'm in the public eye anyway and have gotten used to the territory that comes with it. I understand what my political enemies will do with the homophobe accusation.

The question is why don't you just paint me as an anti-semite?

I'm sure if you search around enough you can find some kind of statement I made somewhere that can be somewhat construed as anti-semite.

Like I said Wikipiedia is a political propaganda rag. That's it that's all. Everybody here knows it and I for one an not going to legitimize the enterprize by going to whatever Kangeroo court you hold.

That would be like pretending I gave a shit about what was printed there.

I corrected it once and provided more up to date information but for some reason the homophobe statements remain. Why is that when your policy states neutral and non-propaganda?

So like I said you don't even live up to your own rules.

And since I already know you print lies about Marc Emery and myself, what makes you think I would believe anything you had to say about anyone or anything else?

Post deleted by Marc Scott Emery

Well. it tells me I'm doing my job when people get upset.


That is why I do thing thing I do.

To me they do not live up to their advertised virtues so it is Wikipiedia who is full of shit.

Name one other "encyclopiedia" that would even print the accusations of sock pupputs for blatently propaganda purposes. The person who posted the the diatripe posted it for no other purpose than to portray me in a negative light.

For some reason I think that they ought to be above that, but they are not so they lose my respect.

It's as simple as that.

"I'll tell you about my homosexual experiance.....

Once when i was 13, I was at the movies with my cousin and some faggot sat beside me and started feeling me up. I didn't know what to do. So I told my cousin and he said to tell that faggot to fuck off as loud as i could. i did and he went away.....and I've had no respect for homosexuals since that day if you can imagine that.

So I edon't care what they do to each other. I don't want them such diviants in my social circle....if that makes me a bigot, hand me a medal. I'll proudly wear it."

This is the only quotation used now in the article, at least pieces of it.
I am very sorry that you were molested. I'd suggest some therapy, but lord knows that's just a government scam designed to make you a victim of the therapeutic state!

Well the molestation was prevented. But my introduction to men who want to have sex with men was repulsive.

Nothing in the intervening years has changed my opinion of that.

Therapy? What is that? Sex therapy perhaps? You know where a profession procures a whore for you and she helps you overcome your fears or short coming or whatever?

Pet therapy? Should I get a dog or a cat?

How about aromatherapy, perhaps I can smell my way out of my so-called homophobia?

Food therapy?

Some even suggest a little trip to the dominixtress can be good therapy.


Everything that makes a person feel good is called therapy in the therapeutic state.

So should Wikipiedia print the whole statement or is it cool to just print the part that makes it seem like I have no reason to not like the homosexual lifestyle?

More Importantly......should I wisen up, make this the last post ever under my real name and then adopt a sock puppet persona like my accusers?

for the record they only use the last line of that Quote.

Wikipedia Entry, Read it yourself...its only a few short paragraphs

Whoah where is marc in that stub? better add him.