Marijuana.com

Cassius

Duuuude, take a chill pill... I know it's frustrating, you gotta keep at it but try not to let your emotions get in the way. It will only make you say things you might regret later.

Aha!! Gotcha! *jumps out from behind bushes*

I believe there is a stipulation in the mutual legal assistance treaty stating that the act must be a crime in both countries. If I'm not mistaken (I might be, since there's been a bunch of information bandied about), it might even have to have similar sentencing guidelines. You know, the whole we don't extradite people to Iran if they shoplifted while they were there on vacation, because they'd cut off the offender's hand, that sort of thing.

Sooooo. If that's true, then Canada would not be obligated by the treaty to extradite, in fact would have no explanation for doing so. Do you think they still would?

__________________

{ Cassius, Your Humble Narrator }
{ Posting Guidelines | Erowid Drug Information Resource | instantfilehosting.com }

 

BC.Buddy

I know, I know. But do you see the debate I'm in? It's like arguing with a robot about why we love.

I should settle a bit. But he contradicts himself, and worst of all, he's preaching the D.E.A.'s side of it. Now, I've always respected the fact that an argument has two sides, but this is silly! He doesn't care what the D.E.A. says, he doesn't care what Marc says, he thinks he should serve 10 years to life (!!!) in a federal prison and that's that!

I think I'll just try to ignore him in this issue from now on. That would probably be the best idea.

Also, before he jumps at the chance to belittle you too:
It is a law in both countries, only in my country it's being done completely openly. And I mean openly. Every level of government in my country not only knows Marc Emery, but in a lot of cases, knows him personally and exactly what he does. Also, the Canadian government has recommended the use of seed banks to get medicinal marijuana.

Plus, yes the sentencing is a big issue to. A Canadian man was sentenced to 2 years for growing 100 plants. When he appealed it to the BC Court of Appeals, they dropped it to a conditional sentence. If Marc Emery were to be tried in a Canadian court for his "crimes", he might get a hefty fine, or a couple years in jail. The U.S. wants at least 10 years. That's absurd.

__________________
BC Marijuana Party
"Overgrow The Government"
| Cannabis Culture | Pot TV |

- Proud Cannabis User -

Buzzby

No. The MLAT doesn't require extradition if the charges are not a crime in both countries.


The most reasonable way to look at it is that it's a simple exercise in law enforcement: a crime was committed and the accused perpetrator was arrested. And no, the DEA doesn't pay for anti-legalization ads. That would be the ONDCP.

__________________

BC.Buddy

See what I mean Cassius?

Yes, this is a simple law enforcement issue. Yes, they legally have all the right to be arresting Marc Emery. No, they're not doing it just because he's a seed seller. Question; Why do you assume to know the D.E.A's agenda? Do you think they're in any way transparent to your nation?

What's the difference? Not between organizations, I know that difference, but what's the difference who pays for it? The D.E.A. is clearly, and admittedly opposed to legalization. The ONDCP is just another arm of the U.S. government opposing the end to this terrible War on Drugs.

So are police organizations, because they would be laying off thousands (that probably includes you NS) if marijuana were to be legalized.

Lothar121

I think the distinction is Buzzby and Niteshift recognize that the charges against them have to actually be about political activism to be exempt, and they aren't. The charges against Marc only relate to his seed business, which means that within the court the law/charges will be only thing considered (as it should be). Regardless of the motivation or the purpose behind the choice to arrest Marc, the charges for him being extradited could be said to be the "formal cause" of his arrest and the "formal cause" will be what is debated in the courts.

P.S. Check out my new avatar by my name!

__________________

Donate. Write. Make a difference.. Posting Guidelines | Marijuana Policy Project | NORML | DPA | Drug WarRant | Media Awareness Project

 

killer12382

Has the DEA admitted that it was politically motivated? If so, then someone at the DEA needs to go to jail. Law enforcement shouldn't be involved in politics. Law enforcement should enforce the law......Period.

Buzzby

A DEA official said that the arrest of Marc Emery et. al. would be a blow to the legalization movement, not that inconveniencing the legalization movement was the motivation behind the arrest.

Would you contend that the arrests were not a blow to the legalization movement? I take that to be a simple statement of fact. Is the DEA happy about it? It seems that way. It does not, however, have any legal bearing on the case.

BC.Buddy

Very well. That could be true.

Also, it wasn't an official of the D.E.A., it was the head of the D.E.A., Karen Tandy who said that the arrest was a successful blow to the legalization movement.

If that's true, that the charges have to be specifically about the activism and not merely the reason for laying charges, then I feel sorry for the sons and daughters of our nations.

Why would you say that? Because it doesn't affect you down in the U.S? I certainly hope not, because you very specifically defended yourself when I said Canadians should feel alienated in these forums.

Buzzby

Are you now saying that the head of an organization is not an official of that organization?


I was wondering if you disputed the veracity of Ms. Tandy's statement, i.e. that Emery's arrest was a blow to the legalization movement.

killer12382

Now here is where the DEA put their foot in their mouth. If they arrested Emery on seed sales alone and kept it at that, then there wouldn't be a problem. BUT when they began talking about how it was a successful blow to the legalization movement in Canada (which they oppose) then it is no longer one country exercising a treaty but rather one country's attempt to influence the politics of another country. If so, then the treaty for this case alone could be nullified. Just my two cents.