Friday, September 2, 2005

Marc Emery gains some artistic support

International illustrator and artist Christopher Wright has generously devoted his talents to the fight against the draconian and unjust laws against the hemp plant and the potential imprisonment of leading marijuana legalization proponent Marc Emery.

Peaceful lifestyle choices are under attack by the statists, and yet the focus is on Marc Emery, a man who flouted the law in support of freedom of choice for individual adults. Let us not forget that he was selling seeds, which means he was merely selling potential, originally produced by mother nature. Not that it should matter whether he was selling weed or seeds, the essential point being that the laws concerning marijuana use are insupportable, unless of course, you support government aggression and violence against peaceful people.

The artwork of Chris Wright is available for purchase from the artist's homepage, at Supersmall Gallery and also Ebay.


james said...

Peaceful? give me a break. Are all those biker gangs you are unintentionally supporting peaceful?
Get a grip on reality long enough to breath some FRESH air and think clearly for a change.
If Emery feels so strongly, then he can do his "business" in the states.

james said...

Where is the aggression and violence against "peacful" people? You break the law, face the consequences.
I guess the a\c in the jail and three square meals can be pretty aggressive...

Mike said...

Are all those biker gangs you are unintentionally supporting peaceful?

Just like Al Capone is still raking it in on the booze, now that THAT ill-advised prohibition is ended. Wake up.

The reason there's money in it for criminals is that it's ILLEGAL. We are talking about a weed. The money is danger pay. Remove the danger and it would be less expensive than wheat.

This should all be obvious.

MapMaster said...

When is the exchange ever not peaceful, voluntary and consensual? I've never heard of anyone forced to buy marijuana. The only reason you could have for supporting the continuing criminalization of marijuana is that you don't want the exchange to take place — you have decided for yourself that you don't want other people to decide for themselves.

Jay said...

James, you myopic twit -- the biker gangs are a necessary product of your war on drugs.

Peaceful and ethical individuals (like Emery) who want to produce their goods are under attack by both the government and the gangs who by definition are above any law you care to throw at them.

See any viagra or cialis "dealers" hosing each other down with lead lately?

james said...

A neccesary byproduct? What ARE you talking about? No weak willed customers = no criminals = no "war"

Do any of you have a painful medical condition? I never mentioned banning it's use for certain medical purposes, not unlike morphene.

It's not a peaceful transaction when people are packing guns to defend their "business." We're not selling bread here...

Why would I want people to have to make a decision on something that has no benefit to them?
Do I have to mention the LUNG CANCER arguement AGAIN?!

Mike said...

"It's not a peaceful transaction when people are packing guns to defend their "business." We're not selling bread here..."

Funny you should mention bread. If Marc got his wish, and "drugs" were legalized (with the sudden threat of unemployment hanging over drug cops just like when alcohol prohibition ended), the "vice of obesity" might then provide an Atkins-based means of keeping their jobs.

Ban bread!

Were this to happen, loaf-houses would open in the bad part of town, where loaf-heads could eat all the illegal bread they wanted -- once they showed the crust-pusher the colour of their money. Quarter-loaf, $60. Half-loaf, $110. By the slice, and the first one's free. You holdin? Yep, got some Paris Crust, crunchy on the outside, soft inside... some H.D.B.'s if you're having a barbecue with some friends, some Panama Rye... set you right up. Come on in and get some carbohydrates. Don't bring no heat, we'll get you toasted well enough.

Of course as the stakes increase one would tend to pack a gun since the law wouldn't be there to help you out in disputes over the quality and quantity of your bag of the "Big B." With bread criminalized, and both buyer and seller criminalized too, one would have to resort to direct violence to enforce contracts and resolve disputes. What are you going to do if the loaf is all crust when you get it home? Well, it won't be crust, because if it is and you don't make good, we both know that I'll have you beaten up since I can't go to small claims court.

This doesn't even get into the armed turf wars between underground bakeries, or the public alarms raised by cops about the dangers of secret underground "bake-houses" popping up all over, causing fires and explosions what with all the super-hot temperatures and the dangerous, explosive chemicals used to manufacture "designer yeast"...

In short, you see this violence because prohibition prevents disputes over the prohibited substance from going through the ordinary courts we use for every other kind of dispute. You see this violence because the idiotic policy of prohibition means we are talking about huge sums of money and huge profits for simple agricultural products, "helpfully" made illegal by fools who either can't think one move ahead in chess or CAN think ahead and see the enormous profit potential. You see this violence because a monopoly over this artificially profitable commodity is helpfully handed over to criminals by law that combines stupidity and malevolence like chocolate and peanut butter.

"Why would I want people to have to make a decision on something that has no benefit to them?"

Why should anyone care what you want, when what you want is absolutely none of your business?

Are you some kind of socialist?

"Do I have to mention the LUNG CANCER arguement AGAIN?!"

How about if you worry about your own lungs, comrade?