The Liberals and The Marijuana Bamboozle

As someone who has been up to his eyeballs in pot activism for 9 years, I would classify this Liberal vote to legalize pot as a bamboozle. The delegates did the right thing, but the party will not.

Not one single Liberal Candidate has the intelligence or the guts to campaign on this issue because not one single Liberal Candidate has the intelligence or the guts to explain to a voter what, exactly, “marijuana legalization” would even look like! (Ask one and see)

The media will not let them campaign on this issue, as the media has a well-established and long-standing anti-pot and pro-police bias. The coverage last week of the “pot not as bad as tobacco” study is a perfect example of that. The media continue to let people lie about the supposed dangers of pot (already debunked by science and history), and give the Right a free ride when they talk wild hyperbole.

I am 42 years old an I don’t think I will ever see legalized pot in Canada – and I blame the media. If legal pot ever comes, it won’t come through Parliament, it will come the same way same sex marriage, abortion, and medical marijuana became legal: through the courts.

But then, there have already been seven court rulings that have effectively shot down the prohibition on pot, but the cops, the media, and other judges, simply ignore those rulings, and busts increase by 10,000 every year.

So, really, I see little-to-no hope here.

Russell Barth
Educators For Sensible Drug Policy
Federally Licensed Medical Marijuana User

About russellbarth

Trying to end marijuana prohibition, and educate people about marijuana, diet, prohibition, and sustainable living.
This entry was posted in Activism, Harm Reduction, Politics and mental illness, protest, War and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The Liberals and The Marijuana Bamboozle

  1. You may be correct however I want to think that sooner rather than later this party the Party i proudly support would have the “Balls” under the right Leadershipto run with it.
    After all forget the Media (their voting numbers really do not count) it is the voters all parties want, and if the “Pot” supporters all of them could be mobilized to a voting booth then we may have something.

  2. Wayne Phillips says:

    Liberal affirmation of Resolution 117, by 77%, is what I call poetic justice.

    It was, after all, the Liberals (one Minister Henri Sévérin Béland), who, in 1923, essentially pulled off a bait and switch which allowed “there is a new drug in the schedule” to fraudulently be entered into house records as “cannabis indica”.

    The argument goes that the Health Minister had the power to put any substance in the schedule he saw fit, but if that were the case, why did he go to such great lengths to not mention cannabis specifically by name . . .(why?) . . .and since he didn’t mention it by name, how did “there is a new drug in the schedule” become “cannabis indica” (transmutation?)

    This leads me to believe that cannabis was fraudulently added to the schedule, and, as such, could potentially provide grounds for its removal from the CDSA, or, in the least, a fact finding commission and a referendum.

    The evidence supporting this (premise) can be found on-line: THE PETER POT PAPER (, Panic and Indifference (, and the 2002 Senate Report on Cannabis.

    The interesting thing about each of these sources is that though each present a different take on it, each provide flimsy, if not absurd, explanations for any discrepancy. (e.g. A solution to a problem which didn’t exist (at the time); the state of abject fear nurtured by Janey Canuck’s ‘the Black Candle”.)

    The Peter Pot Paper presents the most clarity on this . . . in fact, THE PETER POT PAPER ( by Peter John Curran tells us that:

    “In a private conversation with the Honourable Mr. Leon Ladner (one of the surviving members of the 1923 legislature), held on May 14, 1977, Mr. Ladner, now 94 years old, but exceptionally alert and competent, said he could not recall ever hearing the words “marijuana,” “Indian Hemp,” “cannabis Indica,” or “Hasheesh” mentioned in The House of Commons. Mr. Ladner said he was not aware that he was one of the legislators that originally incorporated marijuana into the Canadian narcotics laws.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s