+
Cannabis Culture Forums: The Political Forum >
End Prohibition - NDP Against the Drug War
Thread: Praise, flak for NDP pot resolution
Topic: Re: On the True Nature of Government / Part One
.
> On 24Nov Dana Larsen replied: I agree wholeheartedly that prohibition
> and drug war are key issues that affect people around the globe
> adversely in many ways.
.
tx say: Right. It's not enough for Harper and his cronies to confine his war on
drugs to this country. In his quest to go down in history as a great champion
of the drug war, he sees fit to carry the battle to far off places, such as
Afghanistan (where the armed forces can take a far more direct approach).
.
>> tx previously wrote: ... Maybe, but is there anything more important than
>> trying to open the eyes of the willfully blind?
.
> Opening eyes is good. But I urge you, and others who want to help the cause
> on a limited budget, to do some "armchair activism". This can include sending
> letters to the editors of newspapers and other media on a regular basis. (Like
> every day, or once a week.) [snip]
.
I can do that. Not every day though. However, when I see something in the
papers (anti-pot propaganda, for instance) I'll make an effort to comment.
Every little bit helps, right Dana? :)
.
> We are building momentum for this idea within the party, and as we get more
> resolutions passed in other provinces it will become more and more of an
> accepted nationwide NDP policy.
.
I'll do my bit by voting NDP in the next election.
.
>> Besides, the Christian forums and newsgroups really don't care to listen to
>> me. The Catholics especially are very good at censorship (ie. they've had a
>> lot more practice at it than the other churches).
.
> If they ban you that's one thing, but if you're being attacked in a debate that
> can be a good thing, as it shows you're having an impact. And note that there
> are many Christian denominations that support drug policy reform. Check out
> http://www.christiansforcannabis.com
.
I might just look into that.
.
>>> DL previously wrote: 2) run as a candidate for the marijuana party
.
>> tx: I don't even know if there is such a thing here in PC country.
.
> DL: There is a provincial AB MJ Party but they're fairly flakey. But still
> running as a candidate could be a positive thing.
.
tx: haha. Me running as a candidate would be fairly flaky fer sure. :)
.
>>> 3) join another political party and work within it
.
>> If I thought it would do any good I might just consider it. But again I must
>> point out that I live here in Alberta, the very heartland of Canadian fascism.
.
> All the better. I need you to join the Alberta NDP and help my efforts. The
> NDP has a voice in the legislature, they have four MLAs, all in Edmonton. You
> should please join the NDP, go to a few meetings, introduce some marijuana /
> drug policy resolutions in advance of their next convention, and also exert
> pressure within the party to back us on this issue.
.
I guess the first step would be to join the Alberta NDP? Umm, how exactly
would I go about doing that? Is there a website or something?
.
>>> 5) Write a letter to a newspaper or other media every day.
.
>> I've written letters to the Edmonton Journal before, and even had a
>> couple of them published. [snip]
.
> Good work. You've already done more for our cause than 99% of Canadians.
.
Now that's scary!
.
>>> DL: 6) volunteer time each week helping out an activist organization
.
>> tx: What activist organizations are active here in Edmonton?
.
> DL: End Prohibition is active in every province and we need help in
> Edmonton and Alberta.
.
tx: Do they have a website? If not, how can I learn more about them?
.
> I don't mean to attack you or come off as being rude. But when I see "a
> road to nowhere" as the response given to our comment that we have a
> long road, it makes me think you're saying our efforts are misguided and
> we should give up.
.
Misguided maybe. But I'm willing to admit that I could be wrong about that.
Maybe. And I'm certainly NOT saying that you, or anyone else, should give up.
.
>> I'd love to see that happen, Dana, I really would; but the chances of the
>> NDP coming to power (or even just having a significant voice) here in
>> Alberta (within my lifetime) are vanishingly small.
.
> But we can use the NDP's nationally unified structure to put pressure on
> them all. If the Alberta NDP backs our efforts then we have that much more
> leverage with other provinces where the NDP does govern. And the NDP will
> likely regain power in BC within the next decade, so if we can pull the
> NDP together on this then we'll be able to make real progress.
.
Go for it, dude. I'll support you all the way as best I can.
.
>> Well, maybe not a *total* revolution of society. Maybe a half of a total
>> revolution of society would be enough. Either way, something very major
>> has to occur; something that will make a lot of people rethink the way
>> things are, and the way things get done.
.
> Perhaps the increasing costs of middle-eastern warfare and Peak Oil will
> combine to create a fiscal and social crisis that results in enough of a
> revolution that marijuana is legalized, if only because prohibition becomes
> too expensive to maintain.
.
The USA has spent over a trillion dollars on the war on drugs since Nixon. So I
seriously doubt that the squarehead fascists care about the cost, or even about
the fact that the drug war is a total disaster that has accomplished nothing
positive whatsoever. They are simply incapable of listening to reason. They are
incapable of seeing anything beyond their own irrational hatred for drugs. Their
idiotic policy of 'just say no' is so deeply ingrained in their collective hearts
and minds, that there's simply no possibility of them ever getting beyond it.
That may seem very defeatist to you, and it certainly saddens me to think about
it, but you have to understand that apathy, ignorance, and self-righteousness are
the things that keep our enemies going down the path to self-destruction (and
dragging all of us along with them).
.
P.S. Part two of this dialogue is coming soon. Stay tuned to this forum.
x
+
Topic: Re: On the True Nature of Government / Part Two
.
[Or: The Reformer & the Revolutionary]
.
>>> DL: The institutions of government which we enjoy in North America
>>> are not perfect, and they could be vastly improved, but they have
>>> allowed for a great deal of social and legal change to take place
>>> without breaking down the whole system.
.
>> tx: Right. It's a flexible, relatively mild, and semi-rational system of
>> government that allows for slow and gradual modification. But even so,
>> it still serves the interests of the rich and powerful first and foremost,
>> and therefore still contains an unacceptable amount of fascism at all
>> levels of government.
.
> DL: Right, the system is hardly perfect, but neither are we as flawed
> human beings. Yet I think that we do better as a movement when we
> actively engage in the shared consensual collective hallucinations we
> call "government" and "nationhood". Other social injustices have been
> resolved or at least mitigated through changing of legislation, and we
> can do the same thing with marjuana and drug policy.
.
tx say: But not without also engaging the 'will of the people'. First you
have to get the votes, THEN you get a voice in government, and then you
have to get more votes, THEN you get some power to make changes in
the Law. This is what I'm saying: social change precedes political change.
.
>> Yeah, but none of these things came from the politicians themselves
>> until well after some small groups of ordinary citizens complained
>> about them long and loud; and not without a measure of violence
>> and bloodshed either.
.
> I agree. I am not looking to political parties or politicians for leadership
> on this issue. Instead I am leading a grassroots revolution
.
I think 'reform' would be a more accurate term to use here.
.
> within the NDP, forcing confrontation with party leaders like Quennell
> who resist acting on their own party policy, supported by the vast
> majority of their own party members.
.
Mr Quennell seems to me to be, at heart, a conservative. That would
certainly explain his 'I know better than you' attitude toward the party.
.
> I see politics as directional, so there is no final solution to our problems,
.
It's true that there is no final solution, as such, for new problems will
always arise to vex us. Where we differ is, I think, in our basic approaches
to politics and government. You think problems can be solved by creating
better laws and policies in and through government and the political
process; or, more simply, by improving government. I think that
government itself is the source of many of our problems. This ongoing
war on drugs being my proof and demonstration of this theory. My 'final
solution' then is to "improve government" by cutting the monster off at
the knees: LESS GOVERNMENT IS BETTER GOVERNMENT!
.
> but rather an endless shifting between various modes of government
> and social order. As long as we're moving in what I see as the "correct"
> directions I am happy. We may not see the global adoption of ideal drug
> policies in my lifetime, but I would like to be part of moving Canada's
> pot/drug policies in a better direction.
.
Better drug policies cannot become a reality unless and until the square-
head fascists are first removed from power. Whether this happens from
within the political process itself, or from without by way of a social move-
ment or revolt, I can't say because I don't know. But I will say this: the
political route will take centuries; for the rule there is one step forward,
two steps back. I would much rather place my hopes in a spontaneous
social revolution that will force change upon the government, whether
they like it or not. (And hopefully without violence, although (realistically)
that seems unlikely.)
.
>> tx: Right. Unfortunately, changing the laws which restrict freedom and
>> liberty are so much easier than making laws which have the opposite
>> effect. This is because freedom and liberty are fundamentally contrary
>> to the nature and purpose of government. To effect these kind of
>> changes in the Law requires a prior change or movement within society
>> as a whole that basically forces the government to make these changes
>> on society's behalf. Politicians will certainly never do such things of
>> their own accord.
.
> DL: I am a politician, albeit a lowly one. Perhaps one day I'll be a more
> successful one. I have faith in myself, but not in "politicians".
.
I have faith in you too, Dana. I'm not saying that ALL politicians are
necessarily bad, but only that political power *tends* to corrupt. I mean
just look at Prime Minotaur Harper. He gets elected because the people
wished to punish the Liberals for their corruption, and suddenly he thinks
he's the cat's meow. He puts the war on drugs into overdrive, and now
he's talking about the PCz forming a majority government after the next
election! That's one cocky SOB, if you ask me.
.
>> [snip] If the business sector would just stop being so anti-pot (in both
>> attitude and action), that in itself would be a major victory for the cause.
.
> There's a lot of money being made in marijuana prohibition.
.
I agree. And this is yet another reason why the corporations support and
actively participate in the war against drugs.
.
> If we could get more businesses to support legalization that would be a
> good thing.
.
That would be a *great* thing! The fight for legalization would be half-won
if we could just get those swine out of the way. The trouble is that the
corporations think that people are morons (hence the idiotic nature of most
of their advertising), and for the most part they are, alas, correct. It's
hard to tell the masses that they need liberty when they're just too damn
ignorant to realize that they're wrapped up in fascist chains!
.
> But I think working within a political party has a better chance of success
> than working within a corporation. I consider myself an "activist
> shareholder" within the NDP and would love to see some pot activists
> become "activist shareholders" within some mainstream companies
> that promote drug war. -- Dana Larsen
.
Frankly, I have no idea how to get all the corporations and businesses to
change sides at this stage in the war. Maybe you're right. Chances are they
won't listen to anybody except the government. If that is indeed the case,
then only a prior change in official policy will cause the corporations to
change their evil ways; albeit belatedly and very reluctantly.
.
It's an interesting problem, isn't it? You believe that changing behavior will
cause attitudes to change, while I believe that changing attitudes will cause
behavior to change. It may be that we're both right. Or wrong.
.
Only time will tell.
.
- the highly impatient one - textman ;><
x
textman
*