Over the Edge + October 14, 2009 deat your right to say it.” | et not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the ~ Voltaire The opinions expressed in editorials or letters to the editor that are sub- mitted to Over the Edge are not the opinions of Over the Edge or UNBC. The views expressed in a letter submitted to Over the Edge are the views of the original authors, and therefore, do not reflect the views of Over the Edge, or its staff. Over the Edge welcomes your submissions to our opinion section. To submit a letter to the editor e-mail over-the-edge@unbc.ca. Free Marc Emery ‘The Prince of Pot’ Faces 5-year Prison Sentence in the U.S. ANONYMOUS CONTRIBUTOR Marijuana activist Marc Emery was taken into custody on Monday, Sep- tember 28% in Vancouver. Emery is now awaiting a transfer to the U.S. where his plea bargain with American authorities is expected to net him five years in prison for selling marijuana seeds over the Internet. Emery, 51 was originally charged by the DEA with conspiracy to distrib- ute marijuana, conspiracy to engage in money laundering, and conspiracy to manufacture marijuana. The two former charges were dropped in ex- change for Emery pleading guilty to the latter. Most of Emery’s customers were American; however, Emery claims he has never set foot in the U.S, Two of Emery’s employees who were also charged in the U.S. netted two-years probation each and were released. Although Emery’s marijuana seed catalogue business was lucrative (net- ting $3-million a year in sales) Emery paid income tax at both the federal and provincial levels in Canada, clear- ing stating his occupation as ‘Mari- juana Seed Vendor: Emery paid nearly $600,000 in taxes from 1999 to 2005, A joint DEA-RCMP raid in 2005 shut down Emery’s online pot seed com- pany; however, Emery continued to sell marijuana paraphernalia and run the BC Marijuana Party from his store in downtown Vancouver. Emery was also convicted in Canada of selling pot seeds in 1998 and given a $2,000 fine. Marc Emery is a Canadian citizen. He (allegedly) broke the law on Can- adian soil. Canadian authorities are frustrated because Canadian law does not allow them to punish Marc Emery significantly enough to put him out of business. Now Canadian author- ities are cooperating with the DEA in order to remove Marc Emery from the marijuana activist/end prohibi- tion landscape. Emery claims to have given away nearly all of the proceeds of his lucrative business to legal or- ganizations whose mandate is raising awareness of the positive benefits of marijuana, and/or ending prohibition, including making medical marijuana available to those who need it, Medical marijuana has been clinically proven to assist individuals with AIDS, cancer, and many other debilitating ailments. Medical marijuana users include Pat- rick Swayze who used it to cope with pancreatic cancer. Swayze recently passed away, and his long-term part- ner said Swayze greatly benefited from medical marijuana. Why should we care about Marc Emery? If Justice Minister of Canada, Rob Nicholson, signs Marc Emery’s extradition order, it’s a blow to Can- adian sovereignty and the rights of Canadian citizens. Allowing Emery to be extradited to face a five-year prison sentence in the U.S, amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, especially when you consider the maximum jail sentence ever given in Canada for sell- ing marijuana seeds is one month. Can- adian authorities should not be out- sourcing our justice system. Our laws fail to give them the power to imprison individuals like Marc Emery because Canadians have a tolerant attitude toward marijuana use. Various polls show that in excess of 65% of Canad- ians believe that marijuana should be decriminalized. “Tt won't hurt you. It won't kill you. It won't do what so many legal things will do like tobacco, alcohol, prescrip- tion drugs, sugar, salt -- basic commod- ities that kill people every day in this country that are perfectly legal,” Marc Emery said outside the courthouse in Vancouver before he was taken into custody. For more information or to get in- volved, please visit www.cannabiscul- ture.com or www.whyprohibition.ca (the latter run by UNBC alumni, Jacob Hunter). Or just Google Marc Emery. Green Talk Opinion 7 Thomas Cheney - Columnist/Staff Writer In today’s world we are often told by those who, for better or worse, are our leaders that we have no choice but to fol- low the current path of continually ever increasing economic growth and_ that other social values such as the environ- ment, taking care of each other and our leisure time are an inferior value in com- parison to the said necessary value (idol) of economic growth. Taking care of ones’ children, having a healthy planet for you and them to live on or just relaxing and cooking for yourself instead of the buy- ing something from Save-On is given the ultimate damnation of our time, slowing economic growth. The reason that economic growth is considered to be such an unquestionable value is that it is supposed to increase the standard of living, that being simply the amount of stuff, that people have in the future. However, such an arguement is utterly use less if the creation of economic growth leads to massive ecological degrad- ation to the extent that we do not have a livable planet. Stuff is only valueable if you are alive or not in the process of climate change induced starvation. Already, hu- man-caused climate change threatens to wipe out approximately 90% of the human population by the end of the century if ac- tion is not taken soon. Economic growth is likely desirable in the Developing world where the lack of economic activity has led to very real problems including low agricultural yields and pathogen infested Sex and the City UNBC Edition water, but economic and phsycological research done by Richard Layard, of the London School of Economics show that one countries reach an income of about $15,000 dollars per capita, there is no re- lationship between the amount of money that people have and how happy they are in their life. Sacrificing the climate and the environ This arguement essentially devastates much of the argument that characterizes our environmental debate which is that we cannot afford to protect the environment because that would slow down economic growth which means less prosperity in the future. The question that needs to be asked is why do we want economic growth, if the wealth induced by economic growth (particularly in developing) will not make future generations (at least in the first world)) happier, but is quite likely leave them unable to meet their most basic hu- man needs, However, some conservatives (and liberals) including the former English Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Law- son, do not seem to get the point as they simply assume that nature and its resources are infinitely substitutable with economic growth, thus being able in their own minds to be above the laws of thermodynamics. I wish I was capable of such wishful think- ing. In a hearing in the British Parliament on climate change, Lawson went as far as to say“ The question, in a nutshell, is how big a sacrifice should we impose on the much poorer present generation in order to avoid the horror of people in 100 years’ time not being more than seven times as well off as we are today but only slightly less than seven times as well off as we are today.” However wealth is only useful if there is sufficient natural capital to create the physical capital required to run the production processes. For example, let's take water shortages induced by climate change. Assuming that it is found to be possible to find the massive amounts en- ergy to produce the desalinated water, the water alone to produce a kilogram of beef would cost $7.5 dollars per kilogram, based on the assumption that the beef would come from irrigated fields. This pessimistic comment even makes the as- sumption that crops will even be able to survive in much of the world after it has experienced 6 degrees of warming. There is a maximum temperature at which plants will no longer grow. The fact is climate change that has mainly been induced by an obsession with economic growth and what it threatens is the very life blood of our society, our farms, our water and the other ways that the land sustains us. However, we do have a right as citizens of a democratic society to ask what we want? Do we want a prosperous future where people have a their needs and a sig- nificant amount of their wants met or no future at all? That is the question that we need to ask. We need the ecosystem, the reverse might not be true. Growth is not the end, but perhaps a means. Kali Flick - Columnist/General Office Assistant Sometimes human nature tends to work against us when it comes to relationship issues, No matter how happy we are, we always want to get to that next level of satisfaction, This can be particularly true with long-term relationships that seem to be stuck in neutral. While women look forward to the excitement of commitment, men continue to debate and procrastinate. I got to thinking and am now curious if women fantasize and want a fairy tale happy ending as soon as possible, where as, men process this as an unreasonable act. Are men slower to commit because they are careful about getting to know a woman before they commit to her? Date first before becoming a boyfriend, stay a boyfriend before getting engaged, etc and so forth. If this is how men operate and negotiate relationships there maybe a les- son to be learnt. Men seem to make sure (as women should) that they feel compatible on all levels. This process must happen at its own pace, without the meddling best friends. Pressuring a man to make a decision before he knows, he knows you, may inevitably lead him to doubt. Does this mean that men think more about women and dating then women do? Are men rationally analyzing their relationships and compatibility when we are waiting to leap forward. Keep in mind that a strong relationship should be based upon more than convenience. Pushing past difficult times while remaining affection, together requires a deep commitment and appreciation for one another. Unconditional love is developed over time. I believe love is a choice we make, not necessarily a feeling we experience. Love may then be described as a strong positive emotion of regard and Disagreements within every relationship, whether best friend or boyfriend will generally occur. Proper communication is key to resolving issues; you need to be able to discuss all issues ef- fectively. Never bring up previously unresolved issues - they are in the past and that is where they should be left. Never discuss issues with your partner if you havent resolved this emotionally with your self first. If thinking about an issue makes you feel upset or angry, then do not bring this up with your partner, (this is something that I rationally realize but haven't figured out how to play). In this case, there is a chance that the your emotions will get the better of you, which always happens to me, Not thinking or communicating clearly just unreasonably responding and act- ing. What a vicious cycle as an argument is spun out of propor- tion. Haha This is when we take an old argument or instance and throw it back out in the open. A perfect way to end an evening on such a lovely not of loving and caring thoughts for one another. So who is doing the thinking here... the rationalizing boyfriend or the unreasonable girlfriend? Two copywrongs don't make a right BY LUCAS WAGNER THE GATEWAY (UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA) EDMONTON (CUP) - In a somewhat surprising move last month, Lily Allen came out heavily in support of proposed U.K. anti- file sharing legislation. The“three-strikes” legislation, which would ban copyright infringers from the Internet after three offences, has been called heavy-handed by many, including fellow artists like Pink Floyd and Radiohead. Allen believed so heavily in her anti-infringement stance that she created a blog, entitled “It’s Not Alright,’ to speak out against file shar- ing. Featuring posts from musicians on the pro-punishment side of the debate, the blog initially looked somewhat promising, providing a counterpoint to the hordes of pro-file sharing users on the web. Promising, that is, until she did some unauthorized copying and dis- tribution of her own, Seemingly unaware of the fact that copying text is equivalent to copying music, Allen copy-and-pasted an interview with 50 Cent from tech news site Techdirt, without attribution. And by without attribution, I mean entirely without attribution — Allen neglected to even put a courtesy link back to the original site, or post the name of the article's author, or put anything on her blog indicating that she lifted the text wholesale from another source. Naturally, the Internet erupted with comments on and criticism of Allen's actions. Bloggers cried foul on her “do as I say, not as I do” at- titude, and rightly so. But Allen, instead of gracefully accepting her wrong-doing, posted an all-caps “apology” to her blog, claiming it was “OVIOUS’ [sic] that the words she posted weren't hers. However “ovious’ as it may be, unfortunately, it’s still wrong. If Allen were a university student, her plagiarism would have her kicked out for academic dishonesty. At least the file sharers have the dignity to attribute the tracks being passed around the Internet to their original creators. But it didn't end there. Eager Techdirt readers happened upon some more copyright infringement by Allen. Her website had a multitude of digital mix tapes available for download, with much of the content from artists other than herself; some from artists not even on her recording label — content that she had no right to distribute. If the three-strikes law had been in effect, Allen would’ve been booted off the Internet a long time ago. Her defence?“I didn't have a knowledge of the workings of the music industry back then.” Well, Lily, neither do many of the people shar- ing your tracks over the web, and theyd be punished no matter their excuse, So what's the lesson here? While I could go back and forth on the topics of file sharing, the music industry, and copyright, the core issue here is hypocrisy. In a medium where you're often communicating one- on-one with your audience, transparency is key: the Internet doesnt allow for someone to do one thing and turn around and say something else. Allen's actions were wrong, but what's even worse was the fact that she refused to admit any wrongdoing. In the end, however, justice (in some form) was done, or at least seen to be done. Citing overwhelming “abuse” from commenters, Allen shut down her blog, and deleted all the content from it, pulling the mixtapes from her website as well. Her most recent Twitter update was simply “Tama neo-luddite, goodbye,’ so it appears that she’s enacted the con- troversial three-strikes punishment upon herself, and left the Internet for good. Shes also left the music industry for good — in a statement last week, she said that she has no future plans to record any more albums. It's a pity how copyright infringement can hurt musicians.