Cultural Imperialism

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Saturday, 3 May 2003 20:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Would one of the apologists for the present administration kindly explain to me how this is anything other than asinine.

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Saturday, 3 May 2003 20:13 (twenty-two years ago)

where is dave q dammit?!

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Saturday, 3 May 2003 20:14 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/photos/murray_david030502.jpg

"Grr! Grr! See how stern I am! Do not pretend that the leaves in the background might be pot leaves, you adolescent Canuck cockfarmers! Grr!"

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 3 May 2003 20:30 (twenty-two years ago)

can't they find better things to threaten canada over?

― Maria (Maria), Saturday, 3 May 2003 20:42 (twenty-two years ago)

What about Free Trade?

― Rockist Scientist, Saturday, 3 May 2003 20:43 (twenty-two years ago)

They already retaliated againsted canada for daring to try and sell wood and wood products at a fair price in the US.

― Ed (dali), Saturday, 3 May 2003 20:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Oop, John, not an apologist, but I don't find this one like shockingly odd, apart from the sort of insane rhetoric. I mean, you share a really open border with another nation, they're moving to decriminalize a narcotic you're still -- good idea or not -- considering criminal in your own nation . . . it's sensible and non-shocking to put some diplomatic pressure on to back them off, though big blustery Four Horsemen talk is obviously a stupid way to go about it.

I'd say a more natural/reasonably line would be something more like "well, you know this is going to slow down the border a whole lot, since we're not up for letting decriminalization bleed over here" which is a perfectly polite and reasonable way to approach it. Of course, personally yeah, I think it's be slightly better policy to follow the decriminalization lead.

― nabisco (nabisco), Saturday, 3 May 2003 20:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Related question: who benefits more from a quick and open border, Canada or the U.S.? I was going to assume Canada, but then I realized there's no good reason to assume that.

― nabisco (nabisco), Saturday, 3 May 2003 20:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Mind, I'm a tee-totaler with anything harder than liquor...it's just this "There Will Be Consequences" line, combined with all the U.S.'s nonsense "freedom" talk the past coupla years. Bush on Iraq the other day: "They can choose any kind of government they want, as long as it's a democracy." Feh. So this new thing just sort of stuck out as another example of U.S. silliness; increased border protection since 9/11 oughta mean that all Canada can puff away all day long if they want without it affecting us southerners much.

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Saturday, 3 May 2003 21:01 (twenty-two years ago)

You should look to europe for comparisom. France (virulently anti-cannabis mainly because its seen as algerian) shares the Schengen area (zone with no internal border controls what so ever), with the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain (varying degrees of decriminalisation) and doesn't feel the need to threaten them in any way with anything.

― Ed (dali), Saturday, 3 May 2003 21:04 (twenty-two years ago)

nabisco OTM

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Saturday, 3 May 2003 21:06 (twenty-two years ago)

why is weed harder then liqour john ?

― anthony easton (anthony), Saturday, 3 May 2003 21:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Having grown up an hour and a half from Niagra Falls, I can tell you there's already a pretty tough border policy in place for American teens re-entering the States from Canada (due to Canada's more reasonable drinking age). Several friends had their cars taken apart by Customs officials, and one actually had his vehicle seized (due to his own stupidity in keeping drugs in the glove compartment rather than consuming them all while in Toronto). This news just means that all U.S. citizens returning from the great green north will now be treated to similarly invasive inspection. Stupid, sure, but that's what an endless War on Drugs gets you. The real message is, don't buy more in Canada than you can smoke on that side of the border.

― JesseFox (JesseFox), Saturday, 3 May 2003 21:20 (twenty-two years ago)

why is weed harder then liqour john ?

Really. As an old friend used to ask, which one makes you feel worse in the morning?

― JesseFox (JesseFox), Saturday, 3 May 2003 21:22 (twenty-two years ago)

why is weed harder then liqour john

ok point taken - "I don't take drugs besides over-the-counters & Old Grand-Dad" is what I ought to have said

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Saturday, 3 May 2003 22:00 (twenty-two years ago)

oh and this fabulous Dutch vodka called Ketel One that you really must try only not if you've been taking decongestants ouch ouch

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Saturday, 3 May 2003 22:03 (twenty-two years ago)

My wife introduced me to Ketel One. Our bar tabs went up.

― JesseFox (JesseFox), Saturday, 3 May 2003 23:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Drunks. But I kid the etc.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 4 May 2003 00:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Since when was marijuana a narcotic?

― toraneko (toraneko), Sunday, 4 May 2003 01:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Due to the disturbing floopy appearance of that man's head from the brows upwards, and the fact that the top of his skull seems to be leaning over slightly, it appears as though he were made of plastic and stuck in a microwave for eight seconds.

― Nate Patrin (Nate Patrin), Sunday, 4 May 2003 02:10 (twenty-two years ago)

HAHA the real problem is the fact that all the good Tennessee weed will be shipped north and sold to the Canadians, leaving none for us! Can't have that, see.

― Millar (Millar), Sunday, 4 May 2003 02:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Millar I'm reporting you to your superior officers!

― amateurist (amateurist), Sunday, 4 May 2003 02:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Millar is sending everybody on a wild goose chase, practically all the gov't weed is grown in Mississippi

nice try M., now put down the Power Hitter and back slowly away

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Sunday, 4 May 2003 03:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Actually, Millar's close to the truth. A district attorney in one of those rural East Tennessee counties that successfully converted from a moonshine economy to a marijuana economy told me that most Tennessee weed is actually exported to major metropolitan areas and sold at a premium. Most of what you can actually buy in Tennessee is cheap Mexican grass. The weird thing is, the D.A. -- who, of course, spent a lot of time proscuting good ol' boys with dope patches in the hills -- was proud of the quality of the Tennessee product.

― JesseFox (JesseFox), Sunday, 4 May 2003 22:35 (twenty-two years ago)

fuck the USA, man. anyone else in the world tired of their shit?

― dave al-q, Monday, 5 May 2003 17:31 (twenty-two years ago)

You don't have to go somewhere else to get tired of it.

― squirl (Squirrel_Police), Tuesday, 6 May 2003 00:07 (twenty-two years ago)

if weed were legal in canada, why in god's name would canadians IMPORT WEED GROWN ILLEGALLY SOMEWHERE ELSE??? what do you think BC is for, anyway?

― Dave M. (rotten03), Tuesday, 6 May 2003 02:14 (twenty-two years ago)

canadians don't import it. Americans export it. Easier that way, and besides, Americans enjoy making money.

― Millar (Millar), Tuesday, 6 May 2003 02:19 (twenty-two years ago)

It's like Bush, Murray and Walters think that Reefer Madness was a documentary.
What I'm worried about, after we took a pass on that last war and with our gradual transformation into some drugged-out stoner utopia, is that Bush will turn his hawk-eye north.

― Bruce Urquhart (Bruce Urquhart), Tuesday, 6 May 2003 02:26 (twenty-two years ago)

'we're invading to canada to bring them democracy and freedom. what? well yeah, technically they already have that, but until major corporations control their entire political process, they will never be as truly free as the good ol' stars and stripes, get me?'

― Dave M. (rotten03), Tuesday, 6 May 2003 02:40 (twenty-two years ago)

France (virulently anti-cannabis mainly because its seen as algerian) shares the Schengen area (zone with no internal border controls what so ever), with the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain (varying degrees of decriminalisation) and doesn't feel the need to threaten them in any way with anything.

Not true--read this.

― slutsky (slutsky), Tuesday, 6 May 2003 02:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Plus we have all those confusing political parties, which only hurts the democratic process. Plus, we are governed by a bunch of liberals, which I hear is a dirty word to the republicans.

― Bruce Urquhart (Bruce Urquhart), Tuesday, 6 May 2003 02:46 (twenty-two years ago)

In reference to the post preceding the post preceding my last post.

― Bruce Urquhart (Bruce Urquhart), Tuesday, 6 May 2003 02:46 (twenty-two years ago)

France still doesn't routinely stop anyone at the border though. The only border that they make you slow down for is the french spanish one and that's only to check you're not brown, (unfortunately this is true, I got stopped once on the motorway between figures and perignan, at the border, because there were 5 people in a peugeot 106, it was riding very low and they wanted to check the boot for illegal immigrants).

Compared to how pissed off the french government gets with other EU countries about other issues, its fairly minor.

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 6 May 2003 06:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Dave and Bruce fighin' the power! march on bruthas!

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 6 May 2003 06:15 (twenty-two years ago)

my understanding was that practically all the countries that share a border with the netherlands have applied heavy pressure on them to change their drug policy, I know France has huffed and puffed in it's usual "L'europe - c'est moi" way.

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 6 May 2003 06:17 (twenty-two years ago)

lay off, blount, it seemed funny at the time.

of course, i was high.

― Dave M. (rotten03), Tuesday, 6 May 2003 07:20 (twenty-two years ago)

i am high.
i am eating brownies.

really, why is this so dangerous ?
brownies are good.

― anthony easton (anthony), Tuesday, 6 May 2003 07:33 (twenty-two years ago)

damn you, you evil criminal master mind, you, with your offensive to society brownie eating.

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 6 May 2003 07:41 (twenty-two years ago)

i am not eating pot brownies btw.
i am eating non pot brownies.

ase

― anthony easton (anthony), Tuesday, 6 May 2003 07:52 (twenty-two years ago)

you have just saved yourself from a US airstrike pinko-commie stooge ;-)

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 6 May 2003 08:03 (twenty-two years ago)

i smoked the pot.

― anthony easton (anthony), Tuesday, 6 May 2003 08:04 (twenty-two years ago)

duck and cover commie boy ;-)

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 6 May 2003 08:06 (twenty-two years ago)

anybody know that novel 'ecotopia'? or 'the fifth sacred thing"? secession needs to take place. as soon as possible.

things are just so insane.

i won't mention the hypocrisy of former 'drug czar' and nicotine/gambling addict 'book of virtues' author william bennett...

nor will i mention the plight of the south american farmers who are seeing their coca crops destroyed...when chewing coca leaves is invaluable for living in the high elevations...& coca is loaded w/vitamins & contains more calcium than any other plant investigated by the usda...and is simply a sacred & integral part of andean culture...but at least americans are now free from the ravages of crack/cocaine addiction! yay! sure, the amazon waterways have been poisoned by herbicides, to name just one attendant disaster, but hey, it's worth it since we now enjoy the all the benefits that come with living in a 'drug-free america'.

pot smokers??? jeez, go after the f*cking meth labs, man! in that context the 'four horsemen' rhetoric might not sound so absurd...

― Dallas Yertle (Dallas Yertle), Tuesday, 6 May 2003 08:59 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah haha, how come they aren't going after the meth labs?

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 6 May 2003 09:22 (twenty-two years ago)

seriously i recant every pro-full/spec/dom thing i've ever said. the 'four horseman' are actually plutocracy, police statism, religious hysteria and stupidity. they can seal the fuckin' borders if they want, just don't let anyone OUT anymore

― dave al-q, Tuesday, 6 May 2003 10:21 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.