USA reaches north to nab Canadian marijuana activist
This story illustrates the different social mores of Canada and the USA. It also raises a question about international law enforcement: for what sort of offences should the American government be able to demand the extradition of a Canadian citizen?
Marc Emery is the leader of a political party in the province of British Columbia. The primary objective of the Marijuana Party is to change federal laws to decriminalize cannabis.
Mr. Emery also runs an internet business which sells marijuana seeds, and many of his clients live in the USA. According to American drug enforcement officers, Mr. Emery's business earns up to $3 million per year. The Globe and Mail reports:
- "I've sold about four million seeds," the marijuana mogul boasted in a 2002 media interview. "Unlike most other seed dealers, I use my real name and I'm easy to find."
American officials say they will seek Mr. Emery's extradition to try him in Seattle. Conviction on either of the marijuana charges carries a minimum prison term of 10 years to a maximum of life.
In Canada, just last week, the B.C. Court of Appeal rejected a two-year jail term for a convicted marijuana grower as excessive. And the Government of Canada has introduced legislation which would decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use:
- Bill C-38 introduces alternative penalties for the possession of small amounts of marijuana (under 30 grams). Under this legislation, all possession and cultivation of marijuana remains illegal. Offences relating to the possession of small amounts of marijuana would, however, be prosecuted as a contravention by means of a ticket. This new ticketing regime better reflects the severity of the crime.
- "The Government believes that Canadians should not be saddled with a criminal record for possessing small amounts of marijuana. This is a case where the consequences of being convicted for an offence far outweighed the offence itself." said Ms. Torsney [Chair of the Special Committee on Bill C-38].
- In addition to the alternative penalties for possession, Bill C-38 increases the penalties for those individuals who cultivate large amounts of marijuana.
The Globe and Mail comments:
- The arrests raise the question of how far another country should be allowed to go in trying to influence the way in which Canadian police deal with a substance that many Canadians consider to be an acceptable recreational tool.
- "If Mr. Emery was a person who had been suspected of homicide in the U.S., we wouldn't have any problem with what was done at all," said Neil Boyd, a criminology professor at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby.
- He said Mr. Emery has been able to operate his marijuana seed business for more than a decade in Canada, where pot possession has traditionally not been vigorously policed as a criminal act.
- "For us to send Mr. Emery to the U.S. to face what might be life imprisonment would seem to me to be ceding a certain amount of our sovereignty in terms of how we want to see Canadian citizens treated for certain kinds of behaviour."
- Prof. Boyd said the arrest of a high-profile Canadian marijuana advocate is an indication that the United States is out of step with Britain and other European countries, which have been moving to decriminalize pot possession.
posted by stc @ 7:28 AM
31 comments
31 Comments:
It is an interesting topic and something that I am thinking about. I haven't formulated an answer yet but didn't want you to think that you were being ignored by the Yankee in LA. ;)
This is a bit more complicated than your question assumes. First Marc Emery is breaking American laws, and assuming some form of protection by virtue of his canadian citizenship. The American law enforcement officers had to be accompanied by a Canadian police officer to arrest him so on some level Canada is already co-operating with this.
Next the extradition process takes place infront of a judge who gets to weight the actual merits of the case the US has against Emery. Certainly the extradition process should procede. Perhaps the judge (esp since we are talking BC) will throw the american case out as having no merit. After all this is a seed business - seeds have only the potential of becoming pot - not actual pot and the law does make these differences.
It will be amusing to watch.
FWIW, here's the wikipedia take on the subject of extradition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition
Seems like Canada would have to believe that of the five criteria for extradition identified in the entry, at least a couple seem to prevent extradition -- in Canadian terms, the likely penalty will be disproportionate to the crime; and the relevant crime isn't serious under Canadian standards.
I guess that based on this, I don't think Canada should extradite Mr. Emery.
I have additional thoughts, largely tying to turning the tables -- whether the U.S. would allow Bush to be extradited if he were brought up on charges based on the Iraqi invasion or Guantanamo -- but I don't think they're actually germane.
Aaron, I'm entertained by your musings on the extradition of the President to Canada for possible war crimes. But you're right, the topic is a bit afield from our current inquiry.
I hesitate to raise additional legal considerations, since interpretation of the law is never as straightforward as it appears to non-lawyers. With that caution in mind, those who are interested in the law governing extradition from Canada will likely find this article by Lloyd Duhaime helpful.
In specific, note Mr. Duhaime's reference to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
One Charter issue which does not appear to be resolved is the reasonableness of the requesting country's expected sentence. … In cases where mandatory and extremely harsh jail terms exist for possession of narcotics, there are instances of Canadian courts denying extradition based on the Charter.
Thus, if a Canadian court orders Mr. Emery's extradition to the USA, it seems likely that he will have grounds for an appeal to a higher court based on Charter considerations.
But I'm not interested in your legal opinion so much as your personal response to the case. On the face of the facts, Mr. Emery has committed an offence against American law (by selling cannabis seeds to residents of the USA). Sheila puts the question very well, if I may paraphrase her comment: having knowingly committed a crime, can Mr. Emery reasonably expect the Canadian government to protect him?
Q
Marijuana should be legal period. I wrote about it briefly here http://tonermishap.blogspot.com/2005/04/patented-marijuana-will-lead-to.html
In some societies, adultery carries a death sentence. Would we think it appropriate to allow a person to be extradited for messing around if they were likely to be killed for it? I doubt it.
As to marijuana offenses: Ten years or more of a person's life for something so minor is equally appalling. No, he should NOT be extradited!
Even if you argue that he should have known better than to flout American laws, known world over for their excessive, unreasoned, paranoid (and ineffectual) reaction to all drug offenses, ten plus years for stupidity seems excessive.
I'm with misanthrope: it should be legal. Controlled, definitely, and taxed to death, as alcohol and cigarettes are, sure, but legal.
"Having knowingly committed a crime, can Mr. Emery reasonably expect the Canadian government to protect him?"
Knowing that one committed a crime in one country is insufficient reason to merit extradition. If, in a totalitarian state, it is a crime to mail subversive material, neither Canada nor the United States would hand over one of its citizens who'd been mailing such materials from home, because they respect freedom speech, don't consider what the mailer did a crime, would think the punishment would be disproportionate, etc. (admittedly it's also unlikely that they would have an extradition treaty with that country, though in such circumstances it is possible for individuals to be extradited on a case-by-case basis).
Similarly here, it would be difficult to reconcile Canada's lenient marijuana laws with shipping Mr. Emery off to face decades in an American prison.
As for my personal response, I despise the marijuana laws of my country, even though I've never taken so much as a single puff. If a society has enough sense to treat marijuana reasonably, I don't see why it needs to kowtow to another country's silly laws on the subject.
Looks like Mary beat me to my post! ;)
I agree with Mary P. It should be taxed with the money going to funding Social Security or a national health care plan in the U.S.
Here are a couple of paragraphs:
Although the misuse of over-the-counter medications such as aspirin, acetaminophen, and antihistamines kills thousands of people every year, not a single death has ever been credibly attributed directly to smoking or consuming marijuana in the 5,000 years of the plant’s recorded use.
There have been few large-scale studies about marijuana because and this is a huge reason – the marijuana plant cannot be patented. Therefore, corporations that back research are more interested in establishing the drug’s harmful effects rather than helping people find an economic cure.
Mary P., Aaron, Misanthrope:
I am in 95% agreement with you. But just to be a brat, let me defend my 5% reservation.
First, Canadian law is still ambivalent about pot, so Mr. Emery can't claim to be entirely on the good side of it. Note the final sentence in the quote about Bill C-38:
In addition to the alternative penalties for possession, Bill C-38 increases the penalties for those individuals who cultivate large amounts of marijuana.
Mr. Emery isn't cultivating large amounts of marijuana, he's only distributing large amounts of cannabis seed. But he doesn't possess the stuff only for his personal use, he's a trafficker of sorts. So he's in a grey zone, and he knows it full well.
Second, Mr. Emery could have distributed seeds only in Canada. When he started shipping to the USA, he exposed himself to the penalty of American law.
Third, it's a general position of mine that people ought to accept responsibility for their own actions. Mr. Emery wants to be a marijuana activist; he wants to challenge the law, and thumb his nose at the authorities. Good for him, I say!
But he must have known he was running this risk. Now he's about to become a martyr to the cause. But he's going to expect the Canadian government to shelter him from the consequences of his own actions.
That's the case in favour of extraditing him, as I see it. You folks are doing a fine job defending the other position. Feel free to explain why everything I've said in this comment is wrong.
Q
q, You are right. Mr. Emery is looking for trouble. I just hate to see Canada give in to the thugs in the white house.
This is interesting... The media in Canada often portrays our neighbours to the south as anti any kind of recreational drugs. However it seems that most of us are in agreement on the fact that marijuana possession is hardly a major crime. My question then is, who really elected the "thugs in the White house", that support the hard line anti marijuana legislation? I suspect the Midwest and areas that were not marked with blue in the last election have a great deal more influence on the marijuana laws.
The opinions expressed in this thread make sense considering that this Blog seems to draw some of its readership from the state of California. Not that Californians are a bunch of drug smokin pot heads, but that being traditionally democrats they support getting to the root of the drug problem by attempting to dry up demand and fighting the “economic hopelessness that fuels it” (Aug 2000 Democratic party website)
The policy that would support Emery’s extradition is very much a Republican one. This outreaching policy that extends the influence of the US beyond its borders to protect Americans at home and abroad is endemic to the administration. I will refrain from using the current hostilities in the middle east as an example as there is far more involved there than extending influence, and attempt to stick to the drug issue. The Republican party platform for 2004 clearly supports a policy of extending influence to attack the drug problem before it reaches American shores as it states ;
" Our Party believes that the United States must continue to support the
democracies of South America with strong economic and security assistance. We
therefore endorse the increased support that the President and the Republican Congress
have provided to Colombia in the fight against narco-terrorists, in the eradication of coca
and poppy crops, and in the interdiction of illicit drugs and the extradition of criminals.
We also support the Bush Administration’s active strategy to help the Andean nations
adjust their economies, enforce their laws, defeat terrorist organizations, and cut off the
supply of illegal drugs."
Therefore while I can’t say I would agree with the Bush administration's policy toward drugs and extradition I can understand it based on their typical party approach to most issues.
The whole problem boils down to how to control the flow of drugs? Democrats try to diminish the demand while republicans try to diminish the supply. The republicans think that “supply side economics” works Reaganomics proved it. That said, did Reaganomics settle it for all time? If the problem is mitigated by removing the demand as the democrats want then hasn’t the problem been more completely solved ?
As for Emery’s extradition, If Canada extradites Emery then aren’t we giving tacit acceptance to the Republican policy of extended influence? Although I think Emery’s stance on Marijuana legislation is self serving an he might deserve to be extradited and imprisoned for a good many years, I suggest that we vote no to Republican policy and try Emery here for the obvious crime he has committed. (How legally we might approach this I do not know that is a question for Q to answer?)
I always feel a little behind the curve with this crowd (I know there have GOT to be a couple of you that are attorneys)...but here are my thoughts...
This man has been operating in Canada, distibuting seeds for a decade. Was it stupid for him to distribute to a country that still comes down really hard on non-violent drug offenders? Probably. Should he be extradited? Probably not. How many of the purchasers were arrested? At what point do they take responsibility for their actions? And what is this little operation costing the US taxpayers?
I don't believe marijuana should be legalized, but I think to go after someone like this is a waste of time and energy. What he's doing is happening in another country, one that clearly hasn't been all that concerned with his means of income. If Canada wants to arrest and try him...great, but is his operation anything more than a blip on the US's drug problem? Probably not even a blip. And how many of those people who bought his seeds REALLY know how to grow and harvest a decent product (I've got friends who've been in their basements with lamps for YEARS trying to figure out how to grow anything but tumbleweed).
It kind of reminds me of the case of the Australian woman arrested with weed in Thailand. I think she got 20 years in a Thai prison for possession. BUT AT LEAST HER CRIME ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE IN THAT COUNTRY!
This is a very intelligent discussion, and all of you have contributed significantly to it.
Bill, I appreciate the quote from the Republican Party platform. The US Government often runs roughshod over other sovereign nations, refusing to allow them to have independent policies. It's highly offensive; hence the title I gave to this post.
But cocaine, smuggled in from South America, has a much more destructive impact than pot. In fact, I agree with Misanthrope on this point: it isn't clear to me that marijuana is a harmful substance, if used in moderation. At the very least, it's arguably less harmful than tobacco or alcohol, both of which are legal in the USA as in Canada.
Carolyn, you don't need to apologize for your contribution to the dialogue. You make a very good point here: is his operation anything more than a blip on the US's drug problem? Probably not even a blip.
I think President Bush's policies are sometimes determined by sheer ego. Mr. Emery made a miscalculation by thumbing his nose at the Bush administration; they aren't prepared to let it pass. It has nothing to do with the size of the threat he represents to the American population, and everything to do with his flauting of America's "war on drugs".
In my previous comment, I spelled out the case against Mr. Emery. Despite everything I said there, in the end it all reduces to a concept of fundamental importance: justice. It would be unjust to sentence Mr. Emery to 10 years in prison, let alone a life sentence. Marijuana simply isn't that harmful a substance.
The Canadian government is prepared to crack down on traffickers. But I think this is really intended as a tool which can be convenient to law enforcement officers. Sometimes you're after organized crime, for example, and a marijuana operation provides a useful hook.
By selling seeds, Mr. Emery is supporting cultivation for personal use. (I highly doubt that grow ops order their seeds from Mr. Emery over the internet.)
Canadian policy says, let's turn a blind eye to personal use of marijuana. It isn't unusual to come across someone lighting a joint in a public place; and not merely at concerts. I recently saw someone lighting up next to a local convenience store. They aren't afraid of being prosecuted because, let's face it, most of us have tried the stuff, and we know first hand that the dire prophecies of Reefer Madness are just that — madness.
No, Canada shouldn't extradite Mr. Emery to the USA. They would be complicit in perpetrating an enormous injustice.
Q
OK, so you folks generally don't support Mr. Emory's U.S. extradition. Fair enough. Here's a test.
Suppose for arguments sake a Mr. John Doe, of Detroit, Michigan, a federally and state licensed US firearms seller, used the internet to make additional sales outside his home jurisdiction and for several years has been making regular firearm sales to customers in Ontario, Alberta, Newfoundland and the Yukon - among other locations.
Lets just suppose the sales violated Canadian and various territorial firearm laws, but not US. In the course of time a Canadian warrant issues, an arrest is made by RCMP and federal officers in Detroit and Mr. Doe is taken before a US federal judge for an extradition hearing.
If your opinion vis-a-vis extradition holds, then you are at least consistent. If it changes because of any other factors, then I hold you are simply arrogant.
Cheers.
49er,
You raise a good hypothetical. You could even up the ante and say that one of the guns that Doe shipped was used in the commission of a crime (be it robbery or murder).
A fair amount of the discussion here has to do with personal views toward US drug laws, but you cut to the heart of an issue, namely, that our personal views on the validity of a law shouldn't affect how we're willing to treat extradition cases -- we favor letting Emery stay in Canada even though he's probably technically violating Canadian law, and your hypothetical presumes Doe isn't even guilty of a technical violation. Either extradite both Doe and Emery, or extradite neither. I'm willing to be consistent, and say that the Doe should not be handed over.
Out of curiosity, do you know whether such a hypothetical can exist? You state that Doe followed all U.S. laws, but I don't know enough about the laws governing gun sales, and whether it's legal to sell firearms over the internet, or out of state, or what would be required concerning a background check (if any such requirement exists).
49erDweet there are too many suppositions in your hypothetical situation to make it applicable to this case. I am sure there are other examples that would be more relevant.
This argument in its logical form states; If you accept A then you must also accept B because both A and B are the same. The argument fails because A and B are not the same.
I think a much better analogy to this is the one mentioned by Mary P., In some societies, adultery carries a death sentence. Would we think it appropriate to allow a person to be extradited for messing around if they were likely to be killed for it?
To entertain your argument for a moment I would expect the US to prosecute the arms dealer, not Canada. When you Added the proviso that “If [your opinion] changes because of any other factors, then I hold you are simply arrogant.” are you saying that if we don’t accept your argument we are arrogant?
Arrogance would imply that we believe we are superior. My question is superior to who? It seems that you are assuming that people voicing this opinion are entirely Canadian, I suggest you look at the nationality of those posting in this thread, at least half are American and it seems that besides yourself the other Americans represented are not in entirely in favour of extradition.
In my opinion extradition is a good thing but not all crime warrants it.
Aaron I agree "that our personal views on the validity of a law shouldn't affect how we're willing to treat extradition cases," but I think that extradition need not be universal for all crimes. The BC judge is well within his rights to say no to extradition, and the same should be true for American Judges. That said I am willing to accept that niether side will be entirely happy at all times with all decissions. However that is a constraint of living in a global society.
We are once again back to an issue that has been Blogged quite a bit, the issue of a world of absolutes and no grey areas. Not all laws created internally will be accepted externally, if you know what I mean.
Forget the guns and the drugs. What if My Emery were smuggling in cellphones without declaring them to customs or paying the duties required? Countries has the sovereign right to control what products enter their borders and what tariffs they might charge. If you're going to run an export business, you have the responsibility to know what the laws are regarding cross-border trade.
If Canada does not extradite Mr Emery or otherwise punish him for breaking exportation/importation laws, they open themselves up to violations of the sort from the other side.
They may not want to extradite him for the drug charges, but they should at least give him an appropriate punishment for smuggling.
I agree with Scott. Emery has commited a crime both in the US and Canada.
While we do not prosecute simple possesion, Emery has gone beyond it and also insulted our neighbour by "thumbing his nose" at thier legal system in the process.
That said, I agree with Q "It would be unjust to sentence Mr. Emery to 10 years in prison, let alone a life sentence. Marijuana simply isn't that harmful a substance."
Therefore extradition should not be an option we should try Mr Emery here in Canada and give him the maximum we deem Just for his crime.
What 49er omits in his hypothetical example is the penalty for the action - crime in one country, non-crime in the other. If the penalty is excessive, then he should not be extradited.
(Not even entering into the relative deadliness of guns vs. pot, which is an irrelevant tangent. I imagine the example was chosen deliberately, hoping to provoke.)
• Not even entering into the relative deadliness of guns vs. pot, which is an irrelevant tangent.
This isn't really in response to anonymous so much as 49er. But anonymous has touched on the point I wanted to raise.
I don't think the relative deadliness is an irrelevant tangent. I think it's the crux of the issue. Go back to the original post:
"If Mr. Emery was a person who had been suspected of homicide in the U.S., we wouldn't have any problem with what was done at all," said [criminology professor] Neil Boyd.
Exactly right. My position is that marijuana is not a harmful substance and American policy is irrational. The policy is based on internal political considerations (which are irrelevant to Canada) not on scientific data.
I know many Americans think guns are harmless, so it's a contentious issue. And, to that extent, 49er's analogy is relevant.
So I would say, let's look at the evidence on guns and decide whether they're harmful. Or, more precisely, we would need to decide whether the sentence proposed under Canadian law is proportional to the harm caused by guns.
If guns are harmful, and the sentence would be proportional to that harm, the USA would be justified in extraditing the offender to Canada. If not, then extradition would an unwarranted intrusion on American sovereignty.
If that position makes me arrogant, I can deal with it. I've been called worse.
Q
An afterthought —
Aaron's comment is (as always) thoughtful and intelligent. If Mr. Doe's business is completely legal in the USA, Canada would presumably have a hard time making a case for extradition.
Q
Yes that would be a problem but as I said there are too many suppositions in 49erdweets hypothetical situation to make it applicable to this case.
the analogy between the two cases I don't think holds up.
Entirely because Doe's business couldn't possibly be completely legal in the USA.
I think that anonymous is correct and "the example was chosen deliberately, hoping to provoke."
So my suggestion was to consider another example either similar or more appropriate.
How about we look at an issue that some of us are more familiar with like Internet pharmacies?
This way we are dealing more in the realm of reality.
Say Mr Doe is selling Viagra to Canadians, a drug that is more loosely regulated in the US?
Just a suggestion.
You're right, it's too hypothetical; it's impossible to determine the issue based on the limited information we've been given.
But I think the analogy is valid. The analogous point is, many Americans view guns as benign, just as many Canadians view pot as benign.
49er is trying to put us in his shoes: how would we feel about a potentially harmful product being mail-ordered into Canada? Wouldn't we want to stamp it out?
(Get it? — mail-ordered … stamp? It was unintentional and — OK, it wasn't funny.)
Q
Interesting topic. I don't have much to say, except that I agree with those who think Mr. Emery should not be extradited.
Here's a link to an amusing photo and a very opinionated fictional commentary on this issue.
Mary P. How true.
But this stance is not surprising as even posession in the US can get you a two year jail term.
I guess they don't enforce it either because, Bill Clinton didn't get two years? Maybe it's because as he said "I didn't inhale and didn't like it."
Maybe he should have inhaled.
Thanks, Snaars. The link makes a good point here:
Mr. Emery is not connected to organized crime. In fact, his service allows individuals to become self-sufficient so they don't have to buy pot through the Hell's Angels and other forms of organized crime.
Q
Thanks for the interesting discussions. Most of your comments were well stated, IMHO. For the record I don't support the extradition of Mr. Emory, either. (Nor would I Mr. Doe's).
But my curiosity was raised because so many commenters seemed to view pot as harmless. And that is but one POV. There are others that may or may not be valid.
I may not share that view, but I recognize and cede your collective rights to hold it. In the same manner I hold that firearms, themselves, are harmless. Dangerous, yes, but in their natural state - harmless. Not all Americans think that way, nor do all Canadians think pot is harmless, either.
So I was just curious about the level of personal integrity of those posting comments to this blog. It seems most of you exceeded my expectations - and I humbly salute you.
(I don't know either way if Doe's activities were legal in the US, but presume they would be illegal up north).
And for those that think two legal marketing activities in the residence countries whioh are not legal in the purchasing countries are less relevent than comparing Mr. Emory to someone who sells illegal cell phones or commits adultery, I believe your logic has too far a stretch to reach. But good try.
Thanks again for your openess and commitment to civil discourse.
Cheers
49er:
Thanks for the positive feedback; it was a kind gesture.
btw, I had a quick look at your blog this afternoon. It's provocative, intelligent, and satirical. I say as much even though I am appalled by the following statement:
Liberalism is a mental disorder. It causes the brain to rot out and the mouth to become overloaded from the intestinal tract.
Clearly we come from different sides of the political spectrum, but I recognize a person of substance when I see one.
Q
Q, you are gracious and kind.
Personal and family medical exigencies have prevented posting on my sites for too long, but I've still been able to sneak in late at night and read and comment enough to keep my grey matter from going completely akilter. Thanks for the chance to think, reason and offer discourse.
Cheers.
Post a Comment
<< Home