-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Sad News on RC...PLEASE READ...
- Thread starter Gypsy Nirvana
- Start date
- Status
G
Guest
European Parliament
Texts Adopted by Parliament
Provisional Edition : 03/06/2003
EU-USA judicial cooperation agreement
P5_TA-PROV(2003)0239
A5-0172/2003
European Parliament recommendation to the Council on the EU-USA agreements on judicial cooperation in criminal matters and extradition (2003/2003(INI))
The European Parliament,
- having regard to the proposal for a recommendation to the Council tabled by Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group (B5-0540/2002),
- having regard to Rules 49(3) and 107 of its Rules of Procedure,
- having regard to the report of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (A5-0172/2003),
A. having noted the draft agreements between the European Union and the United States of America on extradition and on mutual legal assistance (1), which were debated at the meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 8 May 2003,
B. whereas the Council declassified the texts of the two draft agreements just one month before they were due to be signed, leaving Parliament insufficient time to debate them adequately,
C. whereas, since the agreements are the first agreements on extradition and judicial cooperation to be concluded between the EU as a whole and a third country, they must serve as a model for negotiations for any agreements to be concluded with other third countries,
D. strongly convinced that cooperation between the EU and the US should be truly mutual and that the US should cooperate by handing over evidence in order to ensure that European citizens who have committed a crime (in part) on European territory are tried in their own country instead of being extradited to the US,
E. whereas the judicial system of some US States does not offer the same level of guarantees that the ECHR and EU measures seek to provide for EU Member States,
F. whereas it is paradoxical to sign an agreement with the United States when several European Union citizens are still being held at the US military base at Guantánamo Bay, quite unlawfully under both US and international law and without the slightest guarantee that they will receive a fair trial,
G. recalling its resolution of 13 December 2001 on EU judicial cooperation with the United States in combating terrorism (2) in which it indicated the principles of which account must be taken in the negotiations on judicial cooperation between the European Union and the United States of America, including:
(a) full respect for the European Convention on Human Rights and, consequently, for the minimum procedural guarantees with regard to a fair trial, as confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights, which are common to all the Member States, irrespective of their legal system,
(b) the fact that authorisation must never be given for the extradition from the Member States of the European Union to the United States of persons who would be brought before a military tribunal,
(c) the fact that extradition must not be possible if the accused might face the death penalty,
(d) the need to ensure that data-protection standards must be proportionate, efficacious and limited in time and not to authorise any provision requiring the storage of data which might infringe a right and a guarantee, whatever form they might take,
H. having carefully noted the information about the progress of the negotiations which the Council Presidency gave to its Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs on 17 February 2003 and to the House on 14 May 2003,
I. welcoming the Council's decision to declassify the texts of the two draft agreements before their signature, with the result that they may be debated in the European Parliament and in the national parliaments,
As regards the political scope of the agreements
1. Takes the view that, if ratified, and if account is taken of the concerns set out in this recommendation, these initial agreements on extradition and judicial cooperation in criminal matters would constitute a significant political step forward in at least three respects:
- with respect to the efficacy of the fight against international crime, since they would cover two important areas of the world, Europe and the United States, and would consequently clear the way for other agreements of a similar nature with other countries, such as Russia, and would also indirectly strengthen the implementation of the UN Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime,
- with respect to the strengthening of the European Judicial Area, since the implementation of the agreements would oblige the Member States and, before long, the applicant countries to tighten up their relations and cooperation by implementing, initially among themselves, the European conventions signed but not yet ratified which serve as the basic texts for the agreements with the United States; furthermore, the requirement to respect international obligations should encourage the Member States once and for all to regulate data-protection standards in a less chaotic and less arbitrary manner,
- with respect to the strengthening of guarantees for the accused, since the agreements will confirm the guarantees already laid down in the bilateral agreements between the Member States and the United States, while adding thereto the guarantees deriving from European legislation;
As regards the legal and institutional aspects
2. Recommends that the agreements should refer explicitly to Article 6 of the EU Treaty and to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union so that the provisions of those agreements are binding: firstly, because the Union may not lawfully negotiate in areas outside the powers conferred and constraints imposed on it by its founding treaty and, secondly, on grounds of good faith towards the United States which, being a party neither to the European Convention nor to the control mechanisms, must not be surprised by the constraints on the Union deriving therefrom; believes that an explicit reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (where appropriate, in the explanatory notes to the agreements) would also be more than appropriate, given that it was formally proclaimed at the Nice European Council on 7 December 2000;
3. Recommends that the agreements should explicitly exclude every form of judicial cooperation with American exceptional and/or military courts and that all discrimination should be abolished between European and American citizens which might arise from application of the Patriot Act and of the Homeland Security Act;
4. Takes the view that Article 13 of the draft agreement on extradition must expressly specify that no person may be extradited to the USA who might be sentenced to death or executed;
5. Reiterates its concern about the procedure to be applied to data protection; deems the fact that the agreement on judicial cooperation is based on Article 23 of the Convention of 29 May 2000 established by the Council in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union (3) to be inadequate, given that the United States is party neither to that Convention nor to the Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime (signed in Budapest on 23 November 2001) and that there are, therefore, no common principles on which to act with regard to the correct use of data, the integrity thereof and the rights of the data subject to rectification and erasure if the data are inaccurate; believes, further, that, since US legislation is not subject to verification for compliance with the principle of proportionality that is required by European law, a very detailed study should be made of the possible impact of US legislation, such as the Homeland Security Act, before the agreement in question is ratified; recommends that the agreements should provide for data-protection guarantees that are at least equivalent to the provisions of the Council of Europe's Convention of 28 January 1981 for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data;
6. Considers that, given the scope thereof and the fact that they affect the rights and freedoms of individual citizens, these agreements must be deemed by the Council to be 'basic choices' for the Union in terms of both foreign policy and judicial cooperation and that, consequently, Parliament must be consulted pursuant to Articles 21, 34(2)(c) and 39(1) of the EU Treaty; believes, furthermore, that simple information of Parliament during the ratification phase, which the Council referred to in the House, cannot be deemed satisfactory from either a political or a constitutional point of view; calls on the Council as a matter of urgency to consult formally the European Parliament in the same way as the American authorities consult the US Congress;
7. Reminds the Council, with regard to procedure, that its practice of excluding the national parliaments and the European Parliament from the conclusion of agreements based on Article 24 of the EU Treaty is a flagrant breach of the democratic principle on which the Union claims to be founded (Article 6(1) of the EU Treaty);
8. Deems it essential that these agreements should also become the transparent framework for EU-US cooperation, including for the European agencies such as Europol, Eurojust and OLAF, and calls for joint monitoring committees to be established, including at parliamentary level, with a view to the prevention of any disputes as to interpretation and problems in implementation;
9 Recommends that, with regard to the specific provisions of the draft agreement on extradition:
(a) no request for extradition submitted by a third country should take precedence over a request for surrender from a Member State in the execution of a European arrest warrant,
(b) Member States should ensure that, when faced with several competing extradition demands, they respect their obligations under the Rome Statute regarding surrender to the International Criminal Court;
(c) the EU applicant countries and associated states should align themselves with the EU common position on the International Criminal Court and on the processing of US requests for the signature of immunity agreements;
10. Recommends that, with regard to the specific provisions of the draft agreement concerning cooperation in criminal matters, the agreements should include appropriate provisions with regard to legal and linguistic aid;
11. Calls as a matter of urgency for inclusion in the agreements, and in the Decision authorising signature thereof, of a provision relating to the establishment of an interparliamentary committee responsible for monitoring the agreements in question;
12. Recommends as a matter of urgency to the European authorities that they should make the signature of these agreements conditional upon the finding of a fair solution to the problem of the situation of the persons, especially the Europeans, held at the base in Guantánamo Bay;
13. Instructs its President to forward this recommendation to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the applicant countries and to the US Congress and the US Administration.
There.
Texts Adopted by Parliament
Provisional Edition : 03/06/2003
EU-USA judicial cooperation agreement
P5_TA-PROV(2003)0239
A5-0172/2003
European Parliament recommendation to the Council on the EU-USA agreements on judicial cooperation in criminal matters and extradition (2003/2003(INI))
The European Parliament,
- having regard to the proposal for a recommendation to the Council tabled by Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group (B5-0540/2002),
- having regard to Rules 49(3) and 107 of its Rules of Procedure,
- having regard to the report of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (A5-0172/2003),
A. having noted the draft agreements between the European Union and the United States of America on extradition and on mutual legal assistance (1), which were debated at the meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 8 May 2003,
B. whereas the Council declassified the texts of the two draft agreements just one month before they were due to be signed, leaving Parliament insufficient time to debate them adequately,
C. whereas, since the agreements are the first agreements on extradition and judicial cooperation to be concluded between the EU as a whole and a third country, they must serve as a model for negotiations for any agreements to be concluded with other third countries,
D. strongly convinced that cooperation between the EU and the US should be truly mutual and that the US should cooperate by handing over evidence in order to ensure that European citizens who have committed a crime (in part) on European territory are tried in their own country instead of being extradited to the US,
E. whereas the judicial system of some US States does not offer the same level of guarantees that the ECHR and EU measures seek to provide for EU Member States,
F. whereas it is paradoxical to sign an agreement with the United States when several European Union citizens are still being held at the US military base at Guantánamo Bay, quite unlawfully under both US and international law and without the slightest guarantee that they will receive a fair trial,
G. recalling its resolution of 13 December 2001 on EU judicial cooperation with the United States in combating terrorism (2) in which it indicated the principles of which account must be taken in the negotiations on judicial cooperation between the European Union and the United States of America, including:
(a) full respect for the European Convention on Human Rights and, consequently, for the minimum procedural guarantees with regard to a fair trial, as confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights, which are common to all the Member States, irrespective of their legal system,
(b) the fact that authorisation must never be given for the extradition from the Member States of the European Union to the United States of persons who would be brought before a military tribunal,
(c) the fact that extradition must not be possible if the accused might face the death penalty,
(d) the need to ensure that data-protection standards must be proportionate, efficacious and limited in time and not to authorise any provision requiring the storage of data which might infringe a right and a guarantee, whatever form they might take,
H. having carefully noted the information about the progress of the negotiations which the Council Presidency gave to its Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs on 17 February 2003 and to the House on 14 May 2003,
I. welcoming the Council's decision to declassify the texts of the two draft agreements before their signature, with the result that they may be debated in the European Parliament and in the national parliaments,
As regards the political scope of the agreements
1. Takes the view that, if ratified, and if account is taken of the concerns set out in this recommendation, these initial agreements on extradition and judicial cooperation in criminal matters would constitute a significant political step forward in at least three respects:
- with respect to the efficacy of the fight against international crime, since they would cover two important areas of the world, Europe and the United States, and would consequently clear the way for other agreements of a similar nature with other countries, such as Russia, and would also indirectly strengthen the implementation of the UN Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime,
- with respect to the strengthening of the European Judicial Area, since the implementation of the agreements would oblige the Member States and, before long, the applicant countries to tighten up their relations and cooperation by implementing, initially among themselves, the European conventions signed but not yet ratified which serve as the basic texts for the agreements with the United States; furthermore, the requirement to respect international obligations should encourage the Member States once and for all to regulate data-protection standards in a less chaotic and less arbitrary manner,
- with respect to the strengthening of guarantees for the accused, since the agreements will confirm the guarantees already laid down in the bilateral agreements between the Member States and the United States, while adding thereto the guarantees deriving from European legislation;
As regards the legal and institutional aspects
2. Recommends that the agreements should refer explicitly to Article 6 of the EU Treaty and to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union so that the provisions of those agreements are binding: firstly, because the Union may not lawfully negotiate in areas outside the powers conferred and constraints imposed on it by its founding treaty and, secondly, on grounds of good faith towards the United States which, being a party neither to the European Convention nor to the control mechanisms, must not be surprised by the constraints on the Union deriving therefrom; believes that an explicit reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (where appropriate, in the explanatory notes to the agreements) would also be more than appropriate, given that it was formally proclaimed at the Nice European Council on 7 December 2000;
3. Recommends that the agreements should explicitly exclude every form of judicial cooperation with American exceptional and/or military courts and that all discrimination should be abolished between European and American citizens which might arise from application of the Patriot Act and of the Homeland Security Act;
4. Takes the view that Article 13 of the draft agreement on extradition must expressly specify that no person may be extradited to the USA who might be sentenced to death or executed;
5. Reiterates its concern about the procedure to be applied to data protection; deems the fact that the agreement on judicial cooperation is based on Article 23 of the Convention of 29 May 2000 established by the Council in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union (3) to be inadequate, given that the United States is party neither to that Convention nor to the Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime (signed in Budapest on 23 November 2001) and that there are, therefore, no common principles on which to act with regard to the correct use of data, the integrity thereof and the rights of the data subject to rectification and erasure if the data are inaccurate; believes, further, that, since US legislation is not subject to verification for compliance with the principle of proportionality that is required by European law, a very detailed study should be made of the possible impact of US legislation, such as the Homeland Security Act, before the agreement in question is ratified; recommends that the agreements should provide for data-protection guarantees that are at least equivalent to the provisions of the Council of Europe's Convention of 28 January 1981 for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data;
6. Considers that, given the scope thereof and the fact that they affect the rights and freedoms of individual citizens, these agreements must be deemed by the Council to be 'basic choices' for the Union in terms of both foreign policy and judicial cooperation and that, consequently, Parliament must be consulted pursuant to Articles 21, 34(2)(c) and 39(1) of the EU Treaty; believes, furthermore, that simple information of Parliament during the ratification phase, which the Council referred to in the House, cannot be deemed satisfactory from either a political or a constitutional point of view; calls on the Council as a matter of urgency to consult formally the European Parliament in the same way as the American authorities consult the US Congress;
7. Reminds the Council, with regard to procedure, that its practice of excluding the national parliaments and the European Parliament from the conclusion of agreements based on Article 24 of the EU Treaty is a flagrant breach of the democratic principle on which the Union claims to be founded (Article 6(1) of the EU Treaty);
8. Deems it essential that these agreements should also become the transparent framework for EU-US cooperation, including for the European agencies such as Europol, Eurojust and OLAF, and calls for joint monitoring committees to be established, including at parliamentary level, with a view to the prevention of any disputes as to interpretation and problems in implementation;
9 Recommends that, with regard to the specific provisions of the draft agreement on extradition:
(a) no request for extradition submitted by a third country should take precedence over a request for surrender from a Member State in the execution of a European arrest warrant,
(b) Member States should ensure that, when faced with several competing extradition demands, they respect their obligations under the Rome Statute regarding surrender to the International Criminal Court;
(c) the EU applicant countries and associated states should align themselves with the EU common position on the International Criminal Court and on the processing of US requests for the signature of immunity agreements;
10. Recommends that, with regard to the specific provisions of the draft agreement concerning cooperation in criminal matters, the agreements should include appropriate provisions with regard to legal and linguistic aid;
11. Calls as a matter of urgency for inclusion in the agreements, and in the Decision authorising signature thereof, of a provision relating to the establishment of an interparliamentary committee responsible for monitoring the agreements in question;
12. Recommends as a matter of urgency to the European authorities that they should make the signature of these agreements conditional upon the finding of a fair solution to the problem of the situation of the persons, especially the Europeans, held at the base in Guantánamo Bay;
13. Instructs its President to forward this recommendation to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the applicant countries and to the US Congress and the US Administration.
There.
G
Guest
too true xpat...
i pray this situation doesnt get any worse
good luck to all this may affect.
hush
i pray this situation doesnt get any worse
good luck to all this may affect.
hush
G
Guest
Anyone who was supposed to get seeds from me, I am very sorry. I miss OG lots. Lost 1450 pics.
G
Guest
well , what I always feared would happen ,did. Man what a shame , OG was a decent place to learn and be one of the community. As someone else said, "it's the end of an era". I really feel the relevant question is how safe are we on this site? I mean this spells really bad news for our little online community. I believe everyone on this site needs to have an online proxy. Can anyone get out some links to some user friendly proxy sites that we can start using? I believe this should damn near be a requirment to get on this site. As we have just discovered we are not necessrily safe just because we are on the internet. Although I agree that this is no reason to fly into a panic or worry yourself sick , WE NEED TO BE EXTREMLY CAREFUL from here on out , As we now know in no uncertain terms that LEO is watching. I myself am laying low for awhile and will only lurk around the forums, but untill I either buy or download a descent proxy server I will no longer be posting or even logging in on this web site. 
. I hope this isn't their declaration of war against us , because if it is, many dark days are still to come. Stay safe.
. I hope this isn't their declaration of war against us , because if it is, many dark days are still to come. Stay safe.
G
Guest
This was my quote this morning on it exactly.
May Hashem bless RC and Family.
The End is Here..........
what's up oaxaca, bone, KICC refugees
G
Guest
im still sick. 
VERY sad. i'll comment later.
VERY sad. i'll comment later.
G
Guest
End of an Era? 
U gotta be kidding. It's the internet. Sites come and go. Sure it sux and it's a pain in the ass, but life goes on. Get a grip. Think how it sux for RC and his family. You think YOU have a bad day.
Sad times in the cannabis community, but OG and CW were'nt the whole world to everyone. Others gather their shit and move on. For the new peeps that really feel abandoned and lost, you can rebuild and make new friends, here are just a few options:
Oregon
http://www.oregongreenfree.com/forum/index.php
Doc Chronic
http://***************/
Treating Yourself
http://www.treatingyourself.com/vbulletin/index.php
UK420
http://www.uk420.com/boards/index.php?showforum=69
OZ Stoners
http://cannabis.community.forums.ozstoners.com/index.php?showtopic=9141
Not that we don't welcome everyone with open arms, just that some of us know OGers VERY well (that's why we made this our home), and know you ain't gonna be comfy or make it long here, things are run by adults and kid trolls should just accept that and move on to another site they may feel more at home with.
We're all in the Cannabis Community and when something as drastic and catastrophic as this happens it affects all of us deeply. Now may be the time to show our colors and set out on the task of rebuilding and helping those that are devasted by this recent event. RC and his family and crew need our support more than bitching and complaining about what happened. Let's concentrate on bonding tighter and preventing shit like this fucking up our day - that's what Leo wants, us at each other's throats and doing their dirty work for them.
G
Guest
So, did BOG cut his ties here to hop aboard a sinking ship? He went to CW right? That's too bad...I have a feeling he saw this coming to some degree or another. He made some remarks about trouble following him on the web and wanting to get more removed until he could go legit.
Well, I may have to dissapear myself...OG had some great info and some good members, but I always felt like it was too big and full of kids and other dangerous/irresponsible growers. Just didn't jive with the mentality, so I made ICMag my home.
Now all the OGers are flocking here and this place has turned into a giant "what will happen to us" forum. I couldn't even get on the site for a couple hours yesterday and it is running slower than it used to for me.
I'm going to lurk for awhile before I delete my account and see what happens around here, but I fear this place will become the new OG.
DKF
Well, I may have to dissapear myself...OG had some great info and some good members, but I always felt like it was too big and full of kids and other dangerous/irresponsible growers. Just didn't jive with the mentality, so I made ICMag my home.
Now all the OGers are flocking here and this place has turned into a giant "what will happen to us" forum. I couldn't even get on the site for a couple hours yesterday and it is running slower than it used to for me.
I'm going to lurk for awhile before I delete my account and see what happens around here, but I fear this place will become the new OG.
DKF
G
Guest
What I mean by "End of An Era" : which you will not believe this it's over :
when they start shutting down the services aggressively, it doesn't stop. This had happened on chemistry board's in recent year's, but not necessarily herb pages.
Now that herb pages/services, in recent month's show of proof, are clearly part of the agenda to get fucked : you should seriously consider the fact that we are viewed as unwanted/outcast's by most of our society. They may quietly say they agree with us, but until they stand up for us, that's what we are.
Not trying to make more of it than it is, but -
#1 - if you think i just landed at IC, you're nuts, i, for one, have hundreds of posts and pages of pictures, so i'm an "IC'er" ~
#2 - if you think a lot of us are retards, or less understanding of the plant than you,
or will leave IC quickly, then you're underestimating us, and
#3 - take everything at face value - do not under or over estimate "just because".
BTW, who's bitching or complaining, besides you telling us we're blowing the situation out of proportion... ? i think most people on here are saying that it's regretable to loose such a service, not knocking him or others. Maybe i have a reading deficit.
when they start shutting down the services aggressively, it doesn't stop. This had happened on chemistry board's in recent year's, but not necessarily herb pages.
Now that herb pages/services, in recent month's show of proof, are clearly part of the agenda to get fucked : you should seriously consider the fact that we are viewed as unwanted/outcast's by most of our society. They may quietly say they agree with us, but until they stand up for us, that's what we are.
Not trying to make more of it than it is, but -
#1 - if you think i just landed at IC, you're nuts, i, for one, have hundreds of posts and pages of pictures, so i'm an "IC'er" ~
#2 - if you think a lot of us are retards, or less understanding of the plant than you,
or will leave IC quickly, then you're underestimating us, and
#3 - take everything at face value - do not under or over estimate "just because".
BTW, who's bitching or complaining, besides you telling us we're blowing the situation out of proportion... ? i think most people on here are saying that it's regretable to loose such a service, not knocking him or others. Maybe i have a reading deficit.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Damn. Fuckin NAZIS. My thoughts are with RC/Poppy. Good folks, for sure....and while it doesn't get you out of this mess...you have a WORLD of support behind you/that believes in you.
I've yet to see, as we did with Emery...any mention of DEA involvement. This is important info for those south of the border. Hopefully someone will speak up when they can and shed some light on exactly which entities were involved. If it's a Canadian born investigation w/ no DEA, it would take a lot of time and interagancy cooperation...along with International warrants and inquiries....to make it across the border and start looking for addresses where these seeds went. Maybe we just haven't heard such info...but I've not heard of a large # of folks/grows going down from the Emery bust. (anyone know of anyone who was tagged/busted through these sales?)
Then there's the "Med' aspect of it all. Some of us have the proper paperwork....so while it's scary and they COULD come....will they invest such time/effort for 1-30 plants depending on where you reside? If you come here, you may leave with a plant er two..but you'll be wastin yer time overall....and you can't take my equip..so i'll be growing again, within the parameters of the law..the SECOND you close the fuggin door. CHANGE THE LAW IF YOU DON" T LIKE IT.
My thoughts are this: Don't tear down. If you are med and are above plant count limits...funnel some stuff out to friends/get the #'s down and GROW ON. Or..if yer on the brink of harvest...harvest. they aren't comin to get you "today"..if ever.
If you met folks you **trust**/have traded with, etc... from CW/OG..firm up those contacts in any way you can...and store em FAR FAR AWAY from your computer. This COMMUNITY must not dissolve!
Then...set up some trades/swaps. It's up to us to keep this going and spread the seeds far and wide...and as individuals...while we OFTEN GET PARANOID....in all reality...we have HUGE HEADS if we think that WE are the targets here. They're goin in from the top down...obviously.....and I dunno about you folks...but I'm small potatoes in the scheme of things...AND I'm also med.
I'll load the pistol. Let em come.
Stay safe all...and don't do anything rash...or like everyone else has said..."They've won".
I've yet to see, as we did with Emery...any mention of DEA involvement. This is important info for those south of the border. Hopefully someone will speak up when they can and shed some light on exactly which entities were involved. If it's a Canadian born investigation w/ no DEA, it would take a lot of time and interagancy cooperation...along with International warrants and inquiries....to make it across the border and start looking for addresses where these seeds went. Maybe we just haven't heard such info...but I've not heard of a large # of folks/grows going down from the Emery bust. (anyone know of anyone who was tagged/busted through these sales?)
Then there's the "Med' aspect of it all. Some of us have the proper paperwork....so while it's scary and they COULD come....will they invest such time/effort for 1-30 plants depending on where you reside? If you come here, you may leave with a plant er two..but you'll be wastin yer time overall....and you can't take my equip..so i'll be growing again, within the parameters of the law..the SECOND you close the fuggin door. CHANGE THE LAW IF YOU DON" T LIKE IT.
My thoughts are this: Don't tear down. If you are med and are above plant count limits...funnel some stuff out to friends/get the #'s down and GROW ON. Or..if yer on the brink of harvest...harvest. they aren't comin to get you "today"..if ever.
If you met folks you **trust**/have traded with, etc... from CW/OG..firm up those contacts in any way you can...and store em FAR FAR AWAY from your computer. This COMMUNITY must not dissolve!
Then...set up some trades/swaps. It's up to us to keep this going and spread the seeds far and wide...and as individuals...while we OFTEN GET PARANOID....in all reality...we have HUGE HEADS if we think that WE are the targets here. They're goin in from the top down...obviously.....and I dunno about you folks...but I'm small potatoes in the scheme of things...AND I'm also med.
I'll load the pistol. Let em come.
Stay safe all...and don't do anything rash...or like everyone else has said..."They've won".
LITTLE SiLLY
Member
god bless RC...................
as for the rest of us.....................we'll survive
as for the rest of us.....................we'll survive
lumbo
Member
Good to see you on this sad occasion, LITTLE SiLLY. Stay safe and maybe we'll see you around once things calm down a little.
Hope they don't go after the "gold bar" OGers first, or we will wish we'd kept a lower profile.
Doubt that I would return to OG again even if it reopened. I wouldn't trust it once the authorities got their grubby little hands on the servers and content. Might be just a big trap.
I'm really having second thoughts about this kind of online participation at all, but obviously, it's not an easy habit to break.
Peace.
Hope they don't go after the "gold bar" OGers first, or we will wish we'd kept a lower profile.
Doubt that I would return to OG again even if it reopened. I wouldn't trust it once the authorities got their grubby little hands on the servers and content. Might be just a big trap.
I'm really having second thoughts about this kind of online participation at all, but obviously, it's not an easy habit to break.
Peace.
G
Guest
I'm really having second thoughts about this kind of online participation at all, but obviously, it's not an easy habit to break.
Lumbo , you took the words right outta my mouth.
Lumbo , you took the words right outta my mouth.
older toker
Member
I doubt if this is a Canadian thing. I see the hand of the Evil Empire to the south and their DEA in this. Nothing is beneath the Bushites, it is sickening how a nation can morph from a bastion of liberty to a threat to humanity in one decade but it has happened.
Please, Canadian seedbanks, Take precautions, you could be next.
Please, Canadian seedbanks, Take precautions, you could be next.
G
Guest
Older Toker, Bush does suck, but look how quick the new Canadian elected officials got things goin. Looks like things might be changing up there all the way around.
G
Guest
Ah...but it is a Canadian thing. Canadian Gov't on Canadian soil.
And hey...it isn't an entire 'nation" that has morphed, old toker...it's an out of control CHIMP (leader?) who has morphed. I can tell you in no uncertain terms that *I* don't support this regime', and I'm not alone and only know of a few people here who do.
But sadly....it appears that the Canadian leadership/form of government (much more liberal than the US, huh?) may be **no better** if they LET the DEA boss em around in this fashion. These actions may be *instigated* by the DEA..but CANADA must AGREE to harass their own people in that light BEFORE such an event (bust) can happen.
Either way..it seems alot of grower folks/breeders in the Great White North stood tall on a freedom they THOUGHT they had *above and beyond* what we in the US are allowed (sale of seeds)...when in reality...they never had such a freedom in the first place.
Good luck to all. Be safe, but don't be stupid or do anything that let's THEM win. (in other words, disperse, don't destroy)
And hey...it isn't an entire 'nation" that has morphed, old toker...it's an out of control CHIMP (leader?) who has morphed. I can tell you in no uncertain terms that *I* don't support this regime', and I'm not alone and only know of a few people here who do.
But sadly....it appears that the Canadian leadership/form of government (much more liberal than the US, huh?) may be **no better** if they LET the DEA boss em around in this fashion. These actions may be *instigated* by the DEA..but CANADA must AGREE to harass their own people in that light BEFORE such an event (bust) can happen.
Either way..it seems alot of grower folks/breeders in the Great White North stood tall on a freedom they THOUGHT they had *above and beyond* what we in the US are allowed (sale of seeds)...when in reality...they never had such a freedom in the first place.
Good luck to all. Be safe, but don't be stupid or do anything that let's THEM win. (in other words, disperse, don't destroy)
- Status
