Cannabis News


NDP Marijuana Activist Booted Out of Halifax Convention

Marc Emery said:
Dana Larsen, organizer of End Prohibition, an 800-strong organization within the NDP membership, has been banned from the annual NDP convention this weekend at the Halifax Convention Center.

The NDP claim Larsen was attempting to buy votes of fellow delegates by offering to assist in the transportation costs of fellow delegates if they were short on money to attend. Delegates are chosen by constituency associations or by recognized associations within the NDP, like Young New Democrats.

Larsen, a former editor of Cannabis Culture Magazine, has been an active member of the New Democratic Party since Jack Layton volunteered to visit me, CC publisher Marc Emery, at my home in October 2003. Layton recorded a video for POT.TV encouraging people in the Canadian cannabis culture to join his party and get involved. Layton had become leader of the NDP earlier in 2003 and visited my house that October day to widen the appeal of the NDP to young people and drug law reformers. Watch the video from POT.TV here.

Dana Larsen joined the Sunshine Coast NDP riding association shortly after and worked on the 2004, 2006 and 2008 campaigns. Larsen won the NDP nomination for Sunshine Coast-Sea-To-sky Country for the October 2008 federal election, but NDP election coordinator Gerry Scott ordered Larsen to resign after media began showing video from Larsens days as editor of Cannabis Culture Magazine, including footage showing him enthusiastically smoking marijuana joints.

Since 2005, Dana had organized 800 members of the NDP into a group called End Prohibition. Dana Larsen attended all provincial NDP conventions since 2006 and at each one succeeded in introducing and passing resolutions, all aimed at reforming the prohibition on marijuana and other banned substances.

The Halifax annual NDP convention is taking place this Friday to Sunday, and Dana Larsen and END Prohibition have resolutions in contention, seconded by various constituency associations across Canada.

Larsen has been active in 12 previous NDP provincial and national conventions. He considers himself to have allies in NDP MPs Bill Siksay and Libby Davies. Davies was to introduce Larsens resolution that calls for the NDP to adopt a clear, detailed policy calling for non-punitive regulation of the cannabis industry and the distribution of cannabis.
Suddenly, earlier this week, the NDP party brass dispatched Davies to the Middle East as part of a parliamentary fact-finding mission, even though she was scheduled to speak at the convention this weekend.

Bill Siksay was to replace Davies in speaking to the motion at the NDP resolution prioritization meeting, which is being held on Friday morning outside the convention, as the call to order does not come into effect until Saturday morning. This decision to hold the prioritization of resolutions meeting on Friday, before the NDP delegates have arrived and been called to order is illegal. Many delegates wont have arrived by Friday morning, and since it is not on the convention agenda, many wouldnt even be aware of it. The reason for this is that Dana Larsen expects over 150 delegates who are his allies to be at the convention on Saturday, and the NDP is trying desperately to sideline Larsens increasing clout and presence in the NDP.

Dana was denied advertising in the convention booklet for END Prohibition, and then denied access to a table at the convention for End Prohibition literature and publications, and then informed this morning by email that by order of the NDP National Director Brad Lavigne (mobile phone 613.292.8015), he was banned from the convention as a delegate and observer for attempting to buy votes.

I interviewed Larsen today and asked him what Lavigne meant by that.

I offered to help pay the transportation of some of the delegates who were having difficulty doing so, he responded. But Ive checked the rules - the unions bus people to conventions all the time, and plane fare is paid for - for hotels, the union delegates are assisted considerably. You cant make assistance to a delegate contingent on how they vote, and of course, I havent done that. So they are inventing these rules as they see necessary to curtail my influence at this convention.

Larsen will still be at the Halifax Convention Centre, if only in the hallways co-ordinating his allies inside the convention.

Im a loyal NDP member; I still am, Larsen said when I asked about this brazen usurpation of democracy. What theyre doing is wrong but it wont drive me out of the party. Ill be at the convention, but now the pundits and media have something to write about that will cause Lavignes action to backfire. Our resolution will be more talked about, while the Executive attempting these undemocratic backroom moves will only encourage cynicism about the NDPs commitment to democracy within its own party.


Chief Vapor Officer
i don't think its apathy but more a "seen that, heard that before" type of mentality. i for one, appreciate any news that someone brings to my knowledge about our sacred plant. Keep it coming.


Perhaps, but it is somewhat odd that the marijuana news thread is far less active than the mixed martial arts thread on a vapourizer forum! Then again: Eddie Bravo, Joe Rogan, Nick Diaz... I guess that's all I have to say. :lol:

I find this current situation with Dana Larsen fascinating, it really seems that the person who ejected Larsen has a not-so-hidden agenda.

Another article cited this message by Dana Larsen, which I (and Larsen, actually) admit wasn't worded the best:

Dana Larsen said:
If there's any Babblers who want to go but perhaps cannot afford it, please contact me. I am organizing transport and lodging for groups of delegates. All that I ask in return is your vote on an anti-prohibition resolution and perhaps one or two other issues, otherwise you can vote and do as you please.
However, he has responded by saying the following, which I am very satisfied with (in conjunction with all the other news out there):

Dana Larsen said:
I made several posts about seeking like-minded delegates to come to the convention. I was clearly never trying to hide anything and I never sought to change anyone's vote.

I could have worded that one post you quoted better, but my intent was not to bribe delegates to change their vote, but to help like-minded delegates get to convention.

I made these posts many months before the convention, but was summarily deregistered two days before convention, with no warning or any chance to defend myself at all.

I have also purchased an ad in the convention guide and sought table space at a dozen provincial NDP conventions, and had a table at the last federal convention. But this time we were told our End Prohibition ad was "unappropriate" and was not allowed in the guide.

We sent the forms in for table space in advance of the deadline, and had no reply to our many calls and emails for about three months. Two days before convention, the same day I was emailed the letter deregistering me, we got a call saying that we would be allowed table space!

All in all this has been the oddest NDP convention I have ever been to.

Here is Larsen speaking to somebody in Halifax regarding the issue.


Juan Carlos Hidalgo said:
Following in Mexico's footsteps last week, the Supreme Court of Argentina has unanimously ruled today on decriminalizing the possession of drugs for personal consumption.

For those who might be concerned with the idea of an activist judiciary, the Courts decision was based on a case brought by a 19 year-old who was arrested in the street for possession of two grams of marijuana. He was convicted and sentenced to a month and a half in prison, but challenged the constitutionality of the drug law based on Article 19 of the Argentine Constitution:

The private actions of men which in no way offend public order or morality, nor injure a third party, are only reserved to God and are exempted from the authority of judges. No inhabitant of the Nation shall be obliged to perform what the law does not demand nor deprived of what it does not prohibit.

Today, the Supreme Court ruled that personal drug consumption is covered by that privacy clause stipulated in Article 19 of the Constitution since it doesnt affect third parties. Questions still remain, though, on the extent of the ruling. However, the government of President Cristina Fernndez has fully endorsed the Courts decision and has vowed to promptly submit a bill to Congress that would define the details of the decriminalization policies.

According to some reports, Brazil and Ecuador are considering similar steps. They would be wise to follow suit.


Out to lunch
The private actions of men which in no way offend public order or morality, nor injure a third party, are only reserved to God and are exempted from the authority of judges. No inhabitant of the Nation shall be obliged to perform what the law does not demand nor deprived of what it does not prohibit.

I wish we had this in our Constitution, but I'm sure it would be decided that mj use offends public order AND morality. :\


I'm not sure that my post should have been placed in this thread as it could easily extend to all drugs, just the example prompting this was marijuana.

I also think that this thread should be "stickied."


ABV psychonaut


Big news: New Medical Marijuana Policy Issued

Get it while it's hot!

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws, under new policy guidelines to be sent to federal prosecutors Monday.

Keep the ball rolling USA, Australia is your little bitch and you're our only hope.

Nicholas Wolfwood

Well-Known Member
There is bill being voted on that will but all head shops out of business!

Sign the online petition to help stop it.

The Bill is being brought up to vote in Fl and will only affect head shops in Florida (obviously) but ANYONE can sign the petition (so I was told anyway). From what I have read he bill limits head shops sales of pipes to just 25% of their overall profit. They will need also need a large % of tobacco sales and there is no way they could sell enough tobacco to meet the requirements. The representatives who approved of this are apparently just stupid and didn't read what they were signing and lead to believe these pipes were used for crack.

The vote is later this month I believe and the petition requires around 8000 signatures from what I heard and its not even at 2000 yet. Please anyone and everyone help out the head shops and all tokers in Florida keep our head shops open.

[I realize this is in the wrong section, my mistake how do I move it?]
Nicholas Wolfwood,


Lost in Thought
LOL Nice first post, but yes folks - this is legit. Its the new 'We the People' section of the site where they are supposed to address questions that get at least 5000 signatures in 30 days.

This question has far surpassed that with PLENTY of time to spare (Go figure)
Will they actually listen this time?


well-worn member
Here's the memo:

"August 29, 2013


FROM: James M. Cole
Deputy Attorney General

SUBJECT: Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement

In October 2009 and June 2011, the Department issued guidance to federal prosecutors concerning marijuana enforcement under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This memorandum updates that guidance in light of state ballot initiatives that legalize under state law the possession of small amounts of marijuana and provide for the regulation of marijuana production, processing, and sale. The guidance set forth herein applies to all federal enforcement activity, including civil enforcement and criminal investigations and prosecutions, concerning marijuana in all states.

As the Department noted in its previous guidance, Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug and that the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime that provides a significant source of revenue to large-scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels. The Department of Justice is committed to enforcement of the CSA consistent with those determinations. The Department is also committed to using its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources to address the most significant threats in the most effective, consistent, and rational way. In furtherance of those objectives, as several states enacted laws relating to the use of marijuana for medical purposes, the Department in recent years has focused its efforts on certain enforcement priorities that are particularly important to the federal government:

  • Preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors;
  • Preventing revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels;
  • Preventing the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in some form to other states;
  • Preventing state-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity;
  • Preventing violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana;
  • Preventing drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use;
  • Preventing the growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety and environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on public lands; and
  • Preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property.
These priorities will continue to guide the Department’s enforcement of the CSA against marijuana-related conduct. Thus, this memorandum serves as guidance to Department attorneys and law enforcement to focus their enforcement resources and efforts, including prosecution, on persons or organizations whose conduct interferes with anyone or more of these priorities, regardless of state law.[1]

Outside of these enforcement priorities, the federal government has traditionally relied on states and local law enforcement agencies to address marijuana activity through enforcement of their own narcotics laws. For example, the Department of Justice has not historically devoted resources to prosecuting individuals whose conduct is limited to possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use on private property. Instead, the Department has left such lower-level or localized activity to state and local authorities and has stepped in to enforce the CSA only when the use, possession, cultivation, or distribution of marijuana has threatened to cause one of the harms identified above.

The enactment of state laws that endeavor to authorize marijuana production, distribution, and possession by establishing a regulatory scheme for these purposes affects this traditional joint federal-state approach to narcotics enforcement. The Department’s guidance in this memorandum rests on its expectation that states and local governments that have enacted laws authorizing marijuana-related conduct will implement strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems that will address the threat those state laws could pose to public safety, public health, and other law enforcement interests. A system adequate to that task must not only contain robust controls and procedures on paper; it must also be effective in practice. Jurisdictions that have implemented systems that provide for regulation of marijuana activity must provide the necessary resources and demonstrate the willingness to enforce their laws and regulations in a manner that ensures they do not undermine federal enforcement priorities.

end of part one


well-worn member
part two:

"In jurisdictions that have enacted laws legalizing marijuana in some form and that have also implemented strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems to control the cultivation, distribution, sale, and possession of marijuana, conduct in compliance with those laws and regulations is less likely to threaten the federal priorities set forth above. Indeed, a robust system may affirmatively address those priorities by, for example, implementing effective measures to prevent diversion of marijuana outside of the regulated system and to other states, prohibiting access to marijuana by minors, and replacing an illicit marijuana trade that funds criminal enterprises with a tightly regulated market in which revenues are tracked and accounted for. In those circumstances, consistent with the traditional allocation of federal-state efforts in this area, enforcement of state law by state and local law enforcement and regulatory bodies should remain the primary means of addressing marijuana-related activity. If state enforcement efforts are not sufficiently robust to protect against the harms set forth above, the federal government may seek to challenge the regulatory structure itself in addition to continuing to bring individual enforcement actions, including criminal prosecutions, focused on those harms.

The Department’s previous memoranda specifically addressed the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in states with laws authorizing marijuana cultivation and distribution for medical use. In those contexts, the Department advised that it likely was not an efficient use of federal resources to focus enforcement efforts on seriously ill individuals, or on their individual caregivers. In doing so, the previous guidance drew a distinction between the seriously ill and their caregivers, on the one hand, and large-scale, for-profit commercial enterprises, on the other, and advised that the latter continued to be appropriate targets for federal enforcement and prosecution. In drawing this distinction, the Department relied on the common-sense judgment that the size of a marijuana operation was a reasonable proxy for assessing whether marijuana trafficking implicates the federal enforcement priorities set forth above.

As explained above, however, both the existence of a strong and effective state regulatory system, and an operation’s compliance with such a system, may allay the threat that an operation’s size poses to federal enforcement interests. Accordingly, in exercising prosecutorial discretion, prosecutors should not consider the size or commercial nature of a marijuana operation alone as a proxy for assessing whether marijuana trafficking implicates the Department’s enforcement priorities listed above. Rather, prosecutors should continue to review marijuana cases on a case-by-case basis and weigh all available information and evidence, including, but not limited to, whether the operation is demonstrably in compliance with a strong and effective state regulatory system. A marijuana operation’s large scale or for-profit nature may be a relevant consideration for assessing the extent to which it undermines a particular federal enforcement priority. The primary question in all cases – and in all jurisdictions – should be whether the conduct at issue implicates one or more of the enforcement priorities listed above.

As with the Department’s previous statements on this subject, this memorandum is intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion. This memorandum does not alter in any way the Department’s authority to enforce federal law, including federal laws relating to marijuana, regardless of state law. Neither the guidance herein nor any state or local law provides a legal defense to a violation of federal law, including any civil or criminal violation of the CSA. Even in jurisdictions with strong and effective regulatory systems, evidence that particular conduct threatens federal priorities will subject that person or entity to federal enforcement action, based on the circumstances. This memorandum is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal. It applies prospectively to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in future cases and does not provide defendants or subjects of enforcement action with a basis for reconsideration of any pending civil action or criminal prosecution. Finally, nothing herein precludes investigation or prosecution, even in the absence of anyone of the factors listed above, in particular circumstances where investigation and prosecution otherwise serves an important federal interest.

[1] These enforcement priorities are listed in general terms; each encompasses a variety of conduct that may merit civil or criminal enforcement of the CSA. By way of example only, the Department’s interest in preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors would call for enforcement not just when an individual or entity sells or transfers marijuana to a minor, but also when marijuana trafficking takes place near an area associated with minors; when marijuana or marijuana-infused products are marketed in a manner to appeal to minors; or when marijuana is being diverted, directly or indirectly, and purposefully or otherwise, to minors."


Well-Known Member
This isn't really good news. It's mostly weasel words. They don't think they will but they reserve the right to, these are only guidelines, the various federal attorneys can still keep busting legitimate operations like Harborside in Oakland... etc. I am disappointed in Holder and Obama. How about letting some of these people out that you already locked up for things you are now turning a blind eye to (maybe)?


well-worn member
Sure it's filled with weasel-words from certain entities that have disappointed us recently, but it's still more than we've gotten from any other administration since Grow Hemp For Victory during WWII.

And for that, I :clap:


Well-Known Member
For Washington and Colorado, it vaguely suggests the feds will leave things alone if the state regulates strictly enough. Uh huh. I guess that may be progress though anyone investing in the industry had better have deep pockets and some good lawyers. If things proceed as they have in the past people in the industry will learn that regulation isn't strict enough when the feds in riot gear come to knock down their door. For medical states like California, it appears to be the status quo: intimidation, arrests, seizures for anybody who appears to be making too much dough.
Last edited:
Top Bottom