Jump to content

Liberal Party scanks - pot and the LPC


Recommended Posts

Is this for real, or was Cannabis Culture Magazine duped?

Cannabis users' rights to privacy

An Executive Assistant to a sitting cabinet minister up for re-election came to Cannabis Culture with this Confidential Memorandum to all employees of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Confidential Memorandum to Employees.

On 12-09-2005 an executive motion from the leadership of the party was adopted that may or may not affect you. The executive motion is as follows:

(i) Sanctioned by the Executive Committee of the Liberal Party of Canada and put into effect by an executive motion; pursuant to the party's constitution and bylaws. Put into effect now, with a grace period until 01-26-2006. Employees and "paid members" of the Liberal Party of Canada shall refrain from consumption; in any form, of the narcotic substance called cannabis (marijuana).

(ii) This executive motion allows for in-office testing for the said substance. In addition employees suspected of other narcotic substance use may also be tested for the suspected substance.

(iii) Employees who have tested positive for scheduled substances may be terminated. Employees who have been terminated may appeal their termination.

(iv) If terminated under this executive motion he/she is entitled to full salary renumeration owed by the party.

I have scheduled testing at LPCBC for 01-26-2006 between 12:00 PM and 5:00 PM. Thank you for your time.


Jamie Elmhirst, President

Liberal Party of Canada (BC)

The person who brought in this memo says "I smoke every day and it's going to force me to choose between my Party and my lifestyle. I've smoked pot with my minister, so I'll be curious to see if Cabinet Ministers are to be tested also."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, if it is the law, shouldn't it go without saying?

Well, it's debatable, but while some Liberal Party members may be legislators, they are not law enforcement.

I'm a bit uncomfortable with any employer testing for drugs that might have been used recreationally entirely outside of work time. I'm not saying that they shouldn't necessarily be able to act if someone has been caught, convicted and tried through the judicial processes that exist for a crime. But I don't think that they have a mandate to do the catching and convicting. Especially for something unrelated to, and happening outside of, work.

It is against the law to jaywalk. Should the Liberal Party commision spies to make sure none of their employees are commiting this offense? Install cameras in their cars to catch employees who are driving drunk?

If my employer instituded mandatory drug testing, I would walk. And I don't (generally) even do recreational drugs. They are *not* the police.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against testing too, my underlying point is that it shouldn't be illegal at all, but this isn't the issue. (should of used that purple font, or maybe it would be blue for that tone in my origianl post)

With the testing what could happen... jailtime? I sure hope not... dollars to doughnuts the current state of affairs with regards ot Cannibis consumption remain quite tolerant when done with mature discretion... employee testing would be a major step back.

If anything this kind of goes against what the Liberals were very casually and lacidaisically trying to accomplish, and it seems more like a weak attempt to lure some hardcore anti-druggie righties.

And don't feed me that "the document was a intended for private use" jibber jabber... if anything it's a turtle move from a party spinning in the wind right now. Any major policy change is an election issue when introduced during an election.

"Elect us again, some of our empolyees were high the last 12 years, but they won't be any more! Gomery... er I mean, Promise."

I'm more confused by this than anything, but as they say, every threats an opportunity :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oops, sorry Smoothedshredder! I totally misunderstood where you were coming from.


Your other points are right on, but I'd be really surprised if Emery was outright lying in order to drum up support for where his own political allegiances lay. I'm still curious to know whether they were conned, or if this document is real. If it is real, I think it is problematic. Would have been nice if they had made a phone call or two to get clarification, which the article doesn't suggest that they did. (Lazy potheads! ;))

(I was *this* close to a Robinson love-in right there. Let it never be said that I know no restraint ;))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...