As other bloggers have canvassed the Marc Emery controversy quite thoroughly, I don't intend to repeat what they've said.
But I will offer this thought exercise:
Imagine if organized political opposition to the prohibition of liquor had been led by an Alcohol Party whose membership consisted largely of speakeasy operators, bootleggers, rumrunners, moonshiners and skid row wastrels.
Assume that the Alcohol Party's leader was a hard-drinking bootlegger who sold liquor to American customers by mail order under the guise of "medicinal spirits" in violation of U.S. prohibition laws.
Assume also that its main public spokesmen were not responsible social drinkers but dishevelled drunkards who babbled incoherently about the joys of the alcoholic lifestyle and the health benefits of heavy drinking.
Assume further that the Alcohol Party organized public drink-ins in parks and on street corners where members got drunk in full view of the police and passers-by.
Assume further still that it had been able to convince the federal government to produce "medicinal alcohol" on an experimental basis, only to have its users reject the product for having a bad taste and not enough kick.
If that had been the public face of the anti-prohibition movement, might we still have prohibition today?