Monday, September 20, 2010

Enlightened legal discusion on the practice of Injustice by the Government of Canada: theft

Yesterday in the late afternoon I met the Registrar while strolling along the Sea wall just North of Science world. We ended up in a good discussion, as philosophers are sometimes capable of. Upon discussing my recent LSD experiences we came to the conclusion that it is a religious sacrament and extremely harmless, with all the propaganda based on Hyperbole and unconfirmed rumors. The state simply does not have a right to steal someone's property on the basis of a lie or any other reason if that person harms no one else.

We are governed by a monarch, under whose authority I was charged (in the name of Regina). By the oath she took upon taking the throne inscribed in her bible under which authority she rules, she may only rule by the commandments of God. That includes thou shalt not steal and also thou shalt not harm someone physically and deprive them of their liberty when they do no wrong.

I was actually demonstrating the safe way to handled the problem of substances without harming anyone, trying to control and regulate them for adult use only.
What the government does is set a paradigm for the flourishing black market to occur. This is a proven way to accelerate the distribution of substances to children.

It occurred to us to make a video about our discussion in a loose interview/conversational style. These videos are unedited in the sound track but split into two to fit Utube's format.

We have a right to remove ourselves peacefully from a state that seeks to harm us when we interfere with no one and provide a safe way for adults to exercise their freedom of choice.

Nowhere in God's word did he give the Monarch the right to rule by practicing Injustice. In fact when a Monarch fails to rule under the commandments which they have sworn to, they are labelled a tyrant in the Bible and the people are encouraged to disobey them.

Just why do we have to believe lying assholes like Harper, Ignatief, about harsher drug policies, when this experienced ex cop tells the truth in a growing chorus of professionals who have had enough of this crime causing idiocy?

All to promote talentless dishonest political hacks who can't get it up without lying. Up here in Vancouver Canuckistan, its not only policing for fun with other cooperative agencies, but also for political resurrection!

2(b), Cognitive Liberty and Psychedelics
Filed under: Charter — Adminiftrator @ 12:21 am

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms1 states that

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

As the clause is predicated of “everyone,” it is a fundamental statement of freedoms, or natural powers of doing what one wishes unless forbidden de jure or by force 2. In 2(b), “freedom of the press and other media of communication” should be read as applying to each preceeding element: effectual freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression requires freedom of media of communication, which explicitly includes the press and, it will be argued, implicitly includes psychedelics drugs.

First, on the question of what is meant by psychedelic drug. The term psychedelic was first used by Dr. Humphrey Osmond in a 1956 letter3 to Aldous Huxley: “To fathom hell or soar angelic, just take a pinch of Psychedelic.” From its greek roots, psychedelic may be literally translated as mind-manifesting, and this is not an altogether bad description of the effect of such drugs, which have their effect primarily upon the mind and one’s thinking.

The Center for Cognitive Liberty and Neuroethics4 defines Cognitive Liberty (CL) as “the right of each individual (a) to think independently and autonomously, (b) to use the full spectrum of his or her mind, and (c) to engage in multiple modes of thought” (letters added). In Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 8255 the court cites Edmonton journal v. Alberta (Attorney general), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 13266 on the nature of freedom of expression in 2(b):

In RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd., 1986 CanLII 5 (S.C.C.), [1986] 2 S.C.R. 5737, McIntyre J., speaking for the majority, put the position in this way at p. 583:

Freedom of expression is not, however, a creature of the Charter. It is one of the fundamental concepts that has formed the basis for the historical development of the political, social and educational institutions of western society.

And, therefore, it is reasonable that freedom of thought is not a creature of the Charter; it is another of the above fundamental concepts. If freedom of thought is identical to cognitive liberty, we find that engaging the mind’s capacity for psychedelic thoughts is protected by CL(c), the freedom to engage in multiple modes of thought. The expression “modes of thought” implies that the human mind is capable of multiple modes of thought. Psychedelics assist their users in achieving modes of thought which are predictably brought about by those psychedelics. Cognitive Liberty, then, allows for the production, distribution, and assembly for consumption of materials which facilitate access to multiple modes of thought just as freedom of expression allows for the the same in respect of expressions.

The freedoms in 2(b) are secured specifically by freedom of the press and other media of communication. A medium, to reduce the plural to the singular, is something through which another thing is conveyed: thus freedom of expression is protected by freedom of the press and other media of communication, as the press is a medium through which expression may pass, that is to say, it allows the expression to be communicated from one to another.. What are the media of communication of thoughts?

Psychedelics are a medium through which psychedelic thoughts are reliably communicated. Media of communication with repect to thought must be taken as more than a restatement of expression; otherwise it would be to no purpose to include thought. The effect of psychedelics is best experienced by eating of the materials, like Cordelia, “I cannot heave my heart into my mouth,” and I will not linger on proving psychedelics a medium of communication of a specific mode of thought; the specific content of the mode of thought is not so important to engage CL(c) as is the existence of a mode of thought which people wish to experience, and these reasons may be of a wide variety: interpersonal, aesthetic, religious, spiritual, kinaesthetic, synaesthetic, etc.

If 2(b)’s “freedom of thought” does not extend access to the psychedelic mode of thought as one of the “multiple modes of thought”, to what does it extend? It could be argued that “freedom of thought” is the freedom to have one’s thought influenced by expression, which is to read 2(b)’s “freedom belief, thought, opinion and expression” as though the freedom of the first three must be secured by the freedom of the fourth, which includes freedom of the press and other media of communication. Our view is that the four concepts (belief, thought, opinion and expression) are all and individually secured by freedom of the press and other media of communication. Thus, freedom of thought may be said to be secured by freedom of psychedelic drugs qua media of communication in the same sense that freedom of expression may be said to be secured by freedom of the press as a medium of communicaton.

Therefore, the inclusion of psychedelic drugs, to wit marihuana, psilocybin, lysergic acid diethylamide, dimethyltryptamine and analogues, salts and isomers thereof, is contrary to s. 2(b) of the Charter as it infringes upon freedom of thought, but is such infringement within “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society,” thus saving the scheduling by s. 1?

The restrictions under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act in respect of these drugs are contemplated universally, except insofar as s. 56 and various regulations provide exemptions; however, s. 56 is at the minister’s discretion, and no regulation gives an exemption for freedom of thought. The reasonable limitation imposed upon freedom of expression is that it be non-violent. A similar standard of limitation should be imposed upon freedom of thought and the media of communication of thought. There is no evidence that psychedelic thought produces violence, and, therefore, there is no reasonable ground for prohibiting the nonviolent use of psychedelic drugs as of the freedom of thought.

The scheduling could be saved by a system of bonding and licensure for peaceful use, production, trafficking of psychedelics, subject to the normal law merchant, etc. etc.

1. CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982, PART I, Fundamental Freedoms ↩
2. Bracton v. 2 p. 29 ↩
3. Humphry Osmond, Erowid Biography. ↩
4. CCLE FAQ – What is Cognitive Liberty? ↩
5. Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15 ↩
6. Edmonton journal v. Alberta (Attorney general), Importance of s. 2(b) of the Charter and the Reporting of Court Proceedings ↩
7. RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd., ↩

For these links live go to: Scire Facius's Blog post

No comments: