Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Why would these young people believe anything the government told them as being true? As anyone knows, the lie of prohibition has trained everyone that the government lies to oppress people, or for any purpose, including today "Bernier census claims questioned." We have been warning of this deadly side effect of government dishonesty on the youth and general population as causing lawlessness, for decades. All the warnings against prohibition and the irreversible damage it does to our social fabric have been ignored. This behavior of denying people their god given rights installs tyranny which people instinctively rebel against, understanding that they have been born with right to control their diet and their own state of mind.
The new Governor General mentions he is interested in the rule of law, but it remains to be seen if he really understands it as it was meant to be, or, if he will perpetuate the same lawlessness that has been rampant in Canada due to poor laws and unequal application of the law for decades. This is the general fault of the crown prosecutors who have a monopoly, unchecked by accountability, of the Justice process throughout the country. Likely, this control freak of a PM has vetted him to comply with his wishes.
The Justice system in Canada is dishonest and untrue to its ideals. The laws of prohibition are unconstitutional in a country which claims to be free. Who would ever believe a government which allows its police officers to murder new arrivals at the airport on video, while it lies and causes gangland violent crime and social disharmony to install dietary control over its citizens. This causes further corruption of its police forces.
Here is something of intelligent design created by the Registrar of the Unincorporated Deuteronomical Society which puts it plainly in legal argument. This argument is FAULTLESS AND HAS NEVER BEEN USED BY ANY "TRAINED" LAWYERS TO LIBERATE NOT ONLY THEIR CLIENT FROM THE TYRANNY OF UNJUST LAWS, BUT THE PEOPLE OF CANADA FROM OPPRESSION.
FOR THEIR OWN GREEDY PURPOSES HAVE THEY KEPT THIS EASY MONEY LAW BONUS IN PLACE.
They never learned about justice in school? They never questioned tyranny, rather they punish peaceful citizens, jack them up for money to plead guilty in their self serving Kangaroo court system. This is the end result of poor laws and no rule of law. People just don't give a shit about what the government says.
I have as much right to ingest any substance which I feel causes an experience which I enjoy: new multiple modes of thought as any alcoholic has the right to drink peacefully. It is actually guaranteed by the constitution. No lawyer in this country can seem to figure out the obvious, because it would mean a loss of income to them.
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,  1 S.C.R. 8255 the court cites Edmonton journal v. Alberta (Attorney general),  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.),  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 respect 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