Thursday, September 1, 2011

September 2nd Sentencing Hearing Adjourned !!!!!

A Happy announcement about the adjournment of the sentencing hearing at provincial Court on Sep 2. The next court appearance will be at the Supreme Court of BC on Sep 14 10:00 am 800 Smythe Str. Vancouver.

Maybe there is justice after all? I would love to retract my words against the Justice system, law society, Lawyers and Judges if I felt I had a FAIR SHAKE. THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT I MUST WIN/ BEAT THE SYSTEM. If someone can show me where our argument is faulty, not reasonable, illogical in law then I will have to accept it and move on to something else.

Thanks to Luis Casey for your generous contribution every little bit means a great deal!!!!

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Thank you Cherie Say (click for my facebook link)

Thank you Cherie Say for your generous $200 contribution to the cause. This came at the most critical time for Amanda and I. In a cruel world such as ours it is hard to see the good of humanity sometimes. It is people such as yourself that truly make the difference in things such as this. We all appreciate this and you will never be forgotten. I am sure that when my final DMT trip comes around that the memory of how good this felt will come back to comfort me in my passing. I am still crying more than hour later as the picture in my facebook post shows.

There has not been one smidgeon of help from those who belonged to the UDS except John West who was the only one to show ups and help Amanda move me out of my apt when i was in Jail Mark Boyer actually moved in failed to pay rent and then didn't want to move . He swore at and obstructed Amanda while she brought her friends to move. In times like these you will find out who is all about. The Registrar swore at her and never ever lifted a finger stole a camera and accepted a wage. A true picture of a misogynist if there ever was one. I was ripped off while in jail by former supporters whom I trusted. No wonder most people think ill of drug using people.

Amanda has asked me to remove this video as she feels it has crossed her personal boundaries so I did

What you see in the video is an emotionally complex, perhaps bipolar man off his meds by court order and because he is too poor to afford them

Sunday, August 28, 2011

Latest 911 Emergency: Please help Now!

We need to loose our dual nature and become an invincible singularity as in the video below. Basically he is saying that we belong to a common mind and the more we give to others, to something, the less we remain mired in duality and the closer we get to be in the great One. This really does bring happiness and good Karma. Try it and you will see what I mean. Let the plant teachers touch you.

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Harper promotes a moral panic to enforce a monopoly for Alcohol Producers and Tobacco

Has anyone ever noticed that there are no intelligent questions coming from the interviewers these days?
Drugs aren't bad because they're illegal, the reason drugs are illegal is because they're bad. ...

Are there no critical thinkers left in the news media? This is the most outrageous assertion anyone can make on behalf of the alcohol and tobacco monopoly. Are Alcohol and tobacco not mind altering substances that are often misused and kill people, Mr Harper? Are they not bad because they are legal drugs, Mr. Harper? Are these statements by Mr. Harper simply marketing poisons which have a defacto monopoly due the governments misapplication of the drugs and substances Act?
By making this false dichotomy and inaccurate statement (illegal and legal drugs is a concept not known in Law) Mr. Harper has likely condemned thousands to death or hardship of addictions to "legal substances" which by implication are not considered bad. I conclude that he will be directly responsible but never held to account for the misery of many who will die smoking tobacco and from alcohol addiction
By inference, this moron whom the people of Canada have elected as their dictator, has promoted the legal drugs over the "bad drugs." Is Mr. Harper on the pay role of these corporate manufacturers of poisons? Does the Prime Minister not have access to the myriads of studies since the times of alcohol prohibition in the 1930's, including the latest report March 2010 by the British Columbia Center for Excellence in HIV AIDS which concludes, as they all did, what is apparent to anyone who has eyes, ears and the ability to reason that:
…the existing evidence suggests that gun violence and high homicide rates are likely a natural consequence of drug prohibition and that increasingly sophisticated methods of disrupting Canadian gangs involved in drug distribution could unintentionally increase violence. From an evidence-based public policy perspective, gun violence and the enrichment of organized crime networks appear to be natural consequences of drug prohibition. In this context, and since drug prohibition has not achieved its stated goal of reducing drug supply, alternative models for drug control may need to be considered if drug supply and drug-related violence are to be meaningfully reduced.
Not the use of substances which causes the problems but the laws

It is a no brainer that we the UDS came to this conclusions in our document LAD-00023 requesting a section 56 exemption from the Health minister:
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 purpose of law is to promote justice, judgement and peace. The aforesaid academic, corporate study concludes that a likely natural consequence of your prohibition is homicide and gun violence. Therefore, this infringement of cognitive liberty is not reasonable, for it promotes gun violence, and violence is the opposite of peace and is the act of the unjust: it is injurious, and it is unreasonable for people to be injured by the acts of a purportedly free and democratic society.
Wasn't Paul Martins Government trying to desperately create Folk Devils by promoting hateful lies and breaking the Hate Crimes Act as well as the Broadcasting Act in 2005 during the aftermath of the Mayerthorpe tragedy?

You better believe that I was smoking a joint and more alert than the government of Canada. I caught the Federal Ministers in an organized crime (2 or more)perpetrating a hate crime on National TV and they failed to hold themselves to account. CRTC file# 233039 At least the CRTC upheld the law but the gov of Canada excused itself with a retraction and an apology from the Commissioner of the RCMP. The government of Canada and its courts is a criminal organization which considers itself above the law. (I was the only one to complain and stop this overt propaganda blaming pot growers and by implication smokers for this dastardly crime) I seem to be able to say this, have proven it, yet not a single so called activist has stepped up and thanked me for stopping this crime. Not much help is forthcoming from any organization/growers/dealers which benefited from the fact that I stopped this defamation and likely enactment of severe penalties such as are coming now. No help from the executives in major media organizations who do drugs in their spare time. NADA!

The people who work in the courts are unaware of the issues and complacent in their attitude towards justice. They walked by the illegal and offensive TASER warning signs in every court house in BC. Lawyers, Judges and Clerks demonstrated that they don't understand the law and are not concerned with the safety of the citizens whom they apply their warped sense of Justice too. Read the email (no hard copy was sent so that the facts will be lost) thanking us pointing this out to them by the head Sheriff to the Registrar of the UDS:
"Thank you for your e-mail of November 23, 2009 addressed to the Attorney General regarding the TASER warning sign posted at the Vancouver Provincial Court house. I have been asked to respond on behalf of the Attorney General.

I appreciate your bringing this issue to the Attorney General’s attention. As a result of the Braidwood Inquiry recommendations, I have directed all sheriff offices to remove the TASER warning signs located in secure areas of British Columbia courthouses.

Yours sincerely,

Dave Maedel
Executive Director and Chief Superintendent
Sheriff Services Division, Court Services Branch
Ministry of Attorney General"
Never heard a friggen thing in the propaganda press about this act of knowing the law better than those charged to dispense Justice. Why is that? Is it because we were on LSD when we saw this?

Just search Canlii and you will see many examples of the lack of understanding supreme Court Judges have by constantly using the propaganda terms "illegal and legal drugs." Such incompetence in an area where precise language is critical shows me that law schools in the country rely on the monopoly lawyers have once they begin to practice law to make up for their incompetence.

The only logical rational conclusion I can draw from the Court's obtuseness and the Crown prosecutors insistence on painting me a delusional drug dealer is that the are consciously trying to implement tyranny of the executive branch of the Government. There can be no excuse for not seeing the facts and the results of their failed policy being perpetrated on the citizens of Canada. Mr. Harper is responsible ultimately for the misery of millions and murders of thousands to satisfy his perception of "Drugs are bad."

Here is someone who speaks the truth. In my Affidavit to the Supreme Court I describe myself as a shaman / scientist. Perhaps they misunderstand my gifts and call me deluded / mentally ill simply for my aspirations to make this a better world for all.

Monday, August 22, 2011

Canada's Last ethical leader gone at this critical time?

My condolences go out to his loved ones and his political friends and allies. Canada, IMO, has lost one of the last men of ethics that aspire to the grunt and grind of the nasty 'pit' of politics. The only one whose workers took time to address me on this critical drug policy which is killing Canadians daily. I mourn for all of our loss. Canada will be less without this man. Although he was a bit too left of center for me in some policies, I always respected his commitment and honesty. That is something I couldn't say for many other politicians today. Isn't it time for the sane in Canada to support more men like him no matter what political stripe? Thank you Jack Layton, you are a great man!

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Legal nuances necessary for understanding why the CDSA is being used as an instrument of state terror

Click title link for advanced legal search "Ministers have no power+The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations referred to in section 41 of the Interpretation Act."

"The object and legal subject are joined together, the law regulates people (or is supposed to) but it was re-framed as creating an illegal object. The belief in an illegal object is what reduces all persons who once had legal rights to slaves to this Act!"

Parliament did not envision an illegal object, "use" is not in the Act, Parliament envisioned a regulatory system that would allow persons their rights to equality before the law. Conflating all use to abuse renders a person without rights and that person becomes an illegal object without equality with the majority of drug users. It's the same as if they said all women who wear make up deserve to be imprisoned even if acting peacefully but this was not written into law. It takes away their rights to equality before the law and makes them an object because if you don't have equality before the law you are an object. They might say well this is choosing criminality but it is government that has designated the criminality through a misunderstanding of what the law says about it.

An Osgoode law professor in 2004 said to my friend that there are five arguments... recreational and/or harm principle, autonomy, self expression, medical, spiritual.. All the arguments which were considered viable or had been tried were categorized. It appears the administrative argument has never been considered before. Does that mean that if Osgoode Hall hadn't considered it, it isn't viable?

Promulgate refers to the making of orders in council. The minister is charged with the duty of giving effect to the Act through an ongoing process of constant review and recommendations to parliament - they don't implement or regulate by themselves, but without their initiative, nothing can happen. This is a major flaw in the system as I see it. There is a gaping hole in the structure of the Act which allows politics to enter the field rather than encourages non aligned intelligent science and sober second thought to guide our social safety policies. That is why these positions must be filled with competent people not political hacks.

At first when I thought that I understood this argument, There were times I got a little perturbed with the over emphasis on repeating like a religious mantra: "the law regulates people not objects." This seemed as obvious as the large nose on my face to me. I figured the battlefield to be with Parliament, Justice or the medical systems. We all know the legal nuances but expressed them in plain terms. People use plain language but everyone knows what these laws mean or prohibit. So what? Why repeat this like rote doggerel?

The truth is I didn't understand what was being said although I thought that I did. The law is not built on Doggerel or even plain language. It must be as precise yet open to change as possible for the reason that is plainly obvious: you don't want a law left open to political interpretation in a democracy. You must also understand that principle in English law that says that if you are not harming anyone or their property, you are not committing a crime. There must not be a denial of someone's rights unless they actually commit a crime. And any law that makes someone a criminal simply for peacefully possessing a substance the government deems harmful, must be equally applied to the majority of people who may use equally or even more harmful substances. The Minister's duty under the CDSA is not to implement his party's political agenda at the expense of a minority who can't fight back, rather she must safeguard the public from dangerous substances.


I was blogging and posting this opinion years ago.

Opinion: Our flawed drug laws are at heart of riots

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

"Auspicious times for an audacious argument"

Chief's grandson, 5, shot and killed on Alberta's Samson Cree reserve: RCMP

So here we go again with the government pretending its the drugs that cause this. It is the law making people into criminals that causes the crime. People use these commodities peacefully for the most part which make these gangsters rich and dangerous. And we have the Justice minister trying to tell us his mandatory minimums are going to make us safer. Yeah right! It will make us less safe guaranteed as has been proven since prohibition was first conceived. The two most DANGEROUS DRUGS, ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO ARE GIVEN A LEGAL MONOPOLY AND WE WHO USE THESE SUBSTANCES ARE MADE INTO CRIMINALS AND FORCED TO SUPPLY FROM ORGANIZED CRIME. There are no shootings over the supply of these extremely dangerous drugs. The US government claims tobacco kills 25% of the people who die in America each year. Not even Heroin approaches those kind of fatalities. And it is all done with a slight of hand.

Here for instance are words that might come from the Minister himself:

"Now listen, we can ban you from having some drugs and not others, OK, that's it, do you get it now, what is all this nonsense that we don't have that power, don't you think society has the right to control what people can legally buy? well let me tell you we do have that right, and do we have to apply it equally concerning different substances? No we do not, we can target some and not others, and that is not the same as targeting people arbitrarily**. People make the choice of criminality and choose to get involved with drugs, we have the right to make those activities illegal and we do so, we target the users and their suppliers of certain drugs through their property."

The answer to this arrogant sod's words must be:

'well, what about the law, and what about the Charter? You see where I marked with**, the next sentence from there is highly misleading because the arbitrariness** referred to in the previous sentence is not connected to the criminality issue directly, that is the final outcome, what's missing is that we are talking about millions of people who by being users or small suppliers do no harm to anybody, and that the choice of criminality starts with the government, never the user and the individual being otherwise law abiding is induced to become involved in criminal possession and supply of controlled drugs. Do they have the power, yes to administer, but it's not unfettered as he suggests, the question of whether it is appropriate to maintain an arbitrary control over drug users under the Act is certainly worthy of examination.

Here are some words from some of our most famous "drug activists" from downtown Vancouver and our answers to them.
(No wonder we still have prohibition)

The law is meant to prohibit drugs, not the misuse of them (Malmo-Levine argued this). Parliament is well within its rights to practice prohibition of drugs (or rather the possession, production or distribution of drugs).

There is no significance to unconsidered options, as there is no duty on parliament to consider all options.

Where is the equality issue here? There is no requirement that drugs be treated equally, nor is there any case law protecting choice of recreational drugs under equality rights. This is an assertion that is not borne out by law.

Here is our salvo fired right back at them:

The law is NOT meant to prohibit drugs, it is suppose to regulate supply to persons, the act regulates persons, not drugs.

It's not about Parliament. "There is no requirement for drugs to be treated equally!" DRUGS TREATED EQUALLY???? PERSONS ARE TREATED EQUALLY!!!

There is an expectation that PERSONS will be applied equally under the law UNLESS INEQUALITY IS EXPRESSLY STATED. (here a major inequality is being carried out by the failure to control and protect Alcohol and Tobacco users under the neutral act as the minister is required to do. There are no exemptions and these are the majority and most dangerous substances)

This arbitrary infringement into the rights of some people who use some drugs occurs at the administrative level and cannot be justified.

Once people get our argument there is no turning back because they see that the fault lies in the arbitrary administration of the law and the false belief that the CDSA mandates prohibition. It does not. There is not a mention anywhere in the act of anything but control and regulation.

To me its strange that the cops haven't found out who killed this gangster yet because they mention on a news video going to the HA 3 months before the hit on Juel Ross Stanton. It seems the man to question about whom he talked to in the gang is the Cop who asked them for their help to police the community.

Not a single charge for the CBC incited hockey riots yet either. Its OK as long as they were high on Alcohol, eh! No problem about their spirited behavior, but let someone sit on a park bench with a camera and a pipe full of pot. Now that is different!

The cops behavior in the video above is way less peaceful than my behavior below

Friday, July 29, 2011

Many talented people cheer me up on the internet

They send us new videos or even come to visit. the one below is a great originalwhich dovetails into what I know to be true

Or Tim Lee comedian These guys put a lot of joy into my heart.

So do amateurs who have the fire also.

I really feel good that this medium has put us together with all of humanity

Friday, July 15, 2011

Acceptable Addictions: They may be deadly but everyone tolerates them

Central City plaza smoking area. These are likely students at SFU which has a campus here. As I sit out here with star waiting, my eyes take in the scene in front of me. It is normal and seems to be accepted by everyone. No one is shunned for using a deadly intrusive to others substance like tobacco. In the title link the article states in its first sentence:
Tobacco use kills approximately 440,000 Americans each year, with one in every five U.S. deaths the result of smoking.

I don't enjoy being around tobacco anymore but I am not about to ask anyone to leave. I will go if it gets to me. What really gets to me is how dangerous smoking really is for everyone and yet how its tolerated as part of the normal range of human experiences.

Why would what I do be any worse and in what way is it worse? It is all about lying in a political context. Lying not only to others as well as to ourselves
“Political language,” wrote Orwell, “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.” But neither Orwell’s essay nor the popularization of his lesson in Holocaust seems to have deterred people from using political language. It continues to fulfill a great need. One particular contemporary American instance is very revealing.

If one uses the right kind of lie you can make anything stick in today's legal and political world

The fact is that this issue of reason as applied to changing the prohibition laws and make our communities and lives safer, happier, is only the canary in the mine shaft.

Listen to all ten of the videos; the first one is below. I truly believe and have believed that the use of these substances is vital en masse to help find the solutions to our own rejection of Gaia as individuals and a species. Dr. Stephan Harding worked with Dr. James Lovelock for many decades. These guys are talking stuff that I believed from the first moment their concept became public. I knew it to be real and true because the psychedelics told me that there is a living bond between everything, that the spirit of the air is life in every breath and every chemical reaction.

Here is a warning from James Lovelock

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Neural Diversity: some people are born with different operating systems inside their minds

So now I am doing this court ordered forensic psychological review. Listen up here and pay attention. This is serious business and should you ever be confronted with it having read this might make you more aware of what to expect. There is a consensus that I am displaying a certain set of symptoms. I don't know about you but I have always known that I was not the same as all of the rest of the monkeys. It started off with some heavy medication in my early teens. Phenobarbital was one ingredient, dilatin and trimadone pharma crap made up the cocktail. I was doing this before I started toking. Three times per day. Continued until before 16. This was in the day when we saw a guy with what looked like a fancy assed ice-pick on the News Claiming he could heal troubled minds. Anyways once I started smoking pot I never had a need for that medicine again. Now on reviewing my own videos and audio productions (A sample of them) I can see where some may call me over the top. Mostly it is not when I am on any psychedelics. The are probably audio recordings around which would to a trained ear declare me off balance. Thankfully I make no threats or off collar remarks, although I do use abusive language. This much I know, I am not perfect but I do seem driven at times. Irrational at times but never really dangerous. Way the fack out there, oh yes! A rebel with a cause and a just one at that.

I have a few things to get straight about why I put myself at such risk. Have any of you ever wondered what happened to the good old class clown? The person with the odd clothes or the class dreamer; where have they gone? What has become of them?

Does everyone get that we are each of us unique in some way and some of us are way out there in a big way? You can really say that our brain chemistry is divergent. Thank god for the difference, eh! I like it, I am well behaved and don't wish to take anything more pharmacological than the substances I enjoy taking. The fact that my health care card expired in 99 should clue someone in that I am healthy and have mastered my own health care. Now, maybe for any kind of change to happen there must first take place deviation.

Like I said to the pretty young Phd, "I sure hope they are paying you enough for this.... because they ain't paying me anything!" I notice that most of the young professionals I meet nowadays are female. Is that also a divergence from the norm in the grand scheme of things. What will life be like if America fails financially? The times they are a changing. One thing is for sure, governments have no clue about how to handle the future. It might actually be a good time to go to jail and get three squares a day and a warm bunk. Who knows what will happen. God decides, anyways. I sure miss my Wolf. I treat the dog I'm with as a replacement in the hopes good karma comes my Wolf's way.

The government is spending a considerable sum to make a criminal out of me for smoking my favorite medicine. I suppose it is taking a lot in in taxes from the monopoly of alcohol and tobacco to be able to afford it. It is a sad situation that reason is always left out of any courtroom situation. Maybe I am divergent for wanting to be treated equally to a cigarette smoker or drinker of alcohol. I just might be a bit of a troublesome goat instead of the preferred sheeple.

I love diversity of every kind and I embrace my own. I hope you do too!

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Human ability to ignore the obvious astounds me!

2053 nuclear detonations and some worry about Fukushima catastrophe.

The above video reminds me of the mountain I must climb. The fact is certain nations of humans have decided that the world is their oyster and stained it with the product of open air fission and fusion experiments as well as a few accidents. In the half century, most of which I remember well because I was very aware of the current events of the day while using psychedelics, since these nations carelessly started to play with their nuclear toys they also contributed to the problems we are experiencing in global warming. Also promoting their drug laws millions of innocent people have been incarcerated over nothing and criminal empires corrupted nations. As admitted by the CIA operatives doing it. Since the mid sixties my kind, the psychedelic users, the intelligent creative thinkers, although under duress have brought about great advances in molecular biology and computer engineering. I have personally been demonstrating against nuclear weapons and energy since the mid sixties, yet have worked at two of Canada's nuclear power plants as a truck driver in the seventies. Knowing full well how prevalent drug use in this country most of it harmless safe use at least compared to drinking I can't see to what end these arbitrary laws are being employed other than oppression of a certain group of people based on nothing but moral judgment or other arbitrary concerns. This breaks down Canada's claim to be a democracy with a bill of rights which treats its people equally under the law.
In his well-known judgment, Railway Express Agency, Inc v New York (1949) 336 US 106 at 112, Supreme Court Justice Jackson described the equality-of-treatment doctrine and how to apply it to protect the few against majoritarian abuses of power:
“Government must exercise their powers so as not to discriminate between their inhabitants except upon some reasonable differentiation fairly related to the object of regulation. This equality is not merely abstract justice. […T]here is no more effective practical guaranty against arbitrary and unreasonable government than to require that the principles of law which officials would impose upon a minority be imposed generally. Conversely, nothing opens the door to arbitrary action so effectively as to allow those officials to pick and choose only a few to whom they will apply legislation and thus to escape the political retribution that might be visited upon them if larger numbers were affected. Courts can take no better measure to assure that laws will be just than to require that laws be equal in operation”.
This salutary doctrine encapsulates both the problem and the remedy in this case.

Yet the lie continues: that the government, as dictated by the most proliferate nuclear polluter knows and wants what is best for its citizens and those of the world. After helping to expose all life on the planet to high levels of nuclear waste materials which will directly influence the genetics of the future, this arrogant country still says against all contrary evidence that their policy of prohibition of freedom of thought and freedom of choice in diets is a valid construction of law. BULLSHIT IT IS! The law is not about benefiting society, it is about arbitrary oppression to provide raw material for the prison industry. Coming soon to Canada courtesy of Stephen Harper and his dim men. I have been trying to expose the sheeple to this threat since it began to emerge in the sixties and the government has tried to make me into a criminal. So that this Canadian government can continue to harm society, harm individuals and pervert the rule of law according to the dictates of the USA. All along morons who would trade trinkets with the Americans for the rule of law and freedom of thought have come to the fore spouting bullshit about how the US would shut its borders if we sought to change our drug laws. Take good look at the most massive sink hole on the planet pollution and waste wise: the Alberta tar sands. The legacy for the planet will not be tallied up for centuries. At least the Saudis created much wealth in their society when the Americans raped them for their oil. Not so much in Nordi Canadia. Very little of the wealth of this project will be seen by Canadians. And you can compare our gas prices($1.25/l) with those of Saudi Arabia($0.23/l) and see who the people are who are getting shafted.

I have been personally asking this question since I started toking in 1964: "Why am I being treated differently than a cigarette smoker or alcohol drinker if I choose to do a different substance and behave no differently than these substance users?" No Judicial decision or government explanation has ever logically put forth a reason why any government would have the right to restrict freedom of thought in any peaceful citizen who is acting no different than any other peaceful citizen.

As a scientist in the environmental field I wonder why it is that Parliament, in the face of all contrary evidence, continues to implement this failed policy if it isn't for health care motives. If the most deadly of substance users can continue to use their favorite mind altering substances peacefully, why would I be denied my rights to freedom of thought accessible in the mode I wish to distort it in? For a learned man like the Judge in Moleman Levine case to make a mistake like taking the separate treatment of Alcohol and Tobacco by parliament as this being evidential of 'separate areas of concern' and therefore requiring different treatment in punishment. This is not true. It is all the same area under law: the treatment of people using mind altering substances for reasons of public safety. Only the substances differ, which doesn't mean that people are to be treated differently.

The mental contortions a Judge must take to confuse this issue as having to do with two separate areas of jurisdiction is amazing to me. What it really boils down to is being obtuse on purpose to install the political agenda of a tyrannical government instead of protecting the rights of individuals. A corruption of the rule of law harming individuals instead of protecting them under the law in order to implement an alcohol and tobacco monopoly.

Sheila Cops once said that no political party would every consider prohibiting Tobacco and Alcohol. The converse is also true because now that this unfair law which treats a minority has been installed no one wants to tackle to repeal of it for exactly the same suicidal political reasons. That suicide extends to the Judge's political career, any teacher who wishes to work, any reporter, any bureaucrat who wants a career. This is called entrenchment. Because it is a crime causing law which not many current politicians, or cops want to be seen to be against, to serve their own purposes, society continues to be burdened by this moronic Act used as a tool of oppression. That is why the dice are so loaded against reason. Four generations of thinking illegal and legal drugs has succeeded in asserting its propaganda over reason. To the severe detriment of humanity.

Again in the videos below can anyone determine why I should be deemed a criminal while high on LSD?

Going over these videos again after not having seen some of them for a long time leads me to suspect that I was not impaired while on LSD and would likely have passed all sobriety tests. In the comments on the DMT video I have done below you'll see someone assert "does it damage your brain like LSD?" Both my head and my mind was never as severely damaged by LSD as by alcohol, though. After a few days of recuperation even that 'bad' hangover repairs itself unless the damage was extremely severe. It is a proven repeatable scientific fact that sugar and chocolate target the same neurons and work in exactly the same way as does cocaine, amphetamines, alcohol and tobacco. Altered states of mind were associated with witchcraft and beliefs not in line with Christian practices. Shamans practicing in plant/fungi induced altered states have been around at least ten times longer than beliefs in monotheism.

The reason we have oppression here is because Canadians have been taught to fear the 'other drug users' in some visceral way since the days of Emily Murphy. My whole life has been influenced more by the negative effects of the drug laws than the psychedelics I have used. Tobacco and alcohol were real burdens for me. The Tobacco addiction was one of the hardest things I have kicked. The alcohol made me unreasonable and very unpredictable. Pot calms me down, takes away my depression while LSD, DMT, MDMA are special treats into unique adventures of the mind. Why would I not be allowed this freedom of thought in a society that claims a bill of rights if to deny it implements gun violence and crime while the objective of law should be good order and peace. If I behave no differently using a less dangerous substance than tobacco or alcohol, why should I be denied my rights to a peaceful existence? In the video below just what is it that I have done that any reasonable person would object to if a person can smoke tobacco here?

In the video down below you will see that the arrogance of scientists does not stop with nuclear contamination. Pharmaceutical science shows careless attitudes as well as lack of understanding and foresight. The same problem with linear thinking to try to solve a complex problem.

Saturday, July 2, 2011

On Cognitive Liberty: Legal perceptions

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 purpose of law is to promote justice, judgement and peace. The aforesaid academic, corporate study concludes that a likely natural consequence of your prohibition is homicide and gun violence. Therefore, this infringement of cognitive liberty is not reasonable, for it promotes gun violence, and violence is the opposite of peace and is the act of the unjust: it is injurious, and it is unreasonable for people to be injured by the acts of a purportedly free and democratic society.
Click title of post for LAD-00023 document.
THE LAW-Frederic Bastiat
What Is Law?

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right - from God - to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

If every person has the right to defend - even by force - his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right - its reason for existing, its lawfulness - is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force - for the same reason - cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

For me it is much deeper than these concepts. This is a primal issue. Without freedom to alter our states of mind in non conventional modes of thought there will be no answers to the very demanding questions humans are going to be facing soon. The ones in control need to see this as a way of consolidating their power, not relinquishing it. For the masses it will be a way of stepping back from the brink of mindless consumer/worker slavery. The promise of psychedelic spiritual reconnection with the biosphere is a vital tool of understanding that we must allow everyone who may be so inclined before it is too late.

It should not be the overarching goal of government to supposedly concern itself with human health issues especially those caused by the misuse of dangerous substances to the detriment of more important factors. Good law and order comes from upholding and respecting the common law and is the vital cohesive force in a society. For me it has always been the viewpoint of a balcony two floors up over looking a large market, mezzanine, where perhaps one to two thousand people are interacting. Along the perimeter hidden from your view are rooms to which these people go to use their substances of choice. Some don't alter their consciousness. People in the Mezzanine below interacting with others can only be held legally responsible if their actions interfere with the actions of others in a way which is denied under law. The mere use or possession of anything can not deny the person the same rights under the law a user of similar substances such as alcohol and tobacco. No one would care who participated in the use of what substance from the vantage point of an elevated observer. The entire focus would be on illegal behavior defined as theft, assault, robbery, slander and threats. The third floor "cops" would be on the look out for the obvious. When they see people talking in a friendly way showing each other respect, it is not up to the government to make them into criminals on the basis of their state of mind, or, what chemical/plant they have ingested or smoked, or private property they carry on their person unless it is a concealed weapon.

Claiming that there is a pressing need because of the dangers most of these substances pose both to their users and to others, Parliament doles out harsh criminal penalties to users of some substances even though there is no misuse. Yet the same types of at least as dangerous substances, Alcohol and Tobacco, have an arbitrary exemption on cultural grounds. This is not a fair application of what is supposed to be a neutral act to safe guard our citizens from substance abuse. Therefore I am seeking the protection of the court to be treated the same as an Alcohol or tobacco user who is not misusing their substance or they be to be using illegal materials. Certainly I will not be treated differently than anyone else in this society and denied my rights to freedom of thought and peaceful existence without state harassment on the basis of what diet I choose to ingest, or the state of mind I choose to achieve. I am entitled to exercise many modalities of thought using my knowledge of pharmacology if I so choose, if I am not behaving differently than someone having alcohol enhanced moment.

In today's world these substance can be the keys, the catalysts that will set us free of fossil fuels, of the police state, of consumerism, of cognitive confinement. What kind of behavior am I guilty of in the video below that requires I be imprisoned? Because I choose to supply these safe substances to consenting adults to achieve the same peaceful mental state, something the state must do to free us of organized crime? Just what is the fucking problem here, Judge Rideout? Why wouldn't we be allowed to achieve our favorite mental state and discuss issues of the law? as you can over Martinis?

These are the "deeming" clauses that were removed from Bill C-8 (CDSA) This is the hodgepodge of reasoning which purports to exempt Alcohol and Tobacco, while making a similar behaving Canadian into a felon for using and trading a substance which is virtually the same if not less dangerous. There may not be an open cultural expression in support of altered mental states because these have been made illegal, but the tradition of spiritual shamanism is well documented in most cultures. In today's world which claims to be respectful of peaceful people, there can be no excuse for making so many of these happy healthy members of society into criminals. Crime and lawlessness is being manufactured by the state because it has made laws which deny equal treatment to its citizens for similar behavior while exercising their freedom of thought.


This enactment consolidates Canada's drug control policy to fulfill Canada's international obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the Convention on Psychotropic Substances and the relevant portions of the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. This enactment repeals the Narcotic Control Act and Parts III and IV of the Food and Drugs Act.

The major elements of the enactment are as follows:

1. The provision of a framework for the control of import, production, export, distribution and use of substances that can alter mental processes and that may produce harm to health and to society when distributed or used without supervision. Apart from controlling scheduled substances, the enactment provides for the control of non-scheduled substances if they fall within the parameters of the enactment.

2. The provision of mechanisms to ensure that the export, import, production, distribution and use of internationally regulated substances are confined to medical, scientific and industrial purposes.

3. The provision of enforcement measures available to police and to the courts for the interdiction and suppression of unlawful import, export, production or distribution of controlled substances and for forfeiture of any property used or intended to be used in the commission of such offences.

As a scientist with an imagination I can see that the government is attempting to screw with the primal forces of the universe here. There are only three things that influence the rate of species genetic mutations which are vital in its ability to adapt to changing conditions of life. Exposure to radiation, higher environmental temperatures and exposure to chemicals.

This critical event has been left to each individual's choice at any given moment in time in every species and is a vital mechanism in the process of Natural selection. We are being exposed to an ever increasing amount of radiation, as well as a thicker soup of industrial and household chemicals. The environment is heating up. To put an artificial sanction into this great mechanism of adaptability dependent o freedom of choice is a folly of the greatest magnitude.

These people in Government barely know how to spell their names or focus on business rather than pleasure, and yet they believe, contrary to the failure of their policies evident all around us, that what they are doing is having a positive effect. The gall of these monkeys to believe that altered states and other modalities of thought would have no value in the grand scheme of things where all advancements of the species have come from original altered states of thought.

It's the same idiocy that kept many an almost successful society from emerging into the future: rigidity of thought evident in all totalitarian systems. It will likely be the downfall of the United States of America.

In David Malmo Lavine vs Regina the judge has it wrong:
140 Parliament may, as a matter of constitutional law, determine what is not criminal as well as what is. The choice to use the criminal law in a particular context does not require its use in any other: RJR-MacDonald, supra, at para. 50. Parliament’s decision to move in one area of public health and safety without at the same time moving in other areas is not, on that account alone, arbitrary or irrational.

"Parliament’s decision to move in one area of public health and safety without at the same time moving in other areas" says that this Judge believes that parliament has created two different legitimate regulatory fields, one for tobacco and Alcohol and one for the rest of the 'illegal' substances. The creation of the illegal category is arbitrary and not based on rational fact basis. This is not two or more areas of public safety but one well defined sample of the human condition and our desire to alter our consciousness with substances which may not be good for us. There is no other area here. It all falls under drug use. Smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol is drug use plain and simple. There is a wide detrimental social affect with the use of these substances. People are denied the protection of the CDSA and not a single warning label is found on a bottle of alcohol. FSA, alcohol poisoning and warnings against use with other drugs are real killers in our society today. Alcohol is sold without a single warning on the product, while MDMA is made it to be a big problem. Take a look at the risk chart in the upper right area of this blog. The fact is there is no reason to deny the users of the most dangerous substances protection for which the CDSA was created for, at the expense of denying the freedom of thought to other peaceful citizens who choose to access them.

If the goal of any law should be "The purpose of law is to promote justice, judgement and peace" Then any natural consequences of Drug Law like crime and gang violence should not be tolerated. Especially if the policy is seen to have no beneficial effect as stated in its goals, then this law must be reexamined for its worthiness. A bad law left in place too long can cause vital damage to a society. Respect for the law is the civilizing force of nature. Bad laws will be respected by no one.

For that reason alone drug laws violate the charter without having the benefit of a Section One exemption. They cause harm to society and at the same time their application infringes on people's charter rights to freedom of thought.

Another way of saying this same thing is:

The Malmo Levine decision starts from the premise THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CRIMINALIZING THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL-THIS IS NOT TRUE. The Judgement fails because it erred in law that the Act criminalizes consumption. It does not. And secondly that this necessitates the extinguishing of all property rights as the outcome.

We start with the premise that this divide is rooted in the incorrect legal construction of 'legal' and 'illegal' drugs thinking. We then see it is not about prohibition at all. It is about the regulation of drug users. Cannabis MDMA, Tobacco, and Alcohol are all well within the jurisdiction of the CDSA. Even the Judge in this case thinks we have a separate but equal administration of the Act. There is only one area here not two, and the jurisdiction a government should have when normal use can be had without it being labelled a crime. Just as if a person drank a lot of alcohol in a bar and then walked peacefully, if a bit unsteadily home, or if they took a bus or called a cab. That person should be allowed to do wht they will as should others who might responsibly use other substances. It is the same area of concern - public health and individual health.

If a Schizophrenic is no threat to himself and he chooses to live under a bridge in temperatures where his life is not threatened, then he has the legal right to do this. Preempting all use of some substances while allowing all peaceful use of similar or even more dangerous substances is not something a democratically elected government should be allowed to do: That is set up two arbitrary classes of citizens one whose rights are extinguished because of a substance they wish to use while allowing the unfettered consumption of the other substances to the detriment of both the user and society.

I am the same in my behavior as the best of the Stanley Cup fans were that night when Vancouver lost. My behavior on LSD is friendly and social. I mind my own business. I am a law abiding individual. The government of Canada has no business in my business if it exempts responsible users of Alcohol. I have the freedom to worship the universe on LSD as anyone does to drink alcohol and watch exiting playoff hockey even if I am in the minority. That is why we have a constitution and a bill of rights. I must be protected from the arbitrary abuse of power as anyone is entitled to. If the CDSA is such a vital necessity for the health of the communities that people must face severe criminal penalties for breaching it, Then why for God's sake, leave out the majority of the users of these drugs from the great protection afforded by the CDSA? Therefore, I can't come up with anything except that the CDSA is an act to target me for my safe but different drug use to those it exempts. This is not a condition that is supposed to take place in a free society. The state is not supposed to be able to arbitrarily deny the rights of those using one kind of mind altering drug while exempting those using another kind from any safety so offered to those whom it deems criminals for their choices. Their is only one area of concern here health influencing mind altering drugs, not legal or illegal.

Everyone in this country is supposed to have equal protection under the law. This Act sets up two categories of users and discriminates in a predetermined way against those who choose substances it has arbitrarily made unlawful to possess. By saying that all use is criminal in the one instance the government while allowing unrestricted use in an exactly similar situation, has abandoned its duty in the creation of the neutral act - for public health safety.

Here is someone who had standing the same as I did before the Justice committee at the Arbutus room:
Criminologist Neil Boyd of Simon Fraser University states:

When we take drugs we do so to alter ordinary waking consciousness. The criminal control of a citizen's desire to alter consciousness is unnecessary. We have other at least equally useful and less punitive methods available for control: taxation, prescription and prohibition of public consumption.

But most important, we should confront our own hypocrisy. We can no longer afford the illusion that the alcohol drinkers and tobacco smokers of Canada are engaging in methods of consciousness alteration that are more safe or socially desirable than the sniffing of cocaine, the smoking or drinking of opiates, or the smoking of marijuana. The answer is not to usher in a new wave of prohibitionist sentiment against all drugs, nor is the answer to allow the free-market promotion of any psychoactive. The middle ground is carefully regulated access to drugs by consenting adults, with no advertising, fully informed consumers, and taxation based on the extent and harm produced by use. There is a need for tolerance, for both tobacco and heroin addicts. And there is a need for control of the settings and social circumstances of drug use. There are no good or bad, drugs, though some are more toxic, some are more likely to produce dependence, and some are very difficult to use without significant risks.

Thursday, June 30, 2011

Am I stupid or is the Justice System?

This is really frustrating for me. I have just come back from my Bail officer. I came. I signed. I have reported and received a letter requesting my attendance at the Forensic Psychiatric Services office. I need to attend on the 11th and on the 15th July see someone else in the office. This is a court ordered thing. They have to see whether I am a threat to society, a real criminal, insane perhaps for wanting justice?

Just let me review my activities since I ran for City council:
Monday, September 8, 2008
Cannabis sales in Vancouver, today!
or even the first post on this blog
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
On the BC Almanac radio show today

Since this is my journal of my thoughts and activities it is not even clear that I had Mens Rea or a guilty mind

Or even here where I appeared on this issue and was recognized by the parliament of Canada, my words forever part of Canadian history. Chief Justice Bud the Oracle from the Unincorporated Deuteronomical Society.

I don't know what shysters got to be entrenched in our justice system but there seems to be a full compliment of them. If I am your common run of the mill drug dealer then I don't understand why they haven't caught every last one of them? I mean the friggren gall of the Crown Prosecutor to make me out as a drug dealer when at every step I claimed that I was doing this for the safety of my community. Why a lawyer trained in the law (like a circus seal?) can't get that across I would not know. I have had a public record available to be perused by any and all since August 2008. It's not that I was shy and reluctant to write anything either.

The other thing is the obvious disconnect that a judge must have from reality to forget the disproportionate treatment of two equally behaving, law abiding citizens of Canada according to which substance they might choose to achieve their favorite altered state.

If a person is doing nothing different than another, what they may have ingested, or even carry on their person should not be a consideration for different treatment. If what possession is being carried by another is of no direct threat to anyone else than the government has no right to have a say about anything. Criminal law governs only human action against other humans or their property. If someone is misusing or abusing something someone then criminal law can be applied. But then conversely someone who is not misusing or abusing anything or anyone should also be treated differently: not like a criminal.

The above are principles in law. The treatment of similar circumstances alike and the treatment of unalike differently page 112 RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY, INC. V. NEW YORK, 336 U. S. 106 (1949)
Invocation of the equal protection clause, on the other hand, does not disable any governmental body from dealing with the subject at hand. It merely means that the prohibition or regulation must have a broader impact. I regard it as a salutary doctrine that cities, states and the Federal Government must exercise their powers so as not to discriminate between their inhabitants except upon some reasonable differentiation fairly related to the object of regulation. This equality is not merely abstract justice. The framers of the Constitution knew, and we should not forget today, that there is no more effective practical guaranty against arbitrary and unreasonable government than to require that the principles of law which officials would impose upon a minority must be imposed generally. Conversely, nothing opens the door to arbitrary action so effectively as to allow those officials to pick and choose only a few to whom they will apply legislation, and thus to escape the political retribution that might be visited upon them if larger numbers were affected.

The learned Judge Rideout mentioned that he thought this citation was too old. That brings to mind other old but valid quotes
Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School has cautioned:
"In a society whose ‘whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men’s own minds,’ the governing institutions, and especially the courts, must not only reject direct attempts to exercise forbidden domination over mental processes; they must strictly examine as well oblique intrusions likely to produce or designed to produce, the same result."
--L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law Sec. 15-5, at p. 889 (1978) (quoting Stanley v. Georgia (1969)
394 U.S. 557, 565.)

"...cognitive liberty must guarantee freedom from – the right not to have your brain monitored or directly manipulatedwithout your informed consent. Seventy-five years ago, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis warned that scientific advances might someday “bring means of exploring unexpressed beliefs, thoughts and emotions."
Olmstead v. United States (1928) 277 U.S. 438, 474

“ freedom of thought … is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom. With rare aberrations a pervasive recognition of that truth can be traced in our history, political and legal.”
- Justice Benjamin Cardozo, Supreme court justice

"…without freedom of thought there can be no free society. "
- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter

And of course this one is an old quote which is also very much valid today, IMO
Thoughts are free and are subject to no rule.

— Paracelsus-

So what has got me thinking today? I am confused over why it is that a man or woman can come in to the liquor store to buy a bottle of what amounts to poison which is subject to no warning labels as to causing harm during pregnancy like FAS, perhaps some warning about personality changes, and lethal dangers if taken with other drugs. Nothing Nada! Considering that in a twenty six ounce bottle drank in one sitting there is enough to kill half of those who might be foolish enough to try it. Alcohol can be purchased twice or more times a day and drank responsibly even consumed at a high rate of 2 to 3 ounces per hour and this person's health care coverage is fully intact as long as they cause no one else harm by driving or even riding their bike drunk. If this person walks to the liquor store, walks home, they are not a criminal or a citizen without rights. Where as someone who chooses to be less inebriated with marijuana can not be so peacefully without being a criminal and or committing a criminal act supporting illegal drug dealing. Why the double standard here? Is this not enforcement of a cultural preference as if it was a monopoly. If it had something to do with being about public safety or health concerns then one must ask why Alcohol and Tobacco are not treated the same.

This drunk person could be mean and reclusive, dark and vengeful without ever being criminal. They could hate their neighbors, be unfriendly, laugh inappropriately, and make rude remarks without crossing the criminal law line.

This drunken person will likely become a healthcare risk and finally a recipient of expensive health care treatment. Nothing could be done about it when this person was abusing a dangerous but 'legal' substance, or two. Alcohol and tobacco. The most dangerous to the user as well as the others, healthcare costly drugs, are exempted from having to comply with restrictions and regulations concerning all dangerous substances. The fact that they are exempt from the Drugs and Substances Act is telling of two things: Like circumstances are not being treated alike as they should be under law. It should not make any difference what substance one chooses to ingest. The only difference is if the resultant action were different. If for instance, a crime were committed after alcohol was ingested, to be in a state of intoxication would be of no consequence to the outcome of guilt or innocence and therefore a crime would have taken place. Also the converse is true, if I am not committing any crime or in any way threatening any one else, then my behavior should not be criminal in any way. What I have ingested, has no bearing on anything. Especially when the only detrimental impact is due to the law which has been created to be neutral in its application, ostensibly for public health concerns, yet leaves out the most dangerous to the user and society drugs: Tobacco and alcohol.

You can't have equal treatment under the application of law if you exempt the users of the most dangerous drugs from the same law which protects others from other dangerous substances with severe criminal penalties. And you shouldn't be able to say 'well they are controlled under two different laws and therefore it is acceptable to be harsh toward the users of some substances and not others.'

The minister is not doing his duty to protect the many users of these two 'legal' drugs. As I have stated before, his duty is to control and regulate in accordance with the risks posed. This is to protect the individual and the public. This is an on going duty. The minister according to his duties outlined in section 55 must act and bring before parliament any concerns that fall under the act. The Act was never meant to be an instrument of prohibition. Simply making something illegal to possess is not something that can be lawfully done under the criminal code. Property laws apply to anything to do with things or substances. Criminal law is supposed to pertain to the actions of people against other people or their property.

By bringing the alcohol industry into the safety net of the CDSA it can be made to comply to labeling laws stating the dangers of misuse in a concise way and recommended limits of so much per person per day might be considered. The same could be done with other substances according to their potential dangers to the users and the community.

Anything else is not mandated by the CDSA. The CDSA was never meant to be an instrument that would arbitrarily target small group of users of substances for moral reasons and make them into criminals for their safe use of something no more dangerous than other substances for which no criminal penalties were given, like tobacco and alcohol.

Friday, June 24, 2011

Why is Alcohol not a scheduled drug?

A Judge’s inner mental chambers

A great factual resource on drugs and their effects is NIDA National Institute of Drug Addiction

Mainly this is my endeavor to understand a very interesting new way of looking at the legal dilemma: The policy of prohibition of some drugs act in Canada is applied. It comes from the Drug Equality Alliance in Britain.

The sense is that once this argument lands on a thinking Judge’s desk, there is a good chance that reason may prevail.

Not trusting the laws of the Justice system as much as I once did the laws of physics while soaring my hang glider, I am not so self assured. Here is my future plan.

Working from within the realm as a citizen of Canada I hope to prevail upon the court to support the rule of law.

Although I thought that I had a right not to be harmed by a government practicing tyranny, I guess that trick is to show them in their legal system exactly how they are applying tyranny and not just try to escape it by forming your own society. Obviously tyranny must be acknowledged openly and corrected. Therefore I shall attempt to expose it to the tyrants in their own courts.

The rule of law states that parliament may enact any law, but this law must be within a parameter which is fair to everyone.

I am not challenging parliament - the Drugs and substances Act is a good instrument for the safety of Society - the law is good. The reason for which the law was created is excellent!

I am not interested in challenging the prosecution either.
I don’t really object to the trial.

I object to the lack of application of the provincial court’s jurisdictional capacity to protect me from the abuse of power.

This paradigm of abuse of power is inherent within the administration of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act which the court can protect me from using common law powers available to the court for such a purpose.

This should be the first concern to the court. The Act itself represents a violation of the universal right of thought which overarches any contemporary administration’s policies by maintaining a penumbra of scrutiny against the abuse of human rights perpetrated by Acts of parliament.

I assert that the court apply anxious scrutiny to the issue.  This is because it is a deprivation of my liberty.

I have had an UNFAIR trial and am fairly calling 'foul' for punishment without law.

Whatever anyone thinks about policy(acts of parliament), it's all irrelevant at this time.

My concern is that I am being subjected to an inequality of treatment in the administration of justice that acts in an entirely disproportionate way to users of certain substances.

Bearing in mind the law never sought to make the use of those substances illegal, the question that should be asked is: ‘why is there no differentiation of character, or even action, other than by merit of this drug interest orientation?’

You might wonder how this strange way of looking at things came to be? It came to be by a policy that cannot even consider these sections of the Act: 55, 56 etc. This ‘policy’ cannot consider it because it lies under a misconstruction: the existence of 'illegal drugs' precluding their regulation and also a category of legal drugs which includes alcohol and tobacco that necessitates their regulation from another Act of Parliament.  The fact that they have not been brought together shows willful obstruction in the protection of the public health and an affront to justice to other drug users who are subjected to powerful measures and deterrence sentencing.  This leads one to ask themselves: If the CDSA has a mandate to protect us, then why haven't governments considered scheduling Alcohol and Tobacco?

The answer is surprisingly simple: because of the misconstruction of 'legal drugs' etc and 'illegal drugs' ect there is not a way that can be lawfully regulated - this makes everyone miss the object. The object is the subject, the legal subject, ME, before the Crown as they would fight this war on my access to drugs. This I consider to be a necessary part of my life to the extent that being denied peaceful access entirely negates my rights under the Charter, my CITIZENSHIP (If you want to govern me under your laws than you better play by them. Lets apply the laws fairly for the purpose that they were created)

Once the government’s false premise of prohibition is exposed as a misconstruction and misapplication of the act, Then the act can be given proper effect.

This was the lesson learned by all governments who made alcohol illegal last century. It is the only way that democracy and lawfulness can replace our current lawlessness. Only when democracy is applied in all instances in a society is it truly democratic. When unjust laws are enacted or when laws are enacted unjustly the mechanism of democracy is corrupted and tyranny grows. The tyranny of organized crime is not the worst of the bad sis. The worst is the corruption of government through general deceit. Its agents, fully armed, seek to impose corporate dictated diets on the citizenry.

I am a persona non grata, a minority, seeking refuge in the imposing courts, for who are they there to impose on?…..the little ones?…. Or, is it their duty to protect the rights of citizens not to be violated by agents of the state using their powers unreasonably and unfairly.

It is an ultra vires dereliction of duty that results in inequality not to include the drinkers and smokers as is the purpose of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

This then also becomes a serious violation of my liberty and person as well: That I am to be treated differently than those smoking tobacco and drinking Alcohol. Why?

I believe that the learned Judge Rideout misdirected himself that he could consider the issue and wrongly determined it was something that could not be discussed in court. The Judge only referred to the freedom of thought argument without any consideration of the common law argument.

That actually was the only argument that he could have considered.

Here is a more pragmatic view of it

The government protects the market for the drugs that kill us by the scores, alcohol and tobacco, and they make healthier alternative choices forbidden.

Where is the protection for health as the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act mandates if most drug users are being killed off through use of alcohol and tobacco and the users of less familiar and statistically proven far less harmful substances are treated harshly through ever increasing prison sentences?

The Rule of Law says that the Act as written and approved by Parliament is to be used to regulate for public health, yet because of the way government is driving the law to fulfill the privatized prison agenda through policy this mandate is not given effect. 

They have exempted the users of the most harmful substances (alcohol and tobacco) and these substances clearly fall under the operation of the CDSA. This would not mean prohibition of alcohol and tobacco as Section 55 of the Act compels the Minister to regulate and this is an ongoing duty. This would mean that regulations are put in place to ensure that the next generations do not become addicted. As it is today, corporate interests are served before concerns for the health of the public. They do not put this before Parliament, because of corporate interests while at the same time increasing penalties for the statistically proven less harmful substances.

The drugs act means mandatory minimum sentences equation. This is taking discretion away from judges which literally makes people's rights to equality before the law disappear.

This is the people created 'by freedom' This is what 'elects' the power that runs the world policy on drugs on anything.

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Vancouver hockey riots fueled by Alcohol

I am seriously tired of the wholesome bubbly marketing CBC has spouted about hockey and its fans.

One thing I will be wanting in appeals court or any bullshit court in this country is the same rights these animals get. It is the Minister's duty to apply the neutral Controlled Drugs and Substances act for the proper effect it was designed for: Public safety from dangerous substances through control AND REGULATION. The way it is applied now the Minister uses this act as an instrument of arbitrary oppression used selectively against the minority of people who choose other substances to achieve a safer more introspective state of mind than alcohol users do.

The courts are supposed to protect citizens from arbitrary abuse of power by the government and make sure that the laws are applied equally neutrally for the effect that they are designed to. Judges are not required to be Prohibitionists to serve on the bench. Where is the protection from these drunken hockey hooligans? Two weeks of loud celebrations to promote a sporting event for the boon of alcohol establishments is pretty fucking near enough for me. I want the same rights as these hooligans have, to go about my peaceful business of making the community safe. And I will have them, you fucking government assholes!

I am very tired of the governments doing a poor job having, the worst records on issues vitally important to its citizens:
B.C. child poverty at play in 21 child deaths: children's advocate

Screw off if you think I will not appeal my unjust plea. The Crown prosecutor and Judge coerced me to cop out by jailing me before a trial. They can not use this law to arbitrarily harm people who are trying to make their communities safer by giving citizens a safe alternative choice other than corporate controlled alcohol to celebrate with. At any marijuana festival or event in which psychedelic use is prevalent, you don't find this kind of danger to people.

When laws are applied equally to all citizens for the effect that they were designed for, community safety, and not political purposes inflicting a moral judgement, then I will rest.

I remember that the Prime Minister Stephen Harper had some publicity supporting the NHL Stanley Cup Playoffs lately. Not too long ago he also had a photo op proclaiming drugs are bad. What fucking drugs are bad, asshole?

How much did security cost the city Chief Jim Chu? Oh yeah you have it under control, eh?

Are you saying something about a drug free life idiot? Does that mean you don't drink? And your children are at the age they are exposed to alcohol now and they will never drink? Is it true that Alcohol is not fucking dangerous? or creating violence? Are you do something about the connetion youngsters have with Hockey and drinking? Are you saying that drugs do damage to people and not alcohol? Stick it where the sun don't shine, moron. Making policy on bullshit never leads to a good outcome.

This man, our Prime Minister, is talking selectively and conveniently forgetting to mention the most dangerous substances Alcohol and Tobacco. The Minister in charge of the CDSA has a duty, is charged, to include all dangerous to the public substances. This does not mean prohibition. He has the power to regulate. The act is supposed to be about control and regulation. By exempting, for no good reason other than it is not politically expedient, the users of these drugs from the act the legislation itself becomes an illegal instrument of oppression. The courts should protect the citizens from oppression and make sure everyone has the same rights and protection under the application of a law. The courts have no jurisdiction in drafting or writing the law, but must act when a law is being used to treat some people unfairly(equal treatment under common law.) In section 55 of the CDSA it says the minister has a duty to public health to bring all dangerous substances under its control. He does not have a duty to leave out the most dangerous substances while trying to harm others for their use of safer substances. Until the law is fairly and equally applied as it was intended, for public Safety, it is not a legally valid instrument and we must be protected by the court from its misapplication.

And I know why people like Stephen Harper, GWB, Ronnie Regan get to make it. GENETIC PREDISPOSITION "DO HUMANS HAVE A POLITICAL GENE?" by Klaus Kaczor (an Oracle in his own right) SINCE I FIRST WROTE UP THIS STUDY FOR THE EDITOR OF AL JEZEERAH SOME CORRECTIONS HAVE COME TO BE NEEDED 25% LEFT + 25% RIGHT + 50% MIXED POLITICAL ALIGNMENT = 100% SAMPLE INSTEAD OF RR(25.78)+rr(24.22)=Rr(49.93) IT SHOULD BE RR(25.78)+rr(24.22)++++++++++Rr(49.93)==== 100% of the sample. What can you expect I was constantly stoned on good marijuana during the whole genetic voter research and did it without a government grant on less than a half ounce of good Kush.

That was the output of my addiction. A theory about political expression in our genome Two hits of Window Pane acid (LSD.) And about a half ounce of pot consumed in the week that the research mania was upon me some fifteen years later. My life is an exciting confabulation of experiences, none of which threaten anyone else, nor do I break any real criminal laws. What was tolerated as "legal behavior," which most of last night's riots was technically, although drunken and dangerous in its mood was allowed then we do nothing wrong when peacefully using our preferred substances. Some of the behavior was unlawful and the police tried to enforce criminal laws pertaining to illegal behavior of people which is also applicable to any mis users of any substances. Even when nothing but pure propaganda makes a crowd misbehave blocking of sidewalks is also tolerated as well as DANGEROUS BEHAVIOR.

Or, I ask again what is the reason I can not be engaged in my spiritual pursuits peacefully if my behavior is peaceful? In the video I ask why I can't stroll through a park peacefully on LSD when Hockey fans get to enjoy themselves worshiping whom they wish?

So why is the drugs and substances act being applied by the courts ON SOME PEOPLE if it is not applied fairly to all users of dangerous mind altering drugs for the purposes it was created? Why is LSD illegal when the harm it potentially does its users and society is miniscule in comparison to Alcohol? To what end is one peaceful set of substance users made into criminals while a much more dangerous segment of abusers allowed to enjoy their version of the good times? And since when have we thinking, responsible, people given up the right to engage freely in whatever peaceful state of altered consciousness we choose? I am all for there being an Act fairly applied to the users of all dangerous substances in an equal application of the law. I think it is about time that all substances including the most dangerous and ubiquitous ones such as Alcohol, tobacco refined sugar or other dangerous to public as well as to the individual, products.

Criminal law does not govern action between you and your body, or, you and any third party adult who chooses via knowledge of the facts to engage with you for fun and/or profit. It cannot be otherwise in a free country. For anyone else to interfere in a peaceful man's chosen form of liberty, would negate all principles of freedom. A society which is built to have children snitching on the adults, and neighbors against each other is not really worth living in. So when some people complain of the smell of pot in their hallway, or trafficking from the adjacent patio, it is a way of making them point out the 'Jews' so that the Plant Psychedelic Gestapo(PPG) can come and do their entheogenic cleansing.

What a friggen hoax these criminals in power pull on us who are captured in the "Bovine Entrapment." Oh, wink, wink! you can't posses or trade in these criminally sanctioned substances, because we know that they are bad for you...... Also, wink, wink! you will note that these dangerous substances which we know are bad, but which a majority of people enjoy using, are perfectly legal and any entrepreneur who follows the rules, verifying legal age, not intoxicated mental state, can sell tobacco or alcohol, over the counter. Alcohol can even be brewed as beer or wine by individuals without a permit.

I can not tolerate anyone who bows to the government's medical marijuana racket. This stuff would benefit humanity and do many people good socially, physically and mentally if its use became more prevalent in the community. The effects are not as destructive both physically and spiritually as are those of alcohol. Loss of cognitive ability with motor skill impairment comes quickly on alcohol. A personality or severe mood change can take place without warning. Irrational violent behavior is a common outcome for alcohol intoxicated people. No such things happen with moderate amounts of marijuana. People have mental states which are relaxed and predisposed to a calm state of reflection. That is the essence of smoking pot "Make love not War!"

What is your problem Mr. Parliamentarian? What perusal of the Hansard has given you any indication that there exists enough brainpower in Parliament to screw with the mechanisms of human nature and spiritual freedom? Why do Politicians think they are entitled to discriminate against, and arbitrarily target, a certain segment of their own population on the basis of personal moral choices. Really? "Drugs are bad?" "Which friggen drugs are bad?" Why not treat the worst ones as public health issues.....? That is what the law is created for isn't it? Each substance according to its own danger to society so that those which are more of a risk will be safe guarded against appropriately.

The fact is I choose to exercise different aspects of my mind other than those involving alcohol and sporting events and there is no sound sane reason that I shouldn't have the choice to follow my own path. It is the fool who dares to shake the stick a holy man sits upon.

And I have no qualms about these people selling timeless teachings in the video below. If it is cool to sell fast food, religion. and many lousy movies, as well as sad sporting events for inflated prices, then what these people are asking in the video below is merely a bit of recompense for getting all the info together. It is hard to market even creative material assembled well for excellent prices, isn't it?