Friday, June 24, 2011
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.