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

No comments: