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.