"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

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.

85.
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”.
86.
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.