Absolute power corrupts absolutely

The big lie of our times is that this man is a criminal. Listen to the BS that the cop goes on about heavy duty pot leading to organized crime. Do these bozos never have to say things that make sense or can they just make it up as they go on? Who gives a crap about the pot maybe adding a 2% risk of schizophrenia? There is a friggen 99% chance of smoking tobacco causing cancer! What are these morons trying to say? "If we spend millions of taxpayer dollars we might find something wrong with marijuana" Post the risks on a package of joints and let adults make up their friggen minds as they do for alcohol and tobacco! This is double speak propaganda. Allow the worst drugs a pass and then target the minority for their comparatively safer choices.

Think of the outrageous lies that people send their kids out to die for!

The absolute nonsense the gullible guppies snap up, like twenty goat herders from Afghanistan, with box cutters did this against the mightiest nation on the planet.

The bigger the lie, the more it is accepted.

The reason Mr. Harper wanted so much to have a majority is the same reason the liberals, any political party, crave it: To have a majority in Canadian government means that you control the propaganda machinery of the state. Canadian, all governments really are corporate fronts. That is why we tried to leave it by forming our own society. These corporations are so corrupt they would deny peaceful people their rights and freedoms no matter the pretense of a Bill of Rights. Alex Carey had it correct, there is no democracy only the pretense of it to dupe the masses of gullible people who don't have a clue as to the true condition of slavery they are under.

The worst cuts in Canadian history to social services are set to be implemented under the guise of tax relief. At the end of it you will be paying more in taxes, but receiving less of your money back. Take a look at the wealth Alberta's government could have at its finger tips and how little of it trickles down to its citizens. Not much compared with the wealth of the corporations which are stealing the resource heritage of Albertans.

Will Jack Layton be the opposition leader who might be able to wrangle out a backlash to the Conservative dictatorship over the next 5 years? Will it matter?

Elected Senators indeed, Mr. Harper! Not bloody likely, only voter rejected claptrap fills vacant seats, today. Canadians, like the rest of North American citizens are morons of the extreme sort, too stupid to understand what is a lie and what is in their best interest.

Who even thinks about justice in a world that is this stupid?


Here is something you can do from the comfort of your home to "end the war on drugs"

If you haven't watched this excellent 9/11 truth video featuring the Theologian Dr. David Ray Griffin, 9/11 the Myth and Reality, below, it will be worth it. What makes me refer to it after watching it again, is that one of the solutions he encourages people to get behind besides Revolution and Non violent Revolution is that of making funds available to by the public for helping ordinary people to run for public office. This, he says is a guard against Plutocracy, or rule by the rich. He mentions this in the last five minutes of the video and it rang an immediate bell about Mr. Harper wanting to slash public funding for election campaigns.

You will notice the age of his audience and the way they seem to not want this type of criminal fraud masquerading as their government. The fact is Canadians are largely asleep behind the wheel and addicted to the slave's drugs Alcohol and Tobacco. Although I listened to most of the hockey game tonight, the drunken idiotic clamor of celebration which continued for hours after the win, made me want to revisit the "Legal" drug issue here again tonight. Alcohol makes one stupid and happy being entertained with small things, such as believing that a home team Stanley cup victory is an important thing in one's life, no matter if you have a hard time walking to the store and never learned how to skate. Tobacco is a non beneficial altered state, other than it makes one feel better to have fed the addiction which it demands of its slaves, both are tax treasures for the government with the added benefit that smokers will usually die by the time it comes for the government to dole out its pensions and social benefits. Tobacco the perfect "legal" drug: an instrument which raises huge taxes, keeps the addict busy providing for their addiction with a false measure of relief as soon as they light up and providentially eliminates the user at the end of their productivity cycle.

My GF heard Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice, speaking tonight in a Youtube and remarked, "he doesn't sound all that bright," thinking that we had a good chance to win with our reasonable argument. It's not about reason, just as it isn't about getting to smoke pot if medical marijuana becomes freely available, IMO. It's really time for a revolution before the mass roundups start, because that is where it is heading in Canada. If these things depended on reason, arguments such as this would hold sway. And the friggen Liberals and NDP don't want to get together and form a viable opposition to the left of these right wing freedom hijackers, Mr. Harper's marching corporate Nazis. All for themselves and their dreams to hijack full control, nothing for the benefit of the people. That is why two out of five voters stay home, nothing in it for them either!

Here is something giving some background to today's world and which is much deeper than hockey. Something not too many Canadians would be interested in because it doesn't go well with beer.

Watch The Power of Nightmares: The Rise Of The Politics Of Fear in Politics | View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

One thing I get from watching this stuff is that government policy is what is causing these shitty side effects in society, human nature remains the same. What you see around you depends on the mindset you have. If you are born with a conservative filter you will see depravity and degeneration in liberalism. If you are born more liberal minded you will see a moving forward to an inevitable growth/mental expansion and danger in conservatism. People don't realize we need a balance of both ends of the spectrum of political thought.

The Drug laws don't work because they are the problem, not human nature. Intolerance based on fear installing regressive laws is the cause of human conflict, not mental expansion. The ever increasing use of substances by humans is a direct result of the policies in effect. It could not be due to any other thing. Humans don't change in their basic nature over a century, only their reactions to the social stimulae change. If they are being enslaved they will seek avenues of escape.


Watch The Power of Nightmares: The Rise Of The Politics Of Fear in Politics | View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

What my Lady and I have been discussing this morning is the legal argument upon which she is fixated. Me not so much (that's why I have her in my life-to add balance.) I see that the forces that be are not about to obey the rule of law. IMO no matter how reasonable an argument, if they don't wish to hear it then it will be dismissed. On the one hand, thankfully we activists are a diverse bunch with different paradigms, mindsets and experience history. I've told her that a lawyer will see this as a legal fight, where as someone like Tim Felger will see it as a street fight with the cops. A self medicating toker who can't function without his Marijuana will see it as a medical MJ issue. What we are missing is the unifying effect of true leadership like the sixties and Martin Luther King, Malcom X, Timothy Leary, John Lennon and others. Governments have made it dangerous and socially isolating for truly talented leaders who are prosperous in their own right due to business savvy and talents, to stand up and be counted. We have no leadership who can can command thousands out onto the streets to tell them "You fuck with our leaders, we will disrupt your friggen day." The medicating effects of these substances and the fact that these drugs are so widely available has cut the legs off the anger which needs to come to the fore. How dare these assholes in Government take away our freedom to peacefully do as we wish, like any tobacco smoker, wine drinker! They do this while at the same time creating a pariah of organized crime as another entity of prey upon our community. All due to the bullshit propaganda of fear of drug use campaign, just like the fear of terrorist BS. All because perverted idiots who claim to know what is best for others based on small minded linear thinking are in power putting forth their fear based agenda, social policies to cure society from its own human nature. The Neo-cons used their own CIA propaganda as a basis to formulate cold war policy, not the facts about Russia. It is the same with drug policy. The facts are ignored and self initiated fears stand in for reason. This lie is then spread far and wide with government machinery until no judges, lawyers, teachers, are left to promote the truth and rely on rational thinking. How does a reasonable argument based on logic, on truth, get through this armor of unreason? My GF would say "not easily," and I love her for this dogged tenacity.


Watch The Power of Nightmares: The Rise Of The Politics Of Fear in Politics | View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

When we get "mad as hell" and disrupt the complacent lives of the sheep, showing up in the streets by the thousands we will succeed. The rag tag fifty to a couple of hundred or so supporters who showed up on behalf of Marc Emery, although marginally better than the twenty or so faithful (I appreciate them very much) that showed up in court on my behalf aren't going to cut it in the grand scheme of things. We need tens of thousands to disrupt traffic on these issues so that the armed goons who are all about assaulting people at the G8 get the drift we want our friggen rights, too! How much do we want them? Bad enough to get off the couch and leave the bong behind for a day! This is the same issue, at the core, that people in the middle east are risking their lives for. Freedom from the tyranny of unreasonable government. How dare Mr. Harper tells us what we can peacefully enjoy in our diets by saying "drugs are bad?" How dare Rob Nicholson misuse to CDSA as an arbitrary instrument of oppression where it was designed to control and regulate all drugs and substances for public safety purposes, not to make criminals out of a certain minority of people?

It always amazes me that it is a small group of neo cons in the Reagan administration, or a even a single guy like Anslinger, Harper, who ends up in very powerful positions skillfully manipulating their way by coopting the state propaganda machinery for their own purposes. Proroguing parliament, contempt of parliament denying democratic rules of government and the bozos seem to think that these are brilliant tactics, rather than the imminent signs of dictatorship.

Here is a very brave young lady with a social conscience speaking truth to power:

Where is the success of the CDSA?

As I walk around Surrey I see the real evidence of failure everywhere I look. People ravaged by hard drug and alcohol use are numerous. The malls are full of zombies bereft of humor looking for something they can't seem to find. You can see this everywhere in Canada as well as the world. Has no one in government stopped to asses their policies and where they are leading society? Do we only come out in happy drunken revery for sporting events and the rest of the time we slink around under a crap consumerism marketer's spell? I can see why people who have been to jail more than once don't seem to fear it. Too bad they settle for such a small valueless trade-off to access their return holidays. I see tattoos on their arms claiming to want wealth or they will have death. In my opinion they settle for neither.

I suppose that the model of materialism driven by corporations via an addiction to consumerism is not very rewarding in itself. People must feel cheated by the so called rewards of this society to turn to substance abuse in the numbers they are. There must be something in the equation that isn't adding up as per claims made. Also the model of criminal sanction, harsh as it may be, doesn't seem to control the problem. It appears that the criminal prohibition of some drugs replacing control and regulation is what is actually making a lucrative enterprise out of drug distribution, especially the most addictive/harmful substances. While building up the police state response to match the increasing violence of powerful organized crime the problem gets continually worse.

By classifying such drugs as MDMA as being extremely harmful contrary to the evidence it makes their profit margin much more rewarding as the demand increases with publicity. Do you not see the increase in the trade happening right before your eyes? Do the Christian /religious right wingers only want increased punishment at the expense of an ever increasing more violent trade in these substances as the outcome? Does only their moral stand matter, not the proliferation of drug abuse to an ever younger market? Once the young start using these substances, no matter how safe compared to alcohol or tobacco they are, they will have learned to choose substance abuse rather than real life. They do that in respect to alcohol and tobacco today, and in the dangerous numbers that they access Ecstasy, Marijuana, and even crack or crystal meth. One of the reasons youth start smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol before they are of legal age is because the are classed as "legal" drugs and therefor seem to be more acceptable in society's eyes to youth. To actually tackle the major problems we face in relation to substance abuse we must make a dramatic change in our approach to the problem. We must understand that this is a mental health not a moral/criminal problem.

The gateway drug abuse problem is our misunderstanding of why people are reaching out to access altered states in the first place. For adults to drink alcohol and watch a hockey game is an adult right as it should be to walk through the park on LSD. Neither activity differs substantially in the context of normal behavior unless either substance is misused and others are placed at risk. Who will think of obeying a law when either substance is within reach and the choice depends on what altered state one wishes to enjoy. The choice involving LSD will likely bring about a deeper introspection and spiritual connection from which personal growth and mental expansion might occur. The same goes for Marijuana compared to alcohol or tobacco. The fact is no amount of criminal interdiction will eradicate the human desire to achieve these altered states and that has been proven over millennium of drug use by every society of humans that has ever existed.
The only interdiction that has proven to work is that treatment of the social context in which substance use is respectfully considered and given its rightful space in the lexicon of human activity. When the use of such substances as LSD and MDMA is elevated to a spiritual learning development, then we will see people who seek to learn accessing it. The party goers will dread the intensity and supercharged experience, while people who wish to get a grip on their inner selves, their propensity to addictions of all kinds, including materialism can safely without being classed criminals expand their understanding. Certainly these psychedelic substances which have the power to raise awareness can lead to a resurgence of spirituality to ward off the empty effects of consumerism for those who seek them out. There is nothing to fear here, rather the reintroduction of safe respectfully accessing these altered states could actually begin to fill the empty pews in churches again with true seekers of the almighty rather than withered closed minded self righteous bigots who always seem to think that it is their duty, not God's role, to judge their fellow man.

Had a great visit with a councilor/advocate whom I can relate with. He is an old warrior in a state of peaceful growth who has been in recovery for over a quarter of a century and in this field for about 15 yrs. What endeared him to me was has sophisticated Zen-like views on life and the fact that he has about 300 acid trips under his belt. What we talked about was the fractional effects of addictions on an individual and how to move on we must rebuild, reconstitute ourselves, not necessarily in a new way, giving up old goals, but on a revamped personal foundation. A continuous growth/exploratory mission should I accept it. He had great insights with examples from his life and I felt close to him in my understanding of life. Plus he had some practical help with referrals to job oriented and life skills advocacy. We spent two hours in a wide ranging discussion and I did catch some glimpses of hope. He saw corporations as an expression of a human trait, which I found interesting, as I see government/justice as an expression of human genetics. I find his grasp of human addictions very interesting and feel that he has something to teach me that I need to learn to move forward on more that the legal harm understanding. He doesn't seem to be a phony. There appears to be a treasure trove of understanding and perhaps real help for me in his counseling. What we also agree on is that addictions are not a moral choice, therefor criminal law would have nothing to do with solving addiction problems. This understanding seems to be the pervasive majority viewpoint of today's mental health professionals.

This is from the Drug Equality Alliance website:

Unconscious social norms v conscious law:

As a species, humans are social animals in the process of evolving consciousness. Social animals unconsciously adopt social norms by means of imitation of role models. This ensures social coherence based on consensus – copy others and you’ll fit in. Likewise interacting human individuals may unconsciously imitate each other’s body language, ‘mirroring’, as means of social coherence. Unconscious consensus norms may be irrational, unconnected to objective evidence and reasoning, and may be unfair, applied selectively to the powerless but not to the powerful, as in scapegoating. Social animals are ruled by the powerful, based on survival of the fittest and self-interest (e.g. selfish genes).

Unlike animals, humans have the ability to make conscious decisions based on objective rationality (the objective assessment of all relevant factors and how they are linked logically by cause and effect) and subjective fairness, (the subjective balancing of value judgments since a decision or action may be good for one group but bad for another). Humans can then establish conscious rules or laws that define how their social group will operate, the limits to social behaviour. Conscious laws can be far more efficient than social norms because they can adapt to our changing society far quicker than unconscious social norms. Human societies are evolving from being based on the rule of the powerful majority, determined by social norms, towards being based on the rule of conscious law, determined by rationality and fairness.

Given their incomplete evolution of consciousness, humans find their decision making inevitably influenced by both unconscious social norms and conscious social laws – ‘if everyone drives above the speed limit, so will I’. The design of laws may be irrational and unfair if they are overly influenced by unconscious social norms; alternatively laws consciously designed to be rational and fair may be interpreted and applied irrationally and unfairly.

The relevance for drug regulation is this: the discrimination between consumers & traders of legally-available drugs and consumers & traders of 'controlled' drugs is based on unconscious social norms and the rule of the powerful majority whereas the law itself, the Misuse of Drugs Act, is consciously intended to be evidence-based, rational and fair. So our fundamental claim is that the law is not implemented in accordance with the law but in accordance with social norms that favour the majority at the expense of minorities.

The relevance for drug regulation is this:

Through the Misuse of Drugs Act Parliament has given Government the legal power to restrict individual rights for the sole legal purpose of reducing harm to society from drug consumption.

There is no indication in the MDA text that Government should exercise their legal power unequally between drugs used by the majority of voters and drugs used by minorities. Government appears biased, using its legal power for a political purpose (gaining the support of the majority of voters) rather than the legal purpose (reducing drug harm).

Global Commission on drug policy

"The war on drugs has failed to cut drug usage, but has filled our jails, cost millions in tax payer dollars, fuelled organized crime and caused thousands of deaths. We need a new approach, one that takes the power out of the hands of organized crime and treats people with addiction problems like patients, not criminals,” said Richard Branson, founder of the Virgin Group and cofounder of The Elders, United Kingdom. “The good news is new approaches focused on regulation and decriminalization have worked. We need our leaders, including business people, looking at alternative, fact based approaches. We need more humane and effective ways to reduce the harm caused by drugs. The one thing we cannot afford to do is to go on pretending the “war on drugs” is working."

Yet in Canada there is no hope as long as the Harper dictatorship implements the America drug war in compliance with its Washington masters. Not any concerns for Justice, or the harm being perpetrated on its own communities, or the safety of individual Canadians, guides our government. Only jingoistic "drugs are bad" statements are offered Mr. Harper, as if propaganda were relevant in this vital issue. The fact is his party only gained 2% in the polls in the last election while a whopping 60% voted for something different from the crap we are being dealt by the former major parties. Idiots are in power goose stepping to right wing ideology already on the wane in the USA, let alone the world. Tough on crime bill slated to be passed in September will help put more violent crime on the streets of Canada.

More insight from a psychedelics expanded mind

The frustration of being shunned by those who are supposed to be there to protect you is only slightly less painful than being misunderstood and discredited by your fellows. People have been fed endless reams of propaganda about the use of substances and drug laws, over generations, to the point that this subject has developed into something untouchable. Although lawyers claim to be looking out for your interests they are cowed by their own misunderstandings that the way things are and have been is how they will always be. The insecurity of so called legal experts to seek justice where few brave souls have trodden is the same human enigma which hinders any kind of change. Human rights from racial, religious equality, women's rights especially abortions, gay rights to very recently gay marriage have all been a long time coming. One thing in common was that even those whose best interest lay in change of their own situation had a vast majority of disbelievers and detractors within their ranks until the crucial events were close on the horizon. Even today's leading edge drug activists use the language of prohibition and continue to unthinkingly entrench it by supporting "medical" marijuana initiatives. How dare people think that only doctors can prescribe a plant which has been in common usage for at least three millennium without causing a problem. That is the same status as alcohol had during prohibition: only on a doctor's prescription. This led to a situation where the privileged who had the ability to afford good health care could access their drug of choice. Control for the sake of monopoly has caused great havoc in our communities. Thought control has stripped freedom from a thinking man's psyche and caused government tyranny to pervade so called free societies at the expense of law and order.

Without going into the legal arguments involved in prohibition, either for or against, the whole idea that someone should presume to be able to make you a criminal for something you might ingest, if you harm no one, seems absolutely absurd. If you say that this is for the good of society at large, at least public health, then what excuse would you have not to class alcohol and tobacco in the same league? This is not rational thinking and yet people are harmed directly and indirectly by a law that makes no sense. Nowhere in the prohibitions act does it mandate making substances illegal. This a misinterpretation of the act by the minister. The act itself mandates only control and regulation. In the courtroom the crown prosecutor giggled and rambled on about how my drug dealing disturbed the neighbors surrounding me. Not one person complained to management, yet she gets to spin lies on a presumption that because the law she is enforcing deems my behavior criminal, what I do must be offensive to my neighbors. The truth of it is that the disturbances and wife beatings caused by alcohol had police to the building on almost a daily basis, not my drug dealing.

Humans are encouraged to consume, or participate in, many dangerous activities that have a greater potential to harm others, which at first glance seem innocuous or even crucial to our daily existence. Take the marketing of vehicles and government promotion of oil production, as consumer driven addictions and you will see how private enterprise has developed our reliance on automobiles to the point where we can not perceive of a life without them. Roads and infrastructure are created with tax dollars, all so that individuals can be free to travel anywhere at anytime. The costs of pollution are leading to a global crisis of unsolvable proportions which threaten all of mankind. Health problems are a side effect of lack of exercise and exposure to the elements, as well as noxious gases. Tens of thousands of people are killed directly each year by the careless misuse of automobiles, and yet no one is criminalized for making a mistake, unless impaired, in their normal careless use. There is no reason, except personal addiction to automobiles, why good public transport systems couldn't do better and be much safer at moving the masses around. Cars are a consumer product which people become addicted to, more so than many psychedelic substances, and are a lot more dangerous to humanity, by a huge factor, than all illegal drugs combined. It seems that all is allowable as long as prodigious amounts of resources and human endeavor serve corporations in their unimpeded efforts to enslave us to their products. Continuous growth is encouraged to raise more slaves who can easily be manipulated by marketing into supporting/buying/believing anything. Enlightenment has become the antithesis of consumerism, justice and good government.

The largest fraud I have seen recently was the 911 scam. Those buildings could not have come down by two aircraft. That feat is impossible, seen especially evident in the free fall collapse of building seven. Still, the "threat" of global terrorism is used to front for unprovoked oil wars. Not one shred of evidence has ever linked Osama Bin Laden to 911 in a court of law, only allegations by governments bound on attacking other nations on trumped up lies. Supposedly he could not have been taken to stand trial and his body had to have been dumped at sea. These are the kind of state assassinations/murders which were frowned upon by people who claimed to live under the rule of law in civilized societies only a few decades ago. Mass murderers/war criminals were put on trial in earlier times so that evidence of their crimes could be brought forth to convict them in a courtroom. Today people like George W Bush can start a war based on lies and false unproven allegations and millions of morons will believe every last detail of those lies because they heard their leaders lie to them on TV. They will be incensed to hate anyone without a shred of proof.

Ten minutes after I saw the 911 scam unfold on the campground office TV, I returned to my RV deciding to stay put for another day. While sitting outside peacefully smoking a joint, my neighbor, an American in a forty foot motor home frowned on me for smoking the herb as he lit up a cigarette and proclaimed "it was that bastard Osama Bin Laden who was behind it." Wow, he had it all figured out from the get go. Someone did a great job setting up this bearded fanatic right from before it happened, in my view. It couldn't have had anything to do with this American's, all Americans', addiction to the consumption of gasoline. And holy crap my kind had caused a major share of today's problems, too: friggen dope smoking hippies. The utter stupidity and hatefulness of people impresses me, today. How dare someone smoke something other than tobacco or experience an altered state other than drunkenness.

This lying criminal, Richard Nixon, brought on the surge in the war on drugs and ruined the world, torturing millions of harmless people and increasing the power of violent criminal organizations. At that time, in the sixties and seventies, we were concerned about continued proliferation of warfare, environmental issues, nuclear dangers in arms proliferation and power plants. Today our concerns are being realized and the morons march on, gullible as ever. Barely do you hear of the latest disaster in Japan anymore, although its effects will be with us for tens of thousands of years. No one mentions that this disaster was totally preventable by placing the generators for the emergency cooling system, higher up near the roofs of the buildings. These plants were designed by people with engineering degrees who could not think outside the box, thinking ahead to a situation which could easily occur in an area prone to earthquakes and resulting Tsunamis. They copied the plans from plants existing in stable areas and did not think creatively enough, yet were given honors in University and laughed at people who did LSD and had inventive creative insights. Millions of people will suffer because these dummies graduated and were given jobs.

Just as today idiots wanting to spend more time in Afghanistan to avenge the deaths of those who have fallen. The legitimate government in power at the time of 911 said to coalition allies "show us the proof that Al Queada and Bin Laden had anything to do with the 911 act and we will turn him over." Canada belongs to the evil axis today and perpetrates crimes against humanity at the bidding of its master, implementing American drug policy on its people. Thousands of people die each decade and tens of thousands are incarcerated as direct and indirect victims, most of whom have never hurt anyone else due directly to their drug use. This paradigm is due to morons who hold the reigns of power and serve their own interests, like the self serving parliamentarians trying to appear tough on crime, who are on a highly political campaign to prohibit Salvia because they saw Miley Cirus do a hit on Youtube. Salvia is a common ornamental found in many flower beds. Oh boy, another lucrative product for criminal enterprise, eh! What a ship of fools! Has anyone seen a Youtube video of drunken teenagers? This of course is not political expedient to prohibit, because even judges and the Prime Minister swill martinis and we all know that prohibition of this substance didn't work, caused crime, violence and proliferation to ever younger consumers. It's all in the numbers of stupid people one has to persuade. There is a huge number of morons willing to believe what these parliamentarian "experts" tell them, because long ago they have left off thinking critically and eagerly consume whatever bullshit they are told to. Like the Vancouver Sun, the Courier, writing that there was a security incident that endangered the vice president's life at the Olympics because a security guard bought pot off me from my store on Broadway, or that the neighboring business could smell pot through the wall to the extent it made him noxious. What passes for good evidence, realistic reporting, truth, today, is pure crap.

Not once in all the so called in depth reporting on any channels that I have watched on TV in the remand center, have I EVER HEARD ANYONE MENTION THE FACT that the nuclear disaster could have been entirely avoided if the emergency generators to power the cooling systems had been placed higher up on earthquake proof, Tsunami untouchable platforms. Yet these morons of writing for local newspapers could attribute a security breach at last year's Olympics, because a security guard bought pot from me. I guess one needs the mentally expanded hardware achieved from the use of psychedelic substances to see the obvious on the first day the of disaster in Japan. If you google the cause of the nuclear disaster you will not find anything there but the Tsunami listed as the cause of the nuclear disaster. These friggen nuclear plants were supposed to have been able to withstand a Tsunami and would have, if there were electricity to power the emergency cooling systems.

Just as these "trained" experts couldn't see the obvious, today's legal experts and parliamentarians can't see the idiocy of their drug laws. The havoc and deaths which have resulted from this legal myopia will likely exceed that of the Japanese nuclear disaster, worldwide. Both are man made mistakes in trying to react to predictable, seemingly insurmountable forces of nature: earthquakes and the desire of humans to be free to peacefully do what they enjoy doing.

Here is a real expert's Blog, Prof. David Nutt. In his May 9th article Curiouser and curiouser: Could ecstasy actually heal brains as well as minds? Professor Nutt puts a lie to the crown prosecutor's assumption that I am harming people by selling MDMA. Lies stand in for evidence in any courtroom where a drug case is decided. It is no one's business what substances someone uses safely, including alcohol.

However you might feel that as all drugs may be harmful then ecstasy could surely only be harmful also? Well maybe not. We should remember that MDMA was developed as a therapeutic tool for psychotherapy and its successful role here was severely curtailed when the drug was made illegal. Thirty years on, MDMA has only recently been reintroduced into clinical trials with great success in one study in resistant PTSD [Mithoefer et al 2010].

But what about the rats – does it still cause brain damage there? A new paper shows an intriguing effect and one, which many will find paradoxical: MDMA improved recovery from brain injury rather than worsening it [Edut et al 2011]. This paper has not apparently received any media attention so far which I why I felt compelled to do what I could to make it more widely known.

In my own life I could use a little bit of help to counter the severe depression that the application of moronic drug laws has put me in. The only thing legally available to me without a prescription, alcohol, is dangerous and unappealing to me. But because idiocy rules and has permeated itself into legal standing, we must continue to suffer. All so that morons who have been elected/advanced into positions of power can harm society to enhance their political, judicial and legal careers by imposing their moral perceptions and ignoring the facts. Drug use when the user does it responsibly is no one else's business, just as is the use of garlic, gasoline, tobacco, alcohol.

Here are some thoughts of a friend with whom I agree:

They have tried to make us think drugs are illegal when they cannot be because it is persons who are regulated under the law and people have equality rights under neutral law. Drugs have no equality rights so they tried to make us think drugs not drug users. They took a&t(Alcohol and tobacco) & excused the users and abusers of it from the operation of the law as a policy because propaganda errors of law made them think drugs are illegal that all use is misuse and also they wanted to protect the market for a&t and not associate it with drugs that have negative cultural connotations but in fact the law is written to regulate and must distinguish between persons causing harm through misuse and persons concerned with peaceful use. It is not use itself that is a crime according to the Act. The Act is written to control problematic drug users not to make all use misuse because that can't be it erases people's equality rights to misconstruct, maladminiser and then misapply the law in that way.

The judge in Malmo thought that the CDSA concerns illegal drugs he could not see past the propaganda to see that it is a regulatory apparatus that drugs cannot be illegal that the law must distinguish between use and misuse and that it is perfectly fine to put a&t in and it would make no difference to any of the users.

The noble purpose to protect users from harmful substances is fine but it is being misused to target certain users of harmful drugs while exempting a particular market thereby applying the law in an arbitrary way especially with harm from a&t sixty times greater they are failing to protect people from the most harmful drugs while imprisoning other users of less harmful drugs.

The demand is that the Act be construed and applied in a neutral manner that does not violate common law and human rights. MiSS Users of the most harmful drugs A&T must ought to be regulated under the Act, but are not due to the misconstruction that is 'legal drugs' and proper assessment based on evidence based reasoning be used to determine where exemptions and regulations are appropriate proportional sentencing otherwise the Act as applied is arbitrary and therefore it is void.

I still have no evaluation on legal grounds as to why my request for stay of proceedings was not granted before Judge Rideout. The fact that he was able to dismiss my argument by saying "This is something I might entertain over Martinis with friends" has no valid legal basis for denying my request for a stay of proceedings. And just because some legal references like Judge Jackson's were 60 years old, does not invalidate them. It may actually give them more credence, because what we see in today's judicial remarks is a definite confusion in legal thought, brought about most likely by years of propaganda acceptance. Here was my presentation in court.

Your honor, I believe that my human rights are being violated by this process that seeks to abuse the processes of this honourable court by asking it to apply an unconscionable law to me, and I seek the protection of this court from what is both an abuse of process under common law, and a violation of my human rights. I am an amateur and this is my attempt to explain these two separate arguments.

There are two inequalities of treatment that apply to me should these proceedings not be stayed:

1) There is an unequal application of the Act as applied to persons concerned with the equally harmful drugs (alcohol and tobacco) without a rational and objective basis.

2) There is a failure to treat unlike cases differently, that is, the failure to regulate persons concerned in peaceful activities (re controlled drugs) differently from persons causing harm.

Those inequalities of treatment constitute unequal deprivation of liberty at common law and are discriminatory toward me under the Charter rights law entailed in Section 15, your honor, which grants equality before the law. I assert that this argument does not enter the political arena, but is squarely a legal argument that reveals that the decision makers have made errors of law, and that such errors fatally undermine the legitimacy of whatever policy ensues.

The common law argument includes a failure to use S 55 and 60 equally, proportionally, and rationally to achieve it’s objective of protecting the public against the scourge of the misuse of any harmful drug. Given that the jurisdictional facts are now made out regarding the profound harmfulness of tobacco and alcohol misuse upon society, there can be no justification for having a ‘separate but equal’ form of administration governing problematic drug users. Under such circumstances it is submitted that the government are obliged to act to give effect to their powers and to do so fully cognizant of the law that empowers them to do so.

The human rights law under the Charter includes S 2 (b) which upholds my freedom of thought, your honor.

Your honor, my position is that I refer to myself as an activist. I know that may sound arrogant to self-ascribe myself as an activist but I have felt compelled to create change in my community for the better based on what many experts and authorities think is a problem and what I also perceive and experience in my daily life, your honor.

I assert that the government has abused, and continues to abuse their powers in the administration of the Act, and that also the law as applied is inconsistent with my human rights that are protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I refer also to my lawful excuse. I base my lawful excuse on my belief that it is unconscionable to uphold an unconscionable law that is arbitrary and would deny my being. I have attempted to be lawful in my excuse.

I am sure that your honor will perform the highest duty of scrutiny to my argument.

The most important thing, your honor, is that I believe the Act under which I was charged is most unfair in the hands of government. Government have abandoned jurisdiction over the vast majority of drug misuse through an error of law that describes abusers of alcohol and tobacco as being concerned with ‘legal drugs‘. The Act regulates human action, not drug action and is expectant that any harmful drug be scheduled, and makes provision for regulations to be made to supervise the supply of such drugs in a responsible manner, see section 55 of the Act. The error of law that believes that the Act can only be used for outright prohibition results in another inequality of treatment that is treating peaceful and responsible users of some drugs in the same way as abusers and irresponsible users. This error perhaps explains why government feel an electoral pressure not to schedule alcohol or tobacco, they imagine, incorrectly that such status equates to prohibition. This is incorrect, the Act can act as an evaluative instrument to make sensible differentiation between circumstances that fairly address the mischief that the Act seeks to ameliorate, and those peaceful ones where it does not seek to interfere into personal liberty.

The most important thing, your honor, is to construe the neutral Act and scrutinize whether the exclusion of the users of the most harmful drugs to society from the Act is consistent with the purposes of the Act. In other words, your honor, there is authority to suggest that the government must act to ensure that the Schedules and regulations at the core of the operation of the Act are subject to legal and fair administration, and it is my understanding that this is an ongoing duty.

Your honor, there are as I have stated, two inequalities of treatment that are inherent in the administration of the Act that proceed these proceedings.

1) Your honor, the Act as applied is discriminatory toward me. The Act fails to treat my case like those of others in society who have similar behavior. There is an unequal application of the Act as it is applied to people who use the Scheduled drugs in my indictment, and the equally harmful drugs, that is alcohol and tobacco, without a rational and objective basis.

2) There is a failure to treat unlike cases differently, viz the failure to regulate persons concerned in peaceful activities (re controlled drugs) differently from persons causing harm.

These inequalities of treatment constitute unequal deprivation of liberty at common law and are discriminatory toward me under my Charter rights entailed in S. 15 which is equality before the law, your honor.

The Charter right includes S 2 (b) which upholds my freedom of thought.

Your honor, my position is that I refer to myself as an activist. I know that may sound arrogant to self-ascribe myself as an activist but I have felt compelled to bring attention to this issue based on what many experts and authorities think is a problem and what I also perceive and experience in my daily life.

I believe that I have established the basis of an argument that the government has abused their powers in the administration of the Act, and that also the law is inconsistent with my human rights that are protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I refer also to my lawful excuse. I am an amateur in these courts your honor and I regret that the way that I have expressed my lawful excuse has not been acceptable to these courts. However, I base my lawful excuse on my belief that it is unconscionable to uphold an unconscionable law that is arbitrary and would deny my being.

I am sure that your honor will perform the highest scrutiny to my argument.

The most important thing, your honor, is that I believe the Act under which I was charged is most unfair. The Act results in the two inequalities of treatment of which I have outlined so far and it also violates my freedom of thought.

Given that the jurisdictional facts are made out regarding the harmfulness of these substances, the government is duty bound to Schedule them accordingly in order to give effect to the objects and purpose of the Act.

It is my understanding your honor that the Act as applied is arbitrary. The Act discriminates against me. Given that the facts are made out regarding the harmfulness of these substances the government is duty bound to Schedule them into the Act accordingly in order to give effect to the objects and the purpose of the Act.

I consider that the government, your honor, does not have the legal right to arbitrarily pick and choose which harmful drugs should be the subject of the Schedules of the Act. The government must act to ensure that the Schedules and regulations at the core of the operation of the Act are subject to legal and fair administration and this is an ongoing duty.

Alcohol and tobacco are the two most harmful and dangerous drugs if measured by list of causalities. The government chooses to deal with alcohol and tobacco users separately. This means the exclusion of the users of the harmful drugs alcohol and tobacco from the Act as applied is arbitrary. But it is a principle in law that similar situations should receive similar treatment, and so the practice, your honor, of allowing the free-flow of the harmful drug alcohol in society, and even permitting wine-making, while imprisoning and otherwise depriving cannabis users of their property for choosing to use an analogous drug such as cannabis is clearly irrational and discriminatory.

Further, your honor, the Act fails to justifiably discriminate: the regulations for the non-medical use of those drugs excluded by government policy from the Act, that is, alcohol and tobacco, distinguish between reasonably safe, responsible drug use and trade; and unreasonable harmful irresponsible drug use, production and trade.

That is, your honor, regulations for the non-medical use of those drugs included by the Act fail to make this justifiable distinction, instead of applying a blanket prohibition of all property rights of possession, supply, production and export/import.

The Act as applied also fails to justifiably distinguish two distinct forms of unreasonably harmful use, production and trade: a) use or trade unreasonably harmful to the consumer or trader alone, ‘voluntary risks’, and b) use or trade unreasonably harmful to others, that is ‘involuntary risks.’

Voluntary risks do not infringe human rights while involuntary risks do. The Act as applied fails to justifiably discriminate between those in different situations.

I am an amateur your honor. I have had limited resources to cite case law while I have been jailed. I believe that the principles in the law I cite are transferable to our own Canadian law.

I cite the European human rights case of Thlimmenos v. Greece (2000) 31 EHRR 411 para 44: “The right not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed is violated when States without an objective and reasonable justification fail to treat differently persons whose situations are significantly different.”

Further, in the US Supreme Court (Railway Express Agency Inc. v. New York 1949, para 112), Justice Jackson explained why the courts have a duty to prevent abuse of political power by upholding the right to equality before the law.

“There is no more effective practical guarantee 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 effected. Courts can take no better measure to assure that laws will be just than to require that laws be equal in operation.”

As a result of this abuse by the executive, your honor, a fair trial is not possible.

There has been a failure to consider making regulations under S 55 (1) (a) of the Act.

It appears, your honor, that the Parliament has neither stated nor fixed any criteria to guide the government’s decision making re drug control and classification under the relevant sections of the Act as applied.

The government, your honor, has fettered the Act as applied to an overly rigid and pre-determined policy of prohibition.

Further, your honor, the government has failed to understand and give effect to the Act’s policy and objectives.

The CDSA is arbitrary as applied. This indictment will lead to an abuse of process; the executive abuse of this power threatens my liberty and is discriminatory toward me according to the human rights law within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I am seeking the court to confirm the abuse of power and declare that there should be a stay of these proceedings. The crux of this argument is that where the law is applied to a criminal defendant in such a way as to subject that defendant to severe inequality of treatment in terms of common law and human rights law, is the issue justifiable and am I entitled to the court’s protection?

I argue, your honor, that if the court finds abuse under any of the established judicial review headings, ie illegality, irrationality, and unfairness, then:

1) One or both of the inequalities of treatment exist; 2) they have abused the Court’s process and 3) my charges should be stayed.

I further submit to you, my honor, that the CDSA claims a power the CDSA does not possess, to exempt individuals or classes of individuals from the operation of the law by excluding de facto the dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs alcohol and tobacco from the Act’s control.

And:

The CDSA in the minds of the decision maker makes some drugs or substances legal, while making other drugs or substances illegal, when in fact it is people’s behavior that should be regulated with respect to any harmful drugs or substances.

Why has the government not acted in the public interest re alcohol and tobacco?

As I understand it, your honor, case law says the government must act when the law creates an imperative for them to do so. The fact they ignore the majority of drug misuse in this way is ultra vires the law and subjects me to inequality of treatment.

I refer, your honor, to S. 60 of the CDSA:

“The Government in Council may, by order, amend any of the Schedules I to Viii by adding to them or deleting from them any item or portion of an item, where the Governor in Council deems the amendment to be necessary in the public interest.”

I argue:

There is a failure to implement proportionally. There is a failure of reasonableness. There is a failure to make regulations under the powers of S. 55 of the Act. There is a failure to implement fairness. Why is alcohol and tobacco not in the Act? This does not mean prohibitions as Section 55 (1) (a) could create regulations to allow responsible use.

The common law violation includes the failure to use S 55 and 60 equally, proportionally and etc.

I also cite the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms S (2) (b).

Discrimination stands on its own, but it also applies to the ways that the law is utilized, so I argue that:

Governments and mal-administration of the drug law classification and control system through their ultra vires exemption from the law of the vast majority of harmful drug users (drinkers and smokers), and their failure to seek proportionate regulation of persons who use the controlled drugs responsibly (not the legitimate target of the Act) as a different class from those persons who do not (the intended target of the Act), results in an arbitrary and discriminatory differential between those who use alcohol for sacramental purposes, and those that use cannabis for the same ends.

Further:

My right to ‘freedom of thought’ or any person’s right to ‘freedom of thought’ is such an essential liberty that creates the foundation of civil rights, that it is one of the few unqualified rights.

I argue, your honor, that my activities do not impact upon public safety, the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others in the slightest, and even if an argument could be made that they might, they certainly do not impact to anything approaching the degree that the users of alcohol and tobacco do (as the government report submitted states in terms of the harm caused by misuse of these drugs being approximately sixty times greater than that caused by all of the currently controlled drugs combined.)

I do not argue the Act 2 (b) claim in terms of the practices of a formal religion or belief system, but in terms of access to thought, a state of being that is the precursor to all civil liberties, that is intrinsically part of my existence, my consciousness.

The matter of applying anxious scrutiny to the construction of the Act and the conduct of the executive in respect of their legal obligations is a matter par excellence for the courts; this is not a practical claim made within a legal arena; the case here concerns Rule of Law.

I object to the introduction of irrelevant political motives into the administration of law by the executive.

At this juncture I bear the burden on the balance of probabilities of demonstrating a prima facie case that the administration is being carried out contrary to any of the raised common law principles of illegality, irrationality, unfairness and unreasonableness and/or the separate challenge on human rights grounds.

Such common law principle rooted in the doctrine of the equal applicability of laws may give rise to a finding of substantive or procedural defects within the administration of the legislation.

Your honor, I refer now to my Human Rights Claim, in overview:

I cite the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms S 15 (1) - The prohibition against discrimination.

Once again your honor I must explain that I have had limited access to case law because I am jailed. But I have done the best I could with the resources available to me. I believe that the principles are transferable to our own Canadian law.

In Pretty v. United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 1 at 77, the Strasbourg Court said:

“Strong arguments based on the rule of law could be raised against any claim by the executive to exempt individuals or classes of individuals from the operation of the law.”

This is especially so where the exemption is contrary to the legitimate aim and principles for which the legislation was created and intended.

And so, while asserting that the “search for balance”…constitutes the foundation of a “democratic society”, in Chassagnou and Others v. France (1999) 29 EHRR 615 at 112, the Strasbourg Court described the crux of such matters.

“Although individual interests must on occasion be subordinated to those of a group, democracy does not simply mean that the views of a majority must always prevail: a balance must be achieved which ensures the fair and proper treatment of minorities and avoids any abuse of a dominant position.”

More, in Thlimmenos v. Greece (2000) 31 EHRR 411 the Strasbourg Court said:

“The right not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under the convention is also violated when states without an objective and reasonable justification fail to treat differently persons whose situations are significantly different.”

And:

“It is a principle of fundamental justice that laws should not be arbitrary (R v. Malmo Levine) That is, the state cannot limit an individual’s rights where “it bears no relation to, or is inconsistent with, the objective that lies behind (it)” (Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General.)

Yet, as applied by the Executive, the Act fails to justifiably distinguish the relevant differences between differing use risks and/or outcomes of controlled drugs use, viz responsible versus irresponsible use, ie use versus misuse.

In summary, as applied by successive Governments, the Act discriminates on the grounds of property, drug orientation, legal status, association with a national minority, and political power within the ambits of two or more Convention rights. I have had limited access to read these Convention rights but I believe they are the Canadian equivalent of what is termed in European law to be Article 1 Protocol 1, Articles 8 & 9.

Further, my ‘freedom of thought’ or anyone’s ‘freedom of thought’ is engaged and infringed due to the nature of the property controlled under the Act as applied, and since the freedom of thought is an absolute right, any interference in or limitation upon thought engages it.
Government respects the right of consumers of the harmful drugs alcohol and tobacco to ‘alter mental functioning’ but denies this right to consumers of cannabis and other “controlled” drugs despite the evidence that many such drugs are lesser or equally harmful than alcohol and tobacco.

Alternately, if such restrictions on S. 2 vis-à-vis controlled drugs are proportionate and in the public interest then Government is failing to protect the public from the equally or more harmful drugs alcohol and tobacco.

This claim is freestanding and conjunct discrimination in on the grounds of property, drug orientation, association with a national minority and legal status.

S. 55 means that the Act as applied does not mandate prohibition but can be used to regulate persons (not drugs really) so there is no reason why peaceful use cannot be respected and alcohol and tobacco included.

These errors of law cause the inequalities of treatment stated above in this text by preventing the Government from giving proper effect to the Act’s policy.

I ask the Court to confirm the abuse and stay the proceedings.


Klaus Kaczor.

March 16, 2011.

Psychedelics for sale to people over eighteen! LAD-00023 (Click for legal foundation)

Today's audio street marketing phrase is the title of this post.

Also: "We have created an exemption! Take a card find out more!"

I will chant "just google it" every few seconds, too.

My strategy is to press "home" the issue, until either, I am arrested and we get a chance to confront the British Columbia Supreme court head on if that must be, or, we receive official recognition of our claimed rights. My goal is to save lives. The government of Canada has dithered for decades making a haven for criminality and violent gangs, destroying the peace and harmony of my community. I challenge any judge to jail me as a common drug dealer and then explain that to God.

I won't be carrying anything but a couple of joints to smoke and a Bible. I hope to hand out cards and invite people to visit my Blog and Utubes, and buy their psychedelics from me. Until we receive the protection we are seeking via the exemption, I will continue to expose our lawful alternative. Sooner or later someone not cowed by censorship and drug war propaganda and who wishes to get a chance at a ground breaking story is gonna expose our one act play to the world and then the shit will hit the fan for the government. If we are let go in peace and love, we can work with the government to find ground rules for advertising and marketing that will be acceptable to both parties. This, in my ESTIMATION, IS THE PRODUCTIVE ROAD THAT WILL LEAD TO A MORE LAWFUL SOCIETY OVER ALL, and reduce the need to build more prisons.

Make my day, Stockwell, and others!

By the way, in yesterday's video, the police officers were not doing their duty to keep the sidewalks unobstructed. That was a breach of the common law! Rather than hassling me for speaking in a normal tone, while ordinance was being set off, by law, they should have cleared a path for me to walk unobstructed along the sidewalk.

What if one of those old veterans suddenly had a heart attack while worshiping war death? How would help have gotten to him in time without setting off a massive crowd "crush," perhaps killing more people to memorialize in the future?

That's only a drug user's perception of things so you can feel free to call it nonsense.

So here is what happened today on the major streets of Vancouver

Today's announcement will occur between noon and 1 pm

May God grant healing to our land.

I will be announcing my liberty between noon and one or there about. There are no crowds to worry about entertaining. I am in relaxed no stress mode on vacation from the role of Psychedelic Oracle today. I look forward to these lovely days when I can shed my duties and take in the world on a smaller scale. The chores of an Oracle are difficult and tiring at times, but someone has to do it as I told Professor N. Langton. This job is not for everyone, but many people have a little bit of an Oracle's spirit within them and they enjoy occasional use of these substances.

Not many could survive on the levels of ingestion that I am forced to achieve due to the unique nature of my role. That is why we must all be allowed to achieve our unique freedoms and develop our talents as individuals, not part of a politically managed herd.

May God find love in your hearts today.

Chief Justice
Bud the Oracle

Unincorporated Deuteronomical Society

Clerk of the Marijuana Guild

Here is how the "News" works in Canada:


Had a great day today. Perhaps you can notice that I have no after effects of four days of psychedelic quests. I felt fine refreshed both mentally and physically. If I had stayed "high" on booze for the same time I was cruising on MDMA and LSD, I would be in a fine fix in both areas. Remember even if you disapprove of a three day drunk, it still doesn't make that person a criminal or have a dangerous side effect of organized crime.

Enlightened legal discusion on the practice of Injustice by the Government of Canada: theft

Yesterday in the late afternoon I met the Registrar while strolling along the Sea wall just North of Science world. We ended up in a good discussion, as philosophers are sometimes capable of. Upon discussing my recent LSD experiences we came to the conclusion that it is a religious sacrament and extremely harmless, with all the propaganda based on Hyperbole and unconfirmed rumors. The state simply does not have a right to steal someone's property on the basis of a lie or any other reason if that person harms no one else.

We are governed by a monarch, under whose authority I was charged (in the name of Regina). By the oath she took upon taking the throne inscribed in her bible under which authority she rules, she may only rule by the commandments of God. That includes thou shalt not steal and also thou shalt not harm someone physically and deprive them of their liberty when they do no wrong.

I was actually demonstrating the safe way to handled the problem of substances without harming anyone, trying to control and regulate them for adult use only.
What the government does is set a paradigm for the flourishing black market to occur. This is a proven way to accelerate the distribution of substances to children.

It occurred to us to make a video about our discussion in a loose interview/conversational style. These videos are unedited in the sound track but split into two to fit Utube's format.

We have a right to remove ourselves peacefully from a state that seeks to harm us when we interfere with no one and provide a safe way for adults to exercise their freedom of choice.

Nowhere in God's word did he give the Monarch the right to rule by practicing Injustice. In fact when a Monarch fails to rule under the commandments which they have sworn to, they are labelled a tyrant in the Bible and the people are encouraged to disobey them.




Just why do we have to believe lying assholes like Harper, Ignatief, about harsher drug policies, when this experienced ex cop tells the truth in a growing chorus of professionals who have had enough of this crime causing idiocy?



All to promote talentless dishonest political hacks who can't get it up without lying. Up here in Vancouver Canuckistan, its not only policing for fun with other cooperative agencies, but also for political resurrection!

2(b), Cognitive Liberty and Psychedelics
Filed under: Charter — Adminiftrator @ 12:21 am

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms1 states that

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

As the clause is predicated of “everyone,” it is a fundamental statement of freedoms, or natural powers of doing what one wishes unless forbidden de jure or by force 2. In 2(b), “freedom of the press and other media of communication” should be read as applying to each preceeding element: effectual freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression requires freedom of media of communication, which explicitly includes the press and, it will be argued, implicitly includes psychedelics drugs.

First, on the question of what is meant by psychedelic drug. The term psychedelic was first used by Dr. Humphrey Osmond in a 1956 letter3 to Aldous Huxley: “To fathom hell or soar angelic, just take a pinch of Psychedelic.” From its greek roots, psychedelic may be literally translated as mind-manifesting, and this is not an altogether bad description of the effect of such drugs, which have their effect primarily upon the mind and one’s thinking.

The Center for Cognitive Liberty and Neuroethics4 defines Cognitive Liberty (CL) as “the right of each individual (a) to think independently and autonomously, (b) to use the full spectrum of his or her mind, and (c) to engage in multiple modes of thought” (letters added). In Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 8255 the court cites Edmonton journal v. Alberta (Attorney general), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 13266 on the nature of freedom of expression in 2(b):

In RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd., 1986 CanLII 5 (S.C.C.), [1986] 2 S.C.R. 5737, McIntyre J., speaking for the majority, put the position in this way at p. 583:

Freedom of expression is not, however, a creature of the Charter. It is one of the fundamental concepts that has formed the basis for the historical development of the political, social and educational institutions of western society.

And, therefore, it is reasonable that freedom of thought is not a creature of the Charter; it is another of the above fundamental concepts. If freedom of thought is identical to cognitive liberty, we find that engaging the mind’s capacity for psychedelic thoughts is protected by CL(c), the freedom to engage in multiple modes of thought. The expression “modes of thought” implies that the human mind is capable of multiple modes of thought. Psychedelics assist their users in achieving modes of thought which are predictably brought about by those psychedelics. Cognitive Liberty, then, allows for the production, distribution, and assembly for consumption of materials which facilitate access to multiple modes of thought just as freedom of expression allows for the the same in respect of expressions.

The freedoms in 2(b) are secured specifically by freedom of the press and other media of communication. A medium, to reduce the plural to the singular, is something through which another thing is conveyed: thus freedom of expression is protected by freedom of the press and other media of communication, as the press is a medium through which expression may pass, that is to say, it allows the expression to be communicated from one to another.. What are the media of communication of thoughts?

Psychedelics are a medium through which psychedelic thoughts are reliably communicated. Media of communication with repect to thought must be taken as more than a restatement of expression; otherwise it would be to no purpose to include thought. The effect of psychedelics is best experienced by eating of the materials, like Cordelia, “I cannot heave my heart into my mouth,” and I will not linger on proving psychedelics a medium of communication of a specific mode of thought; the specific content of the mode of thought is not so important to engage CL(c) as is the existence of a mode of thought which people wish to experience, and these reasons may be of a wide variety: interpersonal, aesthetic, religious, spiritual, kinaesthetic, synaesthetic, etc.

If 2(b)’s “freedom of thought” does not extend access to the psychedelic mode of thought as one of the “multiple modes of thought”, to what does it extend? It could be argued that “freedom of thought” is the freedom to have one’s thought influenced by expression, which is to read 2(b)’s “freedom belief, thought, opinion and expression” as though the freedom of the first three must be secured by the freedom of the fourth, which includes freedom of the press and other media of communication. Our view is that the four concepts (belief, thought, opinion and expression) are all and individually secured by freedom of the press and other media of communication. Thus, freedom of thought may be said to be secured by freedom of psychedelic drugs qua media of communication in the same sense that freedom of expression may be said to be secured by freedom of the press as a medium of communicaton.

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 restrictions under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act in respect of these drugs are contemplated universally, except insofar as s. 56 and various regulations provide exemptions; however, s. 56 is at the minister’s discretion, and no regulation gives an exemption for freedom of thought. The reasonable limitation imposed upon freedom of expression is that it be non-violent. A similar standard of limitation should be imposed upon freedom of thought and the media of communication of thought. There is no evidence that psychedelic thought produces violence, and, therefore, there is no reasonable ground for prohibiting the nonviolent use of psychedelic drugs as of the freedom of thought.

The scheduling could be saved by a system of bonding and licensure for peaceful use, production, trafficking of psychedelics, subject to the normal law merchant, etc. etc.

1. CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982, PART I, Fundamental Freedoms ↩
2. Bracton v. 2 p. 29 ↩
3. Humphry Osmond, Erowid Biography. ↩
4. CCLE FAQ – What is Cognitive Liberty? ↩
5. Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15 ↩
6. Edmonton journal v. Alberta (Attorney general), Importance of s. 2(b) of the Charter and the Reporting of Court Proceedings ↩
7. RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd., ↩

For these links live go to: Scire Facius's Blog post