Click title link for advanced legal search "Ministers have no power+The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations referred to in section 41 of the Interpretation Act."
"The object and legal subject are joined together, the law regulates people (or is supposed to) but it was re-framed as creating an illegal object. The belief in an illegal object is what reduces all persons who once had legal rights to slaves to this Act!"
Parliament did not envision an illegal object, "use" is not in the Act, Parliament envisioned a regulatory system that would allow persons their rights to equality before the law. Conflating all use to abuse renders a person without rights and that person becomes an illegal object without equality with the majority of drug users. It's the same as if they said all women who wear make up deserve to be imprisoned even if acting peacefully but this was not written into law. It takes away their rights to equality before the law and makes them an object because if you don't have equality before the law you are an object. They might say well this is choosing criminality but it is government that has designated the criminality through a misunderstanding of what the law says about it.
An Osgoode law professor in 2004 said to my friend that there are five arguments... recreational and/or harm principle, autonomy, self expression, medical, spiritual.. All the arguments which were considered viable or had been tried were categorized. It appears the administrative argument has never been considered before. Does that mean that if Osgoode Hall hadn't considered it, it isn't viable?
Promulgate refers to the making of orders in council. The minister is charged with the duty of giving effect to the Act through an ongoing process of constant review and recommendations to parliament - they don't implement or regulate by themselves, but without their initiative, nothing can happen. This is a major flaw in the system as I see it. There is a gaping hole in the structure of the Act which allows politics to enter the field rather than encourages non aligned intelligent science and sober second thought to guide our social safety policies. That is why these positions must be filled with competent people not political hacks.
At first when I thought that I understood this argument, There were times I got a little perturbed with the over emphasis on repeating like a religious mantra: "the law regulates people not objects." This seemed as obvious as the large nose on my face to me. I figured the battlefield to be with Parliament, Justice or the medical systems. We all know the legal nuances but expressed them in plain terms. People use plain language but everyone knows what these laws mean or prohibit. So what? Why repeat this like rote doggerel?
The truth is I didn't understand what was being said although I thought that I did. The law is not built on Doggerel or even plain language. It must be as precise yet open to change as possible for the reason that is plainly obvious: you don't want a law left open to political interpretation in a democracy. You must also understand that principle in English law that says that if you are not harming anyone or their property, you are not committing a crime. There must not be a denial of someone's rights unless they actually commit a crime. And any law that makes someone a criminal simply for peacefully possessing a substance the government deems harmful, must be equally applied to the majority of people who may use equally or even more harmful substances. The Minister's duty under the CDSA is not to implement his party's political agenda at the expense of a minority who can't fight back, rather she must safeguard the public from dangerous substances.
NO EXCEPTIONS FOR POLITICAL REASONS NO MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE VOTED FOR THEM EITHER. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW, EVEN THE MINORITIES, GUARANTEED BY THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS! THIS IS THE BACK BONE OF DEMOCRACY.
I was blogging and posting this opinion years ago.
Opinion: Our flawed drug laws are at heart of riots
Posts
