Sunshine Soup

September 2nd Sentencing Hearing Adjourned !!!!!

noreply@blogger.com (bud oracle) — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 23:36:00 +0000

A Happy announcement about the adjournment of the sentencing hearing at provincial Court on Sep 2. The next court appearance will be at the Supreme Court of BC on Sep 14 10:00 am 800 Smythe Str. Vancouver.

Maybe there is justice after all? I would love to retract my words against the Justice system, law society, Lawyers and Judges if I felt I had a FAIR SHAKE. THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT I MUST WIN/ BEAT THE SYSTEM. If someone can show me where our argument is faulty, not reasonable, illogical in law then I will have to accept it and move on to something else.

Thanks to Luis Casey for your generous contribution every little bit means a great deal!!!!

Thank you Cherie Say (click for my facebook link)

noreply@blogger.com (bud oracle) — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 22:39:00 +0000

Thank you Cherie Say for your generous $200 contribution to the cause. This came at the most critical time for Amanda and I. In a cruel world such as ours it is hard to see the good of humanity sometimes. It is people such as yourself that truly make the difference in things such as this. We all appreciate this and you will never be forgotten. I am sure that when my final DMT trip comes around that the memory of how good this felt will come back to comfort me in my passing. I am still crying more than hour later as the picture in my facebook post shows.

There has not been one smidgeon of help from those who belonged to the UDS except John West who was the only one to show ups and help Amanda move me out of my apt when i was in Jail Mark Boyer actually moved in failed to pay rent and then didn't want to move . He swore at and obstructed Amanda while she brought her friends to move. In times like these you will find out who is all about. The Registrar swore at her and never ever lifted a finger stole a camera and accepted a wage. A true picture of a misogynist if there ever was one. I was ripped off while in jail by former supporters whom I trusted. No wonder most people think ill of drug using people.

Amanda has asked me to remove this video as she feels it has crossed her personal boundaries so I did

What you see in the video is an emotionally complex, perhaps bipolar man off his meds by court order and because he is too poor to afford them

Latest 911 Emergency: Please help Now!

noreply@blogger.com (bud oracle) — Sun, 28 Aug 2011 21:34:00 +0000

We need to loose our dual nature and become an invincible singularity as in the video below. Basically he is saying that we belong to a common mind and the more we give to others, to something, the less we remain mired in duality and the closer we get to be in the great One. This really does bring happiness and good Karma. Try it and you will see what I mean. Let the plant teachers touch you.

Harper promotes a moral panic to enforce a monopoly for Alcohol Producers and Tobacco

noreply@blogger.com (bud oracle) — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:00:00 +0000

Has anyone ever noticed that there are no intelligent questions coming from the interviewers these days?

Drugs aren't bad because they're illegal, the reason drugs are illegal is because they're bad. ...

Are there no critical thinkers left in the news media? This is the most outrageous assertion anyone can make on behalf of the alcohol and tobacco monopoly. Are Alcohol and tobacco not mind altering substances that are often misused and kill people, Mr Harper? Are they not bad because they are legal drugs, Mr. Harper? Are these statements by Mr. Harper simply marketing poisons which have a defacto monopoly due the governments misapplication of the drugs and substances Act?

By making this false dichotomy and inaccurate statement (illegal and legal drugs is a concept not known in Law) Mr. Harper has likely condemned thousands to death or hardship of addictions to "legal substances" which by implication are not considered bad. I conclude that he will be directly responsible but never held to account for the misery of many who will die smoking tobacco and from alcohol addiction

By inference, this moron whom the people of Canada have elected as their dictator, has promoted the legal drugs over the "bad drugs." Is Mr. Harper on the pay role of these corporate manufacturers of poisons? Does the Prime Minister not have access to the myriads of studies since the times of alcohol prohibition in the 1930's, including the latest report March 2010 by the British Columbia Center for Excellence in HIV AIDS which concludes, as they all did, what is apparent to anyone who has eyes, ears and the ability to reason that:

…the existing evidence suggests that gun violence and high homicide rates are likely a natural consequence of drug prohibition and that increasingly sophisticated methods of disrupting Canadian gangs involved in drug distribution could unintentionally increase violence. From an evidence-based public policy perspective, gun violence and the enrichment of organized crime networks appear to be natural consequences of drug prohibition. In this context, and since drug prohibition has not achieved its stated goal of reducing drug supply, alternative models for drug control may need to be considered if drug supply and drug-related violence are to be meaningfully reduced.

Not the use of substances which causes the problems but the laws

It is a no brainer that we the UDS came to this conclusions in our document LAD-00023 requesting a section 56 exemption from the Health minister:

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.

Wasn't Paul Martins Government trying to desperately create Folk Devils by promoting hateful lies and breaking the Hate Crimes Act as well as the Broadcasting Act in 2005 during the aftermath of the Mayerthorpe tragedy?

You better believe that I was smoking a joint and more alert than the government of Canada. I caught the Federal Ministers in an organized crime (2 or more)perpetrating a hate crime on National TV and they failed to hold themselves to account. CRTC file# 233039 At least the CRTC upheld the law but the gov of Canada excused itself with a retraction and an apology from the Commissioner of the RCMP. The government of Canada and its courts is a criminal organization which considers itself above the law. (I was the only one to complain and stop this overt propaganda blaming pot growers and by implication smokers for this dastardly crime) I seem to be able to say this, have proven it, yet not a single so called activist has stepped up and thanked me for stopping this crime. Not much help is forthcoming from any organization/growers/dealers which benefited from the fact that I stopped this defamation and likely enactment of severe penalties such as are coming now. No help from the executives in major media organizations who do drugs in their spare time. NADA!

The people who work in the courts are unaware of the issues and complacent in their attitude towards justice. They walked by the illegal and offensive TASER warning signs in every court house in BC. Lawyers, Judges and Clerks demonstrated that they don't understand the law and are not concerned with the safety of the citizens whom they apply their warped sense of Justice too. Read the email (no hard copy was sent so that the facts will be lost) thanking us pointing this out to them by the head Sheriff to the Registrar of the UDS:

"Thank you for your e-mail of November 23, 2009 addressed to the Attorney General regarding the TASER warning sign posted at the Vancouver Provincial Court house. I have been asked to respond on behalf of the Attorney General.

I appreciate your bringing this issue to the Attorney General’s attention. As a result of the Braidwood Inquiry recommendations, I have directed all sheriff offices to remove the TASER warning signs located in secure areas of British Columbia courthouses.

Yours sincerely,

Dave Maedel
Executive Director and Chief Superintendent
Sheriff Services Division, Court Services Branch
Ministry of Attorney General"

Never heard a friggen thing in the propaganda press about this act of knowing the law better than those charged to dispense Justice. Why is that? Is it because we were on LSD when we saw this?

Just search Canlii and you will see many examples of the lack of understanding supreme Court Judges have by constantly using the propaganda terms "illegal and legal drugs." Such incompetence in an area where precise language is critical shows me that law schools in the country rely on the monopoly lawyers have once they begin to practice law to make up for their incompetence.

The only logical rational conclusion I can draw from the Court's obtuseness and the Crown prosecutors insistence on painting me a delusional drug dealer is that the are consciously trying to implement tyranny of the executive branch of the Government. There can be no excuse for not seeing the facts and the results of their failed policy being perpetrated on the citizens of Canada. Mr. Harper is responsible ultimately for the misery of millions and murders of thousands to satisfy his perception of "Drugs are bad."

Here is someone who speaks the truth. In my Affidavit to the Supreme Court I describe myself as a shaman / scientist. Perhaps they misunderstand my gifts and call me deluded / mentally ill simply for my aspirations to make this a better world for all.

Canada's Last ethical leader gone at this critical time?

noreply@blogger.com (bud oracle) — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:00:00 +0000

My condolences go out to his loved ones and his political friends and allies. Canada, IMO, has lost one of the last men of ethics that aspire to the grunt and grind of the nasty 'pit' of politics. The only one whose workers took time to address me on this critical drug policy which is killing Canadians daily. I mourn for all of our loss. Canada will be less without this man. Although he was a bit too left of center for me in some policies, I always respected his commitment and honesty. That is something I couldn't say for many other politicians today. Isn't it time for the sane in Canada to support more men like him no matter what political stripe? Thank you Jack Layton, you are a great man!

Legal nuances necessary for understanding why the CDSA is being used as an instrument of state terror

noreply@blogger.com (bud oracle) — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 17:19:00 +0000

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

"Auspicious times for an audacious argument"

noreply@blogger.com (bud oracle) — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 01:43:00 +0000

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

Many talented people cheer me up on the internet

noreply@blogger.com (bud oracle) — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 16:55:00 +0000

They send us new videos or even come to visit. the one below is a great originalwhich dovetails into what I know to be true

Or Tim Lee comedian These guys put a lot of joy into my heart.

So do amateurs who have the fire also.

I really feel good that this medium has put us together with all of humanity

Acceptable Addictions: They may be deadly but everyone tolerates them

noreply@blogger.com (bud oracle) — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 22:41:00 +0000

Central City plaza smoking area. These are likely students at SFU which has a campus here. As I sit out here with star waiting, my eyes take in the scene in front of me. It is normal and seems to be accepted by everyone. No one is shunned for using a deadly intrusive to others substance like tobacco. In the title link the article states in its first sentence:

Tobacco use kills approximately 440,000 Americans each year, with one in every five U.S. deaths the result of smoking.

I don't enjoy being around tobacco anymore but I am not about to ask anyone to leave. I will go if it gets to me. What really gets to me is how dangerous smoking really is for everyone and yet how its tolerated as part of the normal range of human experiences.

Why would what I do be any worse and in what way is it worse? It is all about lying in a political context. Lying not only to others as well as to ourselves

“Political language,” wrote Orwell, “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.” But neither Orwell’s essay nor the popularization of his lesson in Holocaust seems to have deterred people from using political language. It continues to fulfill a great need. One particular contemporary American instance is very revealing.

If one uses the right kind of lie you can make anything stick in today's legal and political world

The fact is that this issue of reason as applied to changing the prohibition laws and make our communities and lives safer, happier, is only the canary in the mine shaft.

Listen to all ten of the videos; the first one is below. I truly believe and have believed that the use of these substances is vital en masse to help find the solutions to our own rejection of Gaia as individuals and a species. Dr. Stephan Harding worked with Dr. James Lovelock for many decades. These guys are talking stuff that I believed from the first moment their concept became public. I knew it to be real and true because the psychedelics told me that there is a living bond between everything, that the spirit of the air is life in every breath and every chemical reaction.

Here is a warning from James Lovelock

Neural Diversity: some people are born with different operating systems inside their minds

noreply@blogger.com (bud oracle) — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 19:58:00 +0000

So now I am doing this court ordered forensic psychological review. Listen up here and pay attention. This is serious business and should you ever be confronted with it having read this might make you more aware of what to expect. There is a consensus that I am displaying a certain set of symptoms. I don't know about you but I have always known that I was not the same as all of the rest of the monkeys. It started off with some heavy medication in my early teens. Phenobarbital was one ingredient, dilatin and trimadone pharma crap made up the cocktail. I was doing this before I started toking. Three times per day. Continued until before 16. This was in the day when we saw a guy with what looked like a fancy assed ice-pick on the News Claiming he could heal troubled minds. Anyways once I started smoking pot I never had a need for that medicine again. Now on reviewing my own videos and audio productions (A sample of them) I can see where some may call me over the top. Mostly it is not when I am on any psychedelics. The are probably audio recordings around which would to a trained ear declare me off balance. Thankfully I make no threats or off collar remarks, although I do use abusive language. This much I know, I am not perfect but I do seem driven at times. Irrational at times but never really dangerous. Way the fack out there, oh yes! A rebel with a cause and a just one at that.

I have a few things to get straight about why I put myself at such risk. Have any of you ever wondered what happened to the good old class clown? The person with the odd clothes or the class dreamer; where have they gone? What has become of them?

Does everyone get that we are each of us unique in some way and some of us are way out there in a big way? You can really say that our brain chemistry is divergent. Thank god for the difference, eh! I like it, I am well behaved and don't wish to take anything more pharmacological than the substances I enjoy taking. The fact that my health care card expired in 99 should clue someone in that I am healthy and have mastered my own health care. Now, maybe for any kind of change to happen there must first take place deviation.

Like I said to the pretty young Phd, "I sure hope they are paying you enough for this.... because they ain't paying me anything!" I notice that most of the young professionals I meet nowadays are female. Is that also a divergence from the norm in the grand scheme of things. What will life be like if America fails financially? The times they are a changing. One thing is for sure, governments have no clue about how to handle the future. It might actually be a good time to go to jail and get three squares a day and a warm bunk. Who knows what will happen. God decides, anyways. I sure miss my Wolf. I treat the dog I'm with as a replacement in the hopes good karma comes my Wolf's way.

The government is spending a considerable sum to make a criminal out of me for smoking my favorite medicine. I suppose it is taking a lot in in taxes from the monopoly of alcohol and tobacco to be able to afford it. It is a sad situation that reason is always left out of any courtroom situation. Maybe I am divergent for wanting to be treated equally to a cigarette smoker or drinker of alcohol. I just might be a bit of a troublesome goat instead of the preferred sheeple.

I love diversity of every kind and I embrace my own. I hope you do too!

Human ability to ignore the obvious astounds me!

noreply@blogger.com (bud oracle) — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 16:24:00 +0000

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.

On Cognitive Liberty: Legal perceptions

noreply@blogger.com (bud oracle) — Sat, 02 Jul 2011 17:51:00 +0000

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.

SUMMARY

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.

http://www.hackcanada.com/canadian/freedom/hempwitchhunt.html

Am I stupid or is the Justice System?

noreply@blogger.com (bud oracle) — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 17:22:00 +0000

This is really frustrating for me. I have just come back from my Bail officer. I came. I signed. I have reported and received a letter requesting my attendance at the Forensic Psychiatric Services office. I need to attend on the 11th and on the 15th July see someone else in the office. This is a court ordered thing. They have to see whether I am a threat to society, a real criminal, insane perhaps for wanting justice?

Just let me review my activities since I ran for City council:

Monday, September 8, 2008
Cannabis sales in Vancouver, today!
or even the first post on this blog
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
On the BC Almanac radio show today

Since this is my journal of my thoughts and activities it is not even clear that I had Mens Rea or a guilty mind

Or even here where I appeared on this issue and was recognized by the parliament of Canada, my words forever part of Canadian history. Chief Justice Bud the Oracle from the Unincorporated Deuteronomical Society.

I don't know what shysters got to be entrenched in our justice system but there seems to be a full compliment of them. If I am your common run of the mill drug dealer then I don't understand why they haven't caught every last one of them? I mean the friggren gall of the Crown Prosecutor to make me out as a drug dealer when at every step I claimed that I was doing this for the safety of my community. Why a lawyer trained in the law (like a circus seal?) can't get that across I would not know. I have had a public record available to be perused by any and all since August 2008. It's not that I was shy and reluctant to write anything either.

The other thing is the obvious disconnect that a judge must have from reality to forget the disproportionate treatment of two equally behaving, law abiding citizens of Canada according to which substance they might choose to achieve their favorite altered state.

If a person is doing nothing different than another, what they may have ingested, or even carry on their person should not be a consideration for different treatment. If what possession is being carried by another is of no direct threat to anyone else than the government has no right to have a say about anything. Criminal law governs only human action against other humans or their property. If someone is misusing or abusing something someone then criminal law can be applied. But then conversely someone who is not misusing or abusing anything or anyone should also be treated differently: not like a criminal.

The above are principles in law. The treatment of similar circumstances alike and the treatment of unalike differently page 112 RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY, INC. V. NEW YORK, 336 U. S. 106 (1949)

Invocation of the equal protection clause, on the other hand, does not disable any governmental body from dealing with the subject at hand. It merely means that the prohibition or regulation must have a broader impact. I regard it as a salutary doctrine that cities, states and the Federal 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. The framers of the Constitution knew, and we should not forget today, that there 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 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 affected.

The learned Judge Rideout mentioned that he thought this citation was too old. That brings to mind other old but valid quotes

Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School has cautioned:
"In a society whose ‘whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men’s own minds,’ the governing institutions, and especially the courts, must not only reject direct attempts to exercise forbidden domination over mental processes; they must strictly examine as well oblique intrusions likely to produce or designed to produce, the same result."
--L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law Sec. 15-5, at p. 889 (1978) (quoting Stanley v. Georgia (1969)
394 U.S. 557, 565.)

"...cognitive liberty must guarantee freedom from – the right not to have your brain monitored or directly manipulatedwithout your informed consent. Seventy-five years ago, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis warned that scientific advances might someday “bring means of exploring unexpressed beliefs, thoughts and emotions."
Olmstead v. United States (1928) 277 U.S. 438, 474

“ freedom of thought … is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom. With rare aberrations a pervasive recognition of that truth can be traced in our history, political and legal.”
- Justice Benjamin Cardozo, Supreme court justice

"…without freedom of thought there can be no free society. "
- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter

And of course this one is an old quote which is also very much valid today, IMO

Thoughts are free and are subject to no rule.

— Paracelsus-

So what has got me thinking today? I am confused over why it is that a man or woman can come in to the liquor store to buy a bottle of what amounts to poison which is subject to no warning labels as to causing harm during pregnancy like FAS, perhaps some warning about personality changes, and lethal dangers if taken with other drugs. Nothing Nada! Considering that in a twenty six ounce bottle drank in one sitting there is enough to kill half of those who might be foolish enough to try it. Alcohol can be purchased twice or more times a day and drank responsibly even consumed at a high rate of 2 to 3 ounces per hour and this person's health care coverage is fully intact as long as they cause no one else harm by driving or even riding their bike drunk. If this person walks to the liquor store, walks home, they are not a criminal or a citizen without rights. Where as someone who chooses to be less inebriated with marijuana can not be so peacefully without being a criminal and or committing a criminal act supporting illegal drug dealing. Why the double standard here? Is this not enforcement of a cultural preference as if it was a monopoly. If it had something to do with being about public safety or health concerns then one must ask why Alcohol and Tobacco are not treated the same.

This drunk person could be mean and reclusive, dark and vengeful without ever being criminal. They could hate their neighbors, be unfriendly, laugh inappropriately, and make rude remarks without crossing the criminal law line.

This drunken person will likely become a healthcare risk and finally a recipient of expensive health care treatment. Nothing could be done about it when this person was abusing a dangerous but 'legal' substance, or two. Alcohol and tobacco. The most dangerous to the user as well as the others, healthcare costly drugs, are exempted from having to comply with restrictions and regulations concerning all dangerous substances. The fact that they are exempt from the Drugs and Substances Act is telling of two things: Like circumstances are not being treated alike as they should be under law. It should not make any difference what substance one chooses to ingest. The only difference is if the resultant action were different. If for instance, a crime were committed after alcohol was ingested, to be in a state of intoxication would be of no consequence to the outcome of guilt or innocence and therefore a crime would have taken place. Also the converse is true, if I am not committing any crime or in any way threatening any one else, then my behavior should not be criminal in any way. What I have ingested, has no bearing on anything. Especially when the only detrimental impact is due to the law which has been created to be neutral in its application, ostensibly for public health concerns, yet leaves out the most dangerous to the user and society drugs: Tobacco and alcohol.

You can't have equal treatment under the application of law if you exempt the users of the most dangerous drugs from the same law which protects others from other dangerous substances with severe criminal penalties. And you shouldn't be able to say 'well they are controlled under two different laws and therefore it is acceptable to be harsh toward the users of some substances and not others.'

The minister is not doing his duty to protect the many users of these two 'legal' drugs. As I have stated before, his duty is to control and regulate in accordance with the risks posed. This is to protect the individual and the public. This is an on going duty. The minister according to his duties outlined in section 55 must act and bring before parliament any concerns that fall under the act. The Act was never meant to be an instrument of prohibition. Simply making something illegal to possess is not something that can be lawfully done under the criminal code. Property laws apply to anything to do with things or substances. Criminal law is supposed to pertain to the actions of people against other people or their property.

By bringing the alcohol industry into the safety net of the CDSA it can be made to comply to labeling laws stating the dangers of misuse in a concise way and recommended limits of so much per person per day might be considered. The same could be done with other substances according to their potential dangers to the users and the community.

Anything else is not mandated by the CDSA. The CDSA was never meant to be an instrument that would arbitrarily target small group of users of substances for moral reasons and make them into criminals for their safe use of something no more dangerous than other substances for which no criminal penalties were given, like tobacco and alcohol.

Why is Alcohol not a scheduled drug?

noreply@blogger.com (bud oracle) — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 01:50:00 +0000

A Judge’s inner mental chambers

A great factual resource on drugs and their effects is NIDA National Institute of Drug Addiction

Mainly this is my endeavor to understand a very interesting new way of looking at the legal dilemma: The policy of prohibition of some drugs act in Canada is applied. It comes from the Drug Equality Alliance in Britain.

The sense is that once this argument lands on a thinking Judge’s desk, there is a good chance that reason may prevail.

Not trusting the laws of the Justice system as much as I once did the laws of physics while soaring my hang glider, I am not so self assured. Here is my future plan.

Working from within the realm as a citizen of Canada I hope to prevail upon the court to support the rule of law.

Although I thought that I had a right not to be harmed by a government practicing tyranny, I guess that trick is to show them in their legal system exactly how they are applying tyranny and not just try to escape it by forming your own society. Obviously tyranny must be acknowledged openly and corrected. Therefore I shall attempt to expose it to the tyrants in their own courts.

The rule of law states that parliament may enact any law, but this law must be within a parameter which is fair to everyone.

I am not challenging parliament - the Drugs and substances Act is a good instrument for the safety of Society - the law is good. The reason for which the law was created is excellent!

I am not interested in challenging the prosecution either.
I don’t really object to the trial.

I object to the lack of application of the provincial court’s jurisdictional capacity to protect me from the abuse of power.

This paradigm of abuse of power is inherent within the administration of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act which the court can protect me from using common law powers available to the court for such a purpose.

This should be the first concern to the court. The Act itself represents a violation of the universal right of thought which overarches any contemporary administration’s policies by maintaining a penumbra of scrutiny against the abuse of human rights perpetrated by Acts of parliament.

I assert that the court apply anxious scrutiny to the issue. This is because it is a deprivation of my liberty.

I have had an UNFAIR trial and am fairly calling 'foul' for punishment without law.

Whatever anyone thinks about policy(acts of parliament), it's all irrelevant at this time.

My concern is that I am being subjected to an inequality of treatment in the administration of justice that acts in an entirely disproportionate way to users of certain substances.

Bearing in mind the law never sought to make the use of those substances illegal, the question that should be asked is: ‘why is there no differentiation of character, or even action, other than by merit of this drug interest orientation?’

You might wonder how this strange way of looking at things came to be? It came to be by a policy that cannot even consider these sections of the Act: 55, 56 etc. This ‘policy’ cannot consider it because it lies under a misconstruction: the existence of 'illegal drugs' precluding their regulation and also a category of legal drugs which includes alcohol and tobacco that necessitates their regulation from another Act of Parliament. The fact that they have not been brought together shows willful obstruction in the protection of the public health and an affront to justice to other drug users who are subjected to powerful measures and deterrence sentencing. This leads one to ask themselves: If the CDSA has a mandate to protect us, then why haven't governments considered scheduling Alcohol and Tobacco?

The answer is surprisingly simple: because of the misconstruction of 'legal drugs' etc and 'illegal drugs' ect there is not a way that can be lawfully regulated - this makes everyone miss the object. The object is the subject, the legal subject, ME, before the Crown as they would fight this war on my access to drugs. This I consider to be a necessary part of my life to the extent that being denied peaceful access entirely negates my rights under the Charter, my CITIZENSHIP (If you want to govern me under your laws than you better play by them. Lets apply the laws fairly for the purpose that they were created)

Once the government’s false premise of prohibition is exposed as a misconstruction and misapplication of the act, Then the act can be given proper effect.

This was the lesson learned by all governments who made alcohol illegal last century. It is the only way that democracy and lawfulness can replace our current lawlessness. Only when democracy is applied in all instances in a society is it truly democratic. When unjust laws are enacted or when laws are enacted unjustly the mechanism of democracy is corrupted and tyranny grows. The tyranny of organized crime is not the worst of the bad sis. The worst is the corruption of government through general deceit. Its agents, fully armed, seek to impose corporate dictated diets on the citizenry.

I am a persona non grata, a minority, seeking refuge in the imposing courts, for who are they there to impose on?…..the little ones?…. Or, is it their duty to protect the rights of citizens not to be violated by agents of the state using their powers unreasonably and unfairly.

It is an ultra vires dereliction of duty that results in inequality not to include the drinkers and smokers as is the purpose of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

This then also becomes a serious violation of my liberty and person as well: That I am to be treated differently than those smoking tobacco and drinking Alcohol. Why?

I believe that the learned Judge Rideout misdirected himself that he could consider the issue and wrongly determined it was something that could not be discussed in court. The Judge only referred to the freedom of thought argument without any consideration of the common law argument.

That actually was the only argument that he could have considered.

Here is a more pragmatic view of it

The government protects the market for the drugs that kill us by the scores, alcohol and tobacco, and they make healthier alternative choices forbidden.

Where is the protection for health as the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act mandates if most drug users are being killed off through use of alcohol and tobacco and the users of less familiar and statistically proven far less harmful substances are treated harshly through ever increasing prison sentences?

The Rule of Law says that the Act as written and approved by Parliament is to be used to regulate for public health, yet because of the way government is driving the law to fulfill the privatized prison agenda through policy this mandate is not given effect.

They have exempted the users of the most harmful substances (alcohol and tobacco) and these substances clearly fall under the operation of the CDSA. This would not mean prohibition of alcohol and tobacco as Section 55 of the Act compels the Minister to regulate and this is an ongoing duty. This would mean that regulations are put in place to ensure that the next generations do not become addicted. As it is today, corporate interests are served before concerns for the health of the public. They do not put this before Parliament, because of corporate interests while at the same time increasing penalties for the statistically proven less harmful substances.

The drugs act means mandatory minimum sentences equation. This is taking discretion away from judges which literally makes people's rights to equality before the law disappear.

This is the people created 'by freedom' This is what 'elects' the power that runs the world policy on drugs on anything.

Vancouver hockey riots fueled by Alcohol

noreply@blogger.com (bud oracle) — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:07:00 +0000

I am seriously tired of the wholesome bubbly marketing CBC has spouted about hockey and its fans.

One thing I will be wanting in appeals court or any bullshit court in this country is the same rights these animals get. It is the Minister's duty to apply the neutral Controlled Drugs and Substances act for the proper effect it was designed for: Public safety from dangerous substances through control AND REGULATION. The way it is applied now the Minister uses this act as an instrument of arbitrary oppression used selectively against the minority of people who choose other substances to achieve a safer more introspective state of mind than alcohol users do.

The courts are supposed to protect citizens from arbitrary abuse of power by the government and make sure that the laws are applied equally neutrally for the effect that they are designed to. Judges are not required to be Prohibitionists to serve on the bench. Where is the protection from these drunken hockey hooligans? Two weeks of loud celebrations to promote a sporting event for the boon of alcohol establishments is pretty fucking near enough for me. I want the same rights as these hooligans have, to go about my peaceful business of making the community safe. And I will have them, you fucking government assholes!

I am very tired of the governments doing a poor job having, the worst records on issues vitally important to its citizens:

B.C. child poverty at play in 21 child deaths: children's advocate

Screw off if you think I will not appeal my unjust plea. The Crown prosecutor and Judge coerced me to cop out by jailing me before a trial. They can not use this law to arbitrarily harm people who are trying to make their communities safer by giving citizens a safe alternative choice other than corporate controlled alcohol to celebrate with. At any marijuana festival or event in which psychedelic use is prevalent, you don't find this kind of danger to people.

When laws are applied equally to all citizens for the effect that they were designed for, community safety, and not political purposes inflicting a moral judgement, then I will rest.

I remember that the Prime Minister Stephen Harper had some publicity supporting the NHL Stanley Cup Playoffs lately. Not too long ago he also had a photo op proclaiming drugs are bad. What fucking drugs are bad, asshole?

How much did security cost the city Chief Jim Chu? Oh yeah you have it under control, eh?

Are you saying something about a drug free life idiot? Does that mean you don't drink? And your children are at the age they are exposed to alcohol now and they will never drink? Is it true that Alcohol is not fucking dangerous? or creating violence? Are you do something about the connetion youngsters have with Hockey and drinking? Are you saying that drugs do damage to people and not alcohol? Stick it where the sun don't shine, moron. Making policy on bullshit never leads to a good outcome.

This man, our Prime Minister, is talking selectively and conveniently forgetting to mention the most dangerous substances Alcohol and Tobacco. The Minister in charge of the CDSA has a duty, is charged, to include all dangerous to the public substances. This does not mean prohibition. He has the power to regulate. The act is supposed to be about control and regulation. By exempting, for no good reason other than it is not politically expedient, the users of these drugs from the act the legislation itself becomes an illegal instrument of oppression. The courts should protect the citizens from oppression and make sure everyone has the same rights and protection under the application of a law. The courts have no jurisdiction in drafting or writing the law, but must act when a law is being used to treat some people unfairly(equal treatment under common law.) In section 55 of the CDSA it says the minister has a duty to public health to bring all dangerous substances under its control. He does not have a duty to leave out the most dangerous substances while trying to harm others for their use of safer substances. Until the law is fairly and equally applied as it was intended, for public Safety, it is not a legally valid instrument and we must be protected by the court from its misapplication.

And I know why people like Stephen Harper, GWB, Ronnie Regan get to make it. GENETIC PREDISPOSITION "DO HUMANS HAVE A POLITICAL GENE?" by Klaus Kaczor (an Oracle in his own right) SINCE I FIRST WROTE UP THIS STUDY FOR THE EDITOR OF AL JEZEERAH SOME CORRECTIONS HAVE COME TO BE NEEDED 25% LEFT + 25% RIGHT + 50% MIXED POLITICAL ALIGNMENT = 100% SAMPLE INSTEAD OF RR(25.78)+rr(24.22)=Rr(49.93) IT SHOULD BE RR(25.78)+rr(24.22)++++++++++Rr(49.93)==== 100% of the sample. What can you expect I was constantly stoned on good marijuana during the whole genetic voter research and did it without a government grant on less than a half ounce of good Kush.

That was the output of my addiction. A theory about political expression in our genome Two hits of Window Pane acid (LSD.) And about a half ounce of pot consumed in the week that the research mania was upon me some fifteen years later. My life is an exciting confabulation of experiences, none of which threaten anyone else, nor do I break any real criminal laws. What was tolerated as "legal behavior," which most of last night's riots was technically, although drunken and dangerous in its mood was allowed then we do nothing wrong when peacefully using our preferred substances. Some of the behavior was unlawful and the police tried to enforce criminal laws pertaining to illegal behavior of people which is also applicable to any mis users of any substances. Even when nothing but pure propaganda makes a crowd misbehave blocking of sidewalks is also tolerated as well as DANGEROUS BEHAVIOR.

Or, I ask again what is the reason I can not be engaged in my spiritual pursuits peacefully if my behavior is peaceful? In the video I ask why I can't stroll through a park peacefully on LSD when Hockey fans get to enjoy themselves worshiping whom they wish?

So why is the drugs and substances act being applied by the courts ON SOME PEOPLE if it is not applied fairly to all users of dangerous mind altering drugs for the purposes it was created? Why is LSD illegal when the harm it potentially does its users and society is miniscule in comparison to Alcohol? To what end is one peaceful set of substance users made into criminals while a much more dangerous segment of abusers allowed to enjoy their version of the good times? And since when have we thinking, responsible, people given up the right to engage freely in whatever peaceful state of altered consciousness we choose? I am all for there being an Act fairly applied to the users of all dangerous substances in an equal application of the law. I think it is about time that all substances including the most dangerous and ubiquitous ones such as Alcohol, tobacco refined sugar or other dangerous to public as well as to the individual, products.

Criminal law does not govern action between you and your body, or, you and any third party adult who chooses via knowledge of the facts to engage with you for fun and/or profit. It cannot be otherwise in a free country. For anyone else to interfere in a peaceful man's chosen form of liberty, would negate all principles of freedom. A society which is built to have children snitching on the adults, and neighbors against each other is not really worth living in. So when some people complain of the smell of pot in their hallway, or trafficking from the adjacent patio, it is a way of making them point out the 'Jews' so that the Plant Psychedelic Gestapo(PPG) can come and do their entheogenic cleansing.

What a friggen hoax these criminals in power pull on us who are captured in the "Bovine Entrapment." Oh, wink, wink! you can't posses or trade in these criminally sanctioned substances, because we know that they are bad for you...... Also, wink, wink! you will note that these dangerous substances which we know are bad, but which a majority of people enjoy using, are perfectly legal and any entrepreneur who follows the rules, verifying legal age, not intoxicated mental state, can sell tobacco or alcohol, over the counter. Alcohol can even be brewed as beer or wine by individuals without a permit.

I can not tolerate anyone who bows to the government's medical marijuana racket. This stuff would benefit humanity and do many people good socially, physically and mentally if its use became more prevalent in the community. The effects are not as destructive both physically and spiritually as are those of alcohol. Loss of cognitive ability with motor skill impairment comes quickly on alcohol. A personality or severe mood change can take place without warning. Irrational violent behavior is a common outcome for alcohol intoxicated people. No such things happen with moderate amounts of marijuana. People have mental states which are relaxed and predisposed to a calm state of reflection. That is the essence of smoking pot "Make love not War!"

What is your problem Mr. Parliamentarian? What perusal of the Hansard has given you any indication that there exists enough brainpower in Parliament to screw with the mechanisms of human nature and spiritual freedom? Why do Politicians think they are entitled to discriminate against, and arbitrarily target, a certain segment of their own population on the basis of personal moral choices. Really? "Drugs are bad?" "Which friggen drugs are bad?" Why not treat the worst ones as public health issues.....? That is what the law is created for isn't it? Each substance according to its own danger to society so that those which are more of a risk will be safe guarded against appropriately.

The fact is I choose to exercise different aspects of my mind other than those involving alcohol and sporting events and there is no sound sane reason that I shouldn't have the choice to follow my own path. It is the fool who dares to shake the stick a holy man sits upon.

And I have no qualms about these people selling timeless teachings in the video below. If it is cool to sell fast food, religion. and many lousy movies, as well as sad sporting events for inflated prices, then what these people are asking in the video below is merely a bit of recompense for getting all the info together. It is hard to market even creative material assembled well for excellent prices, isn't it?

Standing in line at the food bank in the rain

noreply@blogger.com (bud oracle) — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 00:07:00 +0000

As I contemplated today's intense start, I had a chance to see how much I truly fit in to the "bunch" at the Food Bank. We weren't in the rain for long. It was a great, "full," humbling, but also bonding experience. I guess that I should be thankful that my life has many diverse happenings. And loving the one I'm with, even in this situation, was an enlightening experience. Via her friends conjured up by relentless research, digging, there is once again hope imo on the high seas of Justice.

She claims to be a Shaman's "assistant," a first mate (and only mate,) but that is a matter of perspective lost in the shuffle of details at times. We are both in a down and out, yet strangely alive time of our lives. Things are truly tense occasionally for many reasons beyond our control, but then she is a lot of fun. Not much less confrontational than most females, she is at least clever as many, as well as, somewhat informed, and fun if one enjoys conversations ranging far and wide. I don't know how got hooked up with this "horn swaggler!" And sometimes a tinge of regret climbs aboard a sinking ship to worry a despairing deck hand, but she does have her strengths, and the stubborn tenacity of the English/Irish wenches is something to behold.

I am going to wage a real battle for justice with her help, She has spent well over one thousand hours researching an ever broader ripple in my legal ocean. It was cast here by someone also in need of salvation as a shaman and even better, more giving, an ethical fearless provider of the tools to worship by such as LAD-00023

I am a creature of opportunity. And when despair overtook me in Judge Rideout's courtroom after he dismissed our valid request for stay of proceedings by saying, while misinterpreting our argument: "This is something I might entertain over a martini with friends," on March 23. No one can fight this battle from a prison cell as effectively as they can from a state of freedom. There are ways to seek justice when you are able to sign, file, download papers, call people, email experts and in many other ways research your cause as well as intelligent discussion.

Out here, I can actually study the guidelines by which a judge is required to make their decisions and see if a judge or even the prosecutor is acting according to their laws and rules.

I believe that the Judge and prosecutors are supposed to be acting in an attitude of fairness and harm reduction to the community, not to wrongly implement any misguided or improper political agenda, nor to punish anyone if they are not a threat to the community. I feel that people in these important positions are required to act in accordance with relevant, up to date, best information and not necessarily think in the mindset of last century's prohibitionist theory.

What got me started in my search for real justice again, was that i am struggling through a stressful time and that I am not one to consult doctors very often. What is revealing to me is that although the courts are prosecuting me as Klaus Kaczor, I don't have any ID as KK. Getting a health care card seems virtually impossible at the moment. It seems mine expired in 1999. Therefore from the before the age of 49 through 61, I had no contact with the health care system! Must be making some good decisions concerning my health, eh?

I was also much happier before this Justice system got hold of me and decided to harm me personally, as well as send my harmless customers back to dealing with organized crime. My diet was self administered as it has been that prerogative of all my ancestors since before we climbed from the ocean. I have harmed no one by checking for age and supplying safer substances than alcohol and tobacco to intelligent adults, whose right it also was by virtue of being alive and living as an organic being in this biosphere. These laws have come into effect to the detriment of all human beings in the last century, while Nature and freedom of choice served as the unfailing self regulating mechanism of natural selection until then, from the beginning of life. Open your eyes! There is no law that says Judges must be blind. What I am researching now is the criteria a Judge must use to evaluate the cases before him.

I am certain that adhering blindly to a prohibitionist political agenda isn't one of the Judge's guidelines. First of all, if a Judge is supposed to be the final evaluator of whether the law is being applied fairly, shouldn't he or she be impartial from the outset, not rely on the charges and accusations as even being factual. If there is never an indication of violence, of harm to the community, then why incarcerate someone? The fact that drug dealing has been harmful to the community is a lie for lack of evidence, as no one has yet in the trial, and mostly no facts are ever presented, to establish that my or anyone's drug sales have ever harmed anyone as much as sales of liquor have. No one had ever made complaint about being harmed by me. Only the cops and the Government of Canada has spent effort and time reinforcing criminal empires, while giving someone with a less ethical core, a chance to make a good living> Maybe one of the VPD's or RCMP's best buddies.

Cognitive Sovereignty: Breaking Convention

noreply@blogger.com (bud oracle) — Sat, 11 Jun 2011 17:43:00 +0000

There is a revolution occurring in the field of psychedelics. This weekend brought together a global gathering of academics, clinicians, psychonauts, artists and visionaries. With over six hundred switched on attendees the sheer verve, enthusiasm and energy of the resurgent movement is impossible to deny. There is no place for the tired cliches of the war on drugs, these people are not rambling burn outs, they mean business, are highly educated, and have the hard science behind them as well as embodying the messages of the plant teachers. This marks the beginning of a rennaissance in the psychedelic movement, one which by its sheer scale surprised the conference organisers and attendees alike. We are back with a vengeance....

The overwhelming evidence is in. Global drug policy is not based on the scientific evidence of benefits vs harm. This was demonstrated by the firing of Dr David Nutt who had the temerity to present the scientific proof to the UK government that the issue is not LSD and Ecstasy, but rather is alcohol and tobacco. This is an issue that Dr Julian Vayne confronts in XVI. For those unfamiliar with the issue, the benefit and harm matrix is provided below for a clear visual representation of the real impact of drugs. The research of Dr Nutt was backed up by all of the papers presented. It is essential that we propogate this knowledge.......

The state is against us, and all of the scientific research in the world, and all the incremental wheedling and calls for patience by organisations such as MAPS or the Beckley Foundation will not lead to legalisation. At best, this will give the military industrial complex some more tools for dealing with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in the broken soldiers back from the wars for oil.
Or worse still, instigate some state sanctioned control of supply to recognised therapists and respectable religions. This is anathema to us. Though there is undoubtably valuable work being done by MAPS and the Beckley Foundation, we do not accept that these groups speak for us. Nor will we let them usurp that role..........

Click the Title Link for the full article

Last night's drunken idiocy following the Stanley Cup game disturbing the peace, brought home the significance of this great article from the Scarlet Imprint I received this morning.

As another side (the ugly side) to the landscape, take a look at today's gleanings from a close neighbor in Salem Oregon. The American drug insanity is the cause of their spiritual depravity. Without these substances in our diet we can not access our rightful destiny to spiritual unity with the life form of the Universe.

We can count on at least eight teenagers DYING EVERY DAY due to alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes, because alcohol is the morally-condoned government-approved method of getting high. Their parents do it, their teachers do it, and law enforcement does it. Most everybody gets drunk, sadly.

Because adults selfishlessly enjoy drinking alcohol, they don’t want anything to change on that horizon. Even though it kills children every single day, of every single month, of every single year. Instead, let’s talk about pot. It’s a much safer subject.

So safe in fact, that it does not pose any risk to society whatsoever. While eight kids died from drinking today, and will tomorrow, NONE will die from marijuana use.

I have asked some deep metaphysical stuff of my friends today. It was one of those stressful days where life's little rude moments seem to coalesce into the straw that broke the Camel's back. I now belatedly remember a friend saying, "What kind of a life will that be?" He was referring to my vocalization about something I was then mulling over. "It'll be nothing but teen-aged sniveling, and dirty towels/hair plugging up the works!" The trouble is I never listen.

He was a wise one and I miss all of my neighbors! The pox on the "rat," but it was my chances I was taking. Full liability is mine, as well.

I take heart in knowing that when all is said and done and the chips are counted I will be found to be on the side that is right on this issue, that I did the least harm compared to the government.

The very solid argument first developed by Casey William Hardison and the legal foundation in search of Justice for Casey: Drug Equality Alliance

Please don't forget to give to Casey's cause.

These guys at the "DEA" are true activists. Although I may be a recipient of their generosity, I am honestly astonished at the level of commitment- let me spell that out- unpaid time and effort, that this organization has donated to the cause of achieving Justice.

Remember this spending of a few bucks on your part could pay off in you gaining your freedom! Please find their donate button and spend freely. Here is the new battle cry....

Smoke one gram less per week and send $10 to the cause of this wonderful organization or Free Casey cause.

No one over there (Europe-Great Britain) is overly concerned with Bud the "silly" Oracle, or, Klaus Kaczor and his gang of "demented" men, it is all about getting their wonderful perception of the law in front of a court anywhere in the western court. The argument is given during the last part in the video below

And here in the blog again:

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).

The whole crux of the argument is simple and so obvious. It boils down to the converse of this plainly stated fact:

What is the reasoning behind exempting the most dangerous drugs (Alcohol and tobacco) from the scrutiny of the drugs and substances act, if the act is a neutral instrument for social health purposes? From there you will come to the question "Does the act require prohibition of anything?" Next you come upon "What rational reasoning is it based on to implement effective control of all substances according to their danger to society?" "For the safety of society, why would you treat the most dangerous substances as if they are insignificant?" "Under law must we be treated equally and not arbitrarily?"

People can't see it, as did the natives in the Americas not see the ships of the Spanish when they first arrived. The way we have come to understand this Prohibitionist reality via the "Mindset of Prohibition" is that such a thing doesn't exist, therefore it can't be there. Aren't drugs either legal or illegal?

I remember the Prosecutor misnaming the MDMA as Cocaine (I guess it is the same thing to her) in a summation to the Judge and almost groaning when saying "There was almost a pound of Cocaine, your honor." All the MDMA I ever sold, didn't touch the damage a single person drunk on Stanley Cup beers did last night by disturbing the peace, or, even come close to the physical damage this poison does to each victim. The True facts are on the chart above about how dangerous MDMA is to you and others, not in the Federal Prosecutor's mouth.

Take a good look there Judge Rideout and see how government funded studies compare the relative dangers of these two substances and tell me who is killing people with their substances, honestly. Certainly not those selling MDMA.

It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong.

Voltaire, 1752

Here is one of Casey Hardison's favorite songs

The Semantics of Prohibition by Giancarlo Arnao

Giancarlo Arnao's essay on the semantics of prohibition analyses the role of language, especially in the ambit of law and politics, in the systematic demonisation of (some) drugs and users of (some) drugs, from the inaccurate use of terms such as "narcotic" in international conventions, to the meanings of "abuse", "addiction" and "non-medical use". This essay is a great introduction to the way our understanding of "drugs" is socially constructed and politically biased.

Here is an oldy but a goody!

Proemium by Jonathan Ott

Perhaps with all ouor modern knowledge we do not need the divine mushrooms any more. Or do we need them more than ever? Some are shocked that the key even to religion might be reduced to a mere drug. On the other hand, the drug is as mysterious as it ever was... (Wasson 1961)

Only recently have some academic anthropologists begun to consider contempporary drug subcultures to be worthy of formal study (Adler 1985; Holden 1989a).

I will neither promote nor inveigh against contemporary non-traditional use of entheogenic drugs. True, some of the drugs discussed in this book are illegal, and there are those who think it irresponsible to discuss this subject without denouncing their illicit use. On the other hand, the bulk of the compounds studied in this book are legal, and there is no question that there are presently in the United States alone at least a million users of entheogenic drugs, legal and illegal (Goldstein & Kalant 1990), and it is to these psychonauts (Junger 1970), as well as to interested scientists, that this book is directed. There is no need to encourage would-be users to sample the entheogens- the drugs have their devotees, and in any case the current supply is probably insufficient to meet the demand of established users (Blanco 1993).

In this exordium, however, I will denounce in no uncertain terms the futile, counter-productive and ill-advised proscription of entheogenic drugs by the governments of the United States and other countries. As Baruch Spinoza so presciently put it:

All laws which can be violated without doing any one any injury are laughed at. Nay, so far are they from doing anything to control the desires and passions of men that, on the contrary, they direct and incite men's thoughts the more toward those very objects; for we always strive toward what is forbidden and desire the things we are not allowed to have. And men of leisure are never deficient in the ingenuity needed to enable them to outwit laws framed to regulate things which cannot be entirely forbidden... He who tries to determine everything by law will foment crime rather than lesssen it.

It is self-evident that the millions of contemporary users of proscribed entheogenic drugs are laughing at the laws presuming to forbid them, and that they are far from deficient in the ingenuity needed to outwit those laws. It has ever been so with laws presuming to regulate the legitimate appetites of human beings; and there is no question that such laws represent an abuse of governmental power. As the great libertarian Edmund Atwill Wasson wrote in 1914, in a critique of the prohibition of alcohol in the United States (Wasson 1914):

It is one thing to furnish the law, and another to furnish the force needed to ensure obedience. That is why we have so many dead-letter laws in this country, --we forget that a law is not self-enforcing.

In theory, law is the instrument of popular will in democratic countries, and in practice has been used as a weapon by majorities to repress and harass minorities, especially laws against drugs which are associated with those groups (Helmer 1975; Musto 1973). The prohibition of alcohol in the United States is an exceptional case of laws fomented by a fanatical and active minority resulting in the harassment and repression of the majority (Musto 1973; Wasson 1914). When a law is sufficiently unpopular, as was the Constitutional amendment prohibiting alcohol manufacturing and sale for ludibund purposes in the United States, the people in theory will rise to overturn it. Would that it were so with unjust laws, or unenforceable laws! When a government proves itself all-too-willing to attempt to "furnish the force needed to ensure obedience" to unenforceable and (arguably) unjust laws, then the very freedoms or "human rights" on which democratic rule is ostensibly founded are jeopardized (Shulgin 1991). This is the case with the contemporary "War on Drugs" and the unprecedented intrusions into personal liberty which it inexorably occasions. It is a case where the "cure" is far worse than the "disease"; in which the proposed "therapy" is toxic and will prove fatal if administered in sufficiently high dosage. While the use of the drugs this shock therapy addresses continues unabated or indeed increases, freedom and dignity are on the ropes, and in danger of going down for the count.

I will adumbrate four different lines of argument against the contemporary prohibition of entheogenic drugs and, by extension, prohibitions of other drugs- from alcohol, caffeine or nicotine (all of which have been illicit substances in the past) to cocaine, heroin or marijuana (all of which have been legal far longer than they have been controlled substances). These four lines of argument might be grouped under the following headings: 1) scientific; 2) practical or legal; 3) moral; and 4) economic. I will also pose the following question: "why is it that western society cannot cope with euphoria and ecstasy?" This question is at the heart of the prohibition of entheogens. Although they are disguised as "Public Health Laws," the strictures against the entheogens are first and foremost limitations on the practice of religion in a broad sense; or in a broader sense still, are attempts to enshrine in law a certain perverse brand of what once was called "natural philosophy." I call it science, and the modern laws against entheogenic drugs are manifestly anti-scientific and indeed represent "crimes against nature."

Disabled comments and a friend invite from sobrietytelevision

noreply@blogger.com (bud oracle) — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 16:52:00 +0000

The problem with these so called help channels is that their agenda is about control and reinforcing the government propaganda not really helping anyone specifically.

Humans are a complex creature and addictions need to be studied in a realistic way, not by people who wish to use this frailty for the purpose of enforcing their agenda. Below is my audio comparison of the prohibition problem with Michael Crighton's talk at the Smithsonian on fear and complexity

To get some real perspective as to why we have such a huge cocaine/hard drug problem in North America and why Marijuana is a class one drug where cocaine is a class two take a look at the video below.

And if for a second you feel that this was in the past, in the good old US of A, have a good look at the corruption of Law enforcement here in Surrey today. Everyone in the remand center understands what this was all about. Not sex!

Or has anyone heard of any progress on this case of murder? Have any of the cops involvced in asking the HA to do something about this rogue member even been questioned as to whom they consorted with? This is after a crime of murder in which the VPD is at least peripherally involved and yet they are never held to account while they can hold an activist such as myself who is concerned about this type of corruption to "account" under the CDSA and make me out as the problem. What a lovely set-up, for ever working hand in hand for under the table payoffs with the very violent organized criminals who you are protecting using these laws! Fill up the jails with low level "assets" and activists such as me and pretend for those brainwashed gullibles that you are a vital part of our new Prison Industry

An effective website is Transform Drug Policy Foundation. Sadly this intelligent website is also located in the UK. We are far behind in the anti prohibition/legalization debate because of sideshows such as myself and the UDS, as well as CC, medical marijuana, and other dog and pony self interest activism. This is a matter of human rights and the freedom to live a peaceful life like any responsible tobacco smoker or alcohol drinker. Criminal law should only be used to govern people's harmful behavior, never to target a minority for political purposes. This only leads to widespread corruption of government, police and a general response of lawlessness by those who suffer under tyranny. The side effects of organized criminal violence is lucrative criminal enterprise and are also not conducive to a happy society while drug use is promoted to ever younger children. And what for? so that those do-gooders on sites like sobrietytelevision can apply their brand of moral self righteous agenda and bring people to their way of thinking, to save people from the hell they create and support?

Sad days ahead for Canada AND ME

noreply@blogger.com (bud oracle) — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 18:08:00 +0000

Great act of bravery by this young Lady, Brigette DePape.

For myself who doesn't have a single piece of identification it is a difficult road ahead. To get employment, to apply for assistance and health care, to receive any formal help from the government of Canada is virtually impossible. The fact is it is much easier to find a job/opportunity in the underground industry. Is that why there are so many repeat offenders?

Luckily I have someone, although very poor herself, who is supportive of me. I will also keep on trying to find something that can give me a meager income from lawful sources. My chances at this age, with my history, will likely be a hindrance rather than an asset. Ce la vi. Thankfully I have no addictions of any kind and my requirements are meager. But sadly there is very little hope. This of course is how they win. They are very much trying to build a prison industry on people like me to provide jobs for government bureaucrats, guards, cops and lawyers as well as judges. One sweeping law denying equal justice, as in the USA our parent country, will garner a non productive industry as a make work project. There is no logical rational for this type of criminal law to exist. The law really only works as an instrument of political oppression to harm an otherwise peaceful minority via an adverse moral judgement, where it was designed to be a tool for public health safety. The minister is misapplying the CDSA while allowing the very dangerous drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco, to be exempt from it although these substances cause 60 times more fatalities than all of the so called "illegal" drugs combined. The peripheral damage to society is repeated in stories such as mine, as well as the dangerous violence committed by organized crime and the police corruption it fosters in reaction.

Still nothing can pass through the Government propaganda machine no matter how reasonable. Take for instance this talk of a North American defense perimeter against Global terrorism. What an outrageous lie. The whole terrorism claptrap is smoke and mirrors. The real Global terrorists are the Americans and their serf countries like Canada. Who else is hucking missiles on flimsy excuses, and invading countries around the world? And just like the gullible Germans believed Hitler's lies so do moronic citizens in North America believe the crap. Only today it's Muslim terrorist we have learned to hate.

At least I have time to write fueled by my anger. What a great load of crap people swallow. Like Obama isn't worried about a double dip recession. Nothing to worry about if he could start another war.... Maybe Libya? And Canada doesn't see it a problem that the US is sliding into economic oblivion, all we need to do is be ready to revise our estimates.

The Japanese finally admit a bit more of the truth:

The Daiichi plant at Fukushima is still leaking radioactive material, nearly three months after an earthquake and tsunami knocked out the plant's cooling systems. But the government says it is still on track to bring the reactors to a cold shutdown by January.

The way they say "knocked out the plant's cooling systems" makes sound so inevitable, doesn't it? As if the generators could not have been placed anywhere else given the Tsunami threat in the area. How excellent an omission, a point not to dwell on. Tens of thousands of people adversely affected by a simple failure of basic engineering principle. No one mentions it because everything dangerous that we rely on is at the same level of safety, and these experts are extremely fallible. The crap we are told to believe in is the same as this, not worth the powder to blow it to hell. Like Government has it all under control. Like our drug policy is helping make us safe as the lying experts claim.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely

noreply@blogger.com (bud oracle) — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 19:16:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (bud oracle) — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 15:30:00 +0000

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.

Depression: The worst possible scenario sits astride my path to personal freedom

noreply@blogger.com (bud oracle) — Tue, 31 May 2011 19:22:00 +0000

Unlike the above photo of me during my activism, when I thought I was doing something for the good of my community, this is the way I feel today! Why shouldn't I be honest? What is the point of writing anything that is not honest? Only a passion to express my true feelings (wrong as they may be) ever drives me to write anything.

Tomorrow I have a meeting with a councilor and a group, perhaps that will help drive away the blues somewhat! Maybe in writing and blogging these feelings, those who torture others because they can using unjust laws, might put a face on their self righteous pleasure. I am looking for neither sympathy, or, encouragements to "jump." I am putting into words how I feel, as I always have. Baring my soul. I am who I am, yours to maul with judgmental delight, or commiserate with, incorporate as a part of yourselves: a universal human with faults and strengths, such as yourselves, just trying hard to get up from a bad fall.

Today I am totally annihilated by the Canadian CDSA, a policy of harming people who would choose to exercise their natural rights to ingest what they will, and access the altered state of thought that they enjoy, peacefully. When I was helping others access their freedom of thought, no one other than a bitch who didn't like my dog ever complained over what I did. I actually tried to do this in a store setting last year so that it would be like any other business. The neighboring business trumped up a complaint that the odor bothered him, because the law encouraged it as a tool of oppression to use against a peaceful neighbor. The hate encouraged by the government for one citizen by another is unbelievable. How could such a society be a happy place to live and let live?

From Halperngate II:
"Many thousands of people are incarcerated because of individuals like Halpern. Halpern is the “poster boy” for most American rats/snitches/informants/cooperating witnesses, and he is now a member of the majority, the mundane, the ordinary."

Whatever the outcome of this idiocy, I don't feel like trading off my intellectual and personal liberty as a sacrifice of compliance to this law, this injustice, any longer. I have formulated a scenario which I would think is a likely event. I would think that accessing a DMT trip one more time naturally, would be worth all the phony compliance to tyranny that is demanded of me. The personal outcome for me is bleak to the extreme and I wish for a conclusion.

Some people would say this is a coward's way out. Maybe so for some people. Today I am perfectly straight, not under any altered state. That is not my choice. The consumption of marijuana and other substances made me happy and able to cope with the vagaries of life which is the right of everyone. I used to wake up happy to enjoy my little world without hurting anyone else. I made a living providing accessibility to others who enjoyed the peaceful use of such substances and was independent financially, giving fair deals. I made sure no children were able to access these substances. I was working to redistribute the excess wealth back into the community. Now that veil of happiness has been cast aside, stomped to pieces by VPD storm troopers, and replaced with state sponsored terrorism applied on an unequal basis (compared to other substances such as more dangerous Tobacco and Alcohol) to myself, as it is to others.

The lies and misdirection a perverse government can put up using the wealth of a nation are insurmountable when they can use an unjust interpretation of a law, ostensibly created for public safety, to implement tyranny curbing peaceful human freedom at the direct expense of public safety. A state in which the police publicly cooperate with organized crime to carry out an execution is not a place where I want to live. A Government that perpetrates organized hate crimes without holding itself accountable to further anti drug propaganda, is not something I wish to be part of.

Someone said that I all I should have done is hold out in jail as Chief Justice Bud the Oracle until they Justice system accepted the fact that it had no jurisdiction over me. That is a great theory, but in my case it was not practical. My free life was very precious to me and I would have become as despondent as I am today, always knowing that everything I ever cherished, including my Wolf was lost forever. Jailed and never having hope for an ending because these goons with guns could do anything they want.

All it would have taken to find justice was that one Judge, as one did for a brief moment, accept the fact that the government of Canada had recognized me as a peaceful human being that had a right not to be harmed by an illegal law used for a purpose not intended.

The cops took my camera again , as well as both of my hats, even the one I had on my puppet. No peaceful humorous street theater for the VPD. They would rather order a hit with the Hells Angels, than work with a peaceful activist. They took even the access to my mother's telephone number from me. I will never be able to reach her again. All my father's predictions about how useless and evil I would become since the age of four have turned out to be true according to him. Canada has made me into a dangerous criminal for wanting community safety, and equal rights to those of drinkers and tobacco smokers. My choices for helping to mitigate my painful misdeeds concerning the ones I have loved and hurt are not acceptable to the Justice Minister. According to Rob Nicholson my brand of self medication is not legal or acceptable, but to become drunk as many do who can't handle their own interpretation of life, would be preferable.

I have been wondering what it would feel like to fly again. A great surge of DMT distorted adrenaline as a precursor to the next inevitable stage in life, rebirth. I can't see a way back to my happy life from here, only further oppression. Therefor, while I am able to access this fork in the road of life I think I might.

I truly believe that a life without liberty is not worth living. The fact is that Canada feels like Guantanamo Bay to me. I am sure that a few in that hell hole would trade off their existence for a taste of the release of a final DMT trip, if they could. Such idiocy in this world, perpetrated by "democratic" governments! I hope that the one person in my life close to me now can find a way to forgive my selfish solution. I don't have the strength of Casey William Hardison. If anything put yourself in his position and rise up to help him, please. I really do not like being a burden to anyone and have zero hope in finding employment with a criminal record at my age, other than what I was doing. This is the part of the crime growth curve that the Harper government is counting on to fill the new prisons it is building. I don't wish to be a low level part of the prison industry while the rich powerful people, lawyers get richer, and the wealthy never face justice the same way others do. Let me take a walk so that hopefully I'll find courage. It costs nothing to walk. I am sure the person who has my Wolf now will continue to love him and take care of him, thanks.

Unlike others who use activism as a cover for drug dealing, I won't take that route. Go your own way and do your own things, but I am personally going to find a solution for myself that does not pretend to anything other than my personal needs and goals. Everyone else can say what they will about me and my activism, but the bottom line is I sincerely tried to achieve something more than just personal rewards and glory. Yeah, I did it wrong and failed but at least I tried. And my life was fun to live. Hopefully I will see those moments of euphoria one last time.

PS: The most significant thing that helped me put the preamble up and not seek to carry out my quest for "courage" is that the telephone number of my mother was found a few minutes ago. I had planned to just leave this thing unpublished for someone else to find and put up.

It also makes me furious that this inhumane system took Ashley Smith this way: a teenager who was given a life sentence for throwing apples at a postman.

Does anyone have employment of any kind out there for me? A large part of my depression is that I have to trouble someone I love to put up with me and support me. That is very hard for me to take. I was always proud of being self supporting.

One thing that I envy Casey William Hardison for is his close relationship with his father. My father withheld his love for me, and I have done the same with my children. It is very difficult for me to actually love anyone deeply, including myself. Self medication is a part of normal human behavior and not up to the control of others who believe they know better. As long as people don't harm others. Self awareness is the key. The facts of Casey's life intrigue me his father was member of AA and well loved. Casey's life is very interesting as well. He seems to be a very intelligent, insightful and strong person. People like this should be an inspiration to society, not jailed. Do we not all have strengths and weaknesses that we can learn from? What kind of Government would harm people such as this? Thousands upon thousands of harmless people who seek to exercise their expanded mental machinery peacefully are sacrificed on the alter of right wing idiocy in so called democratic, free countries. And for what? So that organized crime can flourish and cops strut around powerfully violent, controlling people's diets in reaction to violent criminals the government has created with the law. All the while claiming this law is for noble purposes reducing harm to society, while leaving untouched the users of the most harmful substances. It makes not one shred of sense!

The fact that a religious organization got intervention status in court on the insight safe injection trial greatly disturbs me. These would have the court close its eyes to the real world, deny that rampant injection drug use is here to stay caused by denial in the first place and condemn thousands to death to float their, and, the government's lie. These are the same daft idiots who claimed the world would fall apart should gay marriages be legalized. These are spawn of the same morons who started the prohibition movements almost one and one half centuries ago, installing a mindset of ignorance and denying human rights, who help organized crime to flourish. And still these friggen idiots are at it, trying to interfere with the rights of others. May they go to their gods quickly and leave the rest of the world in peace.

An Etheogenic Journey in the Belly of the Beast---the Sacred Tantraum Continues! by Casey William Hardison

Also try to absorb Ayahuasca, Entheogenic Education & Public Policy by Kenneth William Tupper

Also HalperngateII Voices from Behind Bars by John Beresford, MD * Committee on Unjust Sentencing

You will notice in the above letters from people jailed for the production of LSD and other Etheogens that this is a war against alternative spiritual practices (Other than Christian corporate power) The Corporate thugs have jailed or intimidated those who might create magical elixirs which lead to a mental awakening, so that humanity might remain enslaved to the myopia of common marketed experience. People don't see that and are brainwashed into fearful imaginings at the mention of LSD, without the least bit of critical, self initiated, research into the matter needed to free themselves of any propaganda. It is not LSD which has landed us into this situation, but the law.

As I truly believe unless humanity gets off this Christian inspired judgmental consumerism sown with war against nature, and each other, we will perish as a species.

It is ever so important, and I plead as I am certain other chemist prisoners of the war on drugs do, that we must remember what these molecules have shown us. In the words of a dear,
dear friend, they have shown me “the land without evil.”

Casey William Hardison Page 55

Your words have given me hope Casey!

We must do everything in our power to carry the light, the lamp, the vision forward toward this Age of Entheogens. Fiat lux, fiat amor, fiat pax!

More insight from a psychedelics expanded mind

noreply@blogger.com (bud oracle) — Fri, 27 May 2011 22:26:00 +0000

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.

Some thoughts on my predicament today.

noreply@blogger.com (bud oracle) — Sun, 22 May 2011 20:49:00 +0000

It has been a tremendous strain on my psyche. The last month was made more bearable because I spent it in a cell with Tim Felger a fellow activist from Mision/Abbotsford area. We could get along on an agreeable level. Many conversations were had exploring our follies and small achievements and we came to certain understandings about the general pot/CDSA activism arena. This was a more pleasant interaction than recounting criminal adventures and venting hate at other prisoners and guards for Tim and I. We would both agree that we are not alike in our approaches, yet share a longing for social justice.

I am formally resigning my position of Chief Justice from the UDS, because I have decided to go in another direction. My goal now is to hope others will challenge the current draconian drug laws from within the system. It is through someone's help that I have a place to live, as well as some small hope of future success. The Herculean effort of research that has been put forth has introduced me to effective, compassionate and direction oriented people on the other side of the ocean. The Drug Equality Alliance group website is very informative and needs everyone's support. They have given very good advice and continue to support my efforts through information sharing. The plight of Casey William Hardison is especially important to me. Listen to and read his address to the World Psychedelic Forum on his website.

I am in dread of what the future has in store for me personally, but I do have hope for others who continue in this vital struggle. My options are extremely limited. I am old and not very resilient. I have been a disappointment to many throughout my life and so it goes. I do regret my mistakes and apologize for letting people down. These drug laws are meant to break people. It really is a war against people who think a certain way. In my life I have not been harmed so much by my drug use, but by the law and the criminal justice system, and the attitudes of people who buy into the government drug propaganda.

As Stephen Harper said recently, upon the occasion of Osama Bin Laden's execution, before any trial was ever held, "Protection of the public is the first and foremost duty of the government" at the one minute mark of this video. He did not mention the rule of law, a right to a fair trial, or the strange collapse of the twin towers, as well as building seven. Mr. Harper did mention the 24 Canadian deaths at the 911 eleven tragedy, though, as a reason for Canada's vigilant stand with the USA against world terrorism. He also did not mention the thousands of Canadians, both innocent and involved, who have died, or have been harmed as a direct result of Canada's drug laws. I guess only certain people, in his estimation, are worthy of protection from the Government, not the intravenous users who have been kept safe at the trial injection sites here in Vancouver, nor even the fifty thousand a year who fall prey to the use of the government approved drug, tobacco, alone. Only certain people who use relatively benign drugs which are deemed socially and morally unacceptable are criminally sanctioned, replacing protection, whether or not these people harm anyone else.

In my view it was the fourth option in the video below and stupid Canadians will believe the lie to the tune of goose stepping behind American bullcrap in all areas, including drug policy, even to the extent of happily sacrificing 152 of their own.

It seems his rational is to declare certain drugs illegal first, based on moral assumptions, and then discount the fact that these substances which fall under the CDSA are in total 60 times less dangerous than the government "approved" drugs, tobacco and alcohol. The fact that criminal law is supposed to govern harmful behavior of people towards others does not enter into Judicial or political thinking. In fact, the CDSA is an act that does not actually give the minister a power to make any substance illegal, but provides for their control and regulation only. If it is for public safety reasons, as is claimed by the government, then why are the most dangerous drug, tobacco and alcohol exempt?

This discrimination between "certain" drug users and others was brutally hammered home to me as Judge Rideout dismissed my request for a stay of proceedings on the grounds of unequal treatment under the law, when he said, "This is an argument I might entertain over martinis with friends, but not in my courtroom." I sought to plead out at this stage, because I could see that Canadian jurisprudence was hopelessly compromised and loaded against me. Also, I had been ripped off by my former lawyer, Kevin Filko. These injustices are meant to line the pockets of uncaring people who make a living perpetrating tyranny, not for any reasons of social safety. The police are the enforcers for organized crime, keeping the prices steady. The whole thing is a scam of huge proportions designed to generate profit for both legal and illegal monopolies at the expense of harmless peaceful users who are too denigrated and demonized to understand that they have the same rights as a Judge swilling Martinis or smoking cigarettes in front of the courthouse peacefully.

I don't care that I will have to face this judge again for sentencing on September the second. I assume that I will be harmed by Canada's drug laws again. Although my lawyer, Tim Otchitwa, thinks I might get a CSO, I may not accept it. The way I feel today, I may take the time in prison if I am still around at that time and join the ranks of criminals since Canada is bound and determined to make me one. September the second is a long ways away and much can happen between now and then. I understand that the HA is looking for me, according to a comment on my Youtube video. Good, I hope they find me! Who wants to be part of this idiocy anyways?

Here are some interesting concepts which shine light on to why our parliamentary democracy is such a farce.

Bud has an appearance April 13th!

noreply@blogger.com (bud oracle) — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 18:02:00 +0000

Bud has a court appearance this Wednesday, April 13th at 9:30 a.m. at the Vancouver Provincial Courthouse located at 222 Main street. Please come out to support Bud.