 Here's our new Illustrated WORD version of our FREE MARIJUANA PRESCRIPTION and New Membership FORM -[requires 8.1/2 x 14 legal size paper to print]  BASIC
LEGAL PREMISE TO SHOW THAT:
In law: a Marijuana Party membership is a PRESCRIPTION to defend the Peaceful possession of the articles of our party rubric in a civil society Under Sec 33 CCC and the Elections Act to protect your right to a God given plant Note: in law the legal definition of any word is important – law is nothing but words 
Look up PRESCRIPTION in the DCL [Dictionary of Canadian law] [in law: if the word exists here - it's the only definition allowed] If a prescription for marijuana is not defined in the DCL then it's not 'prescribed by law' [therefore -does not exist] When this term ‘prescription’ is used as a condition in a bail undertaking [as in] “The accused must not possess drugs or paraphernalia without a prescription “ THEN the ambiguity creates a real threat because this wording offers no real protection and  THIS
could lead to false arrests and when this occurs, the law becomes
an Instrument of punishment - What is needed is a clear
understanding that clarifies what is meant by the term ‘prescription’
So that an accused with a lawful defense can be saved from a bad
decision made by an uninformed law enforcer [in
order to not face charges in the 1st place]
- If you're charged under the CDSA [Controlled Drugs & Substances Act] - the Police /court often tell the accused that you need a PRESCRIPTION - in order to not be charged or as a condition of bail after you’re charged. - The wording is seems vague but some lawyer gave it some thought. They never say 'medical prescription' because there's no such thing So what do they mean? Just look it up in the DCL IN LAW [as to our DCL] there is no such thing as a prescription for marihuana  a
PRESCRIBER: is
a person who is authorized to give a prescription within the scope
of any profession and in the practice of a health discipline. As prescribed by the CMA: there is no such thing as a health care profession that 'gives a prescription for marijuana' BUT under this definition, an Officer of the Parti Marijuana Party can legally be called a PRESCRIBER because he is PRESCRIBED BY LAW under the Elections Act to protect our Party rubric and or his EDA's prescribed platform of beliefs.  PRESCRIBED DRUG is defined as a drug that may be dispensed by a pharmacist upon the direction of a prescribers [note: not defined in an Act] - by definition - There is no such thing as a pharmacist who can dispense marijuana PRESCRIPTION has many definitions & absolutely none of them apply to cannabis There's 1- under The Dispensing Fee Act, 1- under the Practice of Physiotherapy Act, 1- under the Dental Technicians Act & other industrial uses of the word. NOTE: There's not even 1 definition for PRESCRIPTION under the CDSA and it's worth noting THAT: all 'drug' charges are pressed under the CDSA. 
- It’s also worth noting that since there are no definitions
for prescription under the CDSA - then their own MMAR card is not
a prescription, or its definition would be found here.
The MMAR card is a permit that can be revoked at any time for no
real reason. It's so restrictive & only good for 1 year at a
time therefore arguably a greater liability than an asset.
- So by definition there is no such thing as a medical prescription
under the CDSA - There's a definition under the FDA [Food
and Drug Act of 1985] that covers dispensing controlled drugs by
prescribing a controlled quantity [not applicable] AND- They still
list a definition under the NCA, for a prescription for narcotics
[even though this Act was struck down in 1986 as
unconstitutional] [under R v Oakes]
So that means there’s a PRESCRIPTION available somewhere
Otherwise the law is being used as a trap to screw you over &
- the law must never be used as an Instrument of punishment –
it’s a cornerstone of good governance- THIS IS WHERE SANITY COMES TO THE RESCUE There is a clear definition that does apply to our political Party. This is the definition for the term: PRESCRIBED BY LAW "The limits will be prescribed by law within the meaning of Sec 1 of the Charter if it is expressly provided for by statute or regulations, or results by necessary implication of a statute or regulation or from its operating requirements. The limit may also result from the application of common law" [R v Therens 1985] At face value it does not look like it would apply to a prescription for Cannabis but it really does BECAUSE all common law defenses that protect Democratic guarantees are under Sec-1  -
This definition starts by saying it protects Sec-1 rights in the
Charter which states THAT "1.
The Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms guarantees the rights
& freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits
'prescribed by law' as can be demonstrably justified in 'a free
and democratic society' [under
R v Oakes 1986 - this case had a medical cannabis defense]Sec-1 'prescribes by law' to directly prohibit trampling on Sec-3 of the Charter - NAMELY: Democratic rights under what's called the Supremacy of PARLIAMENT which prescribes that the only way to protect yourself and fight a bad law is thru political activity 
Under THE SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT 'Federal Democratic rights are PRESCRIBED BY LAW are directly prohibited from arbitrary use of power by our Constitutional rule of law of from those powers contained in ORDERS IN COUNCIL The only thing that keeps marijuana illegal is the total abuse of Sec-33 of the Charter - Under the SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT & AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, the only way anyone can defend themselves from a bad law is by being - politically active and - [that’s exactly how we are defending our rights] 
- UNDER line-1 of the rule of law of Sec
133 BNA Act: Supreme Court rulings [like the Longley decision - Parker /Hitzig decisions & especially this Oakes decision] bar /preclude the majority in power from using the force of ORDERS IN COUNCIL [OC] on any member of especially our federal Party because it's 'prescribed by law' as the only thing the majority in power cannot suppress with the use of OC's. - The use of any arbitrary power by the majority in power on any Loyal opposition member is directly prohibited under the rule of law & Sec 1 and 3 of the Charter  As
to this definition: The Elections Act,[which
clearly is the Institution that protects Democracy with more authority
than a statute called the CDSA] clearly provides [to paraphrase
this prescribed by law definition] the Marijuana Party of Canada
with the necessary terms & regulations for our operating requirements.
under a necessity defense under Lord Brighton's MandateThis really is a Claim of Right thru an application of common law, which is exactly what is 'prescribed by law ', which is: to offer a way to benefit from the law Which has become a totally omitted concept in our de-facto courts  FURTHERMORE:
In Vancouver we have a unique situation and the rest of Canada can
take a lesson in how we are politically effective - we did not get any of our compassion clubs shut down in this past summer's raids WHY IS THAT? Past Mayors & the present Mayor of Vancouver have used their Office's derogatory powers to PRESCRIBE BY LAW their support for local compassion clubs & any community can safely operate a compassion club by soliciting its Mayor to approve it. ON THE ISSUE OF RECOGNIZING OUR PRESCRIPTION: His Worship the Mayor Greg Robertson has prescribed a policy onto the police & the courts in His jurisdiction to the affect that they should show a more humane approach toward simple possession charges of cannabis. The Mayor is actually exercising authority under the 1931 Colonial Rule Act to show His allegiance to uphold the Constitution in Canada in his Community 
To show his general support, the Mayor has permitted several new Compassion Clubs and frankly all of us operate on different ‘prescribed platform of rules and activity’ that the prescribers provided, as necessary regulations for its operating requirement IN OTHER WORDS all these Compassion Club providers are all operating under the definition of ‘PRESCRIBED BY LAW' and any community can do it.  FURTHERMORE:
This new policy was introduced in order to express
the legitimacy of the 1st Vancouver Compassion Club, [now over 14
years old] & it is now understood that the voters of Vancouver
have supported 4 consecutive City Councils and will re-elect those
who support our compassionate response to cannabisBOTTOM LINE: We all can have what the rule of law calls ‘civilized life’ What we must appreciate is that all it takes to lose this shell is one Mayor who capitulates to what must be enormous pressure from Ottawa and the USA and all it takes for any community to have Compassion Clubs is to elect City Officials who will support us. The only solution to prohibition is a political one & we don’t have to be elected to offer one ANYONE who can attract the youth and the disenfranchised to vote will win by a landslide and there really is no issue that will galvanize this voter despair than an opportunity to actually benefit from Democracy 
All
we are saying is that the PARTI MARIJUANA PARTY
BUT IN THE REST OF CANADA - we are informing
everyone & giving this great defense that is far better than
no excuse BECAUSE our party membership really is PRESCRIBED BY
LAW as the only lawful means to possess your cannabis as medicine
in Canada. FRANKLY
All we are doing is showing people that any party that actually
upholds a policy of "by the people for the people" can
deliver real benefits to real people as opposed to catering
to Corporations which cost every tax payer millions of dollars
|
regrettably we are not.