Click
Here for the printable version of this membership form and
pamphlet
 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 in the 1st place or as a condition
of bail.
- 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 1`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 the arbitrary use of power even in this unconstitutional
form of order 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 'not withstanding
clause' & 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
 To
paraphrase this definition: The Elections Act,[which
clearly is the Institution that protects Democracy with more authority
than a statute called the CDSA] clearly provides this prescribed
by law defense to the Marijuana Party of Canada with the necessary
terms & regulations for our operating requirements. under
a necessity defense under Lord Brighton's Mandate - this 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
Under the Supremacy of Parliament the only lawful way
to fight a bad law is thru
political activity, OUR PARTY claims a legitimate right
under the rule of law
& Sec 126 CCC [a lawful right to break a statute] to oppose
Orders in Council that affect marijuana rights, AND this defense
holds a glorious tradition in English case law. In fact, history
will prove that claims of right simply cannot be construed without
the government first being so terribly wrong
IN FACT The recent R v Mernaugh case clearly
indicates that HC's abuse [nonfeasance] on implementing a workable
solution to medical access is creating a lawful excuse to break
a statute that has had its punishment section stripped by the
Supreme Court
- So at face value people can get fairness in a court
thru Sec 126 CCC
– It’s just that it’s a guarantee for our party
to do so.
 FURTHERMORE:
In BC 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? Several Mayors 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.
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 BOTTOM LINE: Mayors know they
gain lots of voter support by permitting dispensaries
IN FACT at the recent SCC challenge of the Insight Program
5-previous Mayors under oath testified that it would be impossible
to be elected by its citizens if they opposed compassionate access
To show his general support, BC Mayors have permitted several
new Compassion Clubs and frankly The City and all clubs operate
on a ‘prescribed platform of rules and activity’ that
the prescribers provided, as necessary regulations for its operating
requirement
IN OTHER WORDS all these Compassion Clubs and the Mayor
are all operating under the definition of ‘PRESCRIBED BY
LAW' and any community can do it.
PLEASE NOTE: Recent Ontario Supreme Court
ruling say that Sec 4 & 5 of the CDSA are of no force and
effect [this means possession and cultivation is now legal]
– Our lawful excuse under Sec 126 CCC gives Officers of
the party a great defense to operate a compassion club [Sec 1-2
& 3 of the CDSA] and this provides any MMRA
member /grower a right to legally sell his crop as medicine to
any other party member
- Constitutionally your prescription from our party is the best
way to protect your rights to peaceful possession because you
don't have to be critically ill to become a member
BOTTOM LINE
any community can have a sane pot policy by voting
for politicians who promise to support you - ANYONE who can attract
the youth & the disenfranchised to vote will win by a landslide
& there really is no issue that will galvanize this voter
despair more than this opportunity to benefit from Democracy
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
We are not advocating criminal activity
- we are just protecting our members from criminal liability with
a BULLET PROOF DEFENSE but regrettably we are not.
BUT for the vast majority of people this
prescription is far better than nothing & it's FREE We
are informing everyone & giving this great defense & we
can expect our police and court to have a compassionate response
because our Party Membership really is PRESCRIBED BY LAW
as the only lawful means to possess cannabis in Canada.
under Sec 1 of the Charter AND criminally under Sec 126 CCC and
civilly under Sec 39 CCC
Just ask any cop and they’ll tell you that the only solution
to prohibition is a political solution AND that’s exactly
what our Party is offering
- For full details go to www.increationwetrust.org OR go to the
National HEADoffice @ www.marijuanaparty.ca
- FOR YOUR PROTECTION under Constitutional law protect yourself
by SUBSCRIBING TO THE PARTI MARIJUANA PARTY
and vote for any politician who will support your
Constitutional rights
|