Click
Here
to get your
new MEMBERSHIP FORM
that supports this legal defense
 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 rubric
in a civil society
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 medical need 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 prescrbed 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 it protects
all common law defenses that protect Democracy under Sec1
 -
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
 Under
THE SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT -
'Democratic rights are PRESCRIBED BY LAW as exempt from the arbitrary
use of power contained in Sec
33 - 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 and
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] clearly
provides the Marijuana Party of Canada with the necessary terms
& regulations for our operating requirements. under a necessity
defense.
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 - Which
has become a totally omitted concept in this Sec 15 CCC de-facto
court system that’s insane. [Sec 16 CCC]
 FURTHERMORE:
In Vancouver we have a unique situation.
Past Mayors and the present Mayor of Vancouver: Gregor Robertson
has used this PRESCRIBED BY LAW argument to support the local
compassion clubs &
- it is also being used to keep the Insight Clinic open
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 Colonial
Rule
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'
FURTHERMORE:
This new policy was introduced in order to express the
legitimacy of the first Vancouver Compassion Club, [now
over 14 years old] & it is now understood that its court rulings
regarding peaceful trespass with their medicine [claim of right]
are relevant to this court. This Compassion Club has successfully
defended some members in court & they have chosen not to defend
many other members with less valid claim to peaceful possession
AND
it should be noted that Judge Wally Oppal was Instrumental in
this success
 BECAUSE
OF THE MAYOR’s PRESCRIPTION: [AKA: perogative]
It’s my belief that no new clubs operating in Vancouver
have had an opportunity to defend the peaceful possession of their
members or have to defend their membership as a PRESCRIPTION for
the responsible use of their medicine.
FRANKLY It’s just
a matter of time before they come seeking remedy for a member,
or for their own club’s defense. We are informing everyone
& giving this great defense & we can expect our court
to have a compassionate response because
it really is PRESCRIBED BY LAW as the only lawful means to possess
your medicine in Canada.
- For full details go to www.increationwetrust.org for local info
- or call 604-721-7461 or 604-727- 0906 for personal inquiries
OR go to www.marijuanaparty.ca for the National HEADoffice
- FOR YOUR PROTECTION under Constitutional
law
- SUBSCRIBE TO THE PARTI MARIJUANA PARTY
|