Below is a gathering of useful information that does not exactly fit the the ‘News’ section because not all of the content here is more of a ‘State of affairs report..’ then it is ‘news’ . However, one may gain some new insight about the recent changes in the Canadian Cannabis Culture.
The main headings have been summarized below to assist in navigating this page:
HumanHempHealth Foundation Policies
The HumanHempHealth advocated the following foundation policy platform:
- Immediate removal of all sanctions against Cannabis.
- Immediate release of anyone imprisoned for Cannabis crimes, and a pardon for past violations. All records of convictions for Cannabis crimes are to be erased.
- Withdrawal from international treaties which restrict Canada’s ability to legalize Cannabis.
- Immediate repeal of Section 462.2 of the Criminal Code, which censors Cannabis literature, and bans bongs, vaporizers, and other Cannabis implements.
- No legal or regulatory controls on which adults may cultivate and use Cannabis. We accept regulation and taxation of commercial sale of Cannabis. We accept the goal of regulation for prevention of abuse by minors.
- Medical marijuana should be made available.
- An apology from the Canadian government for eight decades of pot prohibition and evil persecution.
- Amend Canada’s *Elections Act *to allow for more proportional representation in Parliament.
Our only other official policy is to change the electoral system towards more proportional representation. See www.fairvotecanada.org about the rationale for that policy goal of more proportional representation. The Marijuana Party has not endorsed any one model law for how to have more proportional Parliament.
The Marijuana Party is a protest party that works on only one issue at a time, until such time as we achieve that goal, and then the party may transform itself.
We have no official policies on any other issues, and no intention to attempt to develop other policies now.
Between elections, the only special thing which a registered political party can do is issue tax receipts.
During an election, a registered political party can endorse candidates.
The Marijuana Party is looking for people to participate in the funding of pot politics, and looking for people to become candidates during an election. Towards the end of this is more information about becoming a candidate as well as about registered agency potential .
The Supreme Court of Canada (S.C.C.) heard three pot cases on May 6, 2003.
The judgment in these three cases, which challenge the constitutional validity of pot prohibition, will be released in about six months or so, perhaps in November, 2003.
The decriminalization law proposed in Parliament, in Bill C-38, assumes that the S.C.C. will continue to allow the cultivation of Cannabis to be a crime.
Whether that assumption is correct will establish the nature of the conflict for the future.
Supreme Court of Canada case information can be found through links from
The S.C.C. will decide whether there is a principle of proportional harm in the criminal law, and if so, then how does it apply to the marijuana laws in Canada.
Those were the issues that split the provincial court of appeal, and which the S.C.C. has to decide.
The history of medical marijuana cases has become the set and setting for the S.C.C. appeals, although no medical marijuana case ever reached the S.C.C..
The three cases that are first reaching the S.C.C. are recreational, productive, and harm reduction cases.
The medical marijuana cases have never made it higher than the Appeal Court of Ontario, since the government did not appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in those cases.
The victories in the medical marijuana cases have had an odd precessional effect, due to the failure of the government and Parliament to respect the courts properly.
At the present time, the boundaries of legal medical marijuana are not known.
At the present time, the ripple effect of the medical marijuana victories, has undermined the laws against Cannabis.
An Ontario Superior Court judge has confirmed a provincial court judge that the failure of Parliament to act has caused the invalidation of pot prohibition.
About three years ago, the Ontario Court of Appeal gave Parliament one year to act.
Now, finally the lower courts are recognizing the fact that Parliament failed to act,and therefore the delayed invalidation of the Ontario Court of Appeal has taken effect.
Anyone accused of Cannabis crimes could use this legal argument of /de jure/ invalidation.
However, the Crown will probably not stop the police and prosecutions unless the Ontario Court of Appeal confirms the lower courts.
The Ontario Court of Appeal is supposed to releases its judgment on October 7, 2003.
Parliament has not been dealing competently with pot prohibition.
The political context for the S.C.C. judgment seems favourable, since the Canadian marijuana laws, due to Parliament`s failure, have become an increasingly expensive embarrassment.
I feel it is 60% probable that the S.C.C. will grant some of the pot case appeals.
Return to menu
*Analysis of the May 6, 2003, S.C.C. hearing.*
The pivotal point was when the Crown lawyer, Frankel was given a recess of 10 minutes by the Chief Justiceto answer a question, that Frankel came back from recess and apparently did not want to answer.
That point in the argument was the focus of this question which was asked by one of the Justices to Frankel:
¨If this Court accepted that marijuana law is grossly disproportionate, then does that make the marijuana law irrational …?¨
The Crown lawyer`s position was that he admitted that if a law is irrational, then that law is not valid.
The Crown lawyer Frankel paused in silence for seconds, then minutes, without answering.
After some significant silence, he joked about the amount of more time he needed for his answer, then, a 10 minute recess was kindly given by the Chief Justice.
This extraordinary event on May 6 was the pivot to the case.
In the first half, the appellants took a hard pounding from the Court.
The appellants` lawyers withstood the pounding of hard section 7 questions.
But, when the Crown`s lawyer was asked the hard section 7 question, he failed to answer.
An affirmative answer to the Justice`s question leads to appeals granted.
If the Justices agree that the record proves that the harm from pot prohibition is grossly disproportionate to the harm caused by pot, then they can conclude that pot prohibition is irrational.
The Crown admits the law is not valid if it is irrational.
But, Frankel claimed the law is rational because Parliament has the duty to weigh risks and legislate, not the Court.
The flow of the case built up at the bottleneck of the section 7 test.
The Chief Justice stated the obvious that the appellants have to pass it. The issue is does the legal test under section 7 include considering that the facts prove gross disproportionality and does that fact of proven gross disproportionality also prove the law is irrational?
If so, then the Court is entitled to refuse to enforce it.
The Court is obliged to apply the Charter to the facts.
If one accepts these two steps:
(1) there is gross disproportionality, and (2) gross disproportionality is irrational. We say that these are relevant to the section 7 test, because comparing the relative harms is a principle of fundamental justice, then that should apply to pot prohibition, and then, pot prohibition should be struck down because the same gross disproportionality that hurdled the test in section 7 automatically comes back to kick ass in section 1.
Gross disproportionality can not pass legal tests.
If considering section 7 violations includes considering the proof of gross disproportionality in the relative harms caused by pot versus pot prohibition, then pot prohibition is finished.
Pot prohibition is so far away from rational that pot prohibition can be proven to be psychotic.
The judgment that the gross disproportionality was proven large enough to be regarded as irrational, could be used to drive the decision of the Court.
There is the factual record of gross disproportionality, and if that is judged relevant and applied in a section 7 test, then the Canadian marijuana laws will become unconstitutional.
There is considerable agreement amongst observers of the S.C.C. thatthe 9 Justices seem probably split 5 to 4 on the issue, but which way is too uncertain to say.
CPAC has run the jurisprudence recorded on May 6, 2003. It is possible to order a tape of this S.C.C. hearing.
*Malmo-Levine v. R.*
*Caine v. R.*
*Clay v. R.*
Are Canada’s marijuana possession and trafficking laws unconstitutional?
Return to menu
The *Senate Report on Cannabis*, released September 4, 2002, is linked to www.juror.ca
The summary of that report was 60 pages long, and the whole report is ten times bigger.
This Senate Report indicated that the cost of enforcing pot prohibition is probably about 30% of our criminal justice system.
Despite the million dollars a day the government spends, the pot prohibition does not work.
The Senate Report recommended that marijuana should be LEGALIZED in Canada, similar to how alcohol is available.
The Marijuana Party accepted the Senate Report recommendations for legalization of marijuana as a practical compromise.
If marijuana were legalized in this way, then the Federal law would be gone, and the regulations would be provincial jurisdictions.
See the 09-27-2002 joint statement of Canadian Cannabis Coalition at http://www.cannabiscoalition.ca/senatepr.htm
A Commons Committee on Cannabis report of December 12, 2002,
The Committee observed the fact that 75% of the drug war budget of at least $500 million is spent on pot prohibition.
The Committee also observed the fact that this million dollar a day enforcement was not effective.
RECENT STATISTICS in Canada follow the same pattern:
“The rate of total drug offences increased for the ninth straight year, driven by increases in both cannabis offences and other drug offences, which include synthetic drugs such as ecstasy and methamphetamine. In 2002, three in four drug incidents were cannabis offences, most of which were for simple possession.”
Speech from the Throne
The last Speech From the Throne in 2002 said that the government will consider decriminalizing marijuana. The Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister both promised to introduce this new law by June, 2003. It is impossible to predict whether or when this law might make it back through Parliament.
That law was introduced on May 27, 2003.
This Bill C-38 can be found at: http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-38/C-38_1/C-38TOCE.html
Young people from families with money may now be spared getting a career-destroying criminal record from pot.
Young and poor people would end up getting fined more than before they would have been charged. Young and poor people could have difficulty paying a fine, and therefore end up going to jail anyway.
Decriminalization, as currently proposed, may benefit middle or higher class young people, but nobody else.
Selling pot, and growing pot, would still be illegal, only the criminal record would be gone for small amounts of possession.
The current sham of proposed decriminalization increases the penalty for growing marijuana.
The Senate Report correctly predicts that this kind of decriminalization will make everything else worse.
The government`s talk of decriminalization is typical dishonesty and hypocrisy, and it is appropriate to view it cynically.
Australia’s experience with decriminalization resulted in an increase in marijuana users being targeted for simple possession, and criminal convictions for unpaid fines were like criminal convictions for possession before decriminalization.
Decriminalization will surely help organized crime make more profits.
Since pot prohibition was originally based on dishonesty and violence, it is inevitable that the longer pot prohibition continues, the more dishonesty and violence there will be.
The Foundation Congress of the Marijuana Party, April 21, 2002, passed a motion to be opposed to decriminalization.
We campaign for the end of prohibition. We campaign for the dishonesty and violence against Cannabis to be ended.
The decision of the S.C.C. will establish the nature of this campaign for years to come.
In 2004, everything about pot politics will be changed or confirmed by the S.C.C.
The Marijuana Party will be campaigning to end pot prohibition in this context.The Marijuana Party can use the political contribution tax credit to reduce fines.
Political Questions and Answers
Students routinely ask the Marijuana Party for information in their research for a report or to debate the issues.
_ Why do we think marijuana should be legal in Canada?_
Marijuana is a beneficial whole green plant. All of these benefits are suppressed by pot prohibition.
There has never been any rational reason why marijuana should have been made illegal in the first place.
Canadian pot prohibition law has been based on the history of racism and corruption in the political process.
Pot prohibition was really based on nothing but dishonesty and violence. It should be ended as soon as possible.
The simple facts are that marijuana directly kills no one, but the marijuana laws result in situations where people get killed in various ways, even by other people.
There is the gross disproportionality that marijuana kills zero while marijuana laws result in killing some in Canada, including kids that commit suicide after they get caught with pot, and an unknown large number of seriously sick people, that would have lived longer with marijuana medicine, since legal pot could keep many tens or even hundreds of thousands of Canadians alive, while, the perverse pot prohibition black market world can be dishonest and violent, and sometimes that violence becomes bad enough as the fact that at least one young man has been shot and killed by police enforcing pot prohibition.
The facts are truly tragic.
What are the advantages of having marijuana legal for Canadians ?
The marijuana black market will be gone.
The expense of enforcing pot prohibition will be gone.
The hemp industry could recover better if marijuana was legalized
The government could make a lot of revenue from taxing pot products.
What is holding the Canadian government back from legalizing marijuana?
Pharmaceutical companies and medical practitioners constitute major lobby powers. Marijuana has been forced out, and no longer fits within the profitable medical industry. Fortunately, in the area of medical marijuana, the courts have overruled the medical industry. Medical marijuana has become legalized in Canada, but that is the exception in Canadian history.
The entire history of pot prohibition in Canada has been controlled by the feedback between law enforcement and public opinion in the mass media.
Law enforcement in Canada has relentlessly been able to make outrageously dishonest statements and yet have those egregious statements published in the news media as if they were the truth.
Law enforcement and the mass media have instigated and maintained pot prohibition.
This political process spawns and perpetuates politicians and governments that parrot pot prohibition.
For instance, Paul Martin, who is practically guaranteed to be the next Prime Minister of Canada both publicly admits that he smoked a little pot in college, but still maintains that marijuana is ‘tremedously harmful.’
The claim that marijuana is harmful is expressed by many Canadian government Cabinet Ministers.
The claim that Cannabis is harmful is demonstrably false.
Any meaningful comparison of relative harms must conclude that Cannabis is relatively harmless.
What little harm Cannabis may cause can be mitigated. Pot prohibition causes almost all the harm.
Changing the law requires overcoming the wide-spread prejudice and propaganda about pot.
Huge lies, backed up the resort to violence, have been told by the government for 80 years.
The problem is that when a government is originally extremely dishonest, the government can only very gradually become a little less dishonest.
Canadian history has gradually seen the huge lies about marijuana replaced with littler lies, or myths about marijuana.
The myths about marijuana, and the reality of marijuana, have been researched and published by many.
However, opinion polls say that about half of Canadians still believe many of the myths about marijuana.
Fortunately, more than 90% of Canadians now know the truth about medical marijuana.
Medical CBD and Cannabiol
The truth about marijuana has first forced its way through Canadian courts.
Findings of fact made by Canadian courts are based on the truth about pot.
The truth has always been, and has been recorded for at least 5,000 years, that marijuana can be used as a good medicine. to reduce the symptoms of different diseases.
Thousands of years ago, various ancient cultures had written that pot was:
- the plant of forgetting worries; the old are young again plant;
- the howl with joy, and the immoderate laughter plant;
- the plant which gives a sense of delight, and acts against sorrow to soothe distress;
- the plant which chases away melancholy by making one feel funny, and perhaps happy.
In some cases, the plant can mean the difference between life and death. The graphic truth about this was pivotal in changing public opinion to favour medical marijuana, and this truth, as evidenced by particular people in this predicament, was what motivated the courts to legalize medical marijuana.
However, the government of Canada still regards pot as bad, and therefore has very badly regulated medical marijuana, and thereby created a very strange situation.
There are on-going court battles over the bureaucratic regulation of medical marijuana, in cases involving various levels of production or consumption.
Due to both the recent and accumulated success in court on the medical marijuana issue, activists have been able to go online with their activism. See www.marijuanahomedelivery.ca
From this Web site of leading marijuana militancy will be sent pot to any adult in Canada who is willing to swear an oath that medical marijuana would benefit them.
The Web site will recognize a doctor`s letter, instead of a sworn statement, but the Web site also recognizes an individual adult`s sworn statement about their own condition, without any need for a doctor`s prescription.
After all the court cases, medical marijuana has broken through into a chaos of grey market marijuana.
The truth is that marijuana is relatively harmless.
*Nobody has ever died from consuming Cannabis!*
CBD is really a very safe substance.
None of the little lies and marijuana myths can stand up to the evidence and logic.
The only substance which is perhaps less dangerous is the Psilocybin magic mushroom, because people are less likely to consume mushrooms as regularly as consume Cannabis.
It is an indubitable fact that all the other common drug substances are more dangerous than marijuana.
In general, there is no rational relationship between the law and the facts about drugs and substances, since the actual history of drug prohibition has been based on power and prejudice, not pharmacology.
To understand drug prohibition requires understanding that our society was based on ignorance and fear. Real human history has always been controlled by violence and dishonesty. Real human history has always been about slavery and racism. Real human history made drug prohibition.
A lot of the so-called research on pot has been funded to produce political propaganda. However, it has been possible for many authoritative studies to agree on the basic facts.
But, so far, none of the scientific facts about marijuana have ever made any difference in the law,
EXCEPT that, in Canada, the courts have forced the government to admit and allow the truth that marijuana can be a useful medicine to help people cope with some very serious diseases.
The truth is that Cannabis is good.
The huge lie has been that Cannabis is bad.
The paradigm shift can not be half way to say Cannabis is not so bad, without leading to the breakdown of the pot prohibition.
This is why the extremely intense U.S.A. pot prohibition is directly attacking medical marijuana.
However, Canadian courts have irreversibly opened the door to making medical marijuana available.
The truth that Cannabis is good is fighting its way through the pot prohibition. Canadian medical marijuana has opened a hole in the pot prohibition, and that hole may be like a hole in a dam.
The medical marijuana issue is at the hub of a wheel, with spokes that go out to the rim issue of recreational marijuana.
The Cannabis plant is one plant.
However, our government have distinguished these kinds of Cannabis. The separation of legal industrial hemp, legal medical marijuana, but illegal recreational pot, does not make any logical sense. To make any use of the plant illegal maintains irrationality.
Naming the plant
Due to the overwhelming amount of officially repeated dishonesty, even the words we use to talk about this plant are very problematic.
The plant genus */Cannabis/ *had the original English name of hemp.
The scientific or latin name for the plant simply is saying cultivated hemp in that language.
The hemp plant is the same as the marijuana plant, they are both Cannabis.
Both the scientific and common names for this plant appear to have problems.
The Senate Report says the word marijuana comes from Mexican slang for cheap cigarette.
Official government of Canada publications have been writing marihuana while almost everyone else now writes marijuana.
(In some government documents, the spelling jumps from h to j depending on the context.)
The word marihuana, for the government of Canada, was also identified with Cannabis and hash.
The old word for the plant in the Chinese language was Ma.
The hemp plant was originally native to China, and was an extremely important part of ancient Chinese civilization.
The hemp plant was widely disseminated at the beginning of human history. The use of marijuana was originally part of many cultures around the world.
The root word for this genus of plant is in many languages.
The genus of plant that we call */Cannabis/* (it is supposed to be capitalized, as the genus name) has many so-called species, such as */indica /*and */sativa/*.
However, those were originally called species because they were geographically limited in their ability to mix.
Breeders have crossed all the Cannabis so-called species back into each other, which means that they should never have been called species.
Species, by definition, are the specialized organisms that interbreed only with themselves.
Cannabis species were falsely named.
The Cannabis genus is practically one huge species, because human plant breeders have made it that way.
A good use of marijuana is as a fibre source to make clothes, paper, or rope, etc., and this plant is a relatively good producer of annual biomass, for many other uses.
Another good use of marijuana is as a high quality oil source from the seeds.
An astonishing and astounding use of marijuana is as a food source, especially the seeds.
Hemp seed seems to be the single best plant source for human food.
Hemp seed protein content is comparable to that of soybeans, and the hemp seed amino acid profile in that protein is better suited to humans than the soybean.
Every type of hemp product from sprouts to grass juice could be practical and nutritious.
However, the cost of hemp seed and hemp seed products has been another victim of pot prohibition.
Industrial hemp, for fibre, oil and food, can be grown in ways that produce little psychoactive chemicals, but it is always the same plant.
Since Cannabis was always the same plant, it was suppressed from 1938 up until the early 1990`s, when industrial hemp in Canada was allowed to attempt a comeback, but under strict THC limits.
In ideal theory, Cannabis should have continued to be cultivated around the world, and would now be one of the world`s major grains and generally cultivated crops, except that the pot prohibition killed that.
The entire hemp industry, even after a relaxation of pot prohibition, will have a hard time recovering its proper position in the economy.
Since all cultivation of Cannabis was made illegal for decades, all Cannabis products, and not merely smokable marijuana, have been made unreasonably expensive in the current market.
The Marijuana Party, by providing tax credits for hemp products, can help this recovery. Click the Dollars for Democracy button on the home page: www.marijuanaparty.org
Pot Prohibition History
Only some breeds of hemp, grown under the right conditions, produce significant psychoactive THC oil in the flowers.
Those breeds and growing conditions were not usually found in Europe, but were found in the warmer climates around the world, and especially in the higher altitude tropical climates.
(The psychoactive THC oil present on the flowers of pot probably evolved in some relationship to Ultra Violet light.)
When the Europeans began their global conquest about 500 years ago, they had plenty of hemp, however, it was not very psychoactive.
When the Europeans had mostly completed their global conquest, they had mostly done so with the rationalizations based on racism.
The racism, which was based on the reality of the struggle for power and control, found it expedient to pick particular substances and drugs associated with a culture to demonize and adopt as either a tool of exploitation, or as a tool of persecution.
A detailed study reveals that drug prohibition in general is rooted in racism, and making some drugs illegal was mostly done to create tools of persecution.
As a global fact, drug prohibition primarily has a racist effect, and, as a global conspiracy theory, that probably was intended.
In Canada, marijuana was first made illegal in 1923 in order to give the government of Canada another excuse to arrest and deport people from China who were no longer wanted in Canada.
The narcotic drug law system was very probably set up to do that, and it did do that. (But, this conclusion is a speculation, like a 2 + 2 = 4 conspiracy theory conclusion.)
In fact, in 1923, Cannabis was mysteriously tacked on to the schedule of the Canadian narcotic law.
The evidence shows some unknown person simply took a copy of the law, and typed Cannabis in.
The words typed in the schedule by that unknown person in the government were never spoken in Parliament.
There was no debate, and indeed, no knowledge. Official government documents from 1923 draw a blank.
There is no official record that the law against Cannabis was ever enforced before the 1930`s.
In 1923, only a few months after marijuana was deemed to be a narcotic (which is totally untrue) the government of Canada passed a Hemp Bounties Act, that paid farmers, in mostly Manitoba and Ontario, to grow hemp for use in binder twine and other similar industries.
Hence, there came to be an irony that between 1923 and 1938 the government had two opposite laws about the same plant.
Another irony was that Cannabis indica and hash were made illegal in 1923, but yet, nine years later, Cannabis sativa was still being allowed in medicines.
That situation changed in 1938, when the Canadian government made growing any hemp (marijuana) illegal.
The influence of the United States of America
The word marijuana was adopted by law enforcement officials, and popularized by the news media.
The war against some drugs has always had a dynamic relationship between the media and law enforcement.
In the U.S.A., publishing empires, with their financial and family interconnections, profited in many ways from demonizing marijuana.
Most people did not know that marijuana was the same as hemp.
The word marijuana was popularized by a news media propaganda campain.
This campaign was there at the beginning of what is called yellow journalism.
The racism that started the prohibition of pot was supported by vested economic interests that wanted to see the hemp industry put out of business. Hemp can easily compete with cotton, for instance, and hemp takes less fertilizers or pesticides to grow.
The people who produced the fertilizers and pesticides, etc. and nylon etc., had their interconnections and influences and political manipulations, and they wanted to put the hemp industry out of business, and so they promoted the huge propaganda campaign, telling big lies about pot, over and over, to gain their objective.
Making marijuana illegal was an extreme example of the wide-spread political perversity that resulted from discrediting and destroying natural products that could not be patented.
The people who made so much profit from their petrochemical products, used some of that profit through the corruption of the political process, in order to put the possible natural alternatives out of business.
There was a constellation of interests, where racism and profit co-incided, which led to the discrediting and destruction of natural products, with the most extreme example of this being pot prohibition.
These fascist and fraudulent forces have apparently dominated the U.S.A. government.
The U.S.A. marijuana laws were first used to attack Mexicans, then used against Blacks.
It is difficult to sort out the influence of the U.S.A. from the issues inside Canada. These factors have tended to feedback into themselves. The U.S.A. law enforcement statements were quoted as the truth in Canada.
In general, the political process in Canada has been fundamentally similar to that in the U.S.A., except that the history of the U.S.A has been much more hard ball, with much, much more violence and dishonesty than in Canada.
In the U.S.A., El Paso, Texas, in 1914, had the first law against marijuana.
Mostly in the U.S.A., (but which also influenced Canada by being quoted as the truth) there was a propaganda campaign, funded behind the scenes by some big businesses, to paint pot as a very dangerous narcotic, addictive and fatal.
The only thing that most Canadians knew about marijuana was what the mass media, such as MacLeans magazine, had told them, which was the racism of Emily Murphy.
The Canadian marijuana laws were most probably a result of racist attacks on Chinese Canadians. (Around and during 1923, a lot of other bad laws were enacted against all the Chinese in Canada.) It is generally believed by those who study the 1920`s, as a kind of a conspiracy theory, that the government of Canada was induced to add Cannabis to the schedule of narcotic drugs by the writings of Emily Murphy. Those writings contained many extremely racist statements, and those writings were a source of the popularization of the huge lies about pot.
Since Canadians did not know better, they relied upon the apparent authorities, and most Canadians believed what they were told, that the marijuana plant was an addictive, fatal, narcotic, that made users become criminally insane.
Very few Canadians still believe those huge lies about marijuana.
However, half of Canadians still believe in some of the littler lies.
An unfortunate fact about propaganda and public opinion is that, after the lie has been repeated 100 times, then the truth has to be repeated 101 times, before the truth can make a difference.
In order to understand pot politics, one has to be willing to see that the government has been totally dishonest, and has backed up that dishonesty with violence and the threat of violence.
The government has never won a debate about the truth of marijuana.
The government has always been able to rely on violence and the threat of violence to maintain the law.
It has never been possible to have a rational debate about pot prohibition with law enforcement officials.
Until relatively recently, the news media gave an extremely biased presentation of pot prohibition politics.
North American governments were completely corrupted by the power of money, and they created and maintained pot prohibition as a tool of persecution, whose real purpose was to make things worse, and maintain their social system of repression and exploitation.
Pot prohibition is evil, and was created and maintained in an evil way.
CBD As a social symbol
The marijuana issue is not more important than that one plant is. However, that plant has become political.
If Cannabis plants did not exist, more than 99.999% of the world would remain the same.
However, when the government decided to make marijuana a tool of persecution, by enacting the pot prohibition in 1923, and then outlawing all cultivation in 1938, this one plant was made symbolic. A symbolic social weight was put on the pot plant.
Canadian pot prohibition is eighty years old. There have been two very different 40 year periods.
>From 1923 to 1963, the law was very rarely enforced. In 40 years, only a couple of hundred were ever arrested.
>From 1964 to 1970, Cannabis crime convictions went into a quantitative exponential growth, doubling every year.
This increase rate slowed somewhat between 1970 to 1972, when the government said they would decriminalize.
The rate increased after decriminalization failed to happen, but it has not continued at an extreme exponential rate.
Enforcement of the pot prohibition seems to have become less than tokenistic.
It is impossible to imagine the overload on the police, courts, and prisons, if suddenly everyone breaking the marijuana law was caught and arrested.
The enforcement of pot prohibition has become discretionary, and varies greatly across the country.
The vast majority of all Cannabis criminals were young people. That has stayed the same from the 1960`s until now in 2000`s.
The government stopped collecting these statistics from 1972 to 1996.
In 1996 there were 50,000 in trouble, in 2001 it was 70,000.
The government created a tool of persecution that was hardly ever used, until it was exponentially used against hippies in the 1960`s.
In this context, the so-called hippies in the 1960`s could be called voluntary coloured people. In a sense, they chose to be discriminated against.
A law that was originally designed to attack people from Asia, skipped through history and attacked middle-class white kids, because those youths decided to participate in a counter-culture and to protest in that way.
Some quotes below are lifted from the report of the Le Dain Commission back in the year 1972
* Cannabis: The Report of the Canadian Government Commission of Inquiryinto the Non-Medical Use of Drugs – 197*2 Canadian Government Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, Information Canada, Ottawa, Canada, 1972
“It is ironic that the severity which was originally seen as falling upon persons of Asiatic origin should have fallen ultimately upon middle-class youth.”
Thirty years later, Canadian pot prohibition seems to be frozen in history. More and more talk, most of which is more and more lies and hypocrisy, is all that we ever have gotten so far from the government of Canada.
Except that the pot participation rate thirty years ago maybe became 10%, while, now, it is estimated that perhaps 25% of youth participate in pot, and the most recent poll indicated that it is perhaps one third of youth.
In fact, pot prohibition has done more to promote pot than anything else.
The consumption of marijuana can be done for fun. It is ironic that consuming Cannabis can be forbidden fruit, and risk taking.
This could be called the recreational use of marijuana. However, a long campaign to stop the fun also stopped all of the other uses.
THE LE DAIN REPORT CORRECTLY STATED THE FOLLOWING:
“Creating disrespect for law and law enforcement generally.
There is no doubt the law against cannabis has created for a significant number of youth a disillusionment with law and legal institutions, as well as the processes of government generally. They have been disillusioned by the obstinacy in maintaining the present legal policy with respect to cannabis despite the evidence that it is not nearly as dangerous as the opiate narcotics and probably not as dangerous as alcohol. They believe that there must be something perverse and profoundly hostile in the official attitude towards cannabis. The situation has been made somewhat more tolerable by changes in judicial attitudes which have reduced the severity of the law as actually applied in practice. But many youth regard the law concerning cannabis as exhibiting an irrationality which amounts to dishonesty. There can be no doubt that the law on the books is at extreme variance with the facts. We believe that much of the strong feeling about the law could be removed by a change that would bring it into closer conformity with the facts.”
The truth is that marijuana is one of the most beneficial plants on the planet Earth.
The truth is that marijuana is one of the least harmful substances on planet Earth.
However, only except for recently in the courts, in medical marijuana cases, so far, the truth about marijuana has never made any difference to the pot law.
The true social fact in this situation was quoted by Le Dain: ¨the law concerning cannabis exhibits an irrationality which amounts to dishonesty.¨
¨There can be no doubt that the law on the books is at extreme variance with the facts.¨
The Canadian pot prohibition is grossly disproportional to the truth about Cannabis.
When governments picked marijuana to turn into a tool of persecution, then governments attached a symbolic significance to a particular plant.
The politics of pot prohibition are symbolic of the rest of the real political world.
Writing letters to government Ministers about marijuana law is to enter into an irrational conflict.
Pot prohibition is so far away from being demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society that is is fair and accurate to describe pot prohibition as a psychotic law.
The law never has had any realistic connection to the truth about Cannabis.
There is no way to avoid the irrational conflicts that surround the marijuana issue.
The government has nothing to go on but the inertia of social habits, that were established and maintained by decades of dishonesty and violence.
For decades, people in positions of authority have told lies about pot to the public.
This situation was always psychotic, and must end with some form of psychotic breakdown.
The dishonesty of the authorities, that claimed marijuana was not good, but bad, and claimed that marijuana was so extremely harmful that it was a serious crime, has cost them their credibility. They can not face the truth that they were liars.
The government repeats their on-going lies that marijuana is bad and harmful, and marijuana must be illegal.
The government pot policy probably can not end pot prohibition without going through a psychotic breakdown.
Eventually, the plainly obvious truth about Cannabis has to shatter even the biggest of repeated lies about pot.
For pot prohibition to shatter may also be symbolic of more shattering.
The magnitude of this psychotic breakdown is difficult to predict.
Pot prohibition is an extreme expression of a social system based on fear and ignorance.
It fits into a political economy characterized by extreme and growing exaggerations of repression and exploitation. The real system is a sophisticated form of slavery.
Pot prohibition can only exist within a government that is dishonest and violent.
Ending pot prohibition would be symbolic of the hope that the government may eventually become less dishonest and violent.
The truth is that the 30% of the Canadian justice system which is devoted to pot prohibition is totally perverse, and it can only continue to exist in a society which is generally perverse!
Most of the money in marijuana is there because of the pot prohibition.
Drug prohibition benefits only those who are able to get away with making a profit from breaking the prohibition.
An outside observer of the real effect of pot prohibition could conclude that it was designed to benefit organized crime.
In the area of pot prohibition, both the government and organized crime agree on their basic belief that the best way to control people is with ignorance and fear.
In the area of marijuana law, the biggest organized criminal network is the Canadian government itself, and it is really the government that created and maintains the organized criminal involvement in Cannabis.
As long as drug law policy is based on the idea that ignorance and fear is the best way to control other people, that policy is guaranteed to go on making things get worse and worse, faster and faster.
The alternative is to let people learn. The government of Canada should turn to Marijuana Party people for assistance.
Benefits of Legalization
Adequate outdoor pot for recreational purposes is currently, because marijuana is illegal, about 1000 times more expensive than it could be produced, if it was legal.
The government could place a very high tax on legal marijuana, and it still could be reasonably cheap to purchase.
Growing the best medical marijuana requires a growing operation that attempts to duplicate all of the environmental conditions at the top of a tropical volcano inside of a growing room, while still keeping the highest organic purity standards.
The expense and labor of such a growing operation is considerable, even if it were legal, and did not have the added expense of having to hide from the police.
Yet still, after prohibition was ended, even the best medical marijuana could cost less than half what it does now.
It is about four times cheaper to smoke pot than to eat it, since smoking is so much more efficient.
If legal marijuana was cheaper, people may tend to eat it more than smoke it.
Smoking anything is obviously not healthy, but smoking tobacco is far worse than smoking marijuana.
We may all be drowning in the bad habits created by the long decades of pot prohibition.
Everything surrounding pot culture has been made perverse by the old prohibition effects.
Perhaps smoking marijuana is something people do mainly because marijuana is illegal?
If marijuana was legal, people could smoke it less, and instead consume it in other ways, and smoking it is the only bad thing about marijuana, not the marijuana itself, but the smoking.
Smoke may be spiritual and part of the cycle of life.
(Indeed, at that level of abstraction, life is sunlight, steam and smoke.)
Smoke may be used ceremonially and ritually, however, smoking a lot, constantly, is a death culture trip.
Being in favour of marijuana does not have to mean being in favour of smoking marijuana.