Edge
(stranger)
4/15/01 09:30 AM
|
Harm Principle
[Post#: 116695
/ re: 116024
]
|
|
|
Decriminalization: An official act generally accomplished by legislation, in which an act or omission, formerly criminal, is made non-criminal and without punitive sanctions. Black's Law Dictionary.
Try using the dictionary once in awhile.
|
rastaruss
(member)
4/15/01 06:20 PM
|
Re: Harm Principle
[Post#: 116914
/ re: 116695
]
|
|
|
Why don't you bite my ass?
Why then were New York state's changes to marijuana laws called decriminalization? By reducing the penalty from prison to only a fine the act of possession was "decriminalized" so instead of arresting and prosecuting thousands they were able to prosecute tens of thousands?
There is a distinction between legalization and decriminalization. Why don't you read some history?
"The more people smoke herb, the more Babylon fall" - The Honorable Robert Nesta Marley, O.M.
|
Shade
(journeyman)
4/16/01 09:35 AM
|
|
Re: Harm Principle
[Post#: 117181
/ re: 116914
]
|
|
|
It makes sense. Textbook and real world don't always jive. Netherlands, although they say decrim, there are still punitive sanctions outside the containment policy. I agree there are two different contexts. Decrim can be used as lessening of sanctions as well as elimination according to recent usage. Fuck Black's Law.
|
davidmalmolevine
(superposter)
4/16/01 06:12 PM
|
|
Re: Harm Principle
[Post#: 117439
/ re: 117181
]
|
|
|
Decrim is the fave term of both Singapore and the US....I say fuck decrim and call the new place ****what you want to see happen****.....
Like my man Beck sings......"we gotta REGULATE!"
(Legalize is an old term....nothin wrong wit it, but I say let's loose the baggage and move to deflate unfounded fears at the same time....)
"I have struggled against tyranny. I didn't do that in order to substitute another." Desmond TutuEdited by davidmalmolevine on 4/16/01 06:13 PM.
|
davidmalmolevine
(superposter)
4/16/01 06:45 PM
|
|
Re: Harm Principle v. Cannabis Harm Reduction
[Post#: 117459
/ re: 116047
]
|
|
|
Prowse and her opinion is the only hole whereby I see a shot for your high ambition. Please excuse my honest appraisal. But even if Prowse takes hold, would that dissolve whatever statutes exist, or just present a case-by-case harm principle/Harm reduction principle jurisprudence, which you are not satisfied with.
I don't understand this question (if it was meant as one.....)
The Courts are stuck with the existing jurisprudence. That's the way it works.
Except when they change their minds.......see "medical cannabis necessity".
"Prowse is the only justice that has even slightly budged. And that is more of the decriminalization, not legalization aspect of the cases you represent."
CAll it what you will, the Supremes have decided to hear MY WHOLE ARGUMENT....they could have limited me to "simple possession" but I submitted my "additional grounds" and they said "let's hear it".
I grew up with one of the SCC clerks in Edmonton, and he said my factum rocked.
Every non-anonymous person in the movement who has read it agrees that the harm is where the focus should be. Inherent harms vs. proper use.
Even the polls for the POT TV show on the subject suggest the "home audience" is backin me.
Lessee, that was "phone a friend" and "the audience poll"..... If this was "Who wants to be a millionare, I'd say "Final Answer".
"Parliament and local policy makers is where the courts point to for legalization,"
Except with the med thing....which they just gave the weasles an ultimatum.
"....the upcoming changes for rec. use and trafficking etc. But they are troubled with mens rea and the source dilemma."
Nobody got them to recognise the harm principle before. No one got to the SCC before on a challenge of all the laws. I wouldn't say we were for sure going to win....but if justice has anything to do with it I'd say we have enough of a chance to give it the old colledge try.
"Needle exchange is not being curtailed."
It ain't protected either. And it the states, Gulliani-type mayors do curtail even education, let alone clean needles.
"What distinguishes it from cannabis harm reduction clubs?"
Well, they kept throwing me in jail for the HRC....I want both services to be recognised as valuable and fully protected by law and, eventually, a re-writing of the constitution to say, explicitly, "for example, the harm principle" in section 7 and say "sexual and substance and vocation orientation and as many other harmless deviants as possible" for section 15.
I think needle exchanges have yet to be fully defended in the court of public opinion. Same with poor people growing and dealing pot to healthy people. But when both are, both will be fully accepted into society.
"Sale of the drug itself?"
You might have a point there......they do tend to get pissed off if you make money while you monkey wrench their witch hunt......
"A symposium just concluded in Wash. DC where representatives of EU drug control member states made it clear that the Netherlands policy is a specie of decriminalization, NOT legalization."
I don't care what they call it.....I just want at least as much freedom as they currently enjoy with the added bonus of full equality rights with caffeine junkies and I won't stop till I get it.
" Yet you correctly point out the distinction is hard to see."
Especially through the billowing smoke at one of the 2000 cafe's in Holland, the thousand in Denmark, the handfull in Belgium and Switzerland.....
"You start seeing it when you begin to stray from the containment parameters set up by the policy."
Let's hear it for straying from containment perameters....
"No easy answer except take the ground given by the courts, secure it and then improve on it, you don't have to make it all or nothing to argue it should be all."
Shade, buddy, this is a 3000 year old war on the herbally inclined, and it's gonna end soon so I can still enjoy the taste of freedom in my youth.
"But emphasize the ground under real contention that is being overlooked."
Harm reduction protects poor growers/dealers and healthy smokers. Harm reduction is the key that was missing in the past cases.
"I have struggled against tyranny. I didn't do that in order to substitute another." Desmond TutuEdited by davidmalmolevine on 4/16/01 07:38 PM.
|
davidmalmolevine
(superposter)
4/16/01 07:33 PM
|
|
Re: Court's have set precedent
[Post#: 117496
/ re: 116348
]
|
|
|
@Talisman:
De-harsh, dude.
@Shade
I would ask that you review my comments without reading more into what is actually there.
Render unto me a break and provide instances with your general slags....
"Use is not prohibited, possession and trafficking is. Inherent harm in use is irrelevant."
But if proper use is harmless, then it's constitutionally protected! Very relevant.
"But I don't see the court's catching onto that distinction. The harms caused by unregulated trafficking and cultivation and preparation are admitted by you."
Pritty important qualifyer, that "unregulated"....
"That alone raises the question as to competence of the parliament to enact statutes that prohibit possession and distribution because of these admitted potential harms caused by growers, dealers and traffickers."
They're only unregulated so long as we don't regulate em....when they are regulated, they become, like in europe, "harmless, helpful, taxpaying parents"
"I see the argument prohibiting criminal sanctions to end users, but not freeing up dealers and growers disconnected to harm reduction intervention programs already discussed in Richardson and Parker."
Have you even been to holland? What makes you think North America can't handle that?
"Where do you see a constitutional restriction on parliament from protecting consumers from unscrupulous manufacturers and growers?"
What's the difference between an "unscrupulous" cannabis distributor and an "unscrupulous" coffee bean distributor? Well, one has enough money to escape punishment in the black market, the other, at least, has some accountability that can be used to sic the law on them if they poison someone or steal something.
"There are two basic ways law changes; 1) parliamentary enactment 2) common-law evolution."
I guess Paker was "common-law evolution".
"Most of the arguments you interject to seize "the whole cookie" are appropriate in front of the parliamentary bodies. You are not in front of those bodies."
Parliamentary bodies had their chance. Parliamentary bodies couldn't do fuck all with a million-dollar report in front of them. Parliamentary bodies don't understand the harm principle, nor do they seem obligated to. I say, let's try the judges this time.... if they don't kick down the freedom, at least we can say we exausted that avenue.
"When hoping to make new "case law", and as a consequence dissolve as unconstitutional existing statute, you must look at the evolution of the jurisprudence involved. "
Fuck that. None of them had harm reduction arguments. I say, lets try that route ..... seems like it was "custom made" for it.....considering Mill's On Liberty and how much of the book seems to anticipate drug prohibition and alcohol prohibition.
"When we talk about the constitutionality of simple possession, we see Parker and Richardson as good models to build from."
I think they suck.
" My comments above are strictly with that in mind. Trafficking has been decriminalized for purposes related to harm reduction i.e. med use."
Medical necessity and harm reduction are two different arguments.
"Yes, they currently are forms of absolute defense to Drug control laws, or mitigation of (decriminalization) of sentencing. The whole idea as to where to go from here entails extending the line of cases (jurisprudence) to include personal use and sources, and from decriminalization to legalization."
You must be very old to be so comfortable and patient for the rest of us.
Paraphrasing MLK JR "How can you set the timetable for another man's freedom?"
"I am sure you will become less antagonistic once you fully grasp what is going on legally. Your harm reduction arguments do nothing but reinforce the notion that parliament has the competence to do what it pleases when we talk about recreational use of Cannabis."
How does limiting them to criminalizing harmful behavior do that?
"It allows the untested myths to come into play."
By all means, let's test the myths.
"Focusing away from the areas that have succeeded in the recent past makes no sense if you wish to have the case law evolve the way your rhetoric indicates."
It makes sense if you wanna see poor people grow and deal before you die.
"Decriminalization is NOT simply defined as "not having a criminal record." Perhaps you should check Lindesmith out for a neutral definition, one you might respect, if you don't respect anything I offer. Decriminalization means "no incarceration" and disposition outside the criminal court arena."
In singapore, they make similar distinctions.....kind of makes it sound nicer......."I'm not a criminal, I have BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS.....I'm SICK."
They said the same thing about homosexuals before those folks finally won some dignity.
"Drug Courts do not qualify from a technical standpoint so long as incarceration is a factor."
We wern't talking technical, we were talking "day to day" usage....they're trying to sell drug courts as "decrim" in Canada.
"Case law that precludes incarceration as a deterrent for an offense technically does meet the definition.
That is the kind of misinformation you unintentionally give out."
This is the kind of misinformation the state gives out. See my article: "Decrim, Singapore Style" in the back issues section of www.cannabisculture.com - issue #26.
"You did that with your former claim on the evolution of the necessity defense and Netherlands decriminalization/legalization. In matters of a technical nature, the devil is in the detail. Again I'm sorry to bring you this news."
None of this seems to be "poking holes" in the harm reduction argument, so I don't really see why you're gloating.
"You, being a professional activist, politician and journalist, should be encouraged to be more accurate with the terms you purport to understand."
You, being an anonymous armchair critic, shouldn't break your arm patting yourself on the back. You convinced of one thing, if anything, that no matter how clear you make something, there's always someone out there who isn't satisfied. Instead of arguing facts (something you seem to be weak on) you keep saying "harm reduction" ain't the way to go!
But you are so so so so so wrong on that. You are grasping at straws and not bringing out any coherent argument, just nit pickin every little thing you can.
"People look to you for answers."
I hope I have provided some people with them. You seem terrably hard to satisfy.
"Section 7 challenge along the lines of Prowse's opinion are the best shot for making a case for unconstitutionality."
That's crazy talk. Why would I spend time arguing about if (in Prowse's words) cannabis use inherently had a "signifigant" harm or a "trivial" harm if the evidence suggests improper use is harmful (and potentially deadly with heavy machinery) and, when used properly, harmless?
"A clear choice between two competing tests which make up the difference in outcome of the case is before the court. Decrim is the best hope; affirmation of the decision below is the likely outcome in the Supreme Court cases because the appellants seem to be losing track of what really is being seriously contested; and I'll take wagers from anyone convinced that the court will overrule the court below."
I don't bet with anonymous flack throwers. And a slave who asks for wippings instead of beatings is still a slave.
"Section 15, imo, applies to people being equal under the law, not consumer products being equal under the law."
Ya. People, like those who use and deal stimulants, relaxants and euphoriants.
"Germany, to my knowledge, is the only country that varied, and that was a lower court."
Just because someone in the heart of the last witchhunt had the courage to speak the truth in a sea of present witchhunters, does not make that truth any less real. We should not scold the judge for being the single voice of reason, we should be amazed that the voice even exists at all...... the professionals being, for the most part, the most cowardly of humans.
"I have struggled against tyranny. I didn't do that in order to substitute another." Desmond Tutu
|
Shade
(journeyman)
4/17/01 03:07 PM
|
|
Re: Harm Principle v. Cannabis Harm Reduction
[Post#: 117897
/ re: 117459
]
|
|
|
@David
If your posts are any indication, I'm sure you would be dangerous with a shotgun. But the "shotgun" approach usually signals some weakness in the jurisprudence.
Re: Your friend SCC clerk on the Factum: "It Rocks!". Well, that surely is enlightening. Answers all of my doubts.
I have never said harm reduction is not the way to go. I suggest using your case right now to challenge trafficking under harm reduction is not strategically sound. I understand that being unrepresented and this being your "baby" if you will creates a sensitivity in you that makes it tough to discern devil's advocacy from the devil himself.
Given Rastaruss' clarification on the use of the term Decrim., I concede we are trifling with semantics. I took a strict interpretation, you used a loose interpretation, nothing was gained in the exchange.
I did note the incident where the feds mandated BC to stop prosecuting simple possession in '95 as a flagrantly false signal and agitant when thereafter RMCP did just the opposite in their selective prosecution of certain pockets of contained usage.
I also note the frustration in parliament's failure to act on policy reform.
Med use as a test case had no existing precedent under the charter, it was an evolution, an extension, not a change of mind or jurisprudence; and I meant to include it as positive reiforcement for the cases which have followed. The harm principle has case precedent. The harm reduction principle may be interpreted as an extension of that. But if you go before the court and suggest you have no idea where it belongs in the black letter jurisprudence, they will probably dismiss it after full hearing. The Court allowing the issues you want included might just as well signal their intent on killing two birds with one stone.
The court below heard argument as to constitutionality of simple possession, giving the appearance that they accepted most of your arguments on face value. They then went through their required analysis as to how to resolve the issue under a constitutional framework. Two different standards as to what the degree of harm must be in the proscribed activity were enunciated. I'm not sure actual harm was required to be shown for the court to find the law constitutional under prior caselaw.
Do you agree with either of the tests announced? If not, did you suggest an alternative jurisprudence you can agree with that somehow escaped the reasons for the judgement rendered and opinion?
I am looking at the confines of the litigation. I don't see where much of your points albeit good ones, fit in the scheme of the jurisprudence evolving, other than the observations made in earlier posts. And I see no justification for the court to abandon their duty of restraint on matters reserved for the body politic. Stare decisis weighs heavily on the court system.
Your Taste and Pursuits argument is one of your best, it too runs against existing precedent that held there is no fundamental right to possess marijuana. Are you carving out new precedent or revisiting prior rulings when you raise the Taste and Pursuits argument? I find the argument grounded in scection 7, not 15. Yet section 15 would allow you to test your equal protection argument and set precedent. The section 7 placement for the argument rehashes old issues in a more liberal environment. Either way, this argument needs to be sustained.
If I missed where you suggest a whole different jurisprudence, I'll back up. Otherwise, that's all that's before the court. I don't see where they are reviewing earth shattering reforms in law.
If you cannot prevail on simple possession, you won't prevail on trafficking. True or not? If you don't like Parker and Richardson, how would you have decided the cases given case precedent? If you were to have violated stare decisis, under what jurisprudential justification in Richardson? What bothers you about Parker? The fact that the court distinguished med use from rec use and found favorably for one, but not the other?
I don't have a sense of dissatisfaction for the work you are doing. But I do sense a dissatisfaction on your part with the legal system and legislative process. Been there. It's a bitch.
You skirt my focus. Where does your argument for harm reduction fit in the framework of your constitutional analysis, how the law integrates with your argument. Prowse articulates a roadmap for the courts to follow in order to prevail on the simple possession beef. Doesn't Conroy and Young follow that map. If you don't like Prowse's opinion, how would you have written the decision?
If you win the case, hooray! If you lose, the question remains, did the cause get delayed another generation before the next opportunity arises due to unfavorable case precedent? Did the present case present prematurely harm reduction arguments that might have been fitted more easily into a defined jurisprudence after the dust clears in Caine/Clay/Malmo-Levine?
And so on...critics are a fact of life.
|
talisman
(journeyman)
4/18/01 07:32 AM
|
|
Re: Court's have set precedent
[Post#: 118219
/ re: 117496
]
|
|
|
david and rastaruss: I hear ya
1. When state interest maintains fundamental justice to serve an exclusive state interest which exceeds REASONABLE LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY LAW AS CAN BE DEMONSTRATABLY JUSTIFIED, systemic discrimination is enacted.
Studies almost unanimously recommend that Parliment reconsider its' position; Parliment has not sufficiently done so. Amendments (to the Act) have offered no resolution for social and spiritual cannabis use while further unduly burdening that use.
[30]In Cunningham at p. 151, McLachlin J. had also held that the “Charter does not protect against insignificant or ‘trivial’ limitations of rights”.
According to a recent National Post poll , 65 per cent of Canadians agree that possession of small amounts of cannabis for personal use should not be criminalized. Yet, 19,200 adults and youths were charged for possession of cannabis. 2,000 Canadians went to jail on simple possession charges. On the strength of a law two out of three Canadians want abolished. How insignificant or trivial is a
limitation of rights is that?
There is on record, numerous recognized publications which have critized governmental attempts of suppressing information (most of that critisism is directed at the U.S.Agencies); Canada requires applications of Freedom of Informaton and/or reference to that Act.
2. Overview of medical studies, judicial findings, and, statistical comparisons of alcohol, tobacco and cannabis demonstrate that alcohol and tobacco have significantly more far-reaching negative consequence upon the individual and, far more societal woes that extend well beyond any dangers associated with cannabis use... the state interest
exceeds REASONABLE LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY LAW AS CAN BE DEMONSTRATABLY JUSTIFIED.
[31] Finally, the harm principle as articulated by Braidwood J.A. is not unlike a principle of fundamental justice described by Sopinka J. at pp. 594-95 of Rodriguez. He held that where the “deprivation of the right in question does little or nothing to enhance the state's interest (whatever it may be), it seems to me that a breach of fundamental justice will be made out, as the individual’s rights will have been deprived for no valid
purpose”. Similarly, if the marihuana prohibition, which risks depriving the appellant of his liberty, does little or nothing to enhance the state’s interests because there is no rational basis for finding that marihuana use is harmful, there is a breach of fundamental justice.
3. To coerce behaviour that exceeds state interest of REASONABLE LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY LAW AS CAN BE DEMONSTRATABLY JUSTIFIED constitutes systemic discrimination and persecution.
Justice McCart (in Clay v.Crown) found that Cannabis legislation an awkward political question.
Economist Milton Friedman states: "Legalizing drugs would simultaneously reduce the amount of crime and raise the quality of law enforcement. Can you conceive of any other measure that so would accomplish much to
promote law and order."
What about the criminal acts of abuse of authority?
4. Section 32.(1)states: This Charter applies (a) to the Parliment and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliment including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and (b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.
5. In accordance with Section 52.(1) the Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or
effect. And Section 52.(2) The Constitution of Canada includes (a) the Canada Act, including this Act; (b) the Acts and orders referred to in Schedule I; and (c)any ammendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph
6. In accordance to the Canadian Bill of Rights in its entirety
7. In accordance to the appropriate Sections and Subsections of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1-27)
8. Applicable aspects of cases/case law includes McCart, Parker, Krieger, etc.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Commentary, Tarnopolsky & Beaudoin ISBN O-459 34920-1(bound),
ISBN O-459-35230-X (pbk). Interpertation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Some General Considerations pg 25 - 39.
|
Common_Sense
(stranger
)
4/18/01 07:59 AM
|
|
Re: Harm Principle v. Cannabis Harm Reduction
[Post#: 118225
/ re: 117459
]
|
|
|
@ David
A gentleman was just interviewed by John Gormley on NTR 650 radio, in Saskatchewan, who had just completed and published a study on teens in Canada. One of the areas studied was drug use. He is publishing the fact that, although drugs are considerably more available than in the 60's, 70's and 80's, the use by Teens is considerably less.
As I just caught the tail end of this program, I did not catch his name or publication. This is a current study and perhaps something worth mentioning.
Let me know if you want details and I will call the radio station and post the info for you.
...For what it's worth.
|
davidmalmolevine
(superposter)
4/18/01 06:59 PM
|
|
Re: Harm Principle v. Cannabis Harm Reduction
[Post#: 118494
/ re: 117897
]
|
|
|
@Everyone else listening in......
Am I being understood? Or am I unclear?
@Shade
"I have never said harm reduction is not the way to go. I suggest using your case right now to challenge trafficking under harm reduction is not strategically sound."
You are so wrong. You can deal with impairment with proper use, but you can only deal with lung damage through proper dealing and growing. In other words, you can't have real harm reduction without having regulated (organic, no mould etc etc) growing and dealing. If you don't address all the laws, you can't deal with their number one concern.
"Med use as a test case had no existing precedent under the charter, it was an evolution, an extension, not a change of mind or jurisprudence; and I meant to include it as positive reiforcement for the cases which have followed. The harm principle has case precedent. The harm reduction principle may be interpreted as an extension of that. But if you go before the court and suggest you have no idea where it belongs in the black letter jurisprudence, they will probably dismiss it after full hearing."
Read the argument. It goes "Mill wrote the book on liberty (literally), then P. E. Trudeau stole from the book to make our constitution. On liberty talks about protecting dealers in hard liquor. Protecting dealers of substances is an idea who's time has come. It comes out of a correct reading of the Constitution, one that recognises autonomy and the relative harmlessness of non-black market cannabis use (the harm principle and the idea of proper use are two ideas that the Supreme Court never had before them....).
I don't care if there is no precedent.....it, like the end of Jim Crow laws (also without precedent) is an idea who's time has come. Public opinion has changed along with our understanding of cannabis, and the courts are quicker to pick up on that change than the politicians.
"The Court allowing the issues you want included might just as well signal their intent on killing two birds with one stone. The court below heard argument as to constitutionality of simple possession, giving the appearance that they accepted most of your arguments on face value. They then went through their required analysis as to how to resolve the issue under a constitutional framework. Two different standards as to what the degree of harm must be in the proscribed activity were enunciated. I'm not sure actual harm was required to be shown for the court to find the law constitutional under prior caselaw.
Do you agree with either of the tests announced?"
No. Both of the tests are seen as levels of "inherent harm", rather than recognising the harm can be reduced/eliminated. None of the studies they cite when they speak of "harms" are of PROPERLY USED CANNABIS ..... only mis-used cannabis. I say that, until tests are done on properly used cannabis, we won't know the actual level of harm. Any honest review of the evidence on the subject will reveal that, with PROPERLY SMOKED CANNABIS, the harms, if any, are well below that of PROPERLY USED CAFFEINE.
"If not, did you suggest an alternative jurisprudence you can agree with that somehow escaped the reasons for the judgement rendered and opinion?"
Yes. Judge Howard and the WHO report both reveal "harm reduction" arguments......the judges chose to ignore these statements in their decision.
"I am looking at the confines of the litigation. I don't see where much of your points albeit good ones, fit in the scheme of the jurisprudence evolving, other than the observations made in earlier posts."
Harmless people are protected by the Constitution. Proper use, growing and dealing is harmless. What more do you need?
"And I see no justification for the court to abandon their duty of restraint on matters reserved for the body politic. Stare decisis weighs heavily on the court system. Your Taste and Pursuits argument is one of your best, it too runs against existing precedent that held there is no fundamental right to possess marijuana."
Not to "possess marijuana" - the fundamental right is "to not be harmed if you are doing no harm" ....... you, like the courts, use the straw man argument when you really should be responding to what was written.
"Are you carving out new precedent or revisiting prior rulings when you raise the Taste and Pursuits argument?"
Lots of prior rulings. B.R. v. Children's Aid Society, Morgentaler, Vriend, three studies of "Criminality" etc etc...... For details, see "What I told the High Court" in this forum.
"I find the argument grounded in scection 7, not 15."
Gotta read the Vriend part again. Sec. 15 is a list of characteristics. Homosexuality has just been added. What do the characteristics have in common? They are all 1) Not inherently harmfull, and 2) Historically persecuted "minorities" (or in the case of women, a dominated majority)....drug users fit the bill perfectly.
"Yet section 15 would allow you to test your equal protection argument and set precedent. The section 7 placement for the argument rehashes old issues in a more liberal environment. Either way, this argument needs to be sustained."
Feel free to suggest things that would "shore them up" .... most people are satisfied that proper cannabis use exists.....and most people understand that if proper use exists, then users, growers and dealers are harmless people that need protection. Most people.
"If I missed where you suggest a whole different jurisprudence, I'll back up. Otherwise, that's all that's before the court. I don't see where they are reviewing earth shattering reforms in law."
What would be earth - shattering would be to recognise that the harm principle applies to the current scapegoats - drug users, growers and dealers. That would end the biggest war in the world. Shatter shatter shatter.
"If you cannot prevail on simple possession, you won't prevail on trafficking."
I'm gonna give them a 30 minute crash course in proper growing and dealing and smoking.......trafficking first - the others will be a cinch.
"True or not?"
False as fuck. I could teach a ten year old how to grow and deal pot safely. The Judges should have no trouble following along.
"If you don't like Parker and Richardson, how would you have decided the cases given case precedent?"
They were not challenging the right of healthy people to grow and deal. Apples and oranges. Case precedents of rec. dealing and such suck - they don't recognise harm reduction even exists.
"If you were to have violated stare decisis, under what jurisprudential justification in Richardson?"
Richardson was a nice case in a sentancing respect, but it didn't do fuck all for harm reduction awareness.
"What bothers you about Parker?"
Medical necessity is different from the harm principle. The harm principle protects healthy users, poor, "uneducated" growers and dealers - all scapegoats present and future.
"The fact that the court distinguished med use from rec use and found favorably for one, but not the other?"
Harm reduction strategies didn't come up in that trial either.
"I don't have a sense of dissatisfaction for the work you are doing. But I do sense a dissatisfaction on your part with the legal system and legislative process. Been there. It's a bitch. "
Hey, I'm having fun.
"You skirt my focus."
you skirt mine. do you 1) agree that the harms can be reduced to lower than caffeine levels? 2) agree that harmless people are protected by the constitution
? What's your problem, then?
"Where does your argument for harm reduction fit in the framework of your constitutional analysis, how the law integrates with your argument."
I hope you understand, now. I just went through the whole two-sentance formula for the upteenth time. I hope you understand now. Harmless people protected. Proper use/growing/dealing harmless. Two sentances.
"Prowse articulates a roadmap for the courts to follow in order to prevail on the simple possession beef. Doesn't Conroy and Young follow that map."
They choose to avoid harm reduction too. I disagree. We give the court two ways to free us......whether they believe in harm reduction or not, we can win either way. I think it's a smart strategy, myself.
"If you don't like Prowse's opinion, how would you have written the decision?"
Harm reduction exists....proper use, growing and dealing are harmless......pot culture is protected....cafes should be allowed immediately, and politicians should consult with health professionals and activists to write up regulations that adress societies concerns regarding MIS use of cannabis.
"If you win the case, hooray! If you lose, the question remains, did the cause get delayed another generation before the next opportunity arises due to unfavorable case precedent?"
I would rather try and fail with the truth than be too scared to attempt it and just trust that the same, watered-down cow-towing pussy footing spineless sissy minimal-dignity arguments will work better now than they did in the late seventies.
"Did the present case present prematurely harm reduction arguments that might have been fitted more easily into a defined jurisprudence after the dust clears in Caine/Clay/Malmo-Levine?"
"malmo-levine" is about trafficking only. I had to teach the lower courts all about the harm principle, so they only got ten minutes on dealing......
This time, I'll be doing most of my education on proper dealing...they wont be able to ignore harm reduction arguments any longer.
"I have struggled against tyranny. I didn't do that in order to substitute another." Desmond Tutu
|
|
