Michael Muirhead

>Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 17:43:51 -0800
>From: muirhead@haidagwaii.net (Michael)
>Subject: [MedPot-discuss] What about the rule of *law*?
 
Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin
Supreme Court of Canada
301 Wellington Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0J1
 
December 28, 2004
 
Dear Justice McLachlin,
 
Back in 1978 when I became an adult Canadian, I was 
privately displeased with some of the rules by which we 
Canadians govern ourselves as a nation. Some of them were - 
prima facie - plainly wrong, while others simply lacked good 
sense to underpin them and didn't seem justified, especially 
in light of the cost of enforcing them.  However, I let it 
all be for the most part, because it rarely interfered with 
how I did things.
 
Rarely has it happened (at least, it's never happened in my 
personal experience,) that a Canadian law has managed at the 
same time to be morally wrong, logically unjustified, *and* 
prohibitively expensive to enforce and to perpetuate... but 
our "Marihuana" statutes under the CDSA have done so, and 
they have done so in spectacular fashion, if I may say so.
 
What's more, they have done so without the actual force of 
law behind them, since there are arrests and prosecutions 
under their dictates ongoing even now, despite courts in 
both Alberta (R. v. Kreiger) and Ontario (R. v. Parker) 
having struck them down as unconstitutional years ago... 
*and* despite the Supreme Court of Canada having refused to 
hear an appeal of the Alberta decision that struck down the 
law.
 
How is it that police have been able to continue arresting 
(and Crown prosecutors have been able to continue trying) 
citizens who have not broken any existing law?
 
Ask S. David Frankel. He's the fellow currently sitting in a 
position to tell *everyone* serving in Crown Counsel that 
the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act presently does not 
pertain in any way to "marihuana". He's the roadblock (and 
likely the scapegoat, if I may hazard a guess,) standing in 
the way of the "administration of justice"... as in 
"adherence to the rule of law".
 
There are monied interests (for instance, check out who 
Cannasat's shareholders and representatives are...) looking 
to cash in - very large scale - on the use of Cannabis as 
medicine, and they're looking to do so by maintaining 
Canada's general prohibition (complete with penal 
sanctions,) of the cultivation, possession, and use of 
Cannabis by ordinary citizens. This will allow them to 
charge prices for their products which compete reasonably 
with the "danger pay" being charged presently for black-
market marijuana... even though the black market is fraught 
with risks Cannasat would never face.
 
For example... based on what I've been reading in the 
pharmaceutical-market literature, it will be possible for 
Cannasat to charge over $1000 (retail value) for products 
extracted from a single gram of top-notch marijuana... the 
entire gram of which anyone with a green thumb and some time 
to spend can grow for themselves at a cost of $3 or so.
 
Maintaining prohibition thus serves only one purpose: it 
grants (to a VERY few people,) a monopoly market for the 
sale of cannabis-derived drugs... while making sure at the 
same time that their only competitors are criminals... 
criminals who charge extra for the risks they undertake to 
supply consumers with one of the least toxic drugs known to 
man... criminal competitors whom Cannasat can depend on the 
RCMP and other police forces to arrest and prosecute on 
their behalf.
 
If a law promulgated by Canada's legislature is going to be 
enforced, it should be consistent, it should be logically 
supported, and it should be fair.   Prohibition of marijuana 
is none of these, and for all three violations, it has been 
justly struck down in two provinces under two differing sets 
of grounds.
 
Mr. Frankel stands in the way of all three of these 
principles in his treatment of people who've been caught 
"breaking" a law that doesn't exist anymore... and findings 
against him for contempt for and abuse of process are 
probably in order.   That's where you come in.
 
I have multiple sclerosis, diagnosed nearly a decade ago... 
and on advice given me by my mother (who also has MS,) I 
smoke marijuana to relieve spasms and spasticity in my legs, 
and to provide me with restful sleep from which I can awaken 
with energy enough to get on with my day.  It *works*, and 
for the purposes for which I use it, it's considerably 
cheaper and *vastly* safer than anything else I've been 
offered by 10 whole years' worth of medical professionals.
 
There are many tens of thousands of others in situations 
similar to mine. There are millions more whose use of 
marijuana throughout their lives has done no one the 
slightest harm.   There is *NO LAW* preventing them from 
doing so, but they are being prevented nonetheless, by 
ignorant police and by zealous advocates (and financial 
beneficiaries) of a dead statute.
 
It's up to you and the SCC to inform them all - by way of 
citations against Mr. Frankel? - that there *is* no law 
which prohibits the use, possession or cultivation of 
Cannabis in this country.   The old law died ages ago, and 
until Parliament comes up with a new law, there is no longer 
*any* law.
 
Sincerely,
Michael Muirhead
Queen Charlotte City, BC
250-559-9012
 
JCT: Thanks for getting this on the record in the Chief 
Justice's office. Someday, historians will have access to 
those records and will honor those with the gumption to have 
spoken up. As for the others, remember my answer to those 
who say "what can one person do?" "Obviously nothing if that 
person is you. If it's me, my best."