A defence to Cannibis charges based on freedom of religion

[lightning]

Please do not flame me for this. it is but an opinion to which I am entitled. It is a legal, theological and moral argument against the prohibition of a plant.You may find some things you agree with, some you don't and there are links to many helpful documents when mounting a defense to charges. All constructive comment is of course welcomed and encouraged. please feel free to plagarize this document for what ever purpose may further the battle to ending prohibition.I would love to read a response to this from that major wanker from the salvos that Johnny put in the ICNB, by the book he proclaims as God's truth he is wrong.

 

It cannot be seriously contested that there exists a class of individuals for whom the Holy Bible constitutes the literal and unerring Word of God. Furthermore it cannot be seriously contested that there exists a class of individuals for whom cannabis provides effective relief from pain and suffering.^{1 2}

The choices a person makes about their medical treatment is implicitly tied to their personal religious belief or non belief and therefore amounts to the same argument.

Some people view the cultivation, possession and use of cannabis for use as a food or medicine and for use in religious observance is indispensable for their physical and spiritual health and well being and according to international treaties they have the right to believe that Yet they are vilified for their belief and worse still called criminals for it!! This flies in the face of all human rights and many international and Australian laws yet the Government promotes this discrimination.

This raises issues of important public interest. Government or law enforcement intrusion on individual decision-making in these circumstances must be scrutinized because of the notion of the idea of physical freedom and self-determination and because they involve matters that are central to personal dignity and autonomy. Also the idea of freedom of thought, conscience and religion ³ and because they involve matters that are central to, in public or private, the peoples right to manifest their religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.⁴

The principle that individuals should have primary responsibility for determining the course of their own medical treatment applies with special force when relief from extreme, intolerable pain is concerned. Intense pain is a direct assault on dignity and personality. Requiring an individual to fore go effective pain relief and endure needless suffering is alien to our legal tradition and to the basic ethical norms that guide the practice of medicine.⁵

It is especially troubling that individuals who possess cannabis for use in religious observance and medical treatment must make their decisions in the shadow of the criminal law. Centuries of Anglo-Australian and American, British and other International Law stand against the imposition of criminal liability on individuals for pursuing their own religious belief and medical treatment for quality of life purposes.

The Courts have also recognised that people are harmed when they are deterred from freely exercising their own religious beliefs or choosing their own medical treatment and the possibility of intervention by law enforcement agents has a uniquely potent distorting effect on an individual’s health and well being.⁶

As a practical matter, the failure to recognize the difference between the possession of a herb such as cannabis when used in the free expression of religious belief or medical treatment and the possession of cannabis for misuse, abuse or illicit trafficking in drugs has far-reaching pernicious effects. The abuse, misuse and illicit trafficking in drugs is a serious complex problem and has many causes. However the thinness of the line separating possession of cannabis for use in the free expression of religious belief or medical treatment and from violation of the criminal law are more reflective of fears and unfounded assumptions than of legal, medical and scientific reality.⁷

The legal recognition of the principle that “[e]very human being of adult years and sound mind has the right to determine what shall be done with his own body” predates modern constitutional jurisprudence. In 1765 Blackstone described a common law right to bodily integrity as including a right to “the preservation of a man’s health from such practices as may prejudice or annoy it.” ⁸We the people contend that the freedom to choose what a person does or does not put in their own mouth is the essence of this right. ”

In fact modern constitutional jurisprudence is but a blip on the horizon of the 5 thousand year documented history of Medicinal and Religious use of Cannabis without one death reported.

The power asserted by the Police is a serious encroachment on the peoples interests safeguarded by international and Commonwealth law and it is extremely offensive that they have been branded as criminals for pursuing the free expression of their religious belief in choosing their medical treatment.

The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; includes freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest their religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. As reflected in International human rights instruments ratified by the Commonwealth of Australia and adopted in Commonwealth and Victorian acts of Parliament. ^.9

The lawful use of cannabis for such purposes is reflected in the principles of international treaties and human rights instruments ratified by the Commonwealth of Australia and supported in legal authority.

In Australia there is no legislation or binding administrative ruling specifically stating that the possession of cannabis for religious use is prohibited. In fact Section 116 of the Constitution States-

116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any

religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for

prohibiting the free exercise of any religion,(emphasis added) and no religious test

shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust

Any construction of the Australian Drug Laws which construed that it was an offense to cultivate posses or use cannabis for exercising religious belief or practice would have the effect of rendering the law invalid in that it would directly contradict the constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. This construction would also render the law in conflict with Australia's obligations under the International Human Rights accords and the UN Charter to which Australia is a signatory.

It is acknowledge that the free exercise of religion is tempered by the limitation that, our free expression must not impinge on others rights and freedoms, or insight hatred as expressed under the International Human Rights accords. We contend our free expression of belief undertaken in the privacy of our own homes impinges on no other person.

Neither does the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961¹⁰ to which Australia is a party specifically prohibit the possession of cannabis for medicinal or religious use as the specified penal provisions are subject to constitutional limitations. In fact the Treaty itself requires the Australian Government to ensure adequate supply of medicinal cannabis is available for pain management. An obligation they have completely failed to fulfill.

The international control of narcotic drugs has been administered by the United Nations since 1946, with the aims of combating drug abuse and illicit trafficking,

[/color] There are limits on the power of the Police to deal with individuals who possess herbal substances such as cannabis, when used for medical purposes. This is reflected in international drug and human rights instruments ratified by the Commonwealth of Australia and adopted in Commonwealth and Victorian acts of Parliament. The Drug Laws do not give police power to prosecute individuals who possess cannabis for medical or religious use any more than it gives them the right to prosecute individuals who possess codeine tablets to manage a headache. Current police practices however substantially interfere with the practice of pain management and free exercise of religious belief. The purpose of the drug laws is supposed to be to prevent misuse of the substances or carrying on a business of unlawfully trafficking in drugs. Not to torture the sick and suffering.

International Treaties

The formulation of a general principle of statutory interpretation by reference to international obligations was considered in Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration, ^{<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote11anc" href="#sdfootnote11sym">11} Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ¹² said:

“[C]ourts should, in a case of ambiguity, favour a construction of a Commonwealth statute which accords with the obligations of Australia under an international treaty.”

The footnote supporting that proposition referred to what was said by Lord Diplock¹³ in Garland v British Rail Engineering Ltd:¹⁴

“t is a principle of construction of United Kingdom statutes ... that the words of a statute passed after the Treaty has been signed and dealing with the subject matter of the international obligation of the United Kingdom, are to be construed, if they are reasonably capable of bearing such a meaning, as intended to carry out the obligation, and not to be inconsistent with it.”

In Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh,¹⁵ Mason CJ and Deane J¹⁶ said:

“Where a statute or subordinate legislation is ambiguous, the courts should favour that construction which accords with Australia's obligations under a treaty or international convention to which Australia is a party, at least in those cases in which the legislation is enacted after, or in contemplation of, entry into, or ratification of, the relevant international instrument. That is because Parliament, prima facie, intends to give effect to Australia's obligations under international law.”

The qualification in that passage is consistent with what Mason CJ¹⁷ had earlier said in Yager v The Queen:¹⁸

“There is no basis on which the provisions of an international convention can control or influence the meaning of words or expressions used in a statute, unless it appears that the statute was intended to give effect to the convention, in which event it is legitimate to resort to the convention to resolve an ambiguity in the statute.”

Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961

The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961 supports the proposition that the possession of cannabis is not prohibited when limited to medical or religious purposes.

The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 New York, 30 March 1961; Australian Treaty Series, 1967 No 0031, Australian Treaty Series Library, Health and Social Services was ratified by the Commonwealth of Australia in 1967. Cannabis is listed in Schedule IV to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961.

The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 does not specifically proscribe the medical use of cannabis, but is concerned with the health and welfare of mankind. The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 provides general obligations of the Parties, which include Australia, that drugs such as medical cannabis “must” (emphasis added) be made available for the relief of pain and suffering.

The Preamble to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 states, acknowledges and recognises that:

“the medical use of narcotic drugs continues to be indispensable for the relief of pain and suffering and that adequate provision “must” (emphasis added) be made to ensure the availability of narcotic drugs for such purposes.”

Article 4 - General Obligations states:

1. The Parties shall take such legislative and administrative measures as may be necessary:

a) To give effect to and carry out the provisions of this Convention within their own territories; and

To co-operate with other States in the execution of the provisions of this Convention;

and

c) Subject to the provisions of this Convention, to limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs.

Article 23 - National opium agencies states:

1. A Party that permits the cultivation of the opium poppy for the production of opium shall establish, if it has not already done so, and maintain, one or more government agencies (hereafter in this article referred to as the Agency) to carry out the functions required under this article.

2. Each such Party shall apply the following provisions to the cultivation of the opium poppy for the production of opium and to opium:

a) The Agency shall designate the areas in which, and the plots of land on which, cultivation of the opium poppy for the purpose of producing opium shall be permitted.

b) Only cultivators licensed by the Agency shall be authorized to engage in such cultivation.

c) Each licence shall specify the extent of the land on which the cultivation is permitted.

d) All cultivators of the opium poppy shall be required to deliver their total crops of opium to the Agency. The Agency shall purchase and take physical possession of such crops as soon as possible, but not later than four months after the end of the harvest.

e) The Agency shall, in respect of opium, have the exclusive right of importing, exporting, wholesale trading and maintaining stocks other than those held by manufacturers of opium alkaloids, medicinal opium or opium preparations. Parties need not extend this exclusive right to medicinal opium and opium preparations.

3. The governmental functions referred to in paragraph 2 shall be discharged by a single government agency if the constitution of the Party concerned permits it.

Article 28 - Control of cannabis provides:

1. If a Party permits the cultivation of the cannabis plant for the production of cannabis or cannabis resin, it shall apply thereto the system of controls as provided in article 23 respecting the control of the opium poppy.

3. The Parties shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to prevent the misuse of, and illicit traffic in, the leaves of the cannabis plant.

The Single Convention on Narcotics in Article 36: Penal provisions states:-

Article 36

PENAL PROVISIONS

a) Subject to its constitutional limitations, (emphasis added) each Party shall adopt such measures as will ensure that cultivation, production, manufacture, extraction, preparation, possession, offering, offering for sale, distribution, purchase, sale, delivery on any terms whatsoever, brokerage, dispatch, dispatch in transit, transport, importation and exportation of drugs contrary to the provisions of this Convention, and any other action which in the opinion of such Party may be contrary to the provisions of this Convention, shall be punishable offences when committed intentionally, and that serious offences shall be liable to adequate punishment particularly by imprisonment or other penalties of deprivation of liberty.

Notwithstanding the preceding subparagraph, when abusers of drugs have committed such offences, the Parties may provide, either as an alternative to conviction or punishment or in addition to conviction or punishment, that such abusers shall undergo measures of treatment, education, after-care, rehabilitation and social reintegration in conformity with paragraph 1 of article 38.

2. Subject to the constitutional limitations of a Party,(emphasis added) its legal system and domestic law,

a) i) Each of the offences enumerated in paragraph 1, if committed in different countries, shall be considered as a distinct offence;

ii) Intentional participation in, conspiracy to commit and attempts to commit, any of such offences, and preparatory acts and financial operations in connexion with the offences referred to in this article, shall be punishable offences as provided in paragraph 1;

iii) Foreign convictions for such offences shall be taken into account for the purpose of establishing recidivism; and

iv) Serious offences heretofore referred to committed either by nationals or by foreigners shall be prosecuted by the Party in whose territory the offence was committed, or by the Party in whose territory the offender is found if extradition is not acceptable in conformity with the law of the Party to which application is made, and if such offender has not already been prosecuted and judgement given.

- 18 -

i) Each of the offences enumerated in paragraphs 1 and 2 a) ii) of this article shall be deemed to be included as an extraditable offence in any extradition treaty existing between Parties. Parties undertake to include such offences as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them.

ii) If a Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may at its option consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of the offences enumerated in paragraphs 1 and 2 a) ii) of this article. Extradition shall be subject to the other conditions provided by the law of the requested Party.

iii) Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize the offences enumerated in paragraphs 1 and 2 a) ii) of this article as extraditable offences between themselves, subject to the conditions provided by the law of the requested Party.

iv) Extradition shall be granted in conformity with the law of the Party to which application is made, and, notwithstanding subparagraphs i), ii) and iii) of this paragraph, the Party, shall have the right to refuse to grant the extradition in cases where the competent authorities consider that the offence is not sufficiently serious.

3. The provisions of this article shall be subject to the provisions of the criminal law of the Party concerned on questions of jurisdiction.

4. Nothing contained in this article shall affect the principle that the offences to which it refers shall be defined, prosecuted and punished in conformity with the domestic law of a Party.

Australia would not be in breach of it's obligations under the treaty as any act passed is subject to the constitutional limitations of the party and the Australian Constitution expressly prohibits the Government making a law that has the impact of prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.

Narcotics Drug Act

In Australia the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 is adopted in Schedule 1 to the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 (Cth) (“the Narcotic Drugs Act”).

Section 6 states:

The Minister for Health, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, the Secretary or the CEO shall, in exercising any power or performing any function conferred on him by this Act, have regard to the obligations of the Commonwealth under the Convention and to no other matter.

Section 7 states:

This Act, regulations under this Act and directions given under ss 12 or 13 do not apply to the exclusion of any law of a State or Territory or any regulation in force under an Act except in so far as that law or that regulation is inconsistent with an express provision of this Act, those regulations or those directions.

Part II of Narcotic Drugs Act contains provisions relating to the licensing of manufacturers in Australia. Similar provisions are contained in state health legislation.

The proposition that the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 can control or influence the meaning of an Act of the Victorian Parliament made in 1981 is not difficult to reconcile with Mason CJ’s statements in Yager v The Queen. In particular it is not difficult to reconcile with the theory that the reason for construing a statute in the light of Australia's international obligations, as stated in Teoh, is that the Parliament, prima facie, intended to give effect to Australia's obligations under international law.

Of one thing we can be sure: the Parliament did intend to give effect to Australia's obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 in respect to drug trafficking by enacting the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 The mischief it was to prevent was the misuse of and trafficking in dangerous drugs in accordance with the principles of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961.

The text and construction of the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 indicates that Parliament meant to preserve the principles of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961. However nothing in the text or structure of the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 suggests that, by recognising the dimension of the national drug trafficking problem, the Parliament intended to enact a law that would make the possession of cannabis when used for religious observance or medical purposes an offence. The recent passing of Human Rights legislation¹⁹ in Victoria shows the our Government did not intend to extinguish those rights with their laws.

The reports of the introduction of and debate on the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 make no mention of its effect of overriding common law applicable to the use of drugs in a medical context or used in the free exercise of religious belief.

Against the background of common law it would be reasonable to expect that governments and legislators would give careful consideration to the principles developed in the common law before abrogating them by statute.

The Narcotic Drugs Act cannot prohibit the use of Cannabis for the free expression of religious belief without rendering itself in contradiction with Section 116 of the Australian Constitution. Therefore the right to posses cannabis for the free expression of Religion cannot be extinguished by the Victorian Legislation for that would contradict the constitutional limitations placed on the Narcotic Drugs Act by Section 116 of the Constitution.

 

Poppy Advisory and Control Board

In Australia the Poppy Advisory and Control Board, Tasmania²⁰ was established in the early 1970's to fulfil Australia's commitment to the 1961 United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs²¹ in repsect to opium. The Board's role in the regulation of the poppy industry is clearly defined:

to act as a licensing authority for the industry

to advise on all matters relating to the cultivation, production and transport of poppies and poppy material

to collect and collate statistical information and prepare reports

to liaise with Australian Government Departments to fulfil Australia's obligations under the International Drug Conventions

to oversee security matters for Tasmanian crops

The Australian Government has failed to ensure that there is an adequate provision of Cannabis available for medical purposes and has failed its obligation under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 in respect of establishing a Cannabis Advisory and Control Board.²²

Due to this failure people have had to seek their medicine in the shadow of the criminal law. Being given only the choices of sourcing through street dealers, there by being involved in the illicit drug trade. A direct breach of the intent of the law. Where no quality control exists and growing methods are often chemically based and therefore far from ideal for religious and medicinal usage.

or

Limited self cultivation using organic methods. Where plants have their roots in soil and their leaves toward the sun as God intended. We contend that God told us to till the soil, and grow our food from the plants of the field of which cannabis is one.²³

Common Law Health Rights

Courts have consistently upheld the right of the individual to decide how to protect his or her own body from injury or death, and have rejected claims that the medical profession or state has a right to impose or dictate treatment.

In Canada, the Ontario Court of Appeal, in Malette and Shulman,²⁴ awarded damages against a doctor who transfused blood into a patient who was unconscious as a result of a motor accident, but who carried a card saying that she would refuse blood transfusions. In delivering the court's judgment Justice Robins²⁵ stated:

“A competent adult is generally entitled to reject a specific treatment, or all treatment, or to select an alternate form of treatment, even if the decision may entail risks as serious as death and may appear mistaken in the eyes of the medical profession or of the community. Regardless of the doctor's opinion, it is the patient who has the final say on whether to undergo the treatment. ... The doctrine of informed consent is plainly intended to ensure the freedom of individuals to make choices concerning their medical care. For this freedom to be meaningful, people must have the right to make choices that accord with their own values regardless of how unwise or foolish those choices may appear to others.”

Justice Robins²⁶ added:

“Recognition of the right to reject medical treatment cannot be said to depreciate the interest of the state in life or in the sanctity of life. Individual free choice and self-determination are themselves fundamental constituents of life. To deny individuals freedom of choice with respect to their health care can only lessen, and not enhance, the value of life. This state interest cannot properly be invoked to prohibit Mrs Malette from choosing for herself whether or not to undergo blood transfusions.”

Justice Robbins²⁷ also stated:

“The right to determine what shall be done with one's own body is a fundamental right in our society. The concepts inherent in this right are the bedrock upon which the principles of self determination and individual autonomy are based. Free individual choice in matters affecting this right should, in my opinion, be accorded very high priority.”

In England, in Re T (Adult: Refusal of medical treatment)²⁸ the House of Lords has made it plain that the right to refuse medical treatment extends even to the point where refusal will result in the likely or certain death of the patient. Lord Donaldson²⁹ acknowledged that there is an:

“absolute right to choose whether to consent to medical treatment, to refuse it or to choose one rather than another of the treatments being offered ... notwithstanding that the reasons for making the choice are irrational, unknown or even non- existent.”

Lord Donaldson³⁰ also said:

“This situation gives rise to a conflict between two interests, that of the patient and that of the society in which he lives. The patient's interest consists of his right to self-determination - his right to live his own life how he wishes, even if it will damage his health or lead to his premature death. Society's interest is in upholding the concept that all human life is sacred and that it should be preserved if at all possible. It is well established that in the ultimate the right of the individual is paramount.”

In Australia, the same doctrine has been affirmed by superior courts. In F against R³¹ the Supreme Court of South Australia considered a surgeon's duty to inform the patient of the risk that an operation will not succeed in its aim. Chief Justice King stated:³²

“The governing consideration is the right of every human being to make the decisions which affect his own life and welfare and to determine the risks which he is willing to undertake."

In Rogers and Whitaker,³³ the High Court stated that the courts have also adopted³⁴ the principle that, while evidence of acceptable medical practice is a useful guide for the courts, it is for the courts to adjudicate on what is the appropriate standard of care after giving weight to "the paramount consideration that a person is entitled to make his own decisions about his life."³⁵

The reports of the introduction of and debate on the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 make no mention of its effect of overriding the common law applicable to the use of drugs in a medical context or the right of the individual to decide how to protect his or her own body from injury or death. Superior courts have rejected claims that the medical profession or state has a right to impose, withhold or dictate an individual’s medical treatment.

There is always an intimate connection between a persons religious belief or non belief and their choice of medical treatment.

Religious Authority to cultivate, possess and use

Our authority for Religious use is based in a literal reading of the Holy Bible, a widely accepted and recognized Holy Scripture. The references are numerous and mostly in the context of what a person can and cannot put in their own mouth. Surely one of the core principles of personal autonomy and freedom of belief. The text references follow and are taken from the New international Version of the Bible.

GE 1:29-31 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. [30] And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day.

GE 9:1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. [2] The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. [3] Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

Cannabis is a green plant bearing seed which can feed, heal, clothe, and house people. Which of the plants people choose to use each day and how they choose to use those plants is between them and their God, and nobody else.

EX 30:22-29 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Take the following fine spices: 500 shekels of liquid myrrh, half as much (that is, 250 shekels) of fragrant cinnamon, 250 shekels of fragrant cane (Kanah Bosm)Heb, 500 shekels of cassia--all according to the sanctuary shekel--and a hin of olive oil. Make these into a sacred anointing oil, a fragrant blend, the work of a perfumer. It will be the sacred anointing oil.(Chrism) Then use it to anoint the Tent of Meeting, the ark of the Testimony, the table and all its articles, the lampstand and its accessories, the altar of incense, the altar of burnt offering and all its utensils, and the basin with its stand. You shall consecrate them so they will be most holy, and whatever touches them will be holy.

A shekel = around 14 grams and a Hin is around 4.5 Litres. In standard measure this recipe equates to about 7 kg of Myrrh, 3.5 kg Cinnamon, 3.5 kg of fragrant cane (Cannabis) and 7kg Cassia in 4.5 litres of olive oil.

MT 15:1-10 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"

Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? ... You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

" `These people honor me with their lips,but their hearts are far from me.

They worship me in vain;their teachings are but rules taught by men.' "

Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. What goes into a man's mouth does not make him `unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him`unclean.' "

AC 10:9-16 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

1TI 4:1-4 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

We the people believe that it is these laws prohibiting the use of certain foods (Plants) that are being spoken of in the Scripture.

RO 14:1-4 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

1CO 10:23-30 "Everything is permissible"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"--but not everything is constructive. Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it." If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

JAS 5:13-16 Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise. Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil (Chrism) in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

<h2 class="western" style="margin-left: 0.22in; margin-right: 0.36in;" align="left" lang="en-US"> </h2> <h2 class="western" style="margin-left: 0.22in; margin-right: 0.36in;" align="left" lang="en-US"> Ancient Judaic use</h2>

Cannabis was an ingredient of holy anointing oil mentioned in various sacred Hebrew texts. Ex.30:22-25 The herb of interest is most commonly known as kanah-bosim (קְנֵה-בֹשֶׂם) (the singular form of which would be kaneh-bos) which is mentioned several times in the Old Testament as a bartering material, incense, and an ingredient in holy anointing oil used by the high priests of the temple. The Septuagint incorrectly translates kaneh-bosm as calamus, and this translation has been propagated unchanged to most later translations of the old testament. However, Polish anthropologist Sula Benet published³⁶ etymological arguments in 1936 that the Aramaic word for hemp can be read as kannabos and appears to be a cognate to the modern word 'cannabis', with the root kan meaning reed or hemp and bosm meaning fragrant. This word appeared in Exodus 30:23, Song of Songs 4:14., Isaiah 43:24, Jeremiah 6:20, Ezekiel 27:19.

In 1980 the Hebrew University in Israel confirmed Benet's identification of Kaneh-Bosm as hemp, and the respected anthropologist Weston La Barre(1980) referred to the Biblical references in an essay on cannabis. In that same year respected British Journal New Scientist also ran a story that referred to the Hebrew Old Testament references, (Malyon & Henman 1980). A modern counterpart of the word is even listed in Ben Yehudas Pocket Dictionary and other Hebrew source books. Further, on line, the Internet's informative Navigating the Bible, used by countless theological students, even refers to the Exodus 30:23 reference as possibly designating cannabis. In 1995, with the publication of Green Gold, the biblical references to cannabis were given their most thorough examination up to that time, but unfortunately this information is still not widely known by most modern day Jews, Christians or religious scholars.

Both cannabis and calamus are fragrant, reed like plants containing psychotropic compounds but only Cannabis forms buds of flowers as described in the scripture. Calamus is also highly toxic making its inclusion in the holy anointing oil very unlikely, Cannabis is non toxic.

The religious authority for use of the cannabis plant is undeniable and irrefutable. We are not only told we can use the plant, we are told we should use, not abuse, the plant, with thanksgiving for the gift which God has granted us. The Holy anointing oil described in Exodus is called the Chrism. Jesus is known as the Christ because He is the Anointed One. Anointed with the Chrism. Christians are the followers of the Anointed One and along with baptism in water should be anointed by the elders of the Church with the Chrism. This is the Fire Baptism spoken of in the New Testament. The Chrism can only be made by the use of the correct herbs and spices of which in our belief Cannabis is a critical ingredient.

In the old testament the use of the Chrism was restricted to the Priests of Israel. However in the New Testament Christians are told that they are a Royal Priesthood in the the line of Melchizedec (1 Peter 2:5) and are therefore entitled and and in fact obliged to use the Chrism.

Any construction of the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 which construes that the making of the Chrism to be a criminal act must be viewed as invalid in that it would contradict Article 116 of the Constitution which expressly forbids the creation of a law which inhibits the free exercise of religion of which making and use of the Chrism and the Holy Incense must surely be viewed.

In fact if We were to follow the exact formula stated in the scripture and attempt to make a full batch of the Chrism they would run the risk, under the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967, of a long term of imprisonment for simply possessing the ingredients. This an undeniable infringement on the free expression of our religious beliefs and therefore of our Human Rights.

The Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 inhibits the free exercise of our religion and therefore the legislation is in contradiction with Article 116 of the Australian constitution rendering it invalid.

Render unto Caesar what is Caeser's and render unto God what is God's. God gave us the plants NOT Caeser so we render them unto God. Caesar can make all the rules he wants about his own Pharmaceuticals, especially the Prescription variety that kill many more each year than all the plants in the world but Caesar should keep his cotton pickin' fingers off God's plants! He has no right to say which plants we use each day and which ones we can't. They are not his! If Caesar wants to prosecute people for selling drugs that kill try starting with Big Pharma.... Cannabis has never killed anyone in 5 thousand years of documented use so stop telling lies about it.

Drug policy should be based in science and truth not hypocrisy.

Do I expect you to agree with my belief? No.... But I do expect you to respect my right to hold it as you would expect me to respect your belief and not vilify you for it?

YES I DO.

1 See Institute of Medicine, Marijuana and Medicine: assessing the science base (“IOM Report”) (1999)

 

2Single Treaty on Narcotics, Preamble (1961)

 

3 Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 18

 

 

4 Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 18

 

5 Brief of Amici Curiae, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Pain Relief Network, California Medical Association, AIDS Action Council, Compassion in Dying Federation, End of Life Choices, National Women’s Health Network, Global Lawyers and Physicians and AUTONOMY Inc in John Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al v Angel McClary Raich, et al, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 03-1454.

 

6 See Brief of Amici Curiae, Note 4.

 

7 See Brief of Amici Curiae, Note 4.

 

8 W. Blackstone, 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England, p 134.

 

9Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006

10 The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 New York, 30 March 1961; Australian Treaty Series, 1967 No 0031, Australian Treaty Series Library, Health and Social Services.

 

11 Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration (1992) 176 CLR 1.

 

12 Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration (1992) 176 CLR 1 at 38.

 

13 Garland v British Rail Engineering Ltd [1983] 2 AC 751 at 771.

 

14 Garland v British Rail Engineering Ltd [1983] 2 AC 751.

 

15 Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh 1995 183 CLR 273.

 

16 Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh 1995 183 CLR 273 at 287.

 

17 Yager v The Queen (1977) 139 CLR 28 at 43-44.

 

18 Yager v The Queen (1977) 139 CLR 28.

 

19 Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006

20 Poppy Advisory and Control Board <http://www.justice.tas.gov.au/poppy/about_us>

 

21 Article 23(1) Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961

 

22 Article 28(1) Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961

 

23Gen 3:17-19 NIV

 

24 Malette and Shulman 2 Med LR 162.

 

25 Malette and Shulman 2 Med LR 162 at 328.

 

26 Malette and Shulman 2 Med LR 162 at 334.

 

27 Malette and Shulman 2 Med LR 162 at 336.

 

28 Re T (Adult: Refusal of medical treatment) [1992] 4 All ER 649.

 

29 Re T (Adult: Refusal of medical treatment) [1992] 4 All ER 649 at 652-653.

 

30 Re T (Adult: Refusal of medical treatment) [1992] 4 All ER 649 at 661.

 

31 F against R (1993) 33 SASR 189.

 

32 F against R (1993) 33 SASR 189 at 192-193.

 

33 Rogers and Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479 at p 487.

 

34Albrighton v. Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (1980) 2 NSWLR, at pp 562-563; F v. R. (1983) 33 SASR 189, at pp 196, 200,202, 205; Battersby v. Tottman (1985) 37 SASR, at pp 527, 534, 539-540; E v. Australian Red Cross (1991) 99 ALR, at pp 648-650)

 

35 F v. R. (1983) 33 SASR, at p 193.

 

 

36Benetowa, Sara, [sula Benet]; Tracing One Word Through Different Languages, (1936),

Edited April 5, 2008 by lightning

[lightning]

Sorry Not all my links are working (especially in the foot notes) I will continue to edit over time to fix that and make this a good reference point.

[Radic]

seen

we live in a christian sociciety

under christian law

seen

if some respected christian schollor challenged the courts

you right

your so right

that is what rock is trying to do in the courts now thru soveign rights

i have some clips from some people who are also currently trying this approch for various reasons

but it all comes from the bible

soveign rights

as you have researched

yo

there is a lota tricky tingsin there to get over tho

like lending money is against gods law

selling food is against gods law

passing your land on to your children when you die is against gods law

to name a few

but hey

remember Ras Dainals case in lismore (a small possision charge)

he set a president in lismore

he defended himself

he won his relegious freedom to smoke cannabis

true

he picked up the bible from court and started reading passages from it

that really freaked the judge right out

yes that very bible dat you have to swear to tell the truth pon

thats where it all comes from

and thats where your soveign rights are written

the queen is a soveign

 

we have been working pon a bibical defence too

here is what we did so far

this statement to be made by the defendent in court to the judge first ting

it works so far

 

I and I Ask for answers to the following 5 questions to be made under penalty of perjury

1.) what is your regulatory authority and delegated authority to address I and I ?

2.) what is your oath of office?

3.) can you show I and I the law that states that a living breathing man can be bound to the Queensland and Australian Constitution and Drugs Misuse Act 1986?

4.) Can you show me the law which made Drugs Misuse Act 1986 part of the Constitution?

 

5.) Can you show me the contract with both signatures on it?

 

 

and they will leave

these doc dont exist

they dont want to listen to this

if the judges answers the will be in perjur in their own court

they will run out of the court

 

at this stage make the court take note of the judges silence as agreement,

and in their absence move the matter will now and forever be closed

 

so that is how far rock got so far

 

 

irey guidance

[lightning]

Radic thanks for the encouragement and peace to you also

 

I must however disagree with some of what you said

 

 

 

quote

like lending money is against gods law

selling food is against gods law

passing your land on to your children when you die is against gods law

to name a few

end quote

 

Lending money is not against God's law but charging interest on the loan is against God's Law

Selling food is not against God's law but we are directed to ensure that our weights and measures are accurate so that we don't rip people off.

Passing land to your children is not against God's law but tythe must be paid to the temple by the children for the grace they have been shown by God.

 

Please if you are going to quote the book read it accuratley first

[Radic]

ok

sorry

thanx for enlighting i

 

still

charging interest on a loan is against God's Law

the banks wont dig dat 1

 

dey will call dees loop holes in the law

and try to stich dem up

they will not give up

seen

nether can we

ok

if there were some allturnitive we could offer they could move to

some honourable way to join we

 

therell never be peace without justice

 

payday will come

 

globalwarming could unite we

 

1 ting is certain

the time for action is now

[Naycha]

Thanks for sharing your hard work with everyone, keep it up!!

[two2time]

you put some time and thought in to this, good on ya!

 

tt

[torture]

yeah not a bad read.... but could you not write it in them silly colours next time... makes it a bitch of a mission to read

[lightning]

torture try clicking on "Skins" on the toolbar at the top of the screen and then choose "OZ Stoners" and you will find it very easy to read

[torture]

tis ok mate i just hilighted it as i read it... so a couple of quick q's?

 

Has anyone tried using this defence yet... besides rock?

So what your saying pretty much for people who dont wanna read all that is that you shouldnt be persecuted on pure religous grounds? Under our constitution? Interesting point i suppose.

 

Our constitution is quite vague when it comes to personal rights... i must of never got as far as reading about the states. So really our best chance of getting these laws changed is to mount a constitutional challenge against the government?

 

Sounds like an expensive idea... but not a bad way of trying to end prohibition in this country... think this is something I personally want to look into further.