Friday, December 5, 2008
Windows Live Hotmail
Windows Live Hotmail: "Having trouble getting the links to work? Try copying and pasting this link into your browser.
Be friends: http://spaces.live.com/accessrequest.aspx?Data=f50c6c0ec53b32711%3axlAr58VcM26egS%2b4XcDBHys1yejn1yY8459n8hlbzdwLOGlRBzUky5jENKw8RythNyC9ShcaM7oXZZgrRx9fuq40CPHLj1%2fF%2f0wcIkRJdNJPSZ9RdXsY%2b37DGOr%2fADtzOmipfyqcfRuCH%2fg3XahcFo24EEOv0KO6WLW5uGEfBwwwhip5tm8TZ6459q5LVa4FiHsq4gwxJsY%3d&Action=1"
Be friends: http://spaces.live.com/accessrequest.aspx?Data=f50c6c0ec53b32711%3axlAr58VcM26egS%2b4XcDBHys1yejn1yY8459n8hlbzdwLOGlRBzUky5jENKw8RythNyC9ShcaM7oXZZgrRx9fuq40CPHLj1%2fF%2f0wcIkRJdNJPSZ9RdXsY%2b37DGOr%2fADtzOmipfyqcfRuCH%2fg3XahcFo24EEOv0KO6WLW5uGEfBwwwhip5tm8TZ6459q5LVa4FiHsq4gwxJsY%3d&Action=1"
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Howdy irrah, have you seen this report ? Taken from 420source.com
Howdy irrah, have you seen this report ?
420source.com - Cheapest Marijuana Seeds: Lowryder, Lowryder2, MasterLow: "Researchers say marijuana is less of a drag than cigarettes
A study published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine was completed on 5,263 teenage students in Switzerland and is producing some hair raising results. In line with a lot of studies that have been released in 2007 and 2008, this study boldly claims that it has found that marijuana use does not produce the fearful symptoms spread by anti-drug groups. The study seems to make a case that teenagers who use only marijuana, opposed to students who use marijuana and cigarettes are more active in sports, have better grades, are more socially adept and have used less illegal drugs.
Topic: Marijuana Articles 0 comments More »"
420source.com - Cheapest Marijuana Seeds: Lowryder, Lowryder2, MasterLow: "Researchers say marijuana is less of a drag than cigarettes
A study published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine was completed on 5,263 teenage students in Switzerland and is producing some hair raising results. In line with a lot of studies that have been released in 2007 and 2008, this study boldly claims that it has found that marijuana use does not produce the fearful symptoms spread by anti-drug groups. The study seems to make a case that teenagers who use only marijuana, opposed to students who use marijuana and cigarettes are more active in sports, have better grades, are more socially adept and have used less illegal drugs.
Topic: Marijuana Articles 0 comments More »"
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Skeleton Argument for Edwin Stratton
More here: http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2008/10/government-challenged-on-drugs-law.html
Skeleton Argument for Edwin Stratton
1. The defendant client objects to this indictment under s7 of the Indictment Act 1915 due to an executive abuse of power that threatens his basic human rights -and the rule of law. Cf. Archbold §1-191 (j) and 4-47 et seq.
2. Accordingly the defendant seeks either 1) to stay the indictment; 2) an adjournment of these proceedings so he can pursue the matter in the Divisional Court; or 3) For this court to decline jurisdiction and require the matter to be pursued in the Divisional Court. Cf. R. v. Central Criminal Court, ex p. Randle and Pottle, 92 Cr.App.R. 323, DC; R v Belmarsh Magistrates ex parte Watts [1999] 2 Cr.App.R. 188 at 195; Archbold § 1-192 & 4-50.
3. The abuse:
a. The defendant believes that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 c.38 (“the Act”) is being applied to him in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner based on historical and cultural factors that lack a consistent and objective basis contrary to Article 14 and within the ambit of other convention rights.
This denies equal protection to the defendant, alleged to be engaged in property activities with “controlled drugs”, as defined by s2(1)(a) of the Act, with respect to analogous persons engaged in the identical property activities with the dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs alcohol and tobacco.
b. The Government’s Position:
"The Government's policy is and has been to regulate drugs which are classified as illegal through the 1971 Act and to regulate the use of alcohol and tobacco separately. This policy sensibly recognises that alcohol and tobacco do pose health risks and can have anti-social effects, but recognises also that consumption of alcohol and tobacco is historically embedded in society and that responsible use of alcohol and tobacco is both possible and commonplace".
c. The Government’s position admits discrimination on the grounds of legal status and property within the ambits of Article 1 of the First Protocol, “protection of property”, Article 8 respect for private life, inter alia. More, the Government’s position includes errors of law and fact.
d. Unjustifiable discrimination:
The Act is interpreted and implemented unequally with respect to consumers, producers and traders of (a) harmful drugs used by minorities, the drugs currently controlled under the Act,
and
(b) equally harmful drugs used by the majority, alcohol and tobacco, arbitrarily excluded from the Act.
The Act therefore unjustifiably discriminates between those in the same position, those who consume or trade equally harmful drugs. Cf. A & Others v SSHD [2004] UK HL 56 at 46 et seq; Pretty v UK [2002] 35 EHRR 1 at para 77:
“Strong arguments based on the rule of law could be raised against any claim by the executive to exempt individuals or classes of individuals from the operation of the law.”
e. Failure to justifiably discriminate: regulations for the non-medical use of those drugs excluded from the Act, alcohol and tobacco, distinguish between reasonably safe, responsible drug use and trade, and unreasonably harmful, irresponsible drug use, production and trade. Regulations for the non-medical use of those drugs included by the Act fail to make this justifiable distinction, instead applying a blanket prohibition of all property rights of possession, supply, production and export/import.
The Act also fails to justifiably distinguish two distinct forms of unreasonably harmful use, production or trade:
(a) use or trade unreasonably harmful to the consumer or trader alone, ‘voluntary risks’, and
(b) use or trade unreasonably harmful to others, ‘involuntary risks’. Voluntary risks do not infringe human rights while involuntary risks do.
The Act therefore fails to justifiably discriminate between those in different situations. Cf. Thlimmenos v Greece [2000] 31 EHRR 411 para 44:
“The right not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under the Convention is also violated when States without an objective and reasonable justification fail to treat differently persons whose situations are significantly different.”
4. As a result of this abuse by the executive a fair trial is not possible.
The Defendant’s remedy lies with the Divisional Court.
CPS Guidance – Abuse of Process - Misuse of Process - f. Unconscionable behaviour by the executive This category of the doctrine of abuse is more exceptional than those described above. It arises from the duty of the High Court (first articulated in the case of Bennett v Horseferry Magistrates Court) to oversee executive action so as to prevent the State taking advantage of acts that threaten either basic human rights or the rule of law (including international law).
Applications for a stay based on this ground cannot be determined in any tribunal below the High Court because they involve the judiciary exercising a supervisory function over the actions of the executive (Bennett v Horseferry Road Magistrates Court, per Lord Griffiths at 152 H-J).
Where the defence wishes to make such an application at the beginning
or as a preliminary to trial, the proper procedure is for the
instant proceedings to be adjourned and for the defence to commence
proceedings in the High Court for a declaration that continuing the
prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process
.
In the US Supreme Court (Railway Express Agency Inc v New York [1949], para 112), Justice Jackson explained why the courts have a duty to prevent the abuse of political power by upholding the right to equality before the law:
“There is no more effective practical guarantee against arbitrary and
unreasonable government than to require that the principles of law which
officials would impose upon a minority must be imposed generally.
Conversely, nothing opens the door to arbitrary action so effectively as
to allow those officials to pick and choose only a few to whom they will
apply legislation and thus to escape the political retribution that might
be visited upon them if larger numbers were affected. Courts can take no
better measure to assure that laws will be just than to require that laws
be equal in operation.
2. Accordingly the defendant seeks either 1) to stay the indictment; 2) an adjournment of these proceedings so he can pursue the matter in the Divisional Court; or 3) For this court to decline jurisdiction and require the matter to be pursued in the Divisional Court. Cf. R. v. Central Criminal Court, ex p. Randle and Pottle, 92 Cr.App.R. 323, DC; R v Belmarsh Magistrates ex parte Watts [1999] 2 Cr.App.R. 188 at 195; Archbold § 1-192 & 4-50.
3. The abuse:
a. The defendant believes that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 c.38 (“the Act”) is being applied to him in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner based on historical and cultural factors that lack a consistent and objective basis contrary to Article 14 and within the ambit of other convention rights.
This denies equal protection to the defendant, alleged to be engaged in property activities with “controlled drugs”, as defined by s2(1)(a) of the Act, with respect to analogous persons engaged in the identical property activities with the dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs alcohol and tobacco.
b. The Government’s Position:
"The Government's policy is and has been to regulate drugs which are classified as illegal through the 1971 Act and to regulate the use of alcohol and tobacco separately. This policy sensibly recognises that alcohol and tobacco do pose health risks and can have anti-social effects, but recognises also that consumption of alcohol and tobacco is historically embedded in society and that responsible use of alcohol and tobacco is both possible and commonplace".
c. The Government’s position admits discrimination on the grounds of legal status and property within the ambits of Article 1 of the First Protocol, “protection of property”, Article 8 respect for private life, inter alia. More, the Government’s position includes errors of law and fact.
d. Unjustifiable discrimination:
The Act is interpreted and implemented unequally with respect to consumers, producers and traders of (a) harmful drugs used by minorities, the drugs currently controlled under the Act,
and
(b) equally harmful drugs used by the majority, alcohol and tobacco, arbitrarily excluded from the Act.
The Act therefore unjustifiably discriminates between those in the same position, those who consume or trade equally harmful drugs. Cf. A & Others v SSHD [2004] UK HL 56 at 46 et seq; Pretty v UK [2002] 35 EHRR 1 at para 77:
“Strong arguments based on the rule of law could be raised against any claim by the executive to exempt individuals or classes of individuals from the operation of the law.”
e. Failure to justifiably discriminate: regulations for the non-medical use of those drugs excluded from the Act, alcohol and tobacco, distinguish between reasonably safe, responsible drug use and trade, and unreasonably harmful, irresponsible drug use, production and trade. Regulations for the non-medical use of those drugs included by the Act fail to make this justifiable distinction, instead applying a blanket prohibition of all property rights of possession, supply, production and export/import.
The Act also fails to justifiably distinguish two distinct forms of unreasonably harmful use, production or trade:
(a) use or trade unreasonably harmful to the consumer or trader alone, ‘voluntary risks’, and
(b) use or trade unreasonably harmful to others, ‘involuntary risks’. Voluntary risks do not infringe human rights while involuntary risks do.
The Act therefore fails to justifiably discriminate between those in different situations. Cf. Thlimmenos v Greece [2000] 31 EHRR 411 para 44:
“The right not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under the Convention is also violated when States without an objective and reasonable justification fail to treat differently persons whose situations are significantly different.”
4. As a result of this abuse by the executive a fair trial is not possible.
The Defendant’s remedy lies with the Divisional Court.
CPS Guidance – Abuse of Process - Misuse of Process - f. Unconscionable behaviour by the executive This category of the doctrine of abuse is more exceptional than those described above. It arises from the duty of the High Court (first articulated in the case of Bennett v Horseferry Magistrates Court) to oversee executive action so as to prevent the State taking advantage of acts that threaten either basic human rights or the rule of law (including international law).
Applications for a stay based on this ground cannot be determined in any tribunal below the High Court because they involve the judiciary exercising a supervisory function over the actions of the executive (Bennett v Horseferry Road Magistrates Court, per Lord Griffiths at 152 H-J).
Where the defence wishes to make such an application at the beginning
or as a preliminary to trial, the proper procedure is for the
instant proceedings to be adjourned and for the defence to commence
proceedings in the High Court for a declaration that continuing the
prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process
.
In the US Supreme Court (Railway Express Agency Inc v New York [1949], para 112), Justice Jackson explained why the courts have a duty to prevent the abuse of political power by upholding the right to equality before the law:
“There is no more effective practical guarantee against arbitrary and
unreasonable government than to require that the principles of law which
officials would impose upon a minority must be imposed generally.
Conversely, nothing opens the door to arbitrary action so effectively as
to allow those officials to pick and choose only a few to whom they will
apply legislation and thus to escape the political retribution that might
be visited upon them if larger numbers were affected. Courts can take no
better measure to assure that laws will be just than to require that laws
be equal in operation.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Jimi Hendrix: Made in London
Hello People, It is the late and the great Jimi Hendrix, (James Marshall Hendrix), landing in London 1966. It was then that our 'black & White' world became a world of 'Technicolour'. Started his own band and played what he called the 'Chilton Circuit', this was infact Greenwich Village. Jimi, injured his back in the army.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Home | AlterNet
Home AlterNet: "Medicare: A Bush Disaster That My Life Depends on
James Ridgeway, Mother Jones
Health and Wellness: Remember Bush's signature health care initiative? I need it to survive -- and that's not very reassuring"
James Ridgeway, Mother Jones
Health and Wellness: Remember Bush's signature health care initiative? I need it to survive -- and that's not very reassuring"
Friday, September 12, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
GUANTANAMO: Beyond the Law
An eight-month McClatchy investigation of the detention system created after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks has found that the U.S. imprisoned innocent men, subjected them to abuse, stripped them of their legal rights and allowed Islamic militants to turn the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba into a school for jihad.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Monday, August 4, 2008
Synthetic Pot as a Military Weapon? Meet the Man Who Ran the
Ketchum defies categorization. A US military researcher who in the '60s explored debilitating the enemy through non-lethal drugs, he's now a liberalization advocate (and medical pot user) who's a pal of several old counter-culture icons.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Synthetic Pot as a Military Weapon? Meet the Man Who Ran the
Ketchum defies categorization. A US military researcher who in the '60s explored debilitating the enemy through non-lethal drugs, he's now a liberalization advocate (and medical pot user) who's a pal of several old counter-culture icons.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Saturday, July 19, 2008
What Male Bladder Cancer Patients Need To Know
Urologists need to be more open with male bladder cancer patients regarding the life changes that will occur after the bladder and prostrate are removed.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Big Pharma Is in a Frenzy to Bring Cannabis-Based Medicines
While the the American Medical Association claims pot has no medical value, Big Pharma is busy getting patents for marijuana products.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
World Court orders U.S. to stop executions of 5 Mexicans
The U.N.'s highest court on Wednesday ordered U.S. authorities to do everything in their power to halt the executions of five Mexicans on death row in Texas until their cases are reviewed.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Fox News:15 yr-old detainee ‘maybe deserved’ harsh treatment
According to reports, Khadr — who was just 15 years old when captured — was tortured while held by the U.S. in Bagram, Afghanistan, where “he was repeatedly brought into interrogation rooms on stretchers, in great pain” and “pain medication was withheld, apparently to induce cooperation.”
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Americans being electrocuted in Iraq 'on an almost daily bas
Report: Shoddy work by US contractor KBR Inc. in Iraq has led to over 283 electrical fires, at least 13 deaths, frequent injuries and thousands of painful shocks. The military has known about the danger since 2004, and though KBR was given millions to fix the problems, it has not.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
the emperor will sieze everything if you are against his war
Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq The Emperor can now take all your stuff if you speak out against the illegal war that he deserves to go to prison for.Check out his new executive order.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)