BASIC LEGAL PREMISE TO SHOW THAT: In law: This Marijuana Party Membership is a PRESCRIPTION

to defend the Peaceful possession of the articles of our party rubric in a civil society Under Sec 33 CCC and the Elections Act to protect your right to a God given plant Note: in law the legal definition of any word is important law is nothing but words

Look up PRESCRIPTION in the DCL [Dictionary of Canadian law] [in law: if the word

exists here - it's the only definition allowed] If a prescription for marijuana is not defined in the DCL then it's not 'prescribed by law' [therefore -does not exist] - When any authority uses this term prescription, as a condition of not being arrested for possessing contraband [for example] means: THIS ambiguity creates a real threat because this wording offers no real protection, because it's not understood in law THIS could lead to false arrests and when this occurs, the law becomes an Instrument of punishment - What is needed is a clear understanding that clarifies what is meant by the term prescription, so that an accused with a lawful defence [such as ours] can be saved from a bad decision made by an uninformed law enforcer [in order to not face charges in the 1st place] - Under the CDSA [Controlled Drugs & Substances Act] the courts insisted that they created the MMAR program and under this ruling anyone can be in peaceful possession of cannabis, as long as they have a PRESCRIPTION - They never say 'medical prescription' because there's no such thing So what do they mean? Just look it up in the DCL - IN LAW [as to our DCL]

and you'll find there is no such thing as a prescription for marihuana

BUT [as you will see in this pamphlet] the definition of PRESCRIBED BY LAW fits.

a PRESCRIBER: is a 1`person who is authorized to give a prescription within the

scope of any profession and in the practice of a health discipline. As prescribed by the CMA: there is no such thing as a health care profession that 'gives a prescription for marijuana' - BUT under this definition, an Officer of the Parti Marijuana Party can legally be called a PRESCRIBER because he is PRESCRIBED BY LAW under the Elections Act to protect our Party rubric and or his EDA's prescribed platform of beliefs.

PRESCRIBED DRUG is defined as a drug that may be dispensed by a pharmacist

upon the direction of a prescribers [note: not defined in an Act] - by definition - There is no such thing as a pharmacist who can dispense marijuana PRESCRIPTION has many definitions & absolutely none of them apply to cannabis There's 1- under The Dispensing Fee Act, 1- under the Practice of Physiotherapy Act, 1- under the Dental Technicians Act & other industrial uses of the word.

NOTE: There's not even 1 definition for PRESCRIPTION under the CDSA

and it's worth noting THAT: all 'drug' charges are pressed under the CDSA.

Its also worth noting that since there are no definitions for prescription under the CDSA - then their own MMAR card is not a prescription, or its definition

would be found here. The MMAR card is a permit that can be revoked or ignored by any officer at any time for no real reason. It's so restrictive & only good for 1 year at a time, therefore arguably a greater liability than an asset, because of traps within traps.

So by definition there is no such thing as a medical prescription under the CDSA

- There's a definition under the FDA [Food and Drug Act in 1985] - It covers dispensing controlled drugs by prescribing a controlled quantity [not applicable] AND They still list a definition under the NCA, [Narcotics Control Act] for a prescription for narcotics [even though this entire Act was struck down in 1986 as unconstitutional - [under R v Oakes] So that means theres a PRESCRIPTION available somewhere Otherwise the law is being used as a trap to screw you over & - the law must never be used as an Instrument of punishment its a cornerstone of good governance - THIS IS WHERE SANITY COMES TO THE RESCUE There is a clear definition that does apply to our political Party. This is the definition for the term: PRESCRIBED BY LAW in the DCL says: "The limits will be prescribed by law within the meaning of Sec 1 of the Charter if it is expressly provided for by statute or regulations, or results by necessary implication of a statute or regulation or from its operating requirements. The limit may also result from the application of common law" [R v Therens 1985] At face value it does not look like it would apply to a prescription for Cannabis, but it really does - BECAUSE all common law defences that protect Democratic guarantees are under Sec-1 - This definition starts by saying it protects Sec-1 rights in the Charter which states THAT "1. The Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms guarantees the rights & freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits 'prescribed by law' as can be demonstrably justified in 'a free and democratic society' [the case precedent for this last term is R v Oakes [1986] - this case is all about having a medical cannabis defence] - Sec-1 'prescribes by law' to directly prohibit trampling on Sec-3 of the Charter - NAMELY: Democratic rights, under what's called the Supremacy of PARLIAMENT which prescribes that the only way to protect yourself to fight a bad law is thru political activity We are an Official Party governed under THE SUPREMACY OF PARLIAMENT and and our Party can protect our beliefs as PRESCRIBED BY LAW that the majority in power consider wrong or false - FURTHERMORE even in this uncodified form of order, it's directly prohibited from using the arbitrary use of power contained in ORDERS IN COUNCIL [Sec 33] or Sec 126(2) against another political party The only thing that keeps marijuana illegal is the total abuse of Sec-33 of the Charter, and Sec 126(2) CCC & AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, the only way anyone can lawfully defend themselves from a bad law is by being politically active under a necessity defence and - thats exactly what we have a right to do. UNDER Sec 126(1) CCC - Any member of the Marijuana Party of Canada has more than just a lawful excuse to break any marijuana provision of a the CDSA, because the Hitzig /Parker ruling ruled the enforcement those marijuana laws to be of no force and effect

FURTHERMORE: Canada's rule of law of Sec 133 BNA Act say Supreme Court
rulings are Supreme over Parliament especially when the party in power is abusing the guarantees of another political party thru ORDERS IN CONCIL that deprive our members right to Peaceful possessions of Articles of our beliefs - SCC rulings like the Longley decision - Parker /Hitzig decisions & especially this Oakes decision] bar /preclude the majority in power from using the force of ORDERS IN COUNCIL [OC] on any member of especially our federal Party because it's 'prescribed by law' as the only thing the majority in power cannot suppress with the use of OC's. - The use of any arbitrary power by the majority in power on any Loyal opposition member is directly prohibited under the rule of law & Sec 1 and 3 of the Charter and especially the Elections Act To paraphrase this definition of PRESCRIBED BY LAW to show it's relevance in law: The Elections Act, [which is the cornerstone that protects Democracy with more authority than a statute called the CDSA] clearly provides this 'prescribed by law' defence, to any member of the Parti Marijuana Party, with the necessary terms & regulations for our operating requirements. under a necessity defence, by standing under the same 1981 SCC ruling that the Conservative Party Caucus got that paved the way to abuse the overt powers contained in Sec 33 of the Charter Under the Supremacy of Parliament, the only lawful way to fight a bad law is thru political activity, OUR PARTY and its members claim a legitimate Sec 8 Territorial right under the rule of law & Sec 126(1) CCC [a lawful right to break a statute] to find remedy under Sec 39 (1) CCC in order to defend our Peaceful possession of our articles of belief, [in our case marijuana] under jurisdictional issues AND by definition the AG cannot apply Sec 126(2) - BUT then they are the criminals This defence holds a glorious tradition in English case law. [Sec 8(1-2-3) CCC] Under England case law, history will prove time and again that claims of right simply cannot be construed without the government first being so terribly wrong IN FACT at face value, no one can get an unprejudiced fair trial in a court under Sec 126(2) CCC In law, if Sec 126(1) applies means Sec 126(2) cannot be used to suppress the rights of our party.

FURTHERMORE: In BC we have a unique situation and the rest of Canada can

take a lesson in how we are politically effective
- The Insight Program and our compassion clubs operate openly WHY IS THAT? It's because 4-previous Mayors went to the SCC and under oath testified that it would be impossible to be elected by its citizens if they opposed compassionate access Our Mayors have used their Office's Colonial rule powers to PRESCRIBE BY LAW their support for local compassion clubs & any community can safely operate a compassion club by getting its Mayor and Chief Constable to approve it, before you open. Any Mayor can actually exercise jurisdictional authority under the 1931 Colonial Rule Act to uphold the Constitution of Canada in his Community, on any issue BOTTOM LINE: Mayors know they would gain lots of voter support by permitting dispensaries, so get politically involved and motivate your Mayoral or Council to support you, in order to get re-elected

To show his general support, several BC Mayors have permitted many new Compassion Clubs and frankly these Cities and all these clubs operate on a prescribed platform of rules and activity that the prescribers provided, as necessary regulations for its operating requirement - IN OTHER WORDS all these Compassion Clubs and the Mayor are all operating under the definition of PRESCRIBED BY LAW' and any community can do it.

PLEASE NOTE: A recent Ontario Supreme Court ruling says that Sec 4 & 5 of the

CDSA are of no force and effect [this means cultivation is now legal] and just like Hitzig and Parker, their SCC court upheld rights are trampled on, because under Sec 126 (2) police can ignore these rulings because the Attorney General [AG] says so, in order to protect what Death Canada arbitrarily defines as necessary to protect us from harm Our lawful excuse under Sec 126(1) CCC would give these individuals and any party member for that matter a great defence to have the right to break a statute AND any Officer of any EDA can have a great defence to operate a compassion club [Sec 1-2 & 3 of the CDSA] and by being an EDA agent, provide any MMRA grower real constitutional protection from a trap, by having a right to legally sell this crop as medicine to any compassion club

BOTTOM LINE any community can have a sane pot policy by

voting for politicians who promise to support you AND this is especially true for the Parti Marijuana Party of Canada It's said THAT: ANYONE who can attract the disenfranchised & the youth to vote will win by a landslide & there really is no issue that will galvanize this voter despair more than this opportunity to benefit from Democracy FRANKLY All we are doing is showing people that any party that actually upholds a policy of "by the people for the people" can deliver real benefits to real people - WE ARE NOT PROMOTING CRIMINAL ACTIVITY - we are just protecting our members from criminal liability with a BULLET PROOF DEFENSE, but regrettably we are not. BUT for the vast majority of people this membership is far better than nothing & it's FREE We are informing everyone & giving this great defence AND we can expect our police and court to have a compassionate response because our Party Membership really is PRESCRIBED BY LAW as the only lawful means to possess cannabis. under Sec 1 of the Charter AND criminally under Sec 126 CCC AND civilly under Sec 39 CCC Just ask any cop and theyll tell you that the only solution to prohibition is a political solution AND thats exactly what our Party is offering - For full details go to: increationwetrust.org OR the National HEADoffice @ www.marijuanaparty.ca

- FOR YOUR PROTECTION - SUBSCRIBE TO THE PARTI MARIJUANA PARTY - It's FREE Keep a copy of this PRESCRIPTION in your wallet, in order not to be charged in the first place, or have the case thrown out at your 1 st court appearance