At http://www.cbc.ca you can get to the article about the world's biggest
loser or click

http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2001/03/18/election_turmel01031
8


     John C. "The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
Author of Recommendation to Governments C6 in the
http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
     For anti-bank and pro-LETS community currency news adventures and
reports, subscribe to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/turmel or visit
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
     For links to over 700 timecurrency systems in over 45 nations:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/urlsnat.htm
     LETS Cancel Debt Growth First! Then work on debt.
Tel/fax: 613-728-2196

Thursday March 15, 2001
-----------------------

CJRC-RadioAM 1150:
LOUIS PHILIPPE BRULE: Un residant de Hawkesbury a ete en cour
aujourd'hui?
MICHELE LANGEVIN: Oui, un residant de Hawkesbury qui denonce la
lenteur de Sante Canada a renouveler son exemption lui permettant de
fumer et aussi de posseder de la marijuana en toute legalite. Marc
Paquette, l'individu de 45 ans qui a non seulement obtenu le
renouvellement qu'il souhaitait mais c'est maintenant <eventuellement>
son propre medecin qui aura le pouvoir de lui donner une nouvelle
exemption. Il s'agit d'un precedent puisqu'il appartient
habituellement a Sante Canada de renouveler les permits. Le juge Paul
Rouleau a, par ailleurs, ordonne a Sante Canada de verser une
compensation de $150 a M. Paquette pour les inconveniences encourues.
PAQUETTE: C'est une victoire. J'ai sorti de la avec mon renouvellement
d'exemption et le juge a ordonne a Sante Canada de ne plus jamais nous
mettre en peril par les retards consecutifs. C'est qu'ils sont
supposes de jamais avoir de retards pour nos exemptions.
LANGEVIN: Ils viennent de comprendre qu'ils avaient les doigts dans le
nez hier, Sante Canada.
      LOUIS PHILIPPE BRULE: A Hawkesbury resident was in court today?
      MICHEL LANGEVIN: Yes, a Hawkesbury resident who denounced Health
Canada's slowness in renewing the exemption permitting him to smoke
and possess marijuana legally. Marc Paquette, 45, who not only
received the renewal he was seeking but it's now <eventually> his own
doctor who will have the power to give him a new exemption. It's a
precedent because it's usually up to Health Canada to renew the
permits. Judge Paul Rouleau, on top of that, ordered Health Canada to
remit compensation to Mr. Paquette for the inconveniences incurred.
      PAQUETTE: It's a victory. I came out of there with my exemption
renewal and the judge ordered Health Canada to never again put us in
jeopardy by consecutive delays. They must never again be late with our
exemptions.
---

CBO Radio French:
INTRO: Un residant de Hawkesbury qui est (?) dedommage par Sante
Canada. C'est une decision d'un juge qui l'a punit, ou enfin, assez
dit contre Sante Canada qui a trop tarde a renouveler la permission de
cet homme de fumer de la marijuana a des fins therapeutiques.
GUY BEAULIEU: Condamne pour avoir tarde a renouveler une exemption
pour fumer de la marijuana. La Cour federal condamne Sante Canada a
verser des dedommagements a Marc Paquette pour ne pas avoir renouvele
a temps son exemption de fumer de la marijuana a fins therapeutiques.
AUTRE: Alors, Guy Beaulieu, le juge Paul Rouleau, a aussi sommonce (?)
Sante Canada.
      INTRO: A Hawkesbury resident who suffered damages by Health
Canada. It's a decision of a judge who punished, in the end, spoke
enough against Health Canada that was too slow in renewing the permit
of this man who can smoke marijuana for medical reasons.
      GUY BEAULIEU: Condemned for having delayed renewing an exemption
to smoke marijuana, the Federal Court condemns Health Canada to pay
damages to Marc Paquette for not having renewed his exemption in time.
      OTHER: So, Guy Beaulieu, Judge Paul Rouleau also summonsed
Health Canada?

BEAULIEU: Oui, Marc Paquette, je vous rappelle, se presentait en Cour
federale pour obtenir de Sante Canada le renouvellement de son
exemption de fumer de la marijuana a des fins therapeutiques. C'etait
la deuxieme fois que Sante Canada ne renouvellait pas a temps son
exemption. La cause n'a toute fois pas ete entendu ce matin. Sante
Canada en effet a effecte le renouvellement de cet exemption, quelques
heures seulement avant la comparution de Marc Paquette en Cour
federale. Le juge Paul Rouleau de la Cour federale n'a pas ete tendre
a l'endroit de Sante Canada. Dabord, il a condamne Sante Canada a
verser $150 a Marc Paquette pour ses frais de deplacement en disant
esperer que cette situation ne se represent plus. Par ailleurs, le
juge Rouleau a recommande que le renouvellement des exemptions releve
desormais des medicins traitant des malades Exemptees et non plus des
fonctionnaires de Sante Canada. Marc Paquette acceuille evidement
favorablement cette recommandation.
PAQUETTE: Le juge a suggere a Sante Canada que ce soit les medicins
qui soient responsable au lieu d'eux-autres mais les exemptions
originales, comme de raison, ca serait emis encore par Sante Canada,
mail il a beaucoup de delais qui vont etre termines a cause des
demarches que j'ai fait. C'est pas juste pour moi mais pour toutes les
Exemptees aussi.
      BEAULIEU: Yes, Marc Paquette, I remind you, was in Federal Court
to get the renewal of his exemption to smoke marijuana from Health
Canada. It was the second time Health Canada failed to renew his
exemption in time. The case was not actually heard this morning.
Health Canada in effect accomplished the renewal of the exemption only
a few hours before the appearance of Marc Paquette in Federal Court.
Federal Court Judge Paul Rouleau wasn't tender towards Health Canada.
First he ordered Health Canada to pay Marc Paquette $150 for his
travel costs saying he hoped this situation would not arise again.
Further, Judge Rouleau recommended that renewals of exemptions come
from the doctors who treat the sick exemptees and no longer the Health
Canada functionaries. Marc Paquette evidently received this
recommendation favorably.
      PAQUETTE: The judge suggested to Health Canada that it be the
doctors who are responsible instead of themselves but the original
exemptions, of course, would still be issued by Health Canada, but
many delays will be ended because of the steps I've taken. It's not
just forme but for all Exemptees too.
---

CHRO-TV Ottawa
ELISSA: To our courts. A small victory for Marc Paquette. He's the
Hawkesbury man permitted by Health Canada to smoke marijuana for
medicinal purposes. Today, the Federal Court slapping Health Canada
with a $150 fine for forcing Paquette to make numerous court
appearances.
VIDEO: Seen coming out with Paquette are John Turmel and others.
TURMEL: Nice to have the little guy win once in a while. A little bit
of victory feels good.
PAQUETTE: People sick like I am, Exemptees, won't get their exemptions
late anymore. They will get them in time which will avoid prosecution,
risk of being arrested by police, and living in danger and fear and
it's a great victory not only for myself but for all Exemptees in
Canada.
ELISSA: Today's victory for Paquette may mean a change in the laws for
the future, the judge saying today that the renewal of the exemptions
to smoke marijuana for medicinal purposes should be licensed by
medical doctors, not the government.
      ELISSA: Dans les cours, un petit victoire pour Marc Paquette. La
Cour federal a aujourd'hui inflige une amende de $150 pour avoir force
Paquette de venir a plusieurs dates en cour.
      VIDEO: Sortant avec Paquette sont John Turmel et autres.
      JOHN TURMEL: C'est bien que le petit gars gagne une fois ou
l'autre. Un peu de victoire est bon.
      PAQUETTE: Des gens malades comme moi, les exemptes, ne recevront
pu leur exemptions en retard. Ils les auront a temps pour eviter la
poursuite judiciaire, le risque d'etre arrete par la police, de vivre
en danger et en peur et c'est une grande victoire pas seulement pour
moi-meme mais aussi pour tous les exemptes au Canada.
      ELISSA: Cette victoire pourra indiquer un changement dans les
lois au future, le juge disant aujourd'hui que les renouvellements des
exemptions devraient etre licensee par les docteurs et non le
gouvernement.
---

CHRO later:
A man who can smoke marijuana for medicinal reasons has won another
court battle. Health Canada is responsible for renewing Marc
Paquette's exemption from prosecution and those renewals have been
chronically late. Today the court sided with Paquette. The court
decision slaps Health Canada with a $150,000 fine for the aggravation
it caused Marc Paquette and others in his predicament. The judge also
recommended that doctors be allowed to renew the exemptions without
going through the government.
      Un homme qui peut fumer de la marijuana a gagne une autre
battaille legale. Sante Canada est responsable des renouvellements de
l'exemption de Marc Paquette et ces renouvellements ont ete
chroniquement en retardd. Aujourd'hui la cour s'est accorde avec
Paquette. La decision du cour frappe Sante Canada avec une amende de
$150,000 pour l'aggravation cause M. Paquette et les autres dans
la meme situation. Le juge a aussi recommande que les docteurs soit
permis de renouveler les exemptions sans passer par le gouvernement.
---

CJOH:
BRIAN BOURNE: A Hawkesbury man won a court case this morning to extend
his exemption to use pot for medical purposes. Marc Paquette has twice
been granted an exemption that legally allows him to smoke pot. When
his third application was delayed, he took Health Canada to court and
the Federal Court judge ruled today government officials had no right
to stop his application and that once granted an exemption, it's up to
a doctor, not the bureaucracy to extend it.
      BRIAN BOURNE: Un home de Hawkesbury a gagne son cas en cour ce
matin pour etendre son exemption pour consommer le pot. Marc Paquette
a deux fois ete donne une exemption. Quand son troisieme application
etait en retard, il entraina Sante Canada en cour et le juge de la
cour federale a aujourd'hui dit que les officiels du gouvernement
n'avaient pas le droit d'arreter son application et apres qu'une
exemption est accorde, c'est au docteur, et non la bureaucratie, a
la renouveler.
---

CBC-TV Francais:
MICHEL PICARD: Un homme qui peut fumer de la marijuana a fins
therapeutiques etait de retour devant le tribunal aujourd'hui.
FRANCOIS LESSARD: Oui. On vous a parle plutot cette semaine du cas de
Marc Paquette, c'est un residant de Hawkesbury qui detient une
exemption pour fumer de la marijuana a des fins therapeutiques et
c'est la seconde fois dans son cas que Sante Canada ne renouvele pas
a temps son exemption. Tout est regle. Sante Canada a effectue le
renouvellement hier, quelques heures avant la comparution en Cour
federale. Le juge en Cour federale a ete assez dur ce matin a
l'endroit de Sante Canada et ne veut plus que cette situation se
reproduise. Il a condamne Sante Canada a verser $150 en dedommagements
a M. Paquette pour ses frais de deplacement. Le juge Rouleau demande
aussi a Sante Canada que les exemption soient renouvelees non plus
par les bureaucrates mais bien par les medecins qui suivent ces
personnes qui ont le droit le consommer de la marijuana a des fins
therapeutiques mais il s'agit pour le moment qu'une suggestion.
      MICHEL PICARD: A man who can smoke marijuana was back before the
courts today.
      FRANCOIS LESSARD: Yes, we spoke earlier this week about the case
of Marc Paquette, this Hawkesbury residnet who holds an exemption to
smoke marijuana for medical purposes and it's the second time in his
case that Health Canada fail to renew his exemption in time.
Everything has been corrected. Health Canada effected the renewal
yesterday, a few hours before the court appearance. The Federal Court
judge was pretty rough on Health Canada this morning. I ordered Health
Canada to pay $150 in dammages to Mr. Paquette for his travel costs.
Judge Rouleau also asked Health Canada that exemptions no longer be
renewed by bureaucrats but by doctors in charge of these people who
have the right to consume marijuana for medical purposes but for the
moment, it's only a suggestion.

CHOT & LE GRAND JOURNAL
DANIEL TREMBLAY: M. Marc Paquette est comparu devant la Cour federale
ou un juge a dit que Sante Canada doit renouveler son permit de
consommer du cannabis. M. Paquette avait demande a un juge mardi de
trancher la question. Or le juge Paul Rouleau de la Cour federale n'a
pas ete tendre aujourd'hui envers Sante Canada. Non seulement il
ordonne sur le champs le renouvellement mais il statue aussi que le
permit de consommation de marijuana pourra etre renouvele
automatiquement par le medecin. Les patients n'auront plus a attendre
apres Sante Canada.
PAQUETTE: Le juge les a mandate, il les a chicane ni plus ni moins,
la, pour pas que ca arrive a nous autres. J'espere que ca va creer des
ameliorations a Sante Canada pour les gens malades qu'ils aient un
meilleur service de la part de nos bureaucrates et nos dollars de
taxe.
      DANIEL TREMBLAY: Marc Paquette appeared before Federal Court
doday where a judge said that Health Canada must renew his permit to
consume cannabis. Mr. Paquette had asked a judge Tuesday to deal with
the question. And Federal Court Judge Paul Rouleau was not tender
towards Health Canada. Not only did it order the renewal on the spot
but he also ordered that the permit to consume marijuana could be
renewed automatically by the doctor. The patients won't have to wait
for Health Canada.
      PAQUETTE: The judge ordered them, he castigated them no more no
loesss, so that it doesn't happen to us again. I hope that it will
create improvements at Health Canada for sick people so that they get
better service from their bureaucrats and our tax dollars.
---

CBOT-TV
PETER VAN DUSEN: Health Canada was ordered to pay a Hawkesbury man
$150 in damages for delaying the renewal of his marijuana exemption.
Marc Paquette was to appear in court this morning to push for the
exemption allowing him to smoke marijuana for medical purposes. But
late yesterday, Health Canada finally approved it. The judge in the
case is recommending that doctors, not federal bureaucrats, be given
the power to renew the exemptions.
      PETER VAN DUSEN: Sante Canada a ete condamne a payer un homme de
Hawkesbury $150 en dedommagements pour les delais dans le
renouvellement de son exemtion pour le marijuana. Marc Paquette
devrait comparaitre en cour ce matin pour demander l'exemption qui lui
permet de fumer de la marijuana a fins therapeutiques. Mais tard hier,
Sante Canada l'a finally approuve. Le judge recommande que les
docterus et non les bureaucrates federals soient donnes le pouvoir de
renouveler les exemptions.
---

Le Droit mars 16 2001
Patrick Duquette
Marijuana: le juge donne raison at Marc Paquette
CAPTION PORTRAIT: Marc Paquette etait heureux d'avoir eu gain de cause
hier. Le juge a ordonne que Sante Canada renouvele son exemption lui
permettant de fumer de la marijuana a des fins medicales.
      Marijuana: The Judge sides with Marc Paquette

Marc Paquette a eu gain de cause en cour federale, hier, obtenant
enfin son exemption lui permettant de fumer de la marijuana a des fins
medicales. Le residant de Hawkesbury avait demande de rencontrer un
juge, mardi apres-midi, excede devant lalenteur de Sante Canada a lui
renouveler son exemption. M. Paquette, 45 ans, doit fumer entre cinq
et six cigarettes de marijuana par jour pour soulager les douleurs
dues a plusieurs maladies chroniques graves. L'exemtion de M. Paquette
etait echue depuis lundi dernier, ce qui l'obligeait a consommer dans
l'illegalite. Il craignait d'etre arrete par la police.
           Marc Paquette won his case in Federal Court yesterday
finally obtaining his exemption which allows him to smoke marijuana
for medical purposes. The Hawkesbury resident had asked to see a judge
on Tuesday afternoon, disappointed with the time it took Health Canada
to renew his exemption. Mr. Paquette, 45, must smoke between five and
six marijuana cigarettes per day to relieve his pain from several
grave chronic illnesses. The Exemption expired as of last Monday which
obliged him to consume illegally. He feared being arrested by police.

En plus d'ordonner qu'on lui renouvele son exemption, le juge Paul
Rouleau a consenti un dedommagement de $150 pour les problemes
encourus. <<C'est une victoire encore plus grande que ce a quoi je
m'attendais>> a declare M. Paquette hier. M. Paquette a dit avoir fait
face a des delais de la part de Sante Canada les trois fois ou il a eu
a renouveler son exemption. <<Pour remedier a cela, le juge a
recommande que ce soit le medecin traitant qui se charge de renouveler
les exemptions a la place de Sante Canada>>, a precise M. Paquette.
Quelque 189 personnes beneficient d'une exemption au Canada pour fumer
de la marijuana a des fins medicales, rapporte Sante Canada.
      As well as ordering the renewal of his exemption, Judge Paul
Rouleau consented to damages of $150 for problems experienced. <<It's
an even greater victory than I had expected>> Mr. Paquette said
yesterday. He says he faced delays in renewing his exemption three
times. <<To remedy the situation, the judge recommended that it be the
treating physician in charge of renewing the exemptions rather than
Health Canada>> added Mr. Paquette. Some 189 people benefit of
exemptions in Canada to smoke marijuana for medical purposes, says
Health Canada.
---

JCT: Remember that they are being chastised for their failures in the
renewal process and we also remember from the Pariseau documents that
they are the ones who doubled the number of times people had to renew
every year. It used to be yearly, they doubled to twice a year so they
could put their exemptees through this stress twice as often per year!
      Rappelez-vous qu'ils ont ete chatier pour leurs faillites dans le
proces du renouvellement et rappelez-vous des documents Pariseau que
c'est eux qui ont double le nombre de temps le gens devraient
renouveller chaque annee. C'est une fois par annee, ils l'ont double a
deux fois par annee leur permettant de soumettre les exemptees a ce
stress deux fois plus souvent chaque annee.

Remember that this was a conscious campaign to stress him out. Mr.
Carol Langlois, a bureaucrat, intercepted his Exemption and exposed
him to the stress of criminal prosecution. Mr. Langlois knew that he
was going to stress out the victim when he withheld it.
      Rappelez-vous aussi que c'etait une campagne par expres a lui
soumettre a ce stress. M. Carol Langlois, un bureaucrat, a intercepte
son exemption pour lui expose au stress de prosecution criminelle. M.
Langlois savait qu'il allait soumettre sa victime a ce stress quand il
a detenu l'exemption.

So, what you've read so far, what two major blows can I still deliver
to Health Canada within the context of the Paquette case? What two
things are left as yet undone that Health Canada really won't like our
asking to have done? What two cards are left to play? If anyone gets
them both, I'll publish the answer. Otherwise, you'll find out about
each of them when I play them.
      Donc, avec ce que vous avez lu a ce point, quelles deux frappes
majeures est-ce-que je peux encore lancer a Health Canada dans le
contexte du cas Paquette? Quelles deux issues ne sont pas encore finis
et que Sante Canada n'aimeront pas qu'on demande de les finir? Quelles
deux cartes est-ce-que j'ai encore a jouer? Si quelqu'un m'envoie la
reponse des deux, je publierai la reponse. Autrement, vous
l'apprendrez lorsque je les met en jeu.

Finally, the Ottawa Citizen and Sun chose not to publish the story so
there is no English written press to inform exemptees. The online
marijuana emagazines haven't covered the story and it seems only
the French people in Ottawa have read it and Quebecers have heard
about it on pretty Quebec-only networks. So this is the only
printed story in English.
      Finalement, le Citizen et le Sun d'Ottawa on decide de ne pas
publier l'histoire donc il n'y a pas de presse ecrite pour informer
les exemptes. Les emagazines sur marijuana ne l'ont pas couvert et ca
semble que seules les gens francophone d'Ottawa l'on lu et les
Quebecois l'on entendu sur les reseaux dans seulement le Quebec. Donc,
ceci est le seule article imprime qui est en anglais.

     John C. "The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
Author of Recommendation to Governments C6 in the
http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
     For anti-bank and pro-LETS community currency news adventures and
reports, subscribe to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/turmel or visit
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
     For links to over 700 timecurrency systems in over 45 nations:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/urlsnat.htm
     LETS Cancel Debt Growth First! Then work on debt.
Tel/fax: 613-728-2196

Just to let you know that CBC did a taped interview today
for their evening national news.
Some you will remember how the taped interview was too
hot for CTV's Canada AM to broadcast so we'll see about
tonight but I'm assured it's going on the 10pm. National
News show and should play on the 9p.m. show on CBC
Newsworld. I mention both the Marijuana and Millennium
Declaration victories.

     John C. "The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
Author of Recommendation to Governments C6 in the
http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
     For anti-bank and pro-LETS community currency news adventures and
reports, subscribe to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/turmel or visit
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
     For links to over 700 timecurrency systems in over 45 nations:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/urlsnat.htm
     LETS Cancel Debt Growth First! Then work on debt.
Tel/fax: 613-728-2196

JCT: Previous articles on the Marc Paquette case can be read at
      JCT: D'autres articles sur le cas Paquette sont a:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/medpot/message/25 &
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/medpot/message/27

JCT: Parceque c'est un cas bilingue, je vais les traduire des deux
bords. Je n'ai pas d'expertise en francais et s.v.p. excusez mon grand
difficulte de determiner le sex de maintes noms communs. (Ha, je
savais que c'etait "ma grande difficulte.")
      JCT: Since this is a bilingual case, I'll translate both ways. I
claim no particular expertise in French and please excuse my great
difficulty in determining the sex of many neutral nouns. (Ha, I knew
that it was "ma [feminine "my"] grande [feminine "great"] for the
feminine noun "difficulty."

Always first off the mark is CJRC 1150 Radio, the only AM French radio
station in the Ottawa-Hull area. Most Francophones listen to it. And
luckily, Marc Paquette can speak French. They're affiliated with the
Rock Detente network Metromedia. With them, it's an instant demand for
facts that they put on the next news. They don't wait for their
reporter to get back. They put preliminary info on right away. Very
impressive crew.
      Comme toujours, le premier avec les infos sont CJRC 1150 Radio,
le seul poste AM francais dans la region Ottawa-Hull. La majorite des
francophones l'ecoutent. Et Marc Paquette parle le francais. Ils sont
affilie avec le reseau Rock Detente de Metromedia. Et avec eux, c'est
une demande immediate pour les donnes pour la prochaine emission. Ils
n'attendent pas que leur reporteur revienne. Ils emettent les infos
preliminaires tout suite. Une gang impressionante.

Tuesday March 13 2001
---------------------

CJRC-1150 Radio: 11:45
Un residant de Hawkesbury ira manifester devant la Cour federale at
Ottawa a compte de cette apres-midi. Marc Paquette s'inquiete parceque
son permit lui permettant de fumer de la marijuana est expirer. Plus
aux nouvelles de 12:15.
      A Hawkesbury resident will demonstrate in front of the Federal
Court in Ottawa this afternoon. Marc Paquette is worried because his
exemption allowing him to smoke marijuana has expired. More on the
news at 12:15.
---

CJRC-1150 Radio: 12:15
MICHEL LANGEVIN: Un homme de Hawkesbury qui est en beau "joie vert,"
en bon fusil, contre Sante Canada. Marc Paquette, 45 ans, qui denonce
la lenteur que prend Sante Canada pour renouveler l'exemption lui
permettant de fumer legalement et d'avoir en sa possession, de la
marijuana. M. Paquette, qui souffre de plusieurs maladies chroniques,
se rendra cet apres-midi a la Cour federale, c'est sur la rue Elgin.
Il entend y rester tand qu'un juge n'aura pas ordonner a Sante Canada
de respecter l'entente lui accordant depuis mars 2000 l'exempion
renouvelable a tous 6 mois.
      MICHEL LANGEVIN: A Hawkesbury man is hopping mad against Health
Canada. Marc Paquette, 45, denounces the time Health Canada is taking
to renew the exemption which permits him to legally smoke and have
marijuana in his possession. Mr. Paquette, who suffers several chronic
illnesses, will be in Federal Court this afternoon, on Elgin Street. I
intends to stay as long as a judge has not ordered Health Canada to
respect the agreement that accords him since March 2000 an exemption
renewable every 6 months.

LOUIS PHILIPPE BRULE: Je ne comprend pas ca. Lui, ils lui ont deja dit
"c'est correcte, tu peux en fumer du pot mais la, ils ne veulent pas
renouveler ca au bout de 6 mois.
LANGEVIN: Il semble y avoir un delais non-raisonable selon M.
Paquette. Dailleurs il craint etre arrete par les policiers. On
l'ecoute.
PAQUETTE: C'est la troisieme fois que c'est en retard. Et quand c'est
en retard, bien, je suis en danger automatiquement de me faire
arreter. Je deviens une proie facile pour la police et je suis en
danger de me faire arreter. Je deviens plus legal et ca me met, dans
la condition de sante que je suis, ca me met dans une condition assez
dangereuse.

      LOUIS PHILIPPE BRULE: I don't get this. They've already told him
"it's okay, you can smoke pot but then, they don't want to renew the
permit after 6 months.
      LANGEVIN: There seems to be an unreasonable delay according to
Mr. Paquette. Further, he worries about being arrested by police. We
listen:
      PAQUETTE: It's the third time that it's late. And when it's late,
then I'm automatically in danger of being arrested. I become easy prey
for the police and I'm in danger of being arrested. I become no longer
legal and it puts me, in the condition that I'm in, it puts me in a
pretty dangerous situation.

LANGEVIN: Je comprend bien. Ca branle pas mal, Philippe, c'est affaire
la. On donne le droit des gens et ce n'est pas le premier qui nous
appelle. Les quantites de plants qu'ils pouvaient pousser n'etaient
pas suffisantes. Un comite ci, un comite ca, et puis, finalement, ils
accordent le droit a ces gens d'avoir du pot. La on vient de mettre
dans les mains de gouvernement l'histoire de faire pousser du pot un
peu partout. Ils sont pas mal branleux.
BRULE: Bien, il faudrait peut-etre leur parler avant de chialler.
LANGEVIN: Ils sont pas mal branleux.
      LANGEVIN: I understand well. That's pretty shaky, Philippe, this
case. They give the right to these people, and he's not the first to
call us. The number of plants they can grow isn't enough. A committee
this, a committee that, and then, finally, they give these people the
right to smoke pot. Now they've just put into government hands the
growing of pot pretty well everywhere. They're pretty darn wobbly.
      BRULE: Maybe we should talk to them before carping.
      LANGEVIN: They're pretty "branleux."

CJRC-1150 Radio: 01:15,
LANGEVIN: Un homme de Hawkesbury, Marc Paquette, lutte pour survivre.
Il doit fumer de la mari sinon il peut mourir. Mais Sante Canada a les
doigts dans le nez et parle de lui expedier le renouvellement de son
permit pour fumer du pot.
PAQUETTE: Je m'attendais que nos bureaucrates aient de la compassion,
qu'ils soient ouverts et a l'aide des gens malades mais je me suis
rendu compte que c'est une bureaucratie cauchemaresque au detriment
des gens malades.
      LANGEVIN: A Hawkesbury man, Marc Paquette, fights to survive. He
has to smoke marijuana otherwise he could die. But Health Canada have
their fingers up their noses and speak of expediting the renewal of
his permit to smoke pot.
      PAQUETTE: I was hoping bureaucrats would have compassion,
that they'd be open and of service to sick people but I've found out
that it's a nightmare bureaucracy to the detriment of sick people.

CBC-TV FRANCAIS:
MICHEL PICARD: Un residant de Hawkesbury qui a la permission de
consommer de la drogue pour des fins therapeutiques denonce la lenteur
de Sante Canada. Marc Paquette detient une exemption pour fumer de la
marijuana pour soulager des douleurs chroniques. L'exemption doit etre
renouveler a chaque 6 mois et M. Paquette maintient que c'est la
deuxieme fois que Sante Canada ne renouvele pas son exemption a temps
mettant celui-ci dans l'illegalite. Marc Paquette s'est presente a la
Cour federale c'est apres-midi demandant qu'un juge force les
fonctionnaires de Sante Canada a lui remettre sa nouvelle exemption.
La Cour federale entendra le plaignant jeudi matin.
VIDEO: Showing Paquette with a 2 inch think sheaf of papers:
PAQUETTE: Ca c'est juste une partie du dossier et c'est-tu raisonable
de la part des fonctionnaires d'imposer des conditions telles quelles
a des gens malades comme nous. Je ne pense pas. De nous soummettre
sous un stress pareil, moi, dans ma condition, avec le peu d'annees
qu'il me reste a vivre, je ne veux pas mourir dans l'injustice.
      MICHEL PICARD: A Hawkesbury resident who has permission to
consume the drug for medical purposes denounces the slowness of Health
Canada. Marc Paquette has an exemption which must be renewed every 6
months and he maintains that it's the second time that Health Canada
does not renew his exemption in time putting him into illegality. Marc
Paquette went to Federal Court this afternoon demanding that a judge
force the Health Canada functionaries to remit his new exemption. The
court will hear the plaintiff Thursday morning.

CBC RADIO:
GUY BEAULIEU: Un homme de Hawkesbury age de 45 ans, Marc Paquette,
denonce la lenteur que prend Sante Canada a renouveler l'exemption qui
lui permit de fumer legalement et d'avoir dans sa possession de la
marijuana. M. Paquette, qui souffre de plusieurs maladies chroniques
s'est presente hier a la Cour federale a Ottawa. Apres plusieurs
minutes d'argumentation, il a obtenu l'engagement d'etre entendu
demain matin par un magistrat.
      GUY BEAULIEU: A Hawkesbury man, Marc Paquette, denounces the
time it's taking Health Canada to renew his exemption to legally smoke
and possess marijuana. Mr. Paquette, who suffers several chronic
illnesses, went to Federal Court yesterday. After several minutes of
argument, he got an appointment to he heard tomorrow morning by a
magistrate.
---

CHOT TQS network
DANIEL TREMBLAY: Un homme de Hawkesbury qui peut fumer de la marijuana
a fins therapeutiques a voulu rencontrer un juge de la Cour federale
aujourd'hui at Ottawa. Le juge a accepte de recevoir jeudi prochain
mais entre temps, M. Paquette, donc le permit est echue depuis le
debut de la semaine, se sent comme un criminel puisqu'il n'a plus le
droit legalement, en tout cas, de consommer de la mari.
PAQUETTE: La police savent aussi probablement la date d'expiration a
chaque 6 mois, ca fait qu'ils savent que j'etais legal et la je ne le
suis plus.
TREMBLAY: C'est pas normal ca.
PAQUETTE: Non, non et c'est pas raisonable de se faire soumettre par
des fonctionnaires a un stress pareil.
      DANIEL TREMBLAY: A Hawkesbury man who can smoke marijuana for
medical reasons wanted to meet a judge of the Federal Court today in
Ottawa. The judge accepted to see him Thursday but in the meantime,
Mr. Paquette, whose exemption expired at the start of the week, feels
like a criminal because he no longer has the legal right to consume
his mari.
      PAQUETTE: The police probably also know the expiration date every
six months so they know that I was legal but now no longer.
      TREMBLAY: That's not normal.
      PAQUETTE: No, no and it's not reasonable to be put under such a
stress by bureaucrats.
---

Wednesday March 16 2001
-----------------------

CJRC-Radio 1150
MICHEL LANGEVIN: On est de retour a l'emission "face a face." Vous
savez l'histoire du pot a des fins therapeutiques au Canada, ca
retiens beaucoup l'attention. Il y a des gens au pays qui ont
l'exemption, c'est a dire, qu'ils ne sont pas soumis aux lois sur les
drogues au Canada, c'est a dire que ces gens la peuvent consommer de
la marijuana a des fins therapeutiques, c'est parcequ'ils sont de
grands malades et que c'est benefique dans leur cas. Il y a cependant
des problemes. On trouve que du cote d'Ottawa, renouveler ces
permits-la, ils sont branleux. Ils sont pas mal branleux. Il fait
qu'un moment donne, on a donne des permits a des gens mais on en
recevaient pas de nouveau parcequ'il y a des exemptions, il y a des
dates limites a ces permits la et on les renouvele pas, au point ou
un moment donne, on se trouve dans une zone entre deux et on se dit
"Est-ce-que la police va venir me prendre maintenant que j'ai droit de
fumer les joints? Est-ce-que la police va venir me ramasser etant
donne qu'on a pa renouveler mon permit? C'est le cas de Marc Paquette,
un residant de l'Ontario, Hawkesbury. Hier, il s'est presente devant
la Cour federale et leur a dit, c'est pas melant, je sort pas d'ici
tand que je n'ai pas comparu devant un juge pour me faire comprendre.
Il est la. Bonjour M. Paqutte. Ca va bien aujourd'hui?
      MICHEL LANGEVIN: We're back with this edition of "Face to Face."
You know the story of pot for therapeutic reasons in Canada, it's
gotten a lot of attention. There are people in the country who have
the exemption, meaning, they aren't subject to the drugs law in
Canada, that these people can consume marijuana for therapeutic
reasons because their very sick and it's beneficial in their cases.
There are however some problems. We find on the side of Ottawa that
when it comes to renewing the these permits, they're "branleux."
They're pretty much branleux. At one moment, they issue permits to
these people and there are expiry dates on these permits and they
don't renew them to the point where at one point, they find themselves
in a zone between two and ask themselves "Are the police going to come
and take me away because I have the right to smoke joints? Will the
police come to take me given my permit hasn't been renewed? It's the
case of Marc Paquette, a resident of Hawkesbury Ontario. Yesterday, it
went to the Federal Court and told them, it's not confusing, I'm
not leaving here as long as I haven't appeared before a judge to plead
my case. He is here. Hello Mr. Paquette. How's everything today?

PAQUETTE: Oui. Ca va mieux.
LANGEVIN: Vous n'etes pas rester la longtemps? Qu'est-ce-qui c'est
passe?
PAQUETTE: Le juge a decide de remettre ca a jeudi, c'etait pas,
disons... je me semble que ca pressait et j'aurais du l'avoir hier
mais c'est pas arrive.
LANGEVIN: Alors jeudi vous allez obtenir une comparution ou vour allez
pouvoir vous expliquer?
PAQUETTE: Oui.
LANGEVIN: Est-ce-qu'on vous a rassure?
PAQUETTE: Non. Vraiment non. Il n'y a pas personne, je n'ai pas eu de
commentaire de Sante Canada. Il n'y a pas personne qui m'a rapelle
encore.
      PAQUETTE: Yes things are going better.
      LANGEVIN: You didn't stay long. What happened?
      PAQUETTE: The judge decided to put it off to Thursday, I though
it was urgent and should have had it yesterday but it didn't happen.
      LANGEVIN: So Thursday you'll have an appearance where you'll be
able to explain yourself?
      PAQUETTE: Yes.
      LANGEVIN: Have they reassured you?
      PAQUETTE: No, not really. No one, I've had no comment from Health
Canada. No one has called me yet.

LANGEVIN: Vous avez permission pour fumer du pot parceque vous etes un
grand malade. Malade de quoi?
PAQUETTE: Dites donc que ca a rapport a la vie privee, c'est entre moi
et mon medicin et Sante Canada mais j'ai plusieurs maladies chroniques
graves et mortelles, et ca a prit 18 mois pour que je puisse obtenir
mon exemption, septembre 1998 jusqu'au 24 mars 2000 qu'ils m'ont donne
mon premier exemption.
      LANGEVIN: You have permission to smoke pot because you've very
sick. Sick of what?
      PAQUETTE: Let's say that it has to do with my private life, it's
between me and my doctor and Health Canada but I have several chronic
illnesses serious and fatal, and it took 18 months for me to get my
exemption, september 1998 until March 24 2000 when they gave me my
first exemption.

LANGEVIN: Okay, la vous avez eu votre premier exemption. Pourquoi
c'est pas a vie cette exemption la?
PAQUETTE: Ah bien, eux-autres, c'est a tout les six mois, c'est
renouvele a tout les 6 mois et il faut que j'aille voir mon medecin,
il faut envoyer des rapports at tout les 6 mois, et c'est a mes frais,
comme de raison. C'est un casse-tete pour moi-meme et mon medicin et
ce sont les conditions qu'on est soumis a tout les 6 mois.
LANGEVIN: Ils vous disent quoi, Sante Canada, parceque j'imagine que
vous les avez appele, vous arrivez a echeance bientot.
PAQUETTE: C'est echue depuis Dimanche passe.
      LANGEVIN: Okay. Now you've had your first exemption. Why isn't
this exemption for life?
      PAQUETTE: Ah well, for them, it's every 6 months, its' renewed
every six months and Ihave to go see my doctor, he has to send in
reports every 6 months, at my expense of course. It's a jigsaw puzzle
for me and my doctor and those are the conditions we are subjected to
every 6 months.
      LANGEVIN: What do Health Canada say because I imagine that you've
called them, that it will expire soon?
      PAQUETTE: It's expired since last Sunday.

LANGEVIN: Ah, bon sens, gars. Bon, finalement, vous etes comme un
citoyen normal. Si on vous prend a fumer du pot ou avoir du pot sur
vous, on peut vous arreter la.
PAQUETTE: Oui. Mais je vais vous expliquer un peut qu'est-ce-qui c'est
passe. Lundi le 5 mars, j'ai telephone Mme. Toscano, qui est la
travailleuse qui s'occupe de mon cas a Sante Canada puis elle m'a dit
qu'il n'y avait pas de probleme, mon exemption avait ete renouvele et
que c'etait par la poste, qu'elle etait pour verifier et me rappeler
pour certifier l'exactitude de ca. Mais toute la semaine a passe et
Mme. Toscano ne m'a pas rappele puis je me suis dit, ca doit etre par
la poste. La, on est rendu vendredi et j'ai toujours pas eu le
renouvellement de mon exemption. Samedi est arrive. Dimanche est
arrive et la, je commencais a paniquer parceque le 11 mars a minuit,
la je deviens une victime automatique pour la police. Lundi, le 12
mars, j'ai rappelle, une semaine apres, j'ai parle a Mme. Toscano.
Elle m'a dit: "Je m'excuse si vous ne l'avez pas eu votre exemption
encore. Elle a ete vraiment renouvele mais est retenu au bureau du
directeur <M. Carol Langlois> et vous allez l'avoir par courrier et
poste prioritaire soit cette semaine ou la semaine prochaine."
      LANGEVIN: Ah, good sense guys. Good, finally, you are just like
ay normal citizen. If you're caught smoking or having pot on you,
othey can arrest you then. o
      PAQUETTE: Yes. I'd like to explain a little of what happened.
Monday March 5, I telephoned Mrs. Toscano, my Health Canada case
worker, and she told me that there was no problem, my exemption had
been renewedand that it had been mailed, that she'd verify and call me
back to certify it. But a whole week went by and Mrs. Toscano didn't
call so I told myself it was coming by mail. Friday arrives and I
haven't gotten my exemption renewal. Saturday arrives. Sunday arrives
and now I'm starting to panic because March 11, at midnight, then I
become a automatic victim for the police. Monday March 12, a week
later, I  called Mrs. Toscano. She told me "I'm sorry that you didn't
get your exemption yet. It was really renewed but is being withheld in
the office of the Directory <Mr. Carol Langlois> and you'll get it by
courrier or priority post either this week or next week."
LANGEVIN: Maudite gang de branleux.
PAQUETTE: Depuis que j'ai a faire avec Sante Canada, c'est malheureux,
je ne veux pas parler contre les gouvernements parceque j'ai travaille
fort toute ma vie, j'ai toujours ete un bon voteur, mais le traitement
que j'ai depuis que j'ai a faire avec eux-autres, je m'attendais que
nos bureaucrats aient de la compassion, qu'ils soient ouverts et a
l'aide des gens malades, mais je me suis rendu compte que c'est une
bureaucratie cauchemaresque au detriment des gens malades et la,
c'est pour mon exemption que je m'en va en cour demain. Le reste va
suivre.
      LANGEVIN: Damned gang of branleux.
      PAQUETTE: Ever since I've dealt with Health Canada, it's sad
becasue I don't want to speak ill of governments because I worked hard
all my life, I've always been a good voter, but the treatment I've
received since I've had to deal with them, I expected that our
bureaucrats would have some compassion, that they'd be open and of help
to sick people, but I learned that it's a nightmare bureacracy to the
detriment of sick people and there, it's for my exemption that I'm
going to court tomorrow. The rest will follow.

LANGEVIN: J'espere. M. Paquette, vous, il se passe quoi si on vous
empeche de fumer des joints?
PAQUETTE: C'est plus important que je m'occupe de ma sante et le
reste, c'est bien de valeur mais si il faut que j'aille contre la loi
pour en consommer, j'irai contre la loi. C'est ca ou la mort dans mon
cas, monsieur, parceque j'ai pas aucun choix, ma foie n'est pas en
condition que je ne peut pu prendre de medicaments depuis plusieurs
annees par voies (?????), sous forme de pilule, et c'est la seule
facon pour soulager un paquet de mes conditions chroniques.
LANGEVIN: M. Paquette, vous avez toute ma sympathie que ca va bien
passer pour vous. J'espere qu'on va vous entendre des demain et
j'espere qu'on va finalement faire en sorte que ces bureaucrats, ces
incompetents la, dans les bureaux qui ne tiennent pas, qui ne semblent
pas avoir a coeur les problemes des autres. Pas de probleme, on vous
accorde des permission pour fumer du pot pour vous soulager pendant un
certain temps et quand vient le temps de renouveler le permit? Ca doit
avoir ete renouvele, c'est incomprehensible, inacceptable.
      LANGEVIN: I hope Mr. Paquette, you, what happens if they prevent
you from smoking joints?
      PAQUETTE: It's much more important that I occupy myself with my
health and the rest, it's too bad but if I have to break the law to
consume some, I'll break the law. It's that or death in my case, sir,
because I don't have any choice, my liver is no condition to permit
and I haven't been able to take my medicine for several years by way
of pills and it's the only way to relieve a packet of my chronic
conditions. .
      LANGEVIN: Mr. Paquette, you have all my sympathy that it goes
well for you. I hope that they hear you tomorrow and I hope they'll
finally sort it out so that these bureaucrats, these incompetents, in
their offices who do not hold, who seem not to have the problems of
others at heart. No problem, we grant permits to smoke pot for relief
for awhile and when comes the time to renew the permit? It should have
been renewed, it's incomprehensible, inacceptable.

PAQUETTE: Quand on leur ecrit une lettre, pour leur expliquer les
problemes avec les exemptions, ca prend 3 mois, 6 mois, un an pour une
reponse si tu en a une. J'ai envoye souvent des lettres tres
importantes et j'ai jamais eu des reponses ou des reponses partielles.
Le reste de la lettre, on dirait que c'est pour tous les Exemptees, ca
ne te concernait pas du tout la. C'est un cauchemar, il faut que nos
bureaucrats soient vraiment au service des gens malades avec une
oreille de compassion.
LANGEVIN: Merci beaucoup et bonne chance. M. Marc Paquette de
Hawkesbury. Hier il s'est presente devant la Cour federale. C'est que
lui, son exemption, il ne l'a pas. Il aimerait bien de l'avoir. Sante
Canada dit "pas de probleme. On va vous la donner. On sait pa quand."
      PAQUETTE: When we write them a letter to explain the problems
with their exemptions, it takes 3 months, 6 months, a year for an
answer if you even get one. I've often sent very important letters and
never got a response or got partial responses. The rest of the letter,
we could say, was for all the Exemptees, that it didn't concern me
personally then. It's a nightmare, our bureaucrats have to be in the
service of sick people with a compassionate ear.
      LANGEVIN: Thank you and good luck. Mr. Marc Paquette of
Hawkesbury. Yesterday, he went to federal court. It's that him, his
exemption, he doesn't have it. He'd sure love to have it. Health
Canada says "no problem. You can have it, we don't know when."
---

      And once again, the original article from Le Droit previously
reproduced.

Le Droit (Ottawa) Wed March 14 2001
Patrick Duquette

Marc Paquette en a assez des delais
      Marc Paquette has had enough delays

Un fumeur de marijuana s'adresse a un juge pour hater le
renouvellement de son exemption
      A marijuana smoker turns to a judge to hasten the renewal of his
exemption.

Caption portrait: Marc Paquette peut fumer - en toute legalite -
plusieurs cigarettes de marijuana par jour a des fins therapeutiques.
L'exemption dont il beneficie doit etre renouvelle a tous les six
mois, mais Sante Canada n'est jamais presse de lui accorder son
renouvellement
      Picture caption: Marc Paquette can smoke, completely legally,
several marijuana cigarettes per day for therapeutic purposes. The
exemption he enjoys must be renewed every six months but Health Canada
is never in a rush to get it to him

Fumeur de marijuana a des fins therapeutiques, un residant de
Hawkesbury fulmine devant la lenteur repetee de Sante Canada a lui
renouveler son exemption. Trois fois deja, Marc Paquette, 45 ans, a
fait face a des delais pour obtenir ce document qui lui permet de
consommer en toute legalite. Sante Canada renovelle les exemptions a
tous les six mois pour assurer un bon suivi medical. Celle de Mr.
Paquette est echue depuis lundi et il craint maintenant d'etre arrete
par la police. Ecoeure par la lenteur des bureaucrates de Sante
Canada, il a fait le chemin depuis Hawkesbury hier pour cogner a la
porte de la Cour federale, a Ottawa. <<Je ne sors pas d'ici sans mon
exemption>>, a-t-il clame, decide a rencontrer un juge. Apres quelques
discussions, un magistrat lui a finalement accorde une audience pour
demain matin, 9h30.

      A medicinal marijuana smoker, resident of Hawkesbury, fulminates
over the repeated slowness of Health Canada in renewing his exemption.
Three times now, Marc Paquette, 45 years old, has faced delays in
obtaining this document that permits him to consume completely
legally. Health Canada renews the exemptions every six months to
ensure good medical reports. Mr. Paquette's lapsed since Monday and he
worries about being arrested by the police. Puked out by the slowness
of the Health Canada bureaucrats, he made the trip from Hawkesbury
yesterday to knock at the door of the Federal Court in Ottawa. <<I'm
not leaving here without my exemption" he claimed, resolved to see a
judge. After several discussions, a magistrate finally accorded him a
hearing tomorrow morning at 9:30.

Mr. Paquette fume de cinq a six cigarettes de marijuana par jour pour
soulager la douleur due a de graves maladies chroniques. Il
s'apprivisionne aupres de trafiquants, n'ayant pas les moyens de
cultiver la drogue lui-meme. Depuis mars 2000, il a demande trois fois
le renouvellemet de son exemption, un document dont profitent 189
personnes au Canada. Mais chaque fois, des delais administratifs ont
complique les choses. M. Paquette ne peut tout simplement plus
souffrir ces delais. <<Ils sont en train de me tuer, a-t-il dit. La
derniere foi, j'ai manque de mari pendant trois jours. J'ai fait une
crise d'angoisse et je me suis trouve a l'hopital. Il a fallu
m'injecter des calmants.>>
      Mr. Paquette smokes five to six marijuana cigarettes per day to
ease the pain due to serious chronic illnesses. He buys from
traffickers, not having the means to cultivate the drug himself. Since
March 2000, he has three times requested the renewal of his exemption
which 189 other Canadians also profit from. But each time,
administrative delays complicated things. Mr. Paquette just cannot
tolerate further these delays. "They're killing me, he said. The last
time, I ran out of mari for three days. I had an anxiety attack and
found myself in the hospital. They had to inject me with sedatives.>>

Chez Sante Canada, une porte-parole a recommande la patience a M.
Paquette. Si tout est en regle, l'exemption lui parviendra sous peu.
<<C'est une question d'etre patient plus que d'autre chose>> a dit
Roslyn Tremblay. Tenue de respecter la loi sur les renseignements
personnels, Roslyn Tremblay a refuse de discuter du dossier de M.
Paquette. Sante Canada accorde des exemptions pour fins medicales
depuis juin 1999, a precise la porte-parole. Elle asssure que les
delais auxquels M. Paquette est confronte ne sont pas chose courante.

      At Health Canada, a spokeswoman recommended Mr. Paquette be
patient. If everything is in order, the exemption will arrive soon
enough. <<It's a question of being patient more than anything else>>
said Roslyn Tremblay. Compelled by law to respect personal
information, Roslyn Tremblay refused to discuss Mr. Paquette's file.
Health Canada grants exemptions for medical purposes since June 1999,
said the spokeswoman. He assures that the delays Mr. Paquette is
facing are not the usual process.
---

JCT: All this press was very effective. It's not like it was the
Hawkesbury media slamming the Ottawa bureaucracy, it was the Ottawa
media slamming them. Is it any wonder they rushed to hand deliver his
exemption before the hearing with all this media yelling at them?
      JCT: Tout cet media etait tres effectif. Ce n'est pas come si
c'etait les media de Hawkesbury qui les clackaient, c'etait les media
d'Ottawa qui les clackaient. Est-ce-qu'on peut etre surpris qu'ils ont
livre son exemption par la main en temps pour le process avec tout ces
media qui les chialaient?

Tomorrow, the "after win" press.
      Demain, la presse de "l'apres victoire."


     John C. "The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
Author of Recommendation to Governments C6 in the
http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
     For anti-bank and pro-LETS community currency news adventures and
reports, subscribe to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/turmel or visit
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
     For links to over 700 timecurrency systems in over 45 nations:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/urlsnat.htm
     LETS Cancel Debt Growth First! Then work on debt.
Tel/fax: 613-728-2196

J.J. Marc Paquette v. Health Canada

      Previous notes on this case are at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/medpot/message/25
Marijuana Exemptee fights Health Canada

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/medpot/message/26
Marijuana Exemptee v. Health Canada article in Le Droit in French and
English

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/medpot/message/27 is this message:

Wednesday Mar 14 2001

      Wednesday before the hearing was busy. Marc did a whole bunch of
new interviews and being a well-spoken man, he came across clearly.
But what was most interesting of all was the fact that in the morning,
he found a package in his mailbox with all the Canada Priority Post
stamps but with no Hawkesbury Post Office postmark. When Marc checked
with the postmaster, there was no record of it having gone through. So
they drove it from Ottawa to Hawkesbury after making sure it had all
the right postage to make it look like it had been delivered in the
mail.
      Then he got a phone call from the Attorney General's office who
had been informed by Health Canada that the Exemption had now been
delivered and that there was therefore no longer any reason to have a
hearing for the interlocutory order to compel them to deliver what had
just arrived. Marc told the Attorney General that he was still coming
in to ask for the rest of his case.
      It's interesting but if Marc had succumbed, they would have gone
in to see the judge alone and have the case dismissed because he
didn't show up. They tried to talk him out of showing up but someone
had to and that would have been the AG alone.
      Actually, it is true, there really was no other "rest of his
case." The other issues were implied in the search for the document.
And since the notice of motion was for only "an interlocutory Order of
Mandamus compelling the Respondent to deliver the renewed letter of
exemption forthwith, once it had been delivered, the motion was
fulfilled without it being mandated by the court. But we didn't want
them to get away with all the pain they were causing him so I had to
find a way to seize the judge of other implied issues.
      The best way was to actually write down the other things Marc had
hoped to get had the hearing been held while he was in jeopardy from
arrest in another quick "short notice" motion. Once a judge takes the
written motion in hand, I've never seen one give it back so the name
of Marc's game was going to be to try to get the court to accept the
new motions so that they have to be dealt with.
      I was debating amending the original motion to seek the implied
justices or writing new ones. I decided new ones was easiest to sneak
in without question whereas changing an old notice of motion needs a
preliminary explanation that introducing a new one did not. Once the
judge had it in his hands, he'd be seized of the issues.

                          FEDERAL COURT - TRIAL DIVISION
      BETWEEN
      The Applicant:
      J.J. Marc Paquette
      AND
      The Respondent:
      Attorney General of Canada
                              ----------------
                              NOTICE OF MOTION
                              ----------------
           TAKE NOTICE THAT on Thursday Mar 15 2001 at 9:30a.m. at the
      Federal Court in Ottawa, J.J. Marc Paquette will, given the
      evident haste with which the Respondents delivered his Exemption
      to Hawkesbury by hand, make a motion to the Court on short notice
      for all the implied benefits that were lost in the Applicant's
      motion for the interlocutory Order of Mandamus when the court was
      not seized of the issues on Tuesday March 13 while the Respondent
      was caught red-handed with their duty unfulfilled, such implied
      benefits being that:
           a) the Court might have made the Respondent explain their
      subjecting the Applicant to the regular jeopardy of arrest by
      mailing out his renewals only after his exemptions expired;
           b) the Court might have chastised the Respondent for the
      failure to get his documentation to him on time;
           c) the Court might have issued an injunction preventing the
      Respondent from ever doing it again to anyone.
           THE GROUNDS are that the Applicant should not be denied full
      justice and closure of these issues due to a delay by the Court
      which, though only 40 hours, was sufficient for the Respondent to
      correct their error and now try to get away with it without
      mending their ways.
           The Applicant requests ten minutes for the presentation.
      Dated at Ottawa on Thursday Mar 15 2001
           J.J. Marc Paquette, Applicant, Hawkesbury, Ontario, K6A 1V5
      Tel: 613-636-2177 Fax: 613-728-2196
      To Respondent: Deputy Attorney General of Canada,
      Department of Justice, 2nd floor, East Memorial Bldg.,
      284 Wellington St., Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0H8
      Tel: 613-946-3815/957-1122 Fax: 613-954-1920
      I learned years ago that you always ask for only what is just,
and all that is just but we were going to spring it on the court. If
Marc went in and the judge simply said "You have your Exemption, case
moot. Just the threat worked. Good day Mr. Paquette," and Marc would
have to jump up to try to introduce the new motion. But if he was
invited to speak, he only had to hand it up, hand one to the Attorney
General and say "it's all the justice that I seek."
      I'd told him we had to give a copy to the Attorney General and
three copies to the court and while we were waiting to enter the
courtroom, I saw him give a copy of the new Motion Record to the Court
Clerk and the Clerk give it back. I didn't want him to know that we
were going to enter official new motions until they were in and was
glad to intercept Marc before he could give it back and point out that
this was new one.
      The hearing started pleasantly enough with Justice Paul Rouleau
presiding. He put Marc at ease by letting him know he had read the
facts of the case and then jumped all over the Attorney General's
Alain Prefontaine. He demanded to know why they had caused a delay
that had made this man suffer the anxieties he did. Prefontaine could
only say that he didn't know but that his clerk had verified that the
Exemption had been delivered so that there was no reason to continue
the hearing though he had no objection to Mr. Paquette having his say.
      Marc got up and handed in the new Motion Record but I could tell
that both the judge and Prefontaine weren't aware that these were new
motions since it looked like the original record they already had.
      When the judge asked if they didn't have a system so that the
exemptions were delivered in plenty of time, Prefontaine could only
plead bureaucratic incompetence saying that the next guidelines were
going to come out in July and things should be running smoothly by
then.
      Justice Rouleau said that it was terrible that people sick enough
to qualify for these kinds of treatments have to undergo such stress,
turned to Marc and said "You've had to come down from Hawkesbury twice
now over this, right? I order the Respondent to pay M. Paquette $150
for his costs. Thank you very much Mr. Paquette" and started closing
the file.
      Marc turned to me and I whispered loudly to tell the judge "it's
a new motion." The judge heard me and said "Une nouvelle requete? (A
new motion?) He opened it up and started reading.
      The judge then said that a) he had demanded the explanation, b)
he had certainly clearly chastised their delays and c) as for
preventing them from doing it again, he said the $150 he had ordered
them to pay should prove deterrent enough.
      I had hoped for a mere injunction that they not do it again but
getting cash out of them seems much more than mere symbolic victory
when you consider this kind of guerrilla "self-argued" case only cost
Marc $20 to put before the judge.
      Then we were astounded when Justice Rouleau went even further. He
told Prefontaine to pass along to the Committee that were busy
redrafting rules for these medical exemptees that once they had proven
their illnesses to the satisfaction of the government, it should be
the doctors that sign the renewals, not bureaucrats.
      With me in the audience were Ray Turmel and Denise Beaudoin,
Johnny Dupuis and Nicole Massicotte and I could tell that we all felt
like getting up and cheering. There was a look of shocked glee on
everyone's faces as we realized how right the Judge had been and how
useful that would be to all Exemptees in upcoming legal battles.
      For the rest of the day, we were taping the news stories that
were going out. With CHRO were CTV Ottawa, CBC-TV French and English,
TVA and TQS Quebec, CJRC and CBC radio all blaring that Health Canada
had to pay for jerking Paquette's Exemption around and that the Judge
had stated that doctors should be renewing exemptions, not
bureaucrats.
      What was interesting was that though it made the English
electronic media, it didn't make the




      Over and over, the main message stressed was not the penalty for
them screwing up his renewal but the fact that these screw-ups
shouldn't even be in the position where they interfere between people
and their doctors.
      I can only hope that the story goes national and we find out from
other Exemptees if their Exemptions have always arrived late too. Was
systemic that Exemptions were mailed out after the old ones had
expired? I'd bet it it was.
      And I'm going to get the chance to find out.
      Many of you know from the Pariseau Federal Court case that the
Attorney General has told the court that because Pariseau is now on
his third Exemption and that his second exemption that is being
complained about has expired, his complaint expires with it too. No
kidding. They're saying they win because Pariseau didn't beat their
clock. Of course, the court hasn't accepted the Attorney General's
argument that because the objectionable document is now expired,
complaints about it are too, but it can't hurt to see if we can't win
our justice within the 6 months before they can try to argue we are
beaten by the clock.
      To make sure that we have lots of time to fight Marc's Exemption
conditions that are deemed unconscionable to all Exemptees, most of
which have been raised in the Pariseau v. Health Canada Affidavit and
Memoranda, we will be filing the Application for Judicial Review of
the Exemption that was just delivered giving us the whole 6 months to
fight them before they try to claim that they win if we don't win
within the 6 months of the life of the Exemption.
      It's just that Health Canada have bureaucratically abused Marc
Paquette in so many ways, cataloguing his file of papers will be a
chore. Suffice to say that Marc needed over a year and a half to
convince Health Canada that he qualified as one of the 180 sickest
people in Canada. 18 months for them to agree with his doctor that he
needs his marijuana medicine.
      Is it not fair to say that Health Canada had damaged his health?

      These bureaucratic delays are at the heart of the new Johnny
Dupuis Application for Judicial Review which he just filed in Federal
Court yesterday. The Court granted him an extension of time to file
his complaint that Health Canada were wasting time in bureaucratic
stalling tactics that were being challenged. Both he and his wife
applied for exemptions and after a full four months, their doctor was
sent another questionnaire to fill out. Why couldn't the questionnaire
have been included in the original forms so that applications aren't
delayed 4 months systemically?
      The point is that Health Canada has been waging bureaucratic war
against sick people. Health Canada have admitted in their Pariseau
documents that they are not only do health issues go into their
deliberations  but also policing against drug-crime. Doctors are
limited to only considering health issues which is one reason the
judge reasoned they should be in charge. The judge was not aware
that these Health Canada officials were not the Health Canada doctors
but the Health Canada drug police taking over from the real police to
fight with these exemptees the real police can't fight with.
Basically, the police need a civilian cover to continue the war
against marijuana use and the best cover to fight medicinal users is
to police them from their medicinal organizations.

      What they don't realize is that statistically, I would bet that
there are some Exemptees whose health have been hurt by the
bureaucratic red tape wielded by these Health Canada warriors against
marijuana users. I would bet that some Exemptees will suffer premature
death because of the stress caused by their battles with the Health
Canada secret police. I would bet some Exemptees have suffered
premature death, i.e. have been pushed to death, in their battles with
the red-tape warriors.
      And given my overview of all arguments in the 1) Pariseau, 2)
Dupuis, 3) Dupuis, 4) Paquette, 5) Beaudoin, 5) Turmel, 6) Massicotte
marijuana exemptee cases, I'll be able to pummel the Attorney General
like we did yesterday until a judge not only suggests but also orders
Health Canada to stop usurping the doctors' prerogative on health care
by leaving the health care of Canadians to their doctors.
      And of course, then the final leg of the battle will take place,
winning the right to smoke it to prevent illness rather counter
illness once we're sick.
      Remember, they've outlawed history's greatest medicinal plant.
      They are insane.
      So you can never be sure of what they're going to do.
      But even though the lunatics are in charge of our Earthly asylum,
I've never given up hope that reasonable people can win over people
who aren't too far loony.
      The best story I can offer as proof are the repeated news stories
warning of the alarming growth of the use of marijuana among the young
who, for many reasons, eschew alcoholic highs. As we are dazed at the
immensity of the problem of all these young people using marijuana, it
never dawns on the programmers that people might ask "How many end up
dead?" And when the answer is "none." People might ask "How many end
up in the hospital?" And when the answer is "Other the few gunshot
wounds with the prohibition police, none." And people might conclude
that with no victims filling the cemeteries or the hospitals, why
would government outlaw such a benign high while promoting the violent
anti-social highs of alcohol?
      But that's a whole new parcel of info dealing with economic
considerations,
Hemp fuels, hemp paints, hemp varnishes, hemp fibers, cloth and rope,
Hemp fertilizers, oils and plastics, medicines of hope.
      There's a lot more behind the ban on laughing grass than stopping
from a pleasant high.
      I wonder how the powers that be will react? It's still very
satisfying. For $20,I put a sick guy in front a judge and got some
justice done.
      So stay tuned to medpot.net by sending a blank email to
medpot-subscribe@... or visit
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/medpot and subscribe from there.

      Odds are you haven't heard of the case other than in the
television media. The Ottawa Citizen and Sun didn't cover it so it
won't get out to the wire services unless someone translates the Le
Droit articles from the French. So people who are reading this are the
only English readers in Canada who know what happened in Federal
Court.
      In my next article on the weekend, I'll transcribe the media
reports on his case from the television, radio, and Le Droit.

LETS Cancel Debt Growth First! Then work on debt.
John C. "The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
For anti-bank and pro-LETS community currency adventures and reports,
subscribe to http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/turmel
For links to over 700 timecurrency systems in over 45 nations:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/urlsnat.htm
Tel/fax: 613-728-2196

MedPot.Net: Marijuana Exemptee v. Health Canada in Le Droit

Le Droit (Ottawa) Wed March 14 2001
Patrick Duquette

Marc Paquette en a assez des delais
      Marc Paquette has had enough delays

Un fumeur de marijuana s'adresse a un juge pour hater le
renouvellement de son exemption
      A marijuana smoker turns to a judge to hasten the renewal of his
exemption.

Caption portrait: Marc Paquette peut fumer - en toute legalite -
plusieurs cigarettes de marijuana par jour a des fins therapeutiques.
L'exemption dont il beneficie doit etre renouvelle a tous les six
mois, mais Sante Canada n'est jamais presse de lui accorder son
renouvellement
      Picture caption: Marc Paquette can smoke, completely legally,
several marijuana cigarettes per day for therapeutic purposes. The
exemption he enjoys must be renewed every six months but Health Canada
is never in a rush to get it to him


Fumeur de marijuana a des fins therapeutiques, un residant de
Hawkesbury fulmine devant la lenteur repetee de Sante Canada a lui
renouveler son exemption. Trois fois deja, Marc Paquette, 45 ans, a
fait face a des delais pour obtenir ce document qui lui permet de
consommer en toute legalite. Sante Canada renovelle les exemptions a
tous les six mois pour assurer un bon suivi medical. Celle de Mr.
Paquette est echue depuis lundi et il craint maintenant d'etre arrete
par la police. Ecoeure par la lenteur des bureaucrates de Sante
Canada, il a fait le chemin depuis Hawkesbury hier pour cogner a la
porte de la Cour federale, a Ottawa. <<Je ne sors pas d'ici sans mon
exemption>>, a-t-il clame, decide a rencontrer un juge. Apres quelques
discussions, un magistrat lui a finalement accorde une audience pour
demain matin, 9h30.

      A medicinal marijuana smoker, resident of Hawkesbury, fulminates
over the repeated slowness of Health Canada in renewing his exemption.
Three times now, Marc Paquette, 45 years old, has faced delays in
obtaining this document that permits him to consume completely
legally. Health Canada renews the exemptions every six months to
ensure good medical reports. Mr. Paquette's lapsed since Monday and he
worries about being arrested by the police. Puked out by the slowness
of the Health Canada bureaucrats, he made the trip from Hawkesbury
yesterday to knock at the door of the Federal Court in Ottawa. <<I'm
not leaving here without my exemption" he claimed, resolved to see a
judge. After several discussions, a magistrate finally accorded him a
hearing tomorrow morning at 9:30.

Mr. Paquette fume de cinq a six cigarettes de marijuana par jour pour
soulager la douleur due a de graves maladies chroniques. Il
s'apprivisionne aupres de trafiquants, n'ayant pas les moyens de
cultiver la drogue lui-meme. Depuis mars 2000, il a demande trois fois
le renouvellemet de son exemption, un document dont profitent 189
personnes au Canada. Mais chaque fois, des delais administratifs ont
complique les choses. M. Paquette ne peut tout simplement plus
souffrir ces delais. <<Ils sont en train de me tuer, a-t-il dit. La
derniere foi, j'ai manque de mari pendant trois jours. J'ai fait une
crise d'angoisse et je me suis trouve a l'hopital. Il a fallu
m'injecter des calmants.>>

      Mr. Paquette smokes five to six marijuana cigarettes per day to
ease the pain due to serious chronic illnesses. He buys from
traffickers, not having the means to cultivate the drug himself. Since
March 2000, he has three times requested the renewal of his exemption
which 189 other Canadians also profit from. But each time,
administrative delays complicated things. Mr. Paquette just cannot
tolerate further these delays. "They're killing me, he said. The last
time, I ran out of mari for three days. I had an anxiety attack and
found myself in the hospital. They had to inject me with sedatives.>>


Chez Sante Canada, une porte-parole a recommande la patience a M.
Paquette. Si tout est en regle, l'exemption lui parviendra sous peu.
<<C'est une question d'etre patient plus que d'autre chose>> a dit
Roslyn Tremblay. Tenue de respecter la loi sur les renseignements
personnels, Roslyn Tremblay a refuse de discuter du dossier de M.
Paquette. Sante Canada accorde des exemptions pour fins medicales
depuis juin 1999, a precise la porte-parole. Elle asssure que les
delais auxquels M. Paquette est confronte ne sont pas chose courante.

      At Health Canada, a spokeswoman recommended Mr. Paquette be
patient. If everything is in order, the exemption will arrive soon
enough. <<It's a question of being patient more than anything else>>
said Roslyn Tremblay. Compelled by law to respect personal
information, Roslyn Tremblay refused to discuss Mr. Paquette's file.
Health Canada grants exemptions for medical purposes since June 1999,
said the spokeswoman. He assures that the delays Mr. Paquette is
facing are not the usual process.

LETS Cancel Debt Growth First! Then work on debt.
John C. "The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
For anti-bank and pro-LETS community currency adventures and reports,
subscribe to http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/turmel
For links to over 700 timecurrency systems in over 45 nations:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/urlsnat.htm
Tel/fax: 613-728-2196

MedPot.Net: Marijuana Exemptee fights Health Canada

      J.J. Marc Paquette is sick enough to qualify to smoke marijuana
but Health Canada was in the habit of mailing out his renewed
exemptions the day after the old ones expired so that there would be a
window of jeopardy when he did not have any protection against being
busted, a cause of great anxieties to a guy who suffers "chronic
anxiety" syndrome.
      His first exemption was mailed out 4 days after it came into
force.
      His second exemption was mailed out the day after his original
exemption expired leaving him in jeopardy of being busted until he got
it a few days later in the mail. It expired last Sunday night Mar 11
2001.
      Even though he'd been told last week that it was in the mail, on
Monday Mar 12 2001 it had not arrived. When he called Health Canada,
he was told it had been issued but that director, Carol Langlois, had
decided to withhold it. He'd get it in the mail later this week or
next week.

      The Federal Court allows for motions for immediate relief before
federal court actions are even launched so within an application for
judicial review of the whole Letter of Exemption now being withheld, I
wrote him a short notice motion and affidavit for immediate relief.
      See: http://www.medpot.net/mpn1a.htm

      If it is the duty of Health Canada to provide him with his
documents on time, then their repeatedly sending out the renewed
exemptions after the old ones expired was putting stress on all
exemptees and they were not doing their duty. So the Federal Court can
mandate that they do their duty with what's called an interlocutory
Order of Mandamus compelling the Respondent to perform its duty in a
timely way by delivering the renewed letter of exemption to him
forthwith so he can go home free of the illegitimate bureaucratically-
induced jeopardy of criminal sanctions.
      Our plan was to inform all the media that he was going to go to
the court house, that he had his marijuana with him and because he could
be arrested without his new exemption, he would ask the judge
for an interlocutory Order of Mandamus to compel their duty.

Tuesday Mar 13 2001

      At the courthouse, a clerk took our documents up to the presiding
judge of the court to see if he would hear the case on short notice.
At that point, only the Patrick Duquette from Le Droit had arrived and
he was there when the clerk came back and said that the judge wouldn't
hear it until Tuesday, next week. I was shocked. I've always had the
chance to present arguments to the judge in person on the urgency of
your case and being sent home without Marc meeting the judge took me
by surprise. I thought that the peril of being arrested because the
bureaucrats were late did warrant the judge's immediate attention and
was taken aback for a few moments that the judge didn't see the
urgency.
      The other problem was that Health Canada now knew that they were
being caught way out on a limb in an illegitimate harassment of an
Exemptee so they'd try to get his exemption to him before any court
appearance where they would probably be castigated by the judge and
compelled to deliver the document.
      Waiting a week gives them that much time to get the document to
him and then there is no more reason to see the judge. They get away
with it without being chastised or made to explain why they did it to
him in the first place.

      So I was couldn't accept putting it off a week. The whole case
would lose its urgency if they finally delivered after stressing
him out only one week and they'd be free to do it to others. The point
is that the harassment looks systemic. I would bet that they mail out
the new exemptions the day after the old ones expire to everyone so
that they can make all the exemptees suffer the same few day of stress
of being without valid exemptions.
      But what to do about a hearing next week. I felt between a rock
and a hard place. I really felt that we have a right to demand a
hearing on the urgency so I told the girl to go back to the judge and
remind him that Paquette is in jeopardy of jail and another week of it
can't do. I didn't know what we would do if the judge didn't change
his mind but civil disobedience is always part of my quiver of
actions. She took off to see the judge while we became preoccupied
with an increasingly larger number of journalists and media who had
arrived and wanted interviews. So we went outside.

      After a while, I left the media scrum to check up inside and
found the clerk who told me that the judge would hear Marc's case at
the next sitting of the court first thing at 9:30 on Thursday morning.
Less than 2 days. What to do?
      Insisting on seeing the judge right now when Marc was not in any
"practical" danger of being arrested, only theoretical danger, and
since the judge was in effect granting the motion to dispense with the
"2 clear days" rule of service by letting it in on only a day-and-a-
half's notice, and since I didn't know what I'd do if the judge held
firm short of having J.J. cause a civil disturbance by refusing to
leave without his protection, and since J.J. didn't need the stress of
a confrontation, therefore, I accepted to put it off 40 hours to
Thursday morning. If Health Canada didn't have it in the mail by now,
they'd never get it to him via official Canada post by Thursday
morning unless they hand-delivered it.
      The press was awesome, as it should be when it's a case of
David kicking Goliath in the balls. It's only the first skirmish the
Paquette v Health Canada Federal Court battles but it catches them in
an obvious foul and it's nice to start an action with a winning
interlocutory judgment. Believe me, if Marc wasn't as sick as he is,
I'd have suggested the stress of holding out for the short notice
hearing.
      So, Marc Paquette gets a chance to catch Health Canada in a clear
case of harassment of marijuana exemptees tomorrow morning. Lots of
media coming, stay tuned.

JOHNNY DUPUIS CASE

      The Federal Court has granted the extension of time to file an
application for judicial review against the Health Canada request that
applicants for marijuana exemptions submit to psychiatric exams.

CANADIAN PRESS STORY TOMORROW

P.S. A reporter from CP, Canadian Press wire service, called for a
story and ended up taking over 4 hours at my web site before calling
back to check final details. So there could be a pretty good story
tomorrow in Canadian newspapers.

LETS Cancel Debt Growth First! Then work on debt.
John C. "The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
For anti-bank and pro-LETS community currency adventures and reports,
subscribe to http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/turmel
For links to over 700 timecurrency systems in over 45 nations:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/urlsnat.htm
Tel/fax: 613-728-2196

Please send this to medpot@yahoogroups.com


> On Tuesday, February 20, 2001, Assembly Member Virginia Strom-Martin
> introduced Assembly Bill 848 into the California Legislature to
renew
> the legal status of Industrial Hemp for commercial production in the
> State of California.
>
> The bill would add Division 26 to the Food and Agricultural Code
> providing that any person who meets specified requirements and is
issued
> a license by the Secretary of Food and Agriculture shall be
authorized
> to plant, grow, harvest, possess, process, sell, or buy industrial
hemp
> for commercial purposes.
>
> The bill would define "industrial hemp" to mean all parts and
varieties
> of the plant cannabis sativa that contain a tetrahydrocannabinol
> concentration of 3/10 of 1% (.003), or less, by weight.  The bill
would
> require the applicant for licensure to submit an application to the
> Secretary of Food and Agriculture.
>
> More information is available from the offices of Assembly Member
> Virginia Strom-Martin in Sacramento at (916) 319-2001, in Santa
Rosa at
> (707) 576-2526, in Eureka at (707) 445-7014, or in Ukiah at (707)
> 463-5770.
>
> More information is available on Industrial Hemp at
http://www.CAIR.net
>
> More information on AB 448 is available as follows:
>
> BILL NUMBER: AB 448 INTRODUCED BILL TEXT
> http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0401-
0450/ab_448_bill_20010220_introduced.html
>
> CURRENT BILL STATUS:
> http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0401-
0450/ab_448_bill_20010220_status.html
>
> COMPLETE BILL HISTORY:
> http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0401-
0450/ab_448_bill_20010220_history.html
>
> ASSEMBLY MEMBER VIRGINIA STROM-MARTIN WEBSITE:
> http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a01/

TURMEL'S MEDPOT.NET NEWS
                         http://www.metpot.net

Feb 16 2001

* Jean Charles Pariseau can grow all the marijuana he needs and has
dropped his Federal Court Application against Health Canada for having
caused him to run out.
      Jean Charles Pariseau (613) 746-3910
      Dr. Don Kilby (613) 564-3950.
      Alain Prefontaine (Attoney-General) (613) 946-3815 (613) 957-1122


* Johnny Dupuis, Section 56 Exemption Applicant and Quebec outlaw
marijuana grower, has filed for a judicial review of the Health Canada
demand that he undergo a psychiatric evaluation as part of his Section
56 application.
      Johnny Dupuis: (819) 428-1854

* Denise Beaudoin who was charged with Ray Turmel with cultivating
marijuana has applied for a Section 56 Exemption and will resort to
Federal Court if they stall too long.
      Denise Beaudoin (819) 778-5042

* Quebec lady soon to challenge Health  Canada for sending out
Questionnaires 4 months after the application as a stalling tactic.
* Ontario Exemptee wrote to Chretien that Health Canada was killing
him and is next to court.
      John C. Turmel, (613) 728-2196

* On Monday Feb. 19 2001, we will be in Montreal Criminal Court to
support the leader of the Marijuana Party of Canada in his trial for
trafficking marijuana at the Montreal Compassion Club
      Marc-Boris St. Maurice (514) 528-1768

See stories at http://www.medpot.net

LETS Cancel Debt Growth First! Then work on debt.
John C. "The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
For anti-bank and pro-LETS community currency adventures and reports,
subscribe to http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/turmel
For links to over 700 timecurrency systems in over 45 nations:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/urlsnat.htm

Greater St Louis NORML and Campaign Liberty will be
staging a candlelight vigil for those people who are
victims of 'victim-less' crimes such as cannabis
possession. 
The event will take place on Thursday 15 February 2001
(6-8PM) outside the St Louis County Justice Center in
Clayton MO. Dress warm and bring candles (although we
will have 50 or so to provide).

We would like to encourage anyone who cares to join us
in supporting an end to this country's failed war on
drugs. Let's show those prisoners of the war on some
drugs, "it could be us in jail instead."

Feb. 15th marks the first year anniversary since the
USA prison population reach over 2 million individuals
largely due to an 80% increase in non-violent drug
arrests and convictions. We have the highest per
capita incarceration rate in the world, more than
Russia and China. What's worse is the obvious racial
disparity of convicted drug offenders and the
subsequent political disenfranchisement of mostly poor
minorities. 

Jme J, member & volunteer StL National Organization
for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
http://www.mo-norml.org or http://www.norml.org

__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Court File No. T-1832-00

                     FEDERAL COURT - TRIAL DIVISION


BETWEEN

The Applicant:

Jean Charles Pariseau


AND


The Respondent:

Attorney General of Canada


                ---------------------------------------
                RESPONDENT'S MEMORANDUM OF FACT AND LAW
                ---------------------------------------

PART I - FACTS:
===============

      A) Overview

1.   Mr. Pariseau suffers from serious illnesses requiring him to take
forty-eight pills every day. According to his doctor, Dr. Kilby,
smoking marijuana helps Mr. Pariseau ingest, digest and absorb his
medication.

2.   The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (the "Act") renders
illegal, among other things, the possession, cultivation and
importation of marijuana. The Act allows the Minister of Health to
exempt certain persons from the application of those portions of the
law that create the offences.

3.   Dr. Kilby recommended to the Minister that Mr. Pariseau be
allowed to possess and grow marijuana. The Minister acceded to this
request. On Jun 9, 1999, his duly appointed official issued an
exemption to Mr. Pariseau, for a year. On June 9, 2000, the exemption
was renewed until December 9, 2000.

4.   Mr. Pariseau does not agree with some of the conditions contained
in his renewed letter of exemption. This case constitutes his
challenge to those conditions.

5.   The Court's intervention in this case is not warranted. The
Respondent submits that: (1) the issue is now moot, the second letter
of exemption having expired as of December 9 2000; (2) the second
letter of exemption imposes conditions authorized by statute.

      B) The application for judicial review

6.   In September 1999, Mr. Pariseau commenced the present application
for judicial review.
      Applicant's record of application, p. 1-2 (Notice of Application

7.   The application was clearly out of time. The Respondent did not
object to the extension of time. The Court granted the extension of
time.
      Applicant's record of application, p. 21 (Order, Denault J. 29
Sep 00)

8.   Mr. Pariseau asks the Court to modify his second letter of
exemption in three ways. First, he wishes the conditions of the first
letter of exemption restored. Second Mr. Pariseau wants to Court to
grant him a permanent exemption. Third, he asks the court to authorize
someone else to grow the marijuana in his stead or to allow him to
import marijuana from a legal source.
      Applicant's record of application, p.6 (Affidavit)
      Applicant's record of application ,p.30-31 (Applicant's
Memorandum of Fact and Law)

      C) Mr. Pariseau applies for an exemption allowing him to use
cannabis for therapeutic purposes

9.   Mr. Pariseau was one of the first people to request an exemption,
for medical purpose, from the application of the Act. Dr. Kilby
indicated that Mr. Pariseau required "0.5 grams qid prn" meaning that
0.5 grams should be administered four times a day, as required by the
patient. Mr. Pariseau's recorded requirements thus amounted to two
grams of inhalable marijuana per day
      Respondent's record, p.7-9 para. 23(1) and(4) and 25 (Affidavit
of C. Langlois)
      Respondent's record, p.270, Exhibit "5" (Letter from D. Kilby to
Special Access Programme, 13 Oct 98)

10.  After creating the review process required to consider these
applications, the duly appointed official granted Mr. Pariseau his
first exemption. The exemption remained valid until June 9, 2000.
      Respondent's record, p.34 and 6-9, para. 8-13 and 23-25
(Affidavit of C. Langlois)
      Respondent's record, p.304-308, Exhibit "5" (Letter from D.M.
Michols to J.C. Pariseau, 9 jun 99)

11.  In May 2000, officials contacted Mr. Pariseau to ascertain
whether he required a renewal of his exemption. In the affirmative,
his doctor had to answer four questions. To the question "Y-a-t-il des
changements quant a l'information fournie dans la demande initiale?",
his doctor answered "non".
      Respondent record, p.310, Exhibit "6" (Letter from C. Bouchard to
J.C. Pariseau, 17 May 00)
      Respondent record, p.311, Exhibit "6" Renouvellement d'exemption
pour monsieur Jean-Charles Pariseau, 00 May 00)

12.   Based upon this information, the exemption was renewed on June 9
2000. It expired on December 9 2000.
      Respondent's record, p.4-5 and 9-10, para 16 and 27-30 (Affidavit
of C. Langlois)
      Respondent's record, p.313-319, Exhibit "6" (Letter from D.M.
Michols to J.C. Pariseau, 9 Jun 00)

13.  On October 27, 2000, Mr. Pariseau was invited to apply for a
further renewal of his exemption and to discuss his concerns.
      Respondent's record, p.16, para.37-38 (Affidavit of C. Langlois)
      Respondent's record, p328-331, Exhibit "8" (Letter from S.
Desjardins to J.C. Pariseau)


      D) Developments

14.  On July 31, 2000, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued two
decisions dealing with the possession of marijuana. It first confirmed
the validity of the prohibition of possession of marijuana for
recreational use. It then decided that, by failing to allow for
the possession of marijuana required for medical use, the Act
infringed s.7 of the Charter. Accordingly, the Court declared the
prohibition on the possession of marijuana in the Act to be of no
force or effect but suspended the declaration of invalidity for one
year.
      R. Clay (2000), 49 O.R. (3d)577(C.A.)
      R. v. Parker (2000), 49 O.R. (3d)481(C.A.)

15.  Prompted by these decisions, the government announced that, by
July 31, 2001, it would adopt a new regulatory approach to the use of
marijuana for medicinal purposes. The new regulation will define the
circumstances and the matter in which the use of marijuana for medical
purposes will be authorized. As stated by the Minister of Health, the
intent of the government is to
      "... mieux expliquer le processus pour le benefice des Canadiens
et des Canadiennes qui envisagent consommer cette drogue pour attenuer
certains symptomes. Ces personnes aux prises avec la douleur et
eprouvees par la souffrance ont besoin d'un processus mieux defini."
      Respondent's record, p.5-6 para. 18-19 (Affidavit of C. Langlois)
      Respondent's record, p.256-257, Exhibit "3" (Communique)

PART II - QUESTIONS IN ISSUE

16.  The Respondent submits that, on the facts of this case, the
following questions are in issue:
      a) Is the issue  raised by this application moot?
      b) Are the conditions contained in the second letter of
exemption authorized by section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act?


PART III - ARGUMENTS

17.  The issue raised by the application is moot. Further, the statute
authorizes the conditions of the second exemption. They also accord
with the information provided by Mr. Pariseau as to his needs.

      A) The issue is moot

18.  The second exemption expired on  December 9 2000. Further, a new
regulatory approach will be in place by July 31 2001.

19.  The June 9 2000 letter of exemption expired on December 9 2000.
Given his condition, it is fair to assume that Mr. Pariseau will apply
for a renewal of the exemption, if he has not done so already.
Accordingly, he will probably argue against mootness, on the basis
that there remains a concrete dispute between the parties. Factually
and legally, this is not correct.

20.  There is no information on the record to establish: (1) what
information Mr. Pariseau would have provided to substantiate his
application for a renewal; (2) whether the exemption was renewed; and
(3) under what conditions it would have been. Neither should there be:
Mr. Pariseau can challenge only one decision in this application;
however, the decision under review is no longer effective.
      Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, r.302
      Mahmood v. Canada (1998), 154 F.T.R. 103, para 8-12 (T.D.)

21.  In these circumstances, the application is no longer based upon a
concrete dispute. Mr. Pariseau's complaints regarding the June 9 2000
letter of exemption are now moot. The Court must decide whether to
exercise its discretion and allow the case to proceed nonetheless.
      Borowski v. A.G. Canada (1989) 1 S.C.R.342 at 357-363 per Sopinka
J.

22.  There are no reasons justifying the Court to exercise its
discretion, particularly because of the pending adoption of a new
regulatory approach. Given this imminent legislative change, the
application does not raise an issue of public importance the
resolution of which would be in the public interest
      Borowski v. A.G. Canada (1989) 1 S.C.R.342 at 357-363 per Sopinka
J.

23.  Further, to the extent Mr. Pariseau remains unsatisfied about the
conditions of the hypothetical third exemption, he should first raise
his complaints with the Minister. The Minister is in the best position
to appreciate Mr. Pariseau's concerns and provide the appropriate
relief. Because an adequate alternative remedy exists, the Court
should refuse to issue relief to Mr. Pariseau.
      C.P. Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band (1995) 1 S.C.R. 3

      B) The conditions are authorized

24.  Section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act provides
that
      The Minister may, on such terms and conditions as the Minister
deems necessary, exempt any person or class of persons or any
controlled substance or precursor or any class thereof from the
application of all or any of the provisions of this Act or the
regulations if, in the opinion of the Minister, the exemption is
necessary for a medical or scientific purpose or is otherwise in the
public interest.
      Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, C.19, s.56

25.  The Minister exempted Mr. Pariseau from only the application of
the provisions prohibiting him from possessing and producing
marijuana. He has deemed it necessary to impose upon Mr. Pariseau a
set of conditions. They represent the most appropriate compromise
between the desire of the Minister to provide relief to Mr. Pariseau
on compassionate grounds and his duty to uphold the overarching
government policy prohibiting marijuana to protect the health of
Canadians and Canadian society from its harmful effects.
      Respondent's record, p.6 and 9-15, para. 22,29 and 31, (Affidavit
of C. Langlois)

26.  The conditions allowed Mr. Pariseau to get access to the quantity
of marijuana his own doctor recommended. They also safeguarded against
the ever-present possibility of diversion to illegal use. Lastly, they
could be adjusted to reflect changing circumstances.

      i) The quantity

27.  Mr. Pariseau erroneously complains that the second exemption
somehow reduces the quantity  of marijuana he was allowed to possess
and produce. In fact, the second exemption merely quantifies what the
first exemption granted.
      Applicant's record of application, p.26-29, para. 26--38
(Applicant's memorandum of fact and law)

28.  Dr. Kilby originally recommended that his patient consume "0.5
grams qid prn". This represents a maximum of 2 grams per day. Dr.
Kilby confirmed his recommendation for the second exemption.
      Respondent's record, p.7-9,para.23(1) and (4)and 25 (Affidavit of
C. Langlois)
      Respondent's record, p.270, Exhibit "5" (Letter from D. Kilby to
Special Access Programme, 13 Oct 98)
      Respondent's record, p.311, Exhibit "6" (Renouvellement
d'exemption pour monsieur Jean-Charles Pariseau)

29.  The first letter limited the scope of the exemption by reference
to what "is necessary to satisfy your ongoing personal treatment
needs." Given the advice of Dr. Kilby, this represented a maximum of 2
grams per day.
      Respondent's record, p.305, Exhibit "5" (Letter from D.M. Michols
to J.C. Pariseau, 9 Jun 99)

30.  The second letter specifically quantified the amount of marijuana
that the exemption permitted Mr. Pariseau to possess; 90 grams of
usable marijuana,3 mature and 4 immature plantes. Based on the
information available to the Minister, the 45-day supply Mr. Pariseau
could create could be replenished by his plants within a month.
      Respondent's record, p.315, Exhibit "6" (Letter from D.M. Michols
to J.C. Pariseau, 9 Jun 00)
      Respondent's record, p.11-12,para.31(2) (Affidavit of C. Langlois)

31.  In reality, Mr. Pariseau seeks an increase in the quantity
authorized. If his needs and circumstances have changed, his recourse
is to request that the Minister modify his exemption.

      ii) Duration of exemption

32.  Mr. Pariseau complains that the duration of his exemption was
shortened from 12 months to 6 months. Further, he suggests that he
should be granted a permanent exemption and renewal requirements
should not be applied to him.
      Applicant's record of application, p.29, para.89-41 (Applicant's
memorandum of fact and law)

33.  The Minister properly exercised his discretion. He must ensure
that the exercise of his discretion to exempt for medical reasons does
not subvert the overarching objective of the Act.
      Respondent's record, p.14-15, para.31(4) and 32 (Affidavit of
C. Langlois)


34. Mr. Pariseau does not challenge the validity of the Minister's
concerns. He simply feels entitled to a different regime. Here again,
his recourse was to request that the Minister modify his exemption.

      iii) Experimental testing

35.  Mr. Pariseau  fears being coerced into participating in clinical
research.
      Applicant's record of application, p.29 para.42, (Applicant's
memorandum of fact and law)

36.  This fear is unfounded. The uncontroverted evidence from the
Respondent is that Mr. Pariseau would participate only if he agreed
and only if he meets the profile adopted in the research protocol.
      Respondent's record, p.13-14, para. 31(3) (Affidavit of C.
Langlois)

      I) Renewal procedure

37.  Mr. Pariseau makes a number of suggestions aimed at improving the
procedure used by the Minister to renew his exemption.
      Applicant's record of application, p.29, para. 43 (Applicant's
memorandum of fact and law)

38.  These suggestions are worthwhile. But they do not transform the
renewal procedure discussed in the second letter of exemption into an
improper condition. Here again, his recourse was to request that the
Minister modify his exemption.

      v) Minister's discretion

39.  From the point of view of administrative law, the sole issue is
whether the Minister properly exercised the discretion granted to him
by s.56 of the Act.
      Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, s.18.1(4)

40.  The argument of Mr. Pariseau is based on a challenge to the
constitutional validity of s.56 of the Act. This case does not raise
such a challenge.

41.  A proper discussion of the important and difficult issues raised
by exempting the therapeutic use of marijuana from the general
prohibition requires an informed debate amongst interested parties.
Mr. Pariseau has failed to abide by the mandatory procedural
safeguards by not serving all of the attorneys-general with a notice
of constitutional question. Consequently, the Court is without
jurisdiction to entertain a debate on the constitutional validity of
the Minister's power to impose conditions on exemptions he grants
pursuant to s.56 of the Act.
      Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985 C. F-7 s.57(1)
      Eaton C. Brant (County) Board of Education [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241
para. 53, Sopinka J.
      Reference re Remuneration of Judges of Provincial Courts [1997] 3
S.C.R. 3 para.263-264 Lamer C.J.

42.  Mr. Pariseau was not a party to the decision he relies on.
Furthermore, the Court of Appeal suspended the declaration of
constitutional invalidity until July 31 2001. Lastly, neither of Mr.
Pariseau's right to life nor to security of the person are engaged by
the Minister's exercise of discretion: the Minister allowed Mr.
Pariseau to lawfully possess the quantity of marijuana recommended by
Dr. Kilby.
      R. v. Parker (2000) 49 O.R. (3d) 481 (C.A.)

43.  Mr. Pariseau wishes to import marijuana from a legal source
outside Canada.
      Applicant's record of application, p.30 para.45-47 (Applicant's
memorandum of fact and law)

44.  At present,the importation of marijuana into Canada to serve as a
source of supply for therapeutic purposes is not possible. The relief
sought is impossible.
      Respondent's record, p.6 and 15-16 para.21 and 34-35 (Affidavit
of C. Langlois)
      Respondent's record, p.29-36, Exhibit "1" para.45-71 (Affidavit
of D. Michols)

45.  Mr. Pariseau recognizes this factual impossibility. In effect, he
seeks a declaration that, should a legal source of marijuana be
identified, the exemption should permit him to utilize that source.
This part of the application is premature.
      Applicant's record of application, p.30 para.47 (Applicant's
memorandum of fact and law)

      vii) Production by others

46. Mr. Pariseau suggests he should be allowed to delegate the
production of his marijuana to someone else.
      Applicant's record of application, p.31 para.53 (Applicant's
memorandum of fact and law)

47.  Nothing supports this suggestion. The Minister never decided
this question because Mr. Pariseau never raised it. There is no
decision for the Court to review.
      Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, s.18.1

48.  Mr. Pariseau's doctor does not support this suggestion. He advised

      "... that the safest supply available to him would be his own
home grown marijuana, but that when we are able to provide a safe
standardized supply through licence growing in Canada or from imported
legal sources outside Canada, that we have access for compassionate
reasons to that supply at a dose of 0.5mg quid."
      Respondent's record, p.295 Exhibit "5" (Letter from D. Kilby to
C. Bouchard, 7 Jun 99)

49.  Dr. Kilby explained that

      "I hope like many  that its [marijuana] use will be controlled
or licenced [sic] so that we can avoid the free access to not only a
mood altering drug but one that if not produced in a way that assures
its safety, many [sic] cause more harm than good when used by the
immunosuppressed."
      Respondent's record, p.272 Exhibit "5" (Letter from D. Kilby to
The Hon. A. Rock, 14 Oct 98)

PART IV - RELIEF SOUGHT

50.  That this application be dismissed without costs.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Ottawa, this 16th day of January 2001.


Of counsel to the Respondent
Alain Prefontaine,
Catherine Lawrence.

LETS Cancel Debt Growth First! Then work on debt.
John C. "The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
For anti-bank and pro-LETS community currency adventures and reports,
subscribe to http://www.egroups.com/group/turmel
For links to over 700 timecurrency systems in over 45 nations:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/urlsnat.htm

Greater ST. LOUIS NORML
     \____________________________________________

         POT-POST//
         17ja01                                  received Jan.13,'01:

         ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~{CSDP Leg.Grp position:}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Common Sense for Drug Policy Legislative Group
1327 Harvard Street, NW * Washington, D.C. 20009 * 703-981-3619
   Directors: Robert E. Field, Alexander Robinson, Eric Sterling,
     Kathleen Stoll, Sanho Tree, Kevin B. Zeese

     Ashcroft's Drug Policy Will Increase Adolescent Drug Use, Increase
     Incarceration, Spread Disease and Heighten Racial Enforcement Disparity

A review of Senator John Ashcroft's record on drug policy indicates that he
has a one-dimensional approach to drug control - the increased use of law
enforcement - this ideology puts him out of the mainstream of current drug
policy. He has spoken out for reducing funding for prevention and treatment
in order to increase funding for interdiction and law enforcement.

He takes these positions without regard to the facts.  Indeed, another
common thread in Senator Ashcroft's approach to drug control is a refusal to
look at the facts; instead he religiously advocates law enforcement no
matter what the facts demonstrate. In two critical areas, racial disparity
in drug enforcement and prevention of HIV/AIDS, Senator Ashcroft advocated
not doing the research to understand whether there is a problem and if so,
how to deal with it.

Senator Ashcroft favors blindly pursuing a drug policy that is a historic,
and expensive, failure - a policy that does great damage to individuals,
families and communities. This closed-minded approach does not show the type
of thinking that is appropriate for an Attorney General.

Favors Cutting Education and Prevention to Expand Funding for Interdiction:
In a debate on CNN on July 9, 1998 Senator Ashcroft advocated cutting the
budget for prevention and putting it into interdiction. He said: "if you
were to take the money that's been allocated or is projected for this you
could double the amount of interdiction that we're doing along the border,
double the amount of drug effort by the INS." The federal drug control
budget is already out of balance in this regard - favoring interdiction and
law enforcement by two to one over prevention, education, treatment and
research. Rather than correcting this imbalance Senator Ashcroft favors
building on it. Cutting the prevention budget is likely to result in an
increase an adolescent drug abuse - the issue that has been the primary
concern of most Americans.

Favors Cutting Treatment Funds to Support Law Enforcement: Senator Achcroft
told a conservative think tank in 1997 "a government which takes the
resources that we would devote toward the interdiction of drugs and converts
them to treatment resources, and instead of saying 'just say no' says 'just
say maybe' or 'just don't inhale' . . . is a government that accommodates us
at our lowest and least." (Anthony Lewis, "Out of Sight," New York Times,
January 6, 2001.) In fact, research by the RAND Corporation indicates that
the most cost-effective way to reduce cocaine consumption and the cocaine
market is by increasing funding for drug treatment programs. RAND found that
treatment is ten times more cost effective than interdiction in reducing the
use of cocaine in the United States;  (Rydell, C.P. & Everingham, S.S.,
Controlling Cocaine, Prepared for the Office of National Drug Control Policy
and the United States Army, Santa Monica, CA: Drug Policy Research Center,
RAND Corporation, 1994). Despite this research, and despite the already
out-of-balance spending on law enforcement, Senator Ashcroft favors spending
less on treatment in order to fund law enforcement further.

Supports Legislation that Would Decimate the Fourth Amendment: The Fourth
Amendment has been greatly weakened by the war on drugs. Still, Senator
Ashcroft sponsored legislation that would have undermined it further. In S.
486, The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, which was written by
Senator Ashcroft, police, would have been granted the authority to conduct
secret warrantless searches. The bill would have empowered Federal, State
and local law enforcement agencies, to enter private property - e.g., homes,
businesses, automobiles - to conduct criminal searches without a warrant and
without any legal obligation to inform the private property owner that a
search and seizure was conducted until months later, if at all.

Opposes Taking Action to Prevent Racially Unfair Drug Enforcement: Senator
Ashcroft prevented consideration of legislation that would provide data on
racial profiling in drug enforcement. This research would have told policy
makers the extent of the problem of racial profiling and would have been a
first step in correcting this injustice. Senator Ashcroft said he would
support S-821, "The Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act," yet when the
amendments he requested were made Senator Ashcroft refused to allow the bill
out of the Constitution Subcommittee which he chairs. Racial profiling is
the first step in a drug law enforcement chain that has led to a
disproportionate number of African-Americans and Latinos being prosecuted
and sentenced for drug offenses. Criminal justice analysts from across the
political spectrum have come to recognize that mandatory minimum sentences
fill our jails without reducing crime, are racially disparate and
incarcerate large numbers of low-level drug possessors while allowing
big-time dealers off relatively scot-free. No senator is more supportive of
mandatory minimum drug sentencing than Senator Ashcroft. He introduced or
cosponsored half dozen bills that included new or expanded mandatory minimum
sentences. (See, S. 2390, S.899 and S. 5.) In fact, it is difficult to find
a bill in the Senate, which introduces new mandatory minimum sentence that
was not co-sponsored by Senator Ashcroft.

Opposes Policies that Prevent AIDS: Senator Ashcroft has refused to
acknowledge the science that proves that needle exchange would cut the
spread of HIV/AIDS by up to 50 percent, not increase drug use and increase
use of drug treatment services by drug abusers. Senator Ashcroft even
attempted to stop local leaders in Washington, D.C. from funding needle
exchange in their community with their own tax dollars. Further, Senator
Ashcroft has opposed research into needle exchange saying it would send the
wrong message to our youth.  His antipathy to AIDS prevention is consistent
with his views on AIDS generally. Senator Ashcroft voted to cut funding to
community health centers that provide HIV/AIDS services. (Roll Call Vote
#333, July 27, 1995, Ryan White Reauthorization bill.) Senator Ashcroft has
favored a moralistic approach that flys in the face of the evidence over a
pragmatic approach that could stem the flow of a deadly epidemic.

The attorney general is charged with enforcing civil rights laws and
protecting the Constitution of the United States.  Senator Ashcroft's
positions, his comments, and the groups with which he chooses to associate
himself raise clear questions about whether or not he should be overseeing
the US Department of Justice. It is important for all Americans to have
faith in law enforcement, for when they don't have trust, the system breaks
down. Justice is not a place for a rigid ideologue; it is a place for
someone who wants to make government work particularly when it comes to
policies like drug control where traditional approaches have failed.

For further information contact Kevin B. Zeese at zeese@... or
703-981-3619.

       ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
       St. Louis NORML                           \  `National Organization
       PO Box 220243 * St. Louis, MO 63122        \   for the Reform of
          \ eM: StL_norml@...        \   Marijuana Laws`
           \ vm: 314-995-1395...www.mo-norml.org

Greater ST. LOUIS NORML
     \____________________________________________

         POT-POST//
         17ja01                                  received Jan.13,'01:


         -----------  http://www.StopJohnAshcroft.org  -----------

Dear Friends,
I believe it is very important that every missourian takes some serious time
to consider the possibility of 4 years of John Ashcroft Attorney General.
If you have thus far heard no reason to oppose his nomination, or the
screams of the NAACP and ACLU have no meaning to you, then I strongly
suggest that you read the following material and check out this website.
Also, if you find your mind changed, please write to Bond and Carnahan.  The
website provides a convenient way of doing this.

John Ashcroft's Nomination alone should completely convince anyone,
regardless of stances on issues, the George W. Bush is NOT a uniter like he
told everyone he was for over a year.

Here you go,
         Jeremy Hudson
         NORML, University of Missouri Chapter

         ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Don't let this drug warrior extraordinaire become the nation's top cop!
Please help stop the appointment of John Ashcroft as US Attorney General.
During his time in the Senate, John Ashcroft did the following:
supported cruel, lengthy mandatory minimum sentences for low-level drug
offenders;
sponsored unconstitutional legislation violating the Bill of Rights;
blocked efforts to stop racial profiling and other disparities in the
criminal justice system.

         ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~{DRCNet Appeal:}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                                                       1/10/01
Dear friend of drug law reform:

As you've probably read in mainstream news accounts, former US Senator John
Ashcroft (R-MO) has been nominated by President-Elect George W. Bush for the
office of Attorney General.  DRCNet is opposing the Ashcroft nomination
because of his record as one of the most hawkish drug warriors supporting
some of the most extreme drug war legislation during his tenure in the
Senate.  We are writing to ask you to visit a web site we've set up to
encourage grassroots opposition to the Ashcroft nomination --
http://www.StopJohnAshcroft.org -- and to use the information and the online
petitions there to help defeat this nomination while there's still time.

In case you didn't read our clarifying notes on this issue last week
(http://www.drcnet.org/wol/167.html#urgentaction), we wish to emphasize that
our opposition to the Ashcroft appointment is based strictly on DRCNet's
cause of opposition to the criminal justice and military aspects of the "war
on drugs."  We are a nonpartisan organization, and in fact opposed President
Clinton's drug czar nominee, Gen. Barry McCaffrey, five years ago, the only
comparable Cabinet nomination since DRCNet was formed.

We are criticizing only Mr. Ashcroft's record on drug policy issues, not his
personal character nor his conservative political alignment.  Our own
supporters span the full range of the political spectrum -- from liberal to
conservative to libertarian and all the rest -- and even include a few who
have let us know they support the Ashcroft nomination for other reasons,
despite disagreeing with him on drug policy.  We respect their opinions, but
decided to oppose the nomination nonetheless, because of the enormous power
and influence that the US Attorney General has on drug policy -- hence
http://www.StopJohnAshcroft.org to join that fight.

If drug policy and related Constitutional issues are the criteria, there is
no question that John Ashcroft has one of the worst records on Capitol Hill.
As Senator, John Ashcroft sponsored a bill that would have simultaneously
violated the spirit if not the letter of both the 1st and 4th amendments to
the US Constitution: the "Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act" would have
criminalized certain drug- and drug policy-related discussions on the
Internet, and would have allowed police to conduct secret searches of homes,
with the residents never being informed before or after that the police were
there.  Indeed, in his six years in the Senate, Ashcroft proposed amendments
to the Constitution a full seven times, including an amendment to make it
easier to amend the Constitution.

As Senator, John Ashcroft demonstrated an unwillingness to deal seriously
with the problem of racial disparity in the criminal justice system.  While
outwardly professing support for a bill to study racial profiling, Sen.
Ashcroft in reality use his chairmanship of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution to bottle it up in committee for several months; the bill never
made it to the Senate floor despite bipartisan support.

In response to charges that the powder/crack cocaine sentencing disparity is
racially discriminatory, Sen. Ashcroft rejected legislation recommended by
the US Sentencing Commission and sponsored by African American legislators
that would have reduced crack cocaine sentences to the level of powder
cocaine sentences.  Instead, Sen. Ashcroft supported a bill to raise the
powder cocaine sentences -- despite a consensus among criminal justice
experts that the disparities are driven by enforcement policy and
prosecutorial bias in conjunction with the laws, and that powder cocaine
enforcement is also carried out in a racially discriminatory way.

Sen. Ashcroft objected vociferously to spending money on drug treatment
rather than drug interdiction, claiming that treatment "enables" drug users
and that enforcement is a more effective use of funds.  But after decades
characterized by intensive interdiction efforts during which time the
availability of drugs has increased and the price plummeted, and despite
study after study showing that treatment is dramatically more effective than
enforcement, to claim that interdiction is more effective than treatment
demonstrates an astonishing inability or unwillingness to evaluate drug
policy in an objective manner.  Indeed, there isn't clear evidence that drug
interdiction is more effective than doing nothing; to claim interdiction is
more effective than treatment is simply off the reality meter.

As Attorney General, John Ashcroft would have enormous power and influence
over policies such as these.  Particularly troubling is his lack of
seriousness about racial disparity in the criminal justice system, at a time
when the problem of racial profiling is just beginning to get attention.
The documents released recently by the New Jersey Attorney General's office
(http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/njprofiling/ on our web site) show the US
Dept. of Justice to be both hero and villain in racial profiling -- DOJ's
civil rights division has played a leading role in forcing police
departments to take steps to stop it, while DOJ's Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) has literally conducted national training programs
explicitly encouraging racial profiling.  To address racial profiling, DOJ
needs to be headed by someone who will encourage the civil rights division
and rein in the DEA's abuses in this area.  Based on his record, John
Ashcroft is not a sound pick to play such a role.

We consider the mandatory minimum sentences that John Ashcroft so
enthusiastically supports to be gross violations of human rights; and we
deplore his apparent lack of allegiance to the spirit of the US Constitution
that he was sworn to uphold.  That Constitution is the highest law of the
land, a law which is in part intended to place restrains on the forces that
the Attorney General directs.  This is not a matter of liberal vs.
conservative or anti-crime or "pro-criminal," as the Senator has labeled
some of his opponents.  This is a matter of sanity in the criminal justice
system and respect for basic Constitution rights.

So please visit http://www.StopJohnAshcroft.org today and help stop the
appointment of John Ashcroft as Attorney General -- or, just call the
Congressional Switchboard at (202) 224-3121, twice, have them transfer you
to each of your two Senators in turn, and urge they vote "no" on the
Ashcroft appointment.
                         ________________________

If you are a conservative, or support the Ashcroft nomination
for other reasons, and didn't read our clarifying notes issued
last week (http://www.drcnet.org/wol/167.html#urgentaction),
we wish to emphasize that our opposition to the Ashcroft
appointment is based strictly on DRCNet's cause of opposition
to the criminal justice and military aspects of the "war on
drugs."  We are a nonpartisan organization, and in fact
opposed President Clinton's drug czar nominee, Gen. Barry
McCaffrey, five years ago, the only comparable Cabinet
nomination since DRCNet was formed.

We are criticizing only Mr. Ashcroft's record on drug policy
issues, not his personal character nor his conservative
political alignment.  Our own supporters span the full range
of the political spectrum -- from liberal to conservative to
libertarian and all the rest -- and even include a few who
have let us know they support the Ashcroft nomination for
other reasons, despite disagreeing with him on drug policy.

We respect their opinions, but decided to oppose the
nomination nonetheless, because of the enormous power and
influence that the US Attorney General has on drug policy --
hence http://www.StopJohnAshcroft.org to join that fight.
                         ________________________

To subscribe to DRCNet's weekly newsletter and action alert
list, visit http://www.drcnet.org and enter your name, e-mail
address and state in the "quick-signup form" to the right.  To
signoff from DRCNet or change your subscription address, send
e-mail to listhelp@... and specify your request.

DRCNet needs your support!  Please visit our registration
form at http://www.drcnet.org/drcreg.html to make a donation
on our encryption-secured credit card form or enter your
name, address and pledge amount to print out and send in with
your contribution -- or just send checks or money orders to:
DRCNet, P.O. Box 18402, Washington, DC 20036, or call your
credit card info in to (202) 293-8340.

       ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
       St. Louis NORML                           \  `National Organization
       PO Box 220243 * St. Louis, MO 63122        \   for the Reform of
          \ eM: StL_norml@...        \   Marijuana Laws`
           \ vm: 314-995-1395...www.mo-norml.org

Greater ST. LOUIS NORML
     \____________________________________________

         POT-POST//
         17ja01                                  received Jan.13,'01:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEA getting close to *banning* hemp foods and cosmetic products!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To help, please visit http://www.SaveHemp.org


The DEA has now officially announced
that it intends to ban most hemp
products in the United States,
including food made from sterile
(non-psychoactive) hemp seeds and
hemp-based personal-care products.

Whether or not you expressed your
outrage in October when we first
heard about the DEA's plans, please
visit http://www.SaveHemp.org now to
send an updated pre-written letter to
all of your elected officials and the
DEA.

(Many legislators who are now in
office were not in office in October.
In addition, legislators who
contacted the DEA in October on
behalf of their constituents were
told that there wasn't any official
proposal to ban hemp -- which is no
longer true. Please visit
http://www.SaveHemp.org to send your
second round of letters today!)

Under the DEA's proposed regulation,
literally millions of Americans will
be criminalized for possessing
shampoos, lotions, and soaps that
have the slightest amount of
naturally occurring THC, the primary
active ingredient in marijuana. (It
is impossible to get a psychoactive
effect from hemp-based shampoos and
soaps, but the DEA is proposing to
ban them nevertheless.)

Those who are arrested for shampoo
or soap will face up to one year in
federal prison and a $10,000 fine --
the same penalties they would face if
they were arrested for possessing a
small amount of marijuana.

If someone is arrested with a
stockpile of (currently legal) hemp
products that weighs hundreds of
pounds, it stands to reason that the
defendant would face a 5- or 10-year
mandatory minimum prison sentence --
or even the death penalty -- under
federal law.

There are already 700,000 arrests
every year in the U.S. for marijuana
offenses. Our nation's beleaguered
criminal justice system doesn't need
the additional strain of processing
100,000's of additional arrests that
will result from the illegal
possession of non-psychoactive
shampoos and soaps.

We don't need another front in our
nation's failed war on drugs. Please
oppose the DEA's hemp ban before it
is allowed to take effect.

Please visit http://www.SaveHemp.org
right away. Thank you.

       ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
       St. Louis NORML                           \  `National Organization
       PO Box 220243 * St. Louis, MO 63122        \   for the Reform of
          \ eM: StL_norml@...        \   Marijuana Laws`
           \ vm: 314-995-1395...www.mo-norml.org

Federal Court Marijuana Memorandum

      JCT: The last post was a Reply if it was proceeding as a Notice
of Motion but Justice Edmond P. Blanchard wrote:

                         ---------
                         DIRECTION
                         ---------

[1]  I am of the view that Mr. Justice Denault's order of September
29, 2000 extending time for filing an application for judicial review
makes it clear that this matter should proceed as an application.

[2]  Under Rule 307 of the Federal Court Rules 1998, the affidavit of
Carol Langlois, and supporting documentary evidence have been served
and filed on October 30, 2000.

[3] The "Reply" document for which direction is sought is not a sworn
affidavit. To allow such a document to be filed would prejudice the
respondent's right to cross-examination provided for in Rule 83.

[4] There is no provision in the Rules to allow such a document to be
filed in an application. The rule of evidenc is to be provided by
affidavits if not a mere technicality; it ensures no one is hurt by
allegations which one does not have a chance to challenge.

[5]  The Court has discretion to allow reply affidavits where it will
not cause unreasonable delay, will serve the interests of justice and
will assist the Court in making a final determination. In addition, a
party must show the material was not available at an earlier date.

[6] There is no evidence before me to indicate that the materials
advanced in the "Reply" document were not available at an earlier time.

[7]  Furthermore, many of the arguments and rebuttals advanced in the
"Reply" document may well be included in the applicant's memoranum of
fact and law and the applicant may well proceed to cross-examine the
respondent's affidavit pursuant to Rule 83 of the Federal Court Rules
1998.

[8]  For these reasons, I direct that the "Reply" document dated
November 3, 2000 cannot be filed.
Edmond P. Blanchard, Judge
Dated at Ottawa on November 20 2000.

      JCT: So since it was meant to proceed as an application, we had
to wait out 20 days during which both sides could have examinations of
the two affidavits. Neither of us did. Then the Applicant files his
Memorandum of Fact and Law, the Respondent has 20 days to file their
Memorandum and then the Applicant requests a hearing. So here is the
Applicant's final arguments:

Court File No. T-1832-00

FEDERAL COURT - TRIAL DIVISION


BETWEEN

The Applicant:

Jean Charles Pariseau


AND


The Respondent:

Attorney General of Canada


--------------------------------------
APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM OF FACT AND LAW
--------------------------------------


FACTS:
======

      1. On June 09 1999, Health Canada deemed the Applicant, Jean
Charles Pariseau, dying enough to grant him one of the first one-year
"Grandfather" Letters of Exemption to permit him to "produce,
cultivate or possess the quantity of the designated substance
necessary to satisfy his current personal medical needs. (Affidavit of
Jean Charles Pariseau Ex. A Page 2)

      2. The Applicant suffers from HIV, epilepsy, toxoplasmosis, and
anemia and to help him ingest 21 grams of 48 pills every day, his
attending physician, Dr. Don Kilby, applied to a legal jurisdiction in
Holland for a prescribed 2 grams of Maripharm high-grade 10% THC
marijuana per day. Since a cigarette contains 850 milligrams of
tobacco, almost one gram, the Applicant's prescription called for 14
marijuana cigarettes a week. (Affidavit of Carol Langlois Tab 5)

      3. The Respondents have always treated this file on the basis of
the quantity needed by the Applicant which was cited in the Oct 18
1998 letter, the 2 grams per day. The 200 requests to the Ministry
have averaged 2.5 grams per day. The Ministry is looking into a legal
source of supply so the participants will get the required marijuana
free. His participation in such a study could solve his needs.
(Affidavit of Carol Langlois Par. 25, 31.2.G.1, 31.3.D.4) )

      4. The Applicant found he needs to smoke 4 to 5 grams of home-
grown marijuana per day, about a pack and a half a week. (Affidavit of
Jean Charles Pariseau Par. 1)

      5. On June 09 2000, Health Canada informed the Applicant of
changes to the new exemption letter which has the effect of
harmonizing its content with that of other letters of exemption
granted over the past year to other applicants. (Affidavit of Jean
Charles Pariseau Ex. B Page 1).

A. HORTICULTURAL RESTRICTIONS:
------------------------------

      6. Where the first letter was content to limit the quantity of
cannabis to that "necessary to satisfy your current personal medicinal
needs," the second letter quantifies it precisely; 3 mature and 4
immature plants, and 90 grams of useful marijuana (c.a.d. 3 times 30
grams). These quantities do not represent the maximum authorized for
the duration of the exemption. The exemption permits Mr. Pariseau to
renew his stock as fast as he consumes the marijuana he produces.
Given the information furnished by his doctor, Mr. Pariseau requires
up to 2 grams of inhalable marijuana per day. The 90 grams of
marijuana represents a stock sufficient for 45 days. If as he states,
he needs 4 grams per day, the exemption permits him to create an
inventory of 22 days. Equally, the exemption permits him to constantly
renew this inventory. (Affidavit of Carol Langlois Par. 31.2)

      7. Given the average yield of a cannabis plant from the
information in our possession, 3 mature plants and 4 immature plants
are sufficient to provide 90 grams per month. (Affidavit of Carol
Langlois Par. 31.2.G.2)

      8. These horticultural conditions were derived by the Ministry
without knowing the growth cycle of the plant nor its yield. In the
Applicant's latest Oct 27 2000 renewal letter, the Ministry requested
that Exemptees provide the following information:
"the estimated production for each marijuana plant in useful grams?"
"the estimated growing cycle?" (Affidavit of Carol Langlois Tab 8)

      9. The prime reason for the imposition of the new limits, outside
of the needs expressed by Mr. Pariseau and his attending physician, is
the possible diversion to illegal uses though that Applicant is not
suspected of growing anything other than for his own personal use.
These limits to permitted quantities represent the most reasonable
point of compromise between Mr. Pariseau's medicinal needs and the
obligation of the Ministry to reduce to an acceptable level the risks
of diversion of the crop to purposes prohibited by law. To properly
evaluate the needs of Mr. Pariseau and take into account the danger of
diversion, it remains essential that our consideration of the
modifications are founded on sufficient medical information and
evaluate their risks and benefits. (Affidavit of Carol Langlois Par.
22, 31.2.B, 39)

      10. Conforming to the new restrictions, the Applicant's first 90-
day crop yielded only 25 marijuana cigarettes, not 90. And he couldn't
turn over his crop four times as fast in every 22 days as the Ministry
thinks it can. He ran out of marijuana. He is broke. He has a high
electricity bill for growing only 3 plants where he could have raised
10 times the number with the same lighting and by planting one crop
per year instead of 16 times 22 days. He has had his cablevision cut
off. He is surviving from the charity of friends. (Affidavit of Jean
Charles Pariseau)

B. PERMANENT EXEMPTION:
-----------------------

      11. Rather than 12 months, the exemptions are now granted for six
months due to the recommendation made by a committee of independent
experts on new drugs. They say a shorter term reduces the difficulty
experienced by certain doctors in certifying that the present state of
their patients will justify the exemption for the following 12 months.
Also, renewing more frequently permits them to ease the difficulty
experienced by certain exemptees, or their doctors, in submitting
their required trimestrial reports on time. The renewal process does
not impose an excessive constraint since it only asks his doctor to
fill out a 2 page form. This permits us to synthesize the information
furnished by the doctor with his trimestrial reports. It also permits
the doctor to validate the continued need, for the next 6 months, for
the exemption." (Affidavit of Carol Langlois Par. 31.4)

      12. Mr. Pariseau has failed to furnish the trimestrial medical
reports on the evolution of his condition and the effects of cannabis,
despite the fact the condition is included in the letter of exemption.
Mr. Pariseau was held responsible for providing detailed information
through the trimestrial reports furnished by his doctor. (Affidavit of
Carol Langlois Par. 26, 31.3.D.3)

C. REVOCATION LINKED TO EXPERIMENTAL TESTING:
---------------------------------------------

      13. "This exemption may be suspended and, finally, revoked, if a
more appropriate new therapy or other method of legal access becomes
available like access to clinical tests where we would reasonably
expect you to participate." If a new more appropriate therapy is
identified, from the moment a new therapy is legally available, and it
offers Mr. Pariseau the same relief but by legal means, the reason for
the exemption will disappear. The second example is if another more
appropriate means of access to legal cannabis is identified. Again, if
the same relief is available, the reason for the exemption will
disappear. A third example deals with clinical trials that it would be
reasonable to expect Mr. Pariseau to participate in. This example does
not transform Mr. Pariseau into an involuntary participant. Pursuant
to medical protocol, all participants consent to take part in this
research. Mr. Pariseau will never be forced to participate against his
will. It is impossible to predict if Mr. Pariseau would even fit the
necessary profile for such research.
(Affidavit of Carol Langlois Par. 31.3)

D. AMBIGUOUS RENEWAL DEADLINES:
-------------------------------

      14. "Health Canada communicates with Exemptees concerning the
possible renewal of the current exemption in the three months
preceding its expiration date, and they are informed of the decision
on the renewal before the end of the exemption. Supplementary
information, other than the trimestrial reports required under the
currency exemption may be required in the course of the examination of
the renewal of the exemption." (Affidavit of Jean Charles Pariseau Ex.
B)

E. UNFETTERED DISCRETION:
-------------------------

      15. "If necessary, conditions to the current exemption may be
added, eliminated or modified, and such modifications would apply a
reasonable time after their promulgation." (Affidavit of Jean Charles
Pariseau Ex. B)

      16. The Ministry reserves to itself the right to revoke the
exemption or to add conditions or to modify the existing conditions if
new data supported such a decision... To continue to benefit of the
exemption, Mr. Pariseau had to conform to the following conditions
under penalty of suspension and revocation." (Affidavit of Carol
Langlois Par. 23.5, 6)

F. EXEMPTION FROM IMPORTING FROM LEGAL JURISDICTION:
----------------------------------------------------

      17. Canada considers marijuana harmful to health and society and
has signed important international treaties. Yet, the government
recognizes the need to accommodate the exceptional circumstances of
people like Mr. Pariseau within this general prohibition. Mr. Pariseau
claims the right to obtain marijuana from a third party, either by
authorizing a third party to produce it in his name or to authorize
it's importation. (Affidavit of Carol Langlois Par. 20, 33)


POINTS OF OBJECTION:
====================

      18.  (A1) Health Canada erred in promulgating horticultural
regulations to reduce Exemptees' supply of medicinal marijuana to an
expected 1 gram per day knowing most doctors' prescriptions called for
an average of 2.5 grams per day without having first obtained the
necessary relevant horticultural data of crop cycle and yield.

      19.  (A2) Health Canada erred in taking considerations other than
medical need into their deliberations on allowable dosages, a
usurpation of the doctor's prerogative.

      20.  (B1) Health Canada erred in eternally burdening these
terminally-ill people and their doctors with more and more forms to
validate a permanent condition when a permanent exemption is called
for while the prognosis remains fatal.

      21.  (B2) Health Canada erred in linking suspension of the
exemption to the failure to fill out forms when only one form
indicating the medicine is needed should be necessary.

      22.  (C) Health Canada erred in linking revocation of the
exemption to participation in experimental trials.

      23.  (D) Health Canada erred in not having a fixed timetable to
prevent the renewal forms from arriving at the last minute or even
late.

      24.  (E) Health Canada erred in arrogating to itself the
unfettered discretion to change the conditions of the exemption on
matters of allowable dosage.

      25.  (F) Health Canada erred in not extending the exemption to
importation of marijuana from legal jurisdictions.


ARGUMENTS:
==========

      (A) HORTICULTURAL RESTRICTIONS:
      ------------------------------

      26. (A1) It was unconscionable for the Ministry to limit the
number of plants with the stated intent of only producing 90 grams for
90 days when Dr. Kilby's prescription called for 180 grams for 90
days. The Ministry knew that the average dosage prescribed in requests
for exemptions was for 2.5 grams per day and yet they still
promulgated conditions to limit all Exemptees to the hoped-for
standard of 1 gram per day. The limit of 1 gram of "Laughing Grass"
marijuana per day that the Applicant may use to help down his "not
funny" 21 grams of 48 pills per day when his doctor has prescribed two
or more grams usurps the doctor's medical prerogative.

      27.(A2) The Ministry admits that there were two main goals in
their decision to place limits on Exemptees' crops. To ensure yields
are insufficient for diversion to illegal purposes and to standardize
everyone's supply. Both are usurpations of the doctor's prerogative.

       28. The risk of diversion offers no justification for causing
the Applicant to run short of his medicine. To "reduce to an
acceptable level the risks of diversion," the Ministry's formula has
been designed to keep the Applicant short of his prescribed medicinal
needs to guarantee he does not break the law. The Applicant is aware
that he is not exempted from the Criminal Code police in case of
diversion to illegal use and suggests that policing diversion be left
to the real police and not these new Health Canada police. It is not
their obligation to reduce the risk of diversion. The constraint
promised by the real police is sufficient in the Applicant's case.
Health Canada's purpose to set conditions to guarantee the Criminal
Code is obeyed is presumed by the existence of the Justice Department.
And with pounds being peddled on the streets, the Ministry is over-
reacting to the ounces being grown in the Applicant's home.

      29. The harmonization of exemption letter content that the
Ministry seeks offers no justification for causing the Applicant to
fall short of medicine. Everyone should grow their own personal
prescription. The wish to harmonize everyone's dosage is a pretty
inane reason for having caused the Applicant to run short of his
medicine especially when it didn't harmonize with his doctor's
prescription.

      30. Law enforcement and bureaucratic needs have no bearing on the
Applicant's medical needs and should never have been taken into
account. That Health Canada did give law enforcement and bureaucratic
needs consideration and priority over the Applicant's medical needs is
what's wrong with their prescription.

      31. The Ministry stated it has no objection to his growing 4
grams per day and it sounds like they don't mind him growing all that
he needs for his personal use. But they won't let him grow a four
times bigger crop. They want him to grow his crops four times as fast.
The Ministry has stated that if one gram per day is not enough from a
90 day crop, two grams per day can be obtained by growing two 45-day
crops or four grams per day can be obtained by growing crops four
times faster. It sounds like they have no objection if someone who
needs 6 or 8 grams per day grows their crops 6 or 8 times as fast to
continually replenish their supply as long as they never have more
than 7 plants.

      32. The Ministry of Agriculture could verify that crops cannot be
grown in shorter and shorter cycles. It's a mathematical incompetence
that staggers the mind to not take the growing cycle into their
computations. You can't get four times as much wheat in one season by
growing four quarter-season crops and you can't get four times as much
marijuana in a 90 day cycle by growing four 22-day crops. The only
real way for exemptees to get the personal dosage they each require is
to grow as many plants for their own personal use as they each need. A
standardized limit for everyone when dosages and horticultural
expertise vary is inane.

        33. The Applicant does not want to have to tend his garden of
only 7 plants full time and pay high electrical bills all year. The
Applicant would prefer to plant one large garden, reap one year's
harvest, and turn off the lights until next year to save on power
costs. Since the Ministry has no objection to the higher dosage and
once it is accepted that the same 7 plants cannot be grown faster and
faster, there should be no objection to meeting his need for a higher
number of grams by planting a higher number of plants. Terry Parker
can grow all the plants he needs for his personal use, the Applicant
should be able to grow all he needs without constraints imposed by
Health Canada on his horticultural techniques. The condition allowing
him to grow all that he needs for his personal use in the original
exemption letter must be reinstated.

       34. After this Application for judicial review was filed, the
Respondent finally added a request in the latest renewal letters
asking Exemptees for the yield and growing cycle data. Why didn't they
get this information before limiting the number of plants? Why didn't
they ask Agriculture? They should have had this data before setting
down new conditions that resulted in Exemptees running short of
medicine. Canada Health did not know the growing cycle or yield before
reaching their decision. They don't even know how much their set-up
would produce. Their affidavit claims at one point an expected yield
of 90 grams in 90 days and later claims 90 grams in only 30 days, a
contradiction. Which is it?

      35. When the responses from Exemptees with their average expected
yield and growth cycle come in to the Ministry, what if everyone
reports an average yield of only an insufficient 25 grams in 3 months
like Jean Charles reaped and not the 90 or 270 the Ministry
pontificated their 7-plant set-up would produce. So no guaranteed
supply and Exemptees can't have more than a couple of month's worth in
advance. No margin of safety. No plan for crop failure. The intent of
the conditions is to keep the exemptees on a tight leash on supply to
reduce the risk of illegal diversion and with an average request for
2.5 grams, limiting them to 1 gram completely eliminated risk of
diversion, proof being they all ran out. Is the Ministry going to now
raise the limits and say "Oops, sorry if you've been sicker?"
Considering the Exemptees are the sickest people, this kind of added
stress must be killing them. And if someone were to die and their
doctor blamed it on their running out of marijuana, would the Ministry
say "Oops, sorry," at the funeral? They have forgotten they are
dealing with sick people and putting impediments in the way of their
growing their medicine is tantamount to an indictable offence.

      36. The Ministry stated they are looking into a providing a free
supply. Leaving the Applicant alone with his garden and his original
exemption would save them the trouble. A one-time grant for a
hydroponic garden under the original exemption conditions can solve
his needs and save Health Canada all future such costs. If they really
don't mind Exemptees growing what they need for their personal use,
why have the limit on plants at all other than for the belief in
higher crop velocity.

      37. Nevertheless, though the Health Canada goal to see that no
Exemptees had enough to sell seems met as no exemptees have been
charged with any illegal diversion, the net result of the amendments
to the Letter of Exemption is that they've made the Applicant waste
his time and money on only 7 plants which produced an insufficient
yield and forced him to get his medicine on the black market.

      38. Imposing these conditions in such an arbitrary manner with no
expert knowledge on the yield or cycle of the plant depicts incredible
incompetence, and given the life-and-death import, negligence on the
part of Canada Health officials. The admission that they compromised
everyone's supply below what their doctors prescribed "to prevent
diversion to illegal use" hasn't hit the public yet but it is the most
unconscionable admission in the Affidavit.

      B. PERMANENT EXEMPTION:
      -----------------------

      39. The Applicant seeks either a constitutional exemption
pursuant to the Ontario Court of Appeal's Parker decision or a
permanent exemption until his medical condition changes so that the
only condition the Applicant need meet is being sick enough with one
doctor's form to prove it and one doctor's form to report any
miraculous healing.

      40. Where the Applicant and his doctor had to endure trimestrial
reports and one yearly exemption report, they now have to endure extra
bi-yearly exemption report which offers even greater chance of a
misfiling mistake that could threaten revocation of the exemption.
Failure to file forms should not be a consideration for revocation.
Being burdened with filling out even more forms will not ease the
difficulty experienced by doctors in submitting their required
trimestrial reports on time.

      41. The Ministry says it's only an extra two pages to fill out.
To a doctor like Dr. Kilby with 450 serious patients, that's only 900
extra pages of forms to fill out even though he has no difficulty in
certifying his patients' state to justify the exemption in fatal
cases. More forms and more requests for supplementary information just
wears the patients and doctors down. There is no difficulty justifying
a permanent exemption in these fatal cases. Exemptees are too sick to
be under permanent bi-yearly threat of losing their exemptions if they
don't jump. The original 1 year period of the exemption, though more
reasonable, is nevertheless objectionable in this case where a
permanent exemption is needed.

      C. REVOCATION LINKED TO EXPERIMENTAL TESTING:
      ---------------------------------------------

     42. The Respondent argues that the Applicant does not have to be
an involuntary participant but they retain the right to revoke his
exemption if he does not participate. They say they might not even
ask, so why worry? With the threat of revocation hanging over his
head, such participation cannot be termed "voluntary," it is coercion.
Terry Parker isn't threatened with losing his crop of medicine if he
doesn't participate in their experimental tests. The Applicant
shouldn't have to suffer such threat of revocation either.

      D. AMBIGUOUS RENEWAL DEADLINES:
      -------------------------------

      43. The uncertainty caused Exemptees when Health Canada sends out
the renewal forms anytime within 90 days of the deadline has resulted
in much undue stress when forms arrive just two weeks before deadline
or even late. Everyone including doctors has to jump. Sending the next
renewal form with the current Letter of Exemption would not only save
a stamp but also help eliminate the stress of waiting for the forms to
arrive to signal the start of their jumping through hoops to get their
doctor's report in on time. While trimestrial reporting continues, a
permanent exemption till further notice would be preferable to the
constant renewal applications in "no-hope" cases. Terry Parker and his
doctor do not suffer this stress. Mr. Pariseau and Dr. Kilby shouldn't
have to either.

      E. UNFETTERED DISCRETION:
      -------------------------

      44. The Applicant rejects the Respondent's claim to unfettered
discretion in setting conditions for the exemption as not consistent
with the principles of fundamental justice. R. v. Terry Parker
(Ontario Court of Appeal July 31  2000) The circumstances necessary
for Parker to continue to benefit from his constitutional right to his
marijuana crop are only that he remain sick. He has no Health Canada
renewal forms to file. Mr. Pariseau's access must also be linked to
his being sick, not to his skill at filling out and filing forms at
the unfettered discretion of the Ministry of Health. He's fighting to
stay alive and doesn't need to be fighting to grow his medicine too.
Once a sick person qualifies for the exemption, the Ministry should
issue the letters of exemption and leave the farming controls to the
more competent Ministry of Agriculture. Terry Parker doesn't have to
deal with Health Canada's farming restrictions. The Applicant should
not have to either.

      (F) EXEMPTION FROM IMPORTING FROM LEGAL JURISDICTION:
      -----------------------------------------------------

      45. The criminal sanctions that prevent importing heroin and
morphine for illegal purposes are exempted when importing for legal
personal medicinal purposes and therefore such condition imposes an
unconstitutional barrier to access for the medicinal marijuana user
that medicinal heroin and morphine users do not have to suffer.

      46. Ideally, none of these problems would occur if the exemptions
also included the exemption against importation from nations where
marijuana is legal. If qualified sick people are permitted to produce
it, possess it and consume it, importing it from a jurisdiction where
it is legal to cultivate is a necessary amendment to obtain their
medicine.

      47. To not exempt importing because there is yet nowhere to
legally import from due to international treaties implies that
importing would be exempted when there is somewhere to legally import
from. Dr. Kilby applied to Holland and didn't succeed this time. The
Applicant seeks official exemption from prohibitions against importing
from a legal source in anticipation of such a legal source being
found. With a Health Canada exemption from importation prohibitions in
the next Holland export application, perhaps the Netherlands will
allow Maripharm corporation to fill Dr. Kilby's prescription more
readily. And also help undermine these unconscionable international
treaties. It's the government's job to get out of treaties if they get
in the way of justice being done.


ORDER SOUGHT:
=============

      48. A) strike the amendment limiting the number of plants and
reinstate the condition in the original "Grandfather" Letter of
Exemption to grow the "quantity necessary to satisfy his current
personal medical needs."

      49. B) strike down the requirement for bi-yearly or yearly
reports to qualify for the exemption and declare that a permanent
exemption where the doctor's initial letter indicates a no-hope
prognosis, or in the alternative, if a permanent exemption not be
granted,

      50. C) strike the amendment linking revocation of the Applicant's
Exemption to participation in experimental trials or failure to file
forms on time.

      51. D) strike the amendment indicating an ambiguous timetable for
filing deadlines and declare fixed periods of time to complete the
requirements are necessary to avoid undue stress on the patients.

      52. E) declare the Ministry's claim to unfettered discretion
unconstitutional especially in matters best left to the Ministry of
Agriculture and the patient's attending physician.

      53. F) amend the Letter of Exemption to include importing the
Applicant's legal supply of marijuana from a legal source of marijuana
or permit an agent such as a qualified hydroponic grower to produce
the Applicant's crop.

Dated at Ottawa on Monday Dec. 11 2000

__________________________
Jean Charles Pariseau


Solicitors for the Respondent

Morris Rosenberg,
Deputy Attorney General of Canada,
Per: Alain Prefontaine,
      Catherine A. Lawrence,
Department of Justice,
2nd floor, East Memorial Bldg.,
284 Wellington St.,
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0H8
Tel: 613-946-3815/957-1122
Fax: 613-954-1920

LETS Cancel Debt Growth First! Then work on debt.
John C. "The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
For anti-bank and pro-LETS community currency adventures and reports,
subscribe to http://www.egroups.com/group/turmel
For links to over 700 timecurrency systems in over 45 nations:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/urlsnat.htm

I'm in Norwich in England, but this is about Canada

Derek
www.ukcia.org

>From:   "Loren Wiberg" <wiberg@...>
>Subject: Rally on Parliament Hill, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada  Nov 25, 2000
>Date:   Mon, 20 Nov 2000 00:51:50 -0700
>Sender: owner-tlc-dpf@...
>
>This email is from Loren Wiberg  ph 403.227.5225 one of the invited speakers
>at the Nov 25, 2000 rally in Ottawa.
>I am in Alberta Mon 20, Tues 21, and Weds 22, then fly into Toronto for
>Thurs 24 and Fri 25, then fly to Ottawa
>for the Rally Nov 25th. I am in Ottawa the 26th and back in Alberta late on
>the 26th.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
>
>1.
>There will be a massive marijuana rally in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada on
>Saturday, November 25, 2000.
>The rally runs from 11:00am to 5:00pm at the Centennial Flame, in front of
>the Parliament Buildings.
>This rally is organized by Rick Reimer, a Canadian medical marijuana
>exemptee, on behalf of all the
>medical marijuana exemptees in Canada, currently about 74 in total.
>There is expected to be up to 10,000 people attending this rally, which is
>designed to feature and
>promote the stories of medical marijuana exemptees and marijuana reformers
>in their own words.
>This rally is aimed at those who have an interest in the reducing the
>suffering of Canadians suffering
>from serious illnesses, or in the reform of marijuana legislation in Canada
>or the USA.
>Follow this url to see the actual poster for the rally as well as a list of
>the speakers.
>http://www.zyx1.com/rallyposter.html
>The contact person setting up the rally is Rick Reimer 613.735.2345
>There will be coverage from most of the Canadian Media.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
>
>2.
>I have updated and added many news articles on ZYX Corporation and the offer
>to produce medical marijuana for
>Health Canada at the ZYX News page  www.zyx1.com then click on ZYX
>Corporation in the News .
>If you have any questions on any of the article, medical marijuana, the
>Health Canada medical marijuana contract,
>Loren Wiberg, ZYX Corporation or the upcoming medical marijuana rally in
>Ottawa call Loren Wiberg at 403.227.5225
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----

-----------------------------------------

UK Cannabis Internet Activists http://www.ukcia.org
Me: http://www.paston.co.uk/users/derek

-----------------------------------------
Tel (mobile) 07941 238908

Greater ST. LOUIS NORML
     \____________________________________________\  `National Organization
                                                   \   for the Reform of
                                                    \   Marijuana Laws`
                 Mo.6no00                   reply to:
                                               StL_NORML@...

               \___NORML Image Gripe Hits 'RFT'___

         St. Louis NORML made some noise in the Riverfront Times last week,
with a pointed little piece landing in the 'Letters' section (Nov.1, '00,
pg. 5)...  A watchful member reacted to a recent issue, where the published
announcement of a NORML event cast the organization in a silly caricature.
.
         To the Editor's credit, the RFT printed the critique, although it
did not come out quite like it was written, even tossed out the snappy
title line and used a droopy one.  Below, the original letter of Oct.24,
showing the juicy parts that were excised {in brackets} from the printed
version in the paper.

         ///////////////////////////////////

    "THANKS, BUT NO THANKS
    Cannabis fans don't appreciate stereotyping:"

         {Rendered subNORML}

{Thanks, sort of:}    A few weeks ago, we submitted a notice for "MO' NORML
2000" State Conference** to the "Calendar" section, and {What Ho!...} you
featured the event with a big cartoon graphic ['Night & Day', RFT, Oct.18].

     Seems we would be grateful for the exposure, but reconsider the image
projected in that cartoon -- 3 blitzed-out, bleary-eyed, drippy-nosed,
post-pubescent hippy-dippy geekers, with all the trippy trappings of the
cheap media stereotype.

{   And I certainly CAN remember what I have to say!...}

         Sorry, but 'Stoned Street-Punks' are NOT what St. Louis NORML is
about, and RFT has sold us all short on the real issues of Cannabis
Prohibition:
   ~ the systematic attack on civil rights under color of anti-drug laws...
   ~ the seriously ill patients denied medical marijuana and prosecuted for
trying to heal...
   ~ the subversion of hemp as a renewable, sustainable resource for farms &
industries...
   ~ the Inquisition against people who choose to run their own minds...

         [If] these tough issues don't lend easily to cutesy condescending
glyphs, Too Bad.  It's about time journalists started paying attention to
the real stories under their noses.  Have you observed what goes on at
those police roadblocks?... { tallied court revenues from drug
prosecutions?... investigated political activities of the DEA?... etc.}

{   The last thing we need from the RFT is this kind of tittering teeny-bop
visage.}

{       The cannabis movement has enough obstacles, with its own organizing
pratfalls and all the disinformation pumped down the public's gullet.  The
"Partnership for a Drug-Free America" is just the latest phase in 70 years
of government lies about marijuana -- but at unprecedented scale & public
expense, pooled with corporate money.  Of course Anheuser-Busch is a major
contributor, with obvious stakes in the anti-drug polemics.}

{   In this way, America's "consensus" for the Drug War has been
manufactured by jingoist politicians, police agencies & corporations with
vested interests in sustaining it.  They buy high-priced commercial time,
so in effect the major Media are subsidized to carry this propaganda and
line up behind it like ducks.}

{       It's high time to stop all this quacking.}

{   NORML and allied cannabis advocates can't compete with the feds &
flunkies for expensive broadcasts and other made-to-order media exposure.
We are volunteers of conscience... in trying to tell the truth, we are
limited to modest means of public information and events like the MO' NORML
2000 Conference -- a sober & successful forum on the travesties of
marijuana prohibition, which more people need to know about.}

     It would be fair to demand substantial reportage that gets to the facts
and issues.  At least, we should count on the progressive Press to refrain
from self-indulgent sardonics & lame caricatures that miscast NORML's
mission, and distract public discourse on these serious questions of public
policy... {"dude"}.

                                -- Scottie Addison
                                   Volunteer, St. Louis NORML

     \____________________________________________
       PO Box 220243 * St. Louis, MO 63122
          \ eM: StL_norml@...
           \ vm: 314-995-1395...www.mo-norml.org

From: http://www.medpot.net/jcpnot3c.htm

Court File No. T-1832-00

               FEDERAL COURT - TRIAL DIVISION


BETWEEN

The Applicant:

Jean Charles Pariseau


AND


The Respondent:

Attorney General of Canada


APPLICATION UNDER Section 18(1) of the Federal Court Act.

                           -----
                           REPLY
                           -----


      The Affidavit of Carol Langlois, dated Oct 30, deals
with the motions for an Order to:

1) strike or amend the condition:
---------------------------------

"If necessary, conditions to the current exemption may be
added, eliminated or modified, and such modifications
would apply a reasonable time after their promulgation."
THE GROUNDS are that the unfettered and unstructured
discretion of the minister of health is not consistent
with the principles of fundamental justice. R. v. Terry
Parker (Ontario Court of Appeal July 31  2000)

      The Respondent's Affidavit responds:

14. We continued to receive information to permit us to
make necessary modifications to the examination process.
15. These views convinced the Ministry to adopt new
conditions of exemption.
23. Ministry reserved to itself the right to revoke the
exemption or to add conditions or to modify the existing
conditions if new data supported such a decision.
23.6) To continue to benefit of the exemption, Mr.
Pariseau had to conform to the following conditions under
penalty of suspension and revocation:

      The Applicant replies that the circumstances
necessary to continue to benefit from the exemption should
be that Mr. Pariseau remain sick, not that he and his
doctor jump bureaucratic hoops at the unfettered
discretion of the Ministry of Health. Once a sick person
qualifies for the exemption, the Ministry should issue the
letters of exemption and leave the farming to the
exemptees.
---

2) strike the condition:
------------------------

"This exemption may be suspended and, finally, revoked, if
a more appropriate new therapy or other method of legal
access becomes available like access to clinical tests
where we would reasonably expect you to participate."
THE GROUNDS are that compelling the Exemptee to
participate in experimental trials usurps the prerogative
of the doctor.

      The Respondents Affidavit of Carol Langlois answers:

31.3.A) The second letter of exemption furnishes examples
of the application of a condition which was already
contained implicitly in the first letter of exemption,
c.a.d., the appearance of new facts to render the
exemption unnecessary.
31.3.B) If a new more appropriate therapy is identified,
from the moment a new therapy is legally available, and it
offers Mr. Pariseau the same relief but by legal means,
the reason for the exemption will disappear.
31.3.C) The second example is if another more appropriate
means of access to legal cannabis is identified. Again, if
the same relief is available, the reason for the exemption
will disappear.
31.3.D) A third example deals with clinical trials that it
would be reasonable to expect Mr. Pariseau to participate
in. This example does not transform Mr. Pariseau into an
involuntary participant.
31.3.D.1) Pursuant to medical protocol, all participants
consent to take part in this research. Mr. Pariseau will
never be forced to participate against his will.
31.3.D.2) It is impossible to predict if Mr. Pariseau
would even fit the necessary profile for such research.

      The Applicant's point of objection is not the threat
of transforming Mr. Pariseau into an involuntary
participant. It is the threat of revoking his exemption if
he does not which coerces him to participate against his
will. Saying it might not even happen doesn't help since
it can.
---

3) strike or amend the condition:
---------------------------------

"The exemptions are actually granted for six months."
THE GROUNDS are that the Applicant's doctor files
trimestrial reports for June 09, Oct 09, Feb 09. Modifying
the exemption to require a 6 month report on Dec 09, two
months after the October report and two months before the
february report, is a capricious waste of the doctor's and
the patient's time and resources.

      The Respondent answers:

26. Mr. Pariseau has failed to furnish the trimestrial
medical reports on the evolution of his condition and the
effects of cannabis, despite the fact the condition is
included in the letter of exemption.

      Dr. Kilby informed the Applicant the form had been
misfiled.

31.3.D.3) Mr. Pariseau was held responsible for providing
detailed information through the trimestrial reports
furnished by his doctor.

      Dr. Kilby again pointed out his patient should not be
troubled with the responsibility for these forms. He
accepts to be.

31.3.D.4) The Ministry is looking into a legal source of
supply so the participants will get the required marijuana
free. His participation in such a study could solve his
needs.
      JCT: A one-time grant for a hydroponic garden under
the original conditions can solve his needs and save
Health Canada all future such costs.

31.4.A) The duration of the exemption has been reduced
from 12 to 6 months.
31.4.B) This reduction is due to the recommendation made
to the Ministry by a committee of independent experts on
new drugs.
31.4.C) Also, a shorter term permits us to more closely
follow the evolution of exemptees and make modifications
to the exemption that this evolution requires.
31.4.D) A shorter term reduces the difficulty experienced
by certain doctors in certifying that the present state of
their patients will justify the exemption for the
following 12 months. (6 months?)
31.4.E) Also, renewing more frequently permits us to ease
the difficulty experienced by certain exemptees, or their
doctors, in submitting their required trimestrial reports
on time.

31.4.F) Finally, the renewal process does not impose an
excessive constraint since it only asks his doctor to fill
out a 2 page form. This permits us to synthesize the
information furnished by the doctor with his trimestrial
reports. It also permits the doctor to validate the
continued need, for the next 6 months, for the exemption.

      Dr. Kilby does not agree that being burdened with
filling out even more forms will "ease the difficulty
experienced by doctors in submitting their required
trimestrial reports on time."
      There is no difficulty in certifying the patient's
state to justify the exemption and making the doctor
repeat the same thing again and again does not help him in
filling out his forms.
      Dr. Kilby stressed Mr. Pariseau is dying. He's not
going to get better. He needs a permanent exemption. He
guarantees to send them information of any miraculous
changes for the better. More forms only increases the
chances of more misfiled forms.
      The original 1 year period of the exemption, though
more reasonable, is nevertheless objectionable in this
case where a permanent exemption is needed.
---

4) strike or amend the condition:
---------------------------------

"You are authorized the produce/cultivate and have in your
possession a quantity not to exceed a total of 3 mature
plants of marijuana, 4 immature plants and 30 grams of
usable marijuana per plant."
THE GROUNDS are that the limit of 1 gram of "Laughing
Grass" marijuana per day that the Applicant may use to
help down his "not funny" 21 grams of 48 pills per day
when his doctor has prescribed two or more grams usurps
the doctor's medical prerogative with an unqualified,
unconscionable and erroneous opinion on the therapeutic
value of marijuana.

      The Respondent's  Affidavit states:

22. Of the numerous problems, first of all is possible
diversion to illegal uses.

      The Applicant is aware that he is not exempted from
the Criminal Code police in case of diversion to illegal
use and suggests that diversion be left to the real police
and not this new Health Canada police. With pounds being
peddled on the streets, Health Canada is over-reacting to
the ounces being grown in the Applicant's home.

25. We have always treated this file on the basis of the
quantity cited in the Oct 13 1998 letter, the 2 grams per
day.

      Dr. Kilby's prescription in Tab 5 of the Respondent's
Affidavit called for 0.5 grams four times a day of
Maripharm, a high-grade 10% THC marijuana from Holland.

31.2.A) Where the first letter was content to limit the
quantity of cannabis to that "necessary to satisfy your
current personal medicinal needs, the second letter
quantifies it precisely;
31.2.A.1) 3 mature and 4 immature plants, and 90 grams of
useful marijuana (c.a.d. 3 times 30 grams).

      The actual words objected to and sought stricken
were: "30 grams of usable marijuana per plant."

31.2.B) With the information in our possession, these
limits to permitted quantities represent the most
reasonable point of compromise between Mr. Pariseau's
medicinal needs and the obligation of the Ministry to
reduce to an acceptable level the risks of diversion of
the crop to purposes prohibited by law.

      The risk of diversion offers no justification to
compromise the Applicant's access to his medicine. To
"reduce to an acceptable level the risks of diversion,"
their formula has been designed to keep the Applicant
short of his prescribed medicinal needs to make sure he
has none to sell.
      Since the Criminal Code prohibitions already do deter
him from selling, deterring him from selling with Canada
Health conditions that cut his crop to insufficient level
so he has none to divert is an unnecessary and
unconstitutional impediment. It's not Health Canada's
purpose to set conditions to guarantee the Criminal Code
is not broken. It's presumed by the existence of the
Justice Department.

31.2.C) These quantities do not represent the maximum
authorized for the duration of the exemption. The
exemption permits Mr. Pariseau to renew his stock as fast
as he consumes the marijuana he produces.
31.2.D) Given the information furnished by his doctor, Mr.
Pariseau requires up to 2 grams of inhalable marijuana per
day. The 90 grams of marijuana represents a stock
sufficient for 45 days.
31.2.E) Neither Mr. Pariseau nor his doctor informed us
Mr. Pariseau needed more than 2 grams per day.
31.2.F) If as he states, he needs 4 grams per day, the
exemption permits him to create an inventory of 22 days.
Equally, the exemption permits him to constantly renew
this inventory.
32. The goal of the modifications to the conditions of the
exemption were to reflect the supplementary information
collected by the Ministry and to harmonize the content of
the existing letters of exemption so as to furnish a
reasonable basis for the exemptions.
      It is quite evident that Canada Health does not use
the period of the growing cycle in its computations. In
the words objected to, the Health Canada expectation was
that three plants produce 30 grams each. 90 grams. They do
not tell us in how long. You can't be flowering three out
of seven plants to produce 90 grams of smokable marijuana
every 22 days.
      At Tab 8 of the Respondent's Affidavit is the letter
from Health Canada to Mr. Pariseau requesting his renewal
application. In it, they ask the Applicant to provide the
following information:

"the estimated production for each marijuana plant in
useful grams?"
"the estimated growing cycle?"

      They should have known these answers before setting
down new conditions. They don't even know how much their
set-up would produce. But their goal to see that no one
had enough to sell seems met. Mr. Pariseau's efforts and
the efforts of many to grow their crop of medicine have
been hampered by these bureaucrats who do not know the
number of useful grams produced per plant nor the
estimated growing cycle!!
      By their computations, the 3 mature and 4 immature
plant method could turn over often enough to supply him
with 1 gram per day, 2 grams per day, 3 grams per day, up
to 4 grams per day.
      That's what happens when you don't use the growing
cycle in your computations. It's a mathematical
incompetence that staggers the mind to not take the
growing cycle into their computations. And these
bureaucrats claim the unfettered discretion to meddle with
the doctor's prescription and the jurisdiction of the
criminal courts.
     The Applicant does not want have to tend his garden of
only 7 plants full time and pay high electrical bills all
year. The Applicant would like to plant one garden and
reap one year's harvest and turn off the lights until next
year.

31.2.G) To determine the quantity, outside of the needs
expressed by Mr. Pariseau and his attending physician, we
have taken account of the following factors:
31.2.G.1) The 200 requests have permitted us to establish
that people request an average of 2.5 grams per day.

      Using the average of what the other people need
should not be a factor in compromising how much the
Applicant gets because it is not relevant to the needs
expressed by Mr. Pariseau and his attending physician.
Only the needs expressed by the patient and attending
physician matter. The average need of the rest does not.
      The average request of 2.5 grams is for home-grown,
not the 10% THC high-grade from Holland prescribed in the
Applicant's dose requirement. He might need 4 grams per
day of 5% THC home-grown instead of 2 grams of high-grade
Maripharm.

31.2.G.2) Given the average yield of a cannabis plant,
from the information in our possession, 3 mature plants
and 4 immature plants are sufficient to provide 90 grams
per month.
31.2.G.3) US States permit a similar quantity.

      At the previously expected 30 grams per plant, 3 out
of 7 plants cannot be flowering every month. Given Canada
Health do not know that the growing cycle is more than 3
months, their estimate is not only uninformed but quite
overstates the yield produced by only 3 mature and 4
immature plants. It leaves no room for error and that's
why Pariseau ran short.

39. To properly evaluate the needs of Mr. Pariseau and
take into account the danger of diversion, it remains
essential that our consideration of the modifications are
founded on sufficient medical information and evaluate
their risks and benefits.

      That Health Canada is taking into account the danger
of diversion while evaluating the Applicant's medical
needs is what's wrong with their prescription.
---

5) strike or amend the condition:
---------------------------------

"The Exemption does not permit you to import the
designated substance."
THE GROUNDS are that the criminal sanctions that prevent
importing heroin and morphine for illegal purposes do not
apply to importing for legal personal medicinal purposes
and therefore such condition imposes an unconstitutional
barrier to access for the medicinal marijuana user that
medicinal heroin and morphine users do not have to suffer.

      The Respondent's Affidavit answers:

20. Canada considers marijuana harmful to health and
society and has signed important international treaties.
Yet, the government recognizes the need to accommodate the
exceptional circumstances of people like Mr. Pariseau
within this general prohibition.
21. Tab 1 explains the context of the international
prohibition.

      To not exempt importing because there is nowhere to
import from due to these international treaties implies
the exemption when there is somewhere legal to import
from. The Applicant seeks exemption from prohibitions
against importing from a legal source in anticipation of
such a legal source.
      With such an exemption in any export application,
perhaps the Netherlands will allow Maripharm corporation
to fill Dr. Kilby's prescription more readily and also
help undermine these unconscionable international
treaties.

33. Mr. Pariseau seems to claim the right to obtain
marijuana from a third party, either by authorizing a
third party to produce it in his name or to authorize it's
importation.

      Yes, it would be right for the Applicant's care-giver
to also be the Applicant's gardener.
---

6) strike or amend the condition:
---------------------------------

"We will communicate with you concerning the possible
renewal of the current exemption in the three months
preceding its expiration date, and you will be informed of
the decision on the renewal before the end of the
exemption. Supplementary information, other than the
trimestrial reports required under the currency exemption
may be required in the course of the examination of the
renewal of the exemption."
THE GROUNDS are that the ambiguity of the timing
guidelines which permit Health Canada to send out the
renewal forms anytime within 90 days of the deadline has
resulted in their last renewal form arriving two weeks
before deadline and their last Letter of Exemption
arriving late in the mail, a cause of some undue stress.
Sending the next renewal form with the current Exemption
would not only save a stamp but also help eliminate the
stress of waiting for the forms to arrive to signal the
start of their jumping through hoops to get their doctor's
report in on time. While trimestrial reporting continues,
a permanent exemption till further notice would be
preferable to the constant renewal applications in "no-
hope" cases.

      The Applicant again objects to the Respondent's claim
to unfettered discretion in setting conditions for the
exemption. The only necessary condition should be that the
Applicant is sick enough. More forms and more requests for
supplementary information have a non-beneficial effect on
the health of the Applicant. He's fighting to stay alive
and doesn't need to be fighting to get his medicine too.

36. Despite the expressed invitation to communicate with
us to deal with his worries, contained in the letter he
criticizes, Mr. Pariseau did not inform us of the worries
his conditions were causing him.
37. The second letter of exemption expires next Dec 9. On
Oct 27 last, the Bureau asked Mr. Pariseau if he wanted to
renew his exemption.
38. This letter invites him to let us know of his concerns
so we could consider modifying the conditions of his
exemption.
Sworn before me on Oct 30 2000,   Carole Langlois

      The Applicant seeks either a constitutional exemption
pursuant to the Ontario Court of Appeal's Parker decision
or a permanent exemption until his medical condition
changes so that the only condition the Applicant need meet
is being sick enough with one doctor's form to prove it
and one doctor's form to change it.
      The final point to note is the result of the new
conditions. The Applicant failed to meet their
expectations and ran short of medicine. When he has no
marijuana, Dr. Kilby says his viral count goes up.
      Imposing these conditions in such an arbitrary manner
with no expert knowledge on the yield or cycle of the
plant depicts incompetence, and given the life-and-death
import, negligence on the part of Canada Health officials.
      The admission that they compromised everyone's supply
below what their doctors prescribed to prevent diversion
of any excess to illegal use is the most unconscionable
admission in the Affidavit.
      Terry Parker doesn't have to deal with Health
Canada's farming restrictions. The Applicant does not want
to have to either.

D) an order allowing or correcting any variations as to
the form or content of the documents herein.
THE GROUNDS are that the relief claimed by the Applicant
warrants the court's expeditious attention.

      The Applicant much appreciates that the Court has
proceeded on this Application for Judicial Review by way
of Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment of these issues
and apologizes for any necessary variations in the form
and content of the documents herein which the Court has
been so indulgent as to overlook.
      The Applicant has been promised the chance to look
his judge in the eye when he's told what can and cannot be
done to rectify this multitude of complaints. The
Applicant would appreciate it if the court's decision
could be rendered orally. If a hearing on the evidence be
deemed necessary,


THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE will be used at the
hearing of the motion:
The Affidavit of Jean Charles Pariseau dated Sep 15 2000.

Dated at Ottawa on Fri Nov 3 2000




__________________________
Jean Charles Pariseau
1-173 Alice St.
Vanier, ON, K1L 7X5
Tel: 613-746-3910
Fax: 613-728-2196



Solicitors for the Respondent

Morris Rosenberg,
Deputy Attorney General of Canada,
Per: Alain Prefontaine,
      Catherine A. Lawrence,
Department of Justice,
2nd floor, East Memorial Bldg.,
284 Wellington St.,
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0H8
Tel: 613-946-3815/957-1122
Fax: 613-954-1920

LETS Cancel Debt Growth First! Then work on debt.
John C. "The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
For anti-bank and pro-LETS community currency adventures and reports,
subscribe to http://www.egroups.com/group/turmel
For links to over 700 timecurrency systems in over 45 nations:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/urlsnat.htm

LETS Cancel Debt Growth First! Then work on debt.
John C. "The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
For anti-bank and pro-LETS community currency adventures and reports,
subscribe to http://www.egroups.com/group/turmel
For links to over 700 timecurrency systems in over 45 nations:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/urlsnat.htm

From http://www.medpot.net/jcpnot3b.htm

AFFIDAVIT OF CAROL LANGLOIS:

(Translation by John C. Turmel, B. Eng.)
(Note: These are only excerpts with the main points.)

1. I, Carol Langlois, work at the Ministry of Health since 1987. Other
than 2 years, I served in the anti-drug program. Since 1999, I'm in
charge of the requests for exemptions. I participated in the decision
on the Jean Charles Pariseau exemption.

2. I'll give a brief portrait of the conditions we face...

3. Marijuana comes from flowers of the hemp plant and contain the
psychoactive cannabis delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).

4. I adopt the arguments in the Affidavit of Dann Michols in the James
Wakeford v. R. case. See Tab 1

1) Recent evolution of cannabis use for therapeutic purposes
------------------------------------------------------------

5. The Criminal Code criminalized possession, traffic, and sale
of cannabis in 1923.

6. The Ledain Commission on non-medical use noted little prescription
for medicinal purposes by Western medicine.

7. In 1996, Parliament enlarged the power of the Minister to grant
exemptions "for reasons that are medical, scientific, or where it is
justified by the public interest."

8. In Sep 1998, James Wakeford applied for an exemption.

9. Oct. 12, Jean Charles Pariseau applied.

10. To treat these requests, the Ministry had to create an examination
process.

11. The process plan was announced Mar 3 1999.

12. In April 1999, the Ministry published its evaluation process for
exemptions under Section 56.

13. The first exemptions were granted June 9, 1999, one to Mr.
Pariseau.

14. We continued to receive information to permit us to make necessary
modifications to the examination process.

15. These views convinced the Ministry to adopt new conditions of
exemption.

16. On June 9 2000, the Ministry renewed Pariseau's exemption.

17. On July 31 2000, the Ontario Court of Appeal Parker decision
declared the prohibition against possession of marijuana
unconstitutional but suspended it's effect for a year.

18. September 14, the Ministry announced the intention to pursue a
study.

19. The Ministry hopes to have the new regulatory approach in place
before July 31 2000 after having taken account of the problems raised
by interested parties.

2) Constraints
--------------

20. Canada considers marijuana harmful to health and society and has
signed important international treaties. Yet, the government
recognizes the need to accommodate the exceptional circumstances of
people like Mr. Pariseau within this general prohibition.

21. Tab 1 explains the context of the international prohibition.
Canada has agreed to outlaw the cultivation and import of cannabis
other than other a tightly regulated framework. Import is only
possible if there's an exporter licensed by the exporting country for
medicinal purposes. The Ministry knows of no such country.

22. Of the numerous problems, first of all is the possible diversion
of legitimate cannabis by an exemptee, whether intended or not. The
conditions imposed are to reconcile these divergent factors in such a
way as to respect the underlying legal principles while at the same
time permitting Mr. Pariseau to have access to the product he needs.

3) Initial request
------------------

23. Tab 5 contains the documentation for Mr. Pariseau's initial
request for an exemption.

      1) In Oct 1998, Mr. Pariseau requests an exemption. His doctor
specifies his medical condition requires one dose of marijuana of "0.5
grams qid prn". He also confirms Mr. Pariseau uses marijuana since
1996 and obtains it with a hydroponic garden in his closet.

      2) On Jan 18 1999, the Minister asked for supplementary
information.

      3) June 3 1999, Mr. Pariseau specified exemption for his
cultivation and use.

      4) June 7 1999, his doctor confirms Pariseau needs "0.5
milligrams quid" of inhaled marijuana.

      5) June 9 1999 Dann M. Michols grants the exemption for
cultivation and consumption for medicinal use. This exemption reflects
the information we had at the time. The Ministry reserved to itself
the right to revoke the exemption or to add conditions or to modify
the existing conditions if new data supported such a decision.

      6) To continue to benefit of the exemption, Mr. Pariseau had to
conform to the following conditions under penalty of suspension and
revocation:

           B) Not cultivate, produce or possess more than necessary to
satisfy his current personal medical needs.

           D) be under a doctor's supervision so he can offer
observations.

           E) Furnish doctor's reports every three months.

           F) Take reasonable measures to protect the crop.

           G) Inform us of any loss of crop.

24. The quite long delay between the receipt of Mr. Pariseau's request
and his exemption was caused by the need to adopt a process for these
kinds of requests.

25. In his Oct 13 1998 letter, his doctor cites the need for "0.5
grams qid prn". The expression "qid prn" is an acronym used to signify
that the medicine is administered four times per day ("qid"), as
needed ("prn"). We have always treated this file on the basis of the
quantity cited in the Oct 13 1998 letter, the 2 grams per day.

26. Mr. Pariseau has failed to furnish the trimestrial medical reports
on the evolution of his condition and the effects of cannabis, despite
the fact the condition is included in the letter of exemption.

4) Renewal
----------

27. Between June 9 1999 and June 9 2000, about 200 other people
requested exemptions. To day, the Ministry has granted 110.

28. We've continued to collect information from those interested in
the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

29. The bureau was able to establish a framework to help the Ministry
determine the conditions that could be attached to the exemptions.
This framework is not to predetermine the conditions to be imposed on
those who request exemptions.

30. Tab 6 has documentation relative to Mr. Pariseau's second letter
of exemption.

      1) May 17 2000, Carole Bouchard asks Mr. Pariseau if he wishes to
renew his exemption which lapses on June 9 2000.

      2) May 31 2000, Pariseau submits his renewal.

      3) June 9 2000, Michols renews the exemption granted the year
before. Other than the modifications cited next, the conditions remain
the same as the initial exemption.

5) New conditions
-----------------

31. The second letter modifies the stated conditions in the following
way:
      1) Scope of Exemption:

           B) May not use derivatives like hash or hash oil.

      2) Quantity exempted:

           A) Where the first letter was content to limit the quantity
of cannabis to that "necessary to satisfy your current personal
medicinal needs, the second letter quantifies it precisely;

                1) 3 mature and 4 immature plants, and 90 grams of
useful marijuana (c.a.d. 3 times 30 grams).

                2) Mr. Pariseau may also possess up to 30 grams.

           B) With the information in our possession, these limits to
permitted quantities represent the most reasonable point of compromise
between Mr. Pariseau's medicinal needs and the obligation of the
Ministry to reduce to an acceptable level the risks of diversion of
the crop to purposes prohibited by law.

           C) These quantities do not represent the maximum authorized
for the duration of the exemption. The exemption permits Mr. Pariseau
to renew his stock as fast as he consumes the marijuana he produces.

           D) Given the information furnished by his doctor, Mr.
Pariseau requires up to 2 grams of inhalable marijuana per day. The 90
grams of marijuana represents a stock sufficient for 45 days. He can
possess a stock covering his needs for 15 days;

           E) Neither Mr. Pariseau nor his doctor informed us Mr.
Pariseau needed more than 2 grams per day.

           F) If as he states, he needs 4 grams per day, the exemption
permits him to create an inventory of 22 days. Equally, the exemption
permits him to constantly renew this inventory.

           G) To determine the quantity, outside of the needs expressed
by Mr. Pariseau and his attending physician, we have taken account of
the following factors:

                1) The 200 requests have permitted us to establish that
people request an average of 2.5 grams per day.

                2) Given the average yield of a cannabis plant, from
the information in our possession, 3 mature plants and 4 immature
plants are sufficient to provide 90 grams per month.

                3) US States permit a similar quantity.

      3) New facts making the exemption unnecessary:

                A) The second letter of exemption furnishes examples of
the application of a condition which was already contained implicitly
in the first letter of exemption, c.a.d., the appearance of new facts
to render the exemption unnecessary.

                B) If a new more appropriate therapy is identified,
from the moment a new therapy is legally available, and it offers Mr.
Pariseau the same relief but by legal means, the reason for the
exemption will disappear.

                C) The second example is if another more appropriate
means of access to legal cannabis is identified. Again, if the same
relief is available, the reason for the exemption will disappear.

                D) A third example deals with clinical trials that it
would be reasonable to expect Mr. Pariseau to participate in. This
example does not transform Mr. Pariseau into an involuntary
participant.

                     1) Pursuant to medical protocol, all participants
consent to take part in this research. Mr. Pariseau will never be
forced to participate against his will.

                     2) It is impossible to predict if Mr. Pariseau
would even fit the necessary profile for such research.

                     3) Mr. Pariseau was held responsible for providing
detailed information through the trimestrial reports furnished by his
doctor.

                     4) The Ministry is looking into a legal source of
supply so the participants will get the required marijuana free. His
participation in such a study could solve his needs.

      4) Period of the exemption:

           A) The duration of the exemption has been reduced from 12 to
6 months.

           B) This reduction is due to the recommendation made to the
Ministry by a committee of independent experts on new drugs.

           C) Also, a shorter term permits us to more closely follow
the evolution of exemptees and make modifications to the exemption
that this evolution requires.

           D) A shorter term reduces the difficulty experienced by
certain doctors in certifying that the present state of their patients
will justify the exemption for the following 12 months.

           E) Also, renewing more frequently permits us to ease the
difficulty experienced by certain exemptees, or their doctors, in
submitting their required trimestrial reports on time.

           F) Finally, the renewal process does not impose an excessive
constraint since it only asks his doctor to fill out a 2 page form.
This permits us to synthesize the information furnished by the doctor
with his trimestrial reports. It also permits the doctor to validate
the continued need, for the next 6 months, for the exemption.

32. The goal of the modifications to the conditions of the exemption
were to reflect the supplementary information collected by the
Ministry and to harmonize the content of the existing letters of
exemption so as to furnish a reasonable basis for the exemptions.

6) Getting from a third party
-----------------------------

33. Mr. Pariseau seems to claim the right to obtain marijuana from a
third party, either by authorizing a third party to produce it in his
name or to authorize it's importation.

34. Tab 1 explains why the importation is not possible. There now
exists no legitimate source capable of exporting.

35. Neither the Ministry nor Mr. Pariseau know a legitimate source to
comply with 1961 Convention and 1972 Protocol.

7) Recent Events
----------------

36. Despite the expressed invitation to communicate with us to deal
with his worries, contained in the letter he criticizes, Mr. Pariseau
did not inform us of the worries his conditions were causing him.

37. The second letter of exemption expires next Dec 9. On Oct 27 last,
the Bureau asked Mr. Pariseau if he wanted to renew his exemption.

38. This letter invites him to let us know of his concerns so we could
consider modifying the conditions of his exemption.

39. To properly evaluate the needs of Mr. Pariseau and take into
account the danger of diversion, it remains essential that our
consideration of the modifications are founded on sufficient medical
information and evaluate their risks and benefits.

Sworn before me on Oct 30 2000,
Carole Langlois


LETS Cancel Debt Growth First! Then work on debt.
John C. "The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
For anti-bank and pro-LETS community currency adventures and reports,
subscribe to http://www.egroups.com/group/turmel
For links to over 700 timecurrency systems in over 45 nations:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/urlsnat.htm

From: http://www.medpot.net/jcpnot3c.htm

Court File No. 00-T-36 or T-1832-00

               FEDERAL COURT - TRIAL DIVISION


BETWEEN

The Applicant:

Jean Charles Pariseau


AND


The Respondent:

Attorney General of Canada


APPLICATION UNDER Section 18(1) of the Federal Court Act.

                           -----
                           REPLY
                           -----


      The Affidavit of Carol Langlois, dated Oct 30, deals
with the motions for an Order to:

1) strike or amend the condition:
---------------------------------

"If necessary, conditions to the current exemption may be
added, eliminated or modified, and such modifications
would apply a reasonable time after their promulgation."
THE GROUNDS are that the unfettered and unstructured
discretion of the minister of health is not consistent
with the principles of fundamental justice. R. v. Terry
Parker (Ontario Court of Appeal July 31  2000)

      The Respondent's Affidavit responds:

14. We continued to receive information to permit us to
make necessary modifications to the examination process.
15. These views convinced the Ministry to adopt new
conditions of exemption.
23. Ministry reserved to itself the right to revoke the
exemption or to add conditions or to modify the existing
conditions if new data supported such a decision.
23.6) To continue to benefit of the exemption, Mr.
Pariseau had to conform to the following conditions under
penalty of suspension and revocation:

      The Applicant replies that the circumstances
necessary to continue to benefit from the exemption should
be that Mr. Pariseau remain sick, not that he and his
doctor jump bureaucratic hoops at the unfettered
discretion of the Ministry of Health. Once a sick person
qualifies for the exemption, the Ministry should issue the
letters of exemption and leave the farming to the
exemptees.
---

2) strike the condition:
------------------------

"This exemption may be suspended and, finally, revoked, if
a more appropriate new therapy or other method of legal
access becomes available like access to clinical tests
where we would reasonably expect you to participate."
THE GROUNDS are that compelling the Exemptee to
participate in experimental trials usurps the prerogative
of the doctor.

      The Respondents Affidavit of Carol Langlois answers:

31.3.A) The second letter of exemption furnishes examples
of the application of a condition which was already
contained implicitly in the first letter of exemption,
c.a.d., the appearance of new facts to render the
exemption unnecessary.
31.3.B) If a new more appropriate therapy is identified,
from the moment a new therapy is legally available, and it
offers Mr. Pariseau the same relief but by legal means,
the reason for the exemption will disappear.
31.3.C) The second example is if another more appropriate
means of access to legal cannabis is identified. Again, if
the same relief is available, the reason for the exemption
will disappear.
31.3.D) A third example deals with clinical trials that it
would be reasonable to expect Mr. Pariseau to participate
in. This example does not transform Mr. Pariseau into an
involuntary participant.
31.3.D.1) Pursuant to medical protocol, all participants
consent to take part in this research. Mr. Pariseau will
never be forced to participate against his will.
31.3.D.2) It is impossible to predict if Mr. Pariseau
would even fit the necessary profile for such research.

      The Applicant's point of objection is not the threat
of transforming Mr. Pariseau into an involuntary
participant. It is the threat of revoking his exemption if
he does not which coerces him to participate against his
will. Saying it might not even happen doesn't help since
it can.
---

3) strike or amend the condition:
---------------------------------

"The exemptions are actually granted for six months."
THE GROUNDS are that the Applicant's doctor files
trimestrial reports for June 09, Oct 09, Feb 09. Modifying
the exemption to require a 6 month report on Dec 09, two
months after the October report and two months before the
february report, is a capricious waste of the doctor's and
the patient's time and resources.

      The Respondent answers:

26. Mr. Pariseau has failed to furnish the trimestrial
medical reports on the evolution of his condition and the
effects of cannabis, despite the fact the condition is
included in the letter of exemption.

      Dr. Kilby informed the Applicant the form had been
misfiled.

31.3.D.3) Mr. Pariseau was held responsible for providing
detailed information through the trimestrial reports
furnished by his doctor.

      Dr. Kilby again pointed out his patient should not be
troubled with the responsibility for these forms. He
accepts to be.

31.3.D.4) The Ministry is looking into a legal source of
supply so the participants will get the required marijuana
free. His participation in such a study could solve his
needs.
      JCT: A one-time grant for a hydroponic garden under
the original conditions can solve his needs and save
Health Canada all future such costs.

31.4.A) The duration of the exemption has been reduced
from 12 to 6 months.
31.4.B) This reduction is due to the recommendation made
to the Ministry by a committee of independent experts on
new drugs.
31.4.C) Also, a shorter term permits us to more closely
follow the evolution of exemptees and make modifications
to the exemption that this evolution requires.
31.4.D) A shorter term reduces the difficulty experienced
by certain doctors in certifying that the present state of
their patients will justify the exemption for the
following 12 months. (6 months?)
31.4.E) Also, renewing more frequently permits us to ease
the difficulty experienced by certain exemptees, or their
doctors, in submitting their required trimestrial reports
on time.

31.4.F) Finally, the renewal process does not impose an
excessive constraint since it only asks his doctor to fill
out a 2 page form. This permits us to synthesize the
information furnished by the doctor with his trimestrial
reports. It also permits the doctor to validate the
continued need, for the next 6 months, for the exemption.

      Dr. Kilby does not agree that being burdened with
filling out even more forms will "ease the difficulty
experienced by doctors in submitting their required
trimestrial reports on time."
      There is no difficulty in certifying the patient's
state to justify the exemption and making the doctor
repeat the same thing again and again does not help him in
filling out his forms.
      Dr. Kilby stressed Mr. Pariseau is dying. He's not
going to get better. He needs a permanent exemption. He
guarantees to send them information of any miraculous
changes for the better. More forms only increases the
chances of more misfiled forms.
      The original 1 year period of the exemption, though
more reasonable, is nevertheless objectionable in this
case where a permanent exemption is needed.
---

4) strike or amend the condition:
---------------------------------

"You are authorized the produce/cultivate and have in your
possession a quantity not to exceed a total of 3 mature
plants of marijuana, 4 immature plants and 30 grams of
usable marijuana per plant."
THE GROUNDS are that the limit of 1 gram of "Laughing
Grass" marijuana per day that the Applicant may use to
help down his "not funny" 21 grams of 48 pills per day
when his doctor has prescribed two or more grams usurps
the doctor's medical prerogative with an unqualified,
unconscionable and erroneous opinion on the therapeutic
value of marijuana.

      The Respondent's  Affidavit states:

22. Of the numerous problems, first of all is possible
diversion to illegal uses.

      The Applicant is aware that he is not exempted from
the Criminal Code police in case of diversion to illegal
use and suggests that diversion be left to the real police
and not this new Health Canada police. With pounds being
peddled on the streets, Health Canada is over-reacting to
the ounces being grown in the Applicant's home.

25. We have always treated this file on the basis of the
quantity cited in the Oct 13 1998 letter, the 2 grams per
day.

      Dr. Kilby's prescription in Tab 5 of the Respondent's
Affidavit called for 0.5 grams four times a day of
Maripharm, a high-grade 10% THC marijuana from Holland.

31.2.A) Where the first letter was content to limit the
quantity of cannabis to that "necessary to satisfy your
current personal medicinal needs, the second letter
quantifies it precisely;
31.2.A.1) 3 mature and 4 immature plants, and 90 grams of
useful marijuana (c.a.d. 3 times 30 grams).

      The actual words objected to and sought stricken
were: "30 grams of usable marijuana per plant."

31.2.B) With the information in our possession, these
limits to permitted quantities represent the most
reasonable point of compromise between Mr. Pariseau's
medicinal needs and the obligation of the Ministry to
reduce to an acceptable level the risks of diversion of
the crop to purposes prohibited by law.

      The risk of diversion offers no justification to
compromise the Applicant's access to his medicine. To
"reduce to an acceptable level the risks of diversion,"
their formula has been designed to keep the Applicant
short of his prescribed medicinal needs to make sure he
has none to sell.
      Since the Criminal Code prohibitions already do deter
him from selling, deterring him from selling with Canada
Health conditions that cut his crop to insufficient level
so he has none to divert is an unnecessary and
unconstitutional impediment. It's not Health Canada's
purpose to set conditions to guarantee the Criminal Code
is not broken. It's presumed by the existence of the
Justice Department.

31.2.C) These quantities do not represent the maximum
authorized for the duration of the exemption. The
exemption permits Mr. Pariseau to renew his stock as fast
as he consumes the marijuana he produces.
31.2.D) Given the information furnished by his doctor, Mr.
Pariseau requires up to 2 grams of inhalable marijuana per
day. The 90 grams of marijuana represents a stock
sufficient for 45 days.
31.2.E) Neither Mr. Pariseau nor his doctor informed us
Mr. Pariseau needed more than 2 grams per day.
31.2.F) If as he states, he needs 4 grams per day, the
exemption permits him to create an inventory of 22 days.
Equally, the exemption permits him to constantly renew
this inventory.
32. The goal of the modifications to the conditions of the
exemption were to reflect the supplementary information
collected by the Ministry and to harmonize the content of
the existing letters of exemption so as to furnish a
reasonable basis for the exemptions.
      It is quite evident that Canada Health does not use
the period of the growing cycle in its computations. In
the words objected to, the Health Canada expectation was
that three plants produce 30 grams each. 90 grams. They do
not tell us in how long. You can't be flowering three out
of seven plants to produce 90 grams of smokable marijuana
every 22 days.
      At Tab 8 of the Respondent's Affidavit is the letter
from Health Canada to Mr. Pariseau requesting his renewal
application. In it, they ask the Applicant to provide the
following information:

"the estimated production for each marijuana plant in
useful grams?"
"the estimated growing cycle?"

      They should have known these answers before setting
down new conditions. They don't even know how much their
set-up would produce. But their goal to see that no one
had enough to sell seems met. Mr. Pariseau's efforts and
the efforts of many to grow their crop of medicine have
been hampered by these bureaucrats who do not know the
number of useful grams produced per plant nor the
estimated growing cycle!!
      By their computations, the 3 mature and 4 immature
plant method could turn over often enough to supply him
with 1 gram per day, 2 grams per day, 3 grams per day, up
to 4 grams per day.
      That's what happens when you don't use the growing
cycle in your computations. It's a mathematical
incompetence that staggers the mind to not take the
growing cycle into their computations. And these
bureaucrats claim the unfettered discretion to meddle with
the doctor's prescription and the jurisdiction of the
criminal courts.
     The Applicant does not want have to tend his garden of
only 7 plants full time and pay high electrical bills all
year. The Applicant would like to plant one garden and
reap one year's harvest and turn off the lights until next
year.

31.2.G) To determine the quantity, outside of the needs
expressed by Mr. Pariseau and his attending physician, we
have taken account of the following factors:
31.2.G.1) The 200 requests have permitted us to establish
that people request an average of 2.5 grams per day.

      Using the average of what the other people need
should not be a factor in compromising how much the
Applicant gets because it is not relevant to the needs
expressed by Mr. Pariseau and his attending physician.
Only the needs expressed by the patient and attending
physician matter. The average need of the rest does not.
      The average request of 2.5 grams is for home-grown,
not the 10% THC high-grade from Holland prescribed in the
Applicant's dose requirement. He might need 4 grams per
day of 5% THC home-grown instead of 2 grams of high-grade
Maripharm.

31.2.G.2) Given the average yield of a cannabis plant,
from the information in our possession, 3 mature plants
and 4 immature plants are sufficient to provide 90 grams
per month.
31.2.G.3) US States permit a similar quantity.

      At the previously expected 30 grams per plant, 3 out
of 7 plants cannot be flowering every month. Given Canada
Health do not know that the growing cycle is more than 3
months, their estimate is not only uninformed but quite
overstates the yield produced by only 3 mature and 4
immature plants. It leaves no room for error and that's
why Pariseau ran short.

39. To properly evaluate the needs of Mr. Pariseau and
take into account the danger of diversion, it remains
essential that our consideration of the modifications are
founded on sufficient medical information and evaluate
their risks and benefits.

      That Health Canada is taking into account the danger
of diversion while evaluating the Applicant's medical
needs is what's wrong with their prescription.
---

5) strike or amend the condition:
---------------------------------

"The Exemption does not permit you to import the
designated substance."
THE GROUNDS are that the criminal sanctions that prevent
importing heroin and morphine for illegal purposes do not
apply to importing for legal personal medicinal purposes
and therefore such condition imposes an unconstitutional
barrier to access for the medicinal marijuana user that
medicinal heroin and morphine users do not have to suffer.

      The Respondent's Affidavit answers:

20. Canada considers marijuana harmful to health and
society and has signed important international treaties.
Yet, the government recognizes the need to accommodate the
exceptional circumstances of people like Mr. Pariseau
within this general prohibition.
21. Tab 1 explains the context of the international
prohibition.

      To not exempt importing because there is nowhere to
import from due to these international treaties implies
the exemption when there is somewhere legal to import
from. The Applicant seeks exemption from prohibitions
against importing from a legal source in anticipation of
such a legal source.
      With such an exemption in any export application,
perhaps the Netherlands will allow Maripharm corporation
to fill Dr. Kilby's prescription more readily and also
help undermine these unconscionable international
treaties.

33. Mr. Pariseau seems to claim the right to obtain
marijuana from a third party, either by authorizing a
third party to produce it in his name or to authorize it's
importation.

      Yes, it would be right for the Applicant's care-giver
to also be the Applicant's gardener.
---

6) strike or amend the condition:
---------------------------------

"We will communicate with you concerning the possible
renewal of the current exemption in the three months
preceding its expiration date, and you will be informed of
the decision on the renewal before the end of the
exemption. Supplementary information, other than the
trimestrial reports required under the currency exemption
may be required in the course of the examination of the
renewal of the exemption."
THE GROUNDS are that the ambiguity of the timing
guidelines which permit Health Canada to send out the
renewal forms anytime within 90 days of the deadline has
resulted in their last renewal form arriving two weeks
before deadline and their last Letter of Exemption
arriving late in the mail, a cause of some undue stress.
Sending the next renewal form with the current Exemption
would not only save a stamp but also help eliminate the
stress of waiting for the forms to arrive to signal the
start of their jumping through hoops to get their doctor's
report in on time. While trimestrial reporting continues,
a permanent exemption till further notice would be
preferable to the constant renewal applications in "no-
hope" cases.

      The Applicant again objects to the Respondent's claim
to unfettered discretion in setting conditions for the
exemption. The only necessary condition should be that the
Applicant is sick enough. More forms and more requests for
supplementary information have a non-beneficial effect on
the health of the Applicant. He's fighting to stay alive
and doesn't need to be fighting to get his medicine too.

36. Despite the expressed invitation to communicate with
us to deal with his worries, contained in the letter he
criticizes, Mr. Pariseau did not inform us of the worries
his conditions were causing him.
37. The second letter of exemption expires next Dec 9. On
Oct 27 last, the Bureau asked Mr. Pariseau if he wanted to
renew his exemption.
38. This letter invites him to let us know of his concerns
so we could consider modifying the conditions of his
exemption.
Sworn before me on Oct 30 2000,   Carole Langlois

      The Applicant seeks either a constitutional exemption
pursuant to the Ontario Court of Appeal's Parker decision
or a permanent exemption until his medical condition
changes so that the only condition the Applicant need meet
is being sick enough with one doctor's form to prove it
and one doctor's form to change it.
      The final point to note is the result of the new
conditions. The Applicant failed to meet their
expectations and ran short of medicine. When he has no
marijuana, Dr. Kilby says his viral count goes up.
      Imposing these conditions in such an arbitrary manner
with no expert knowledge on the yield or cycle of the
plant depicts incompetence, and given the life-and-death
import, negligence on the part of Canada Health officials.
      The admission that they compromised everyone's supply
below what their doctors prescribed to prevent diversion
of any excess to illegal use is the most unconscionable
admission in the Affidavit.
      Terry Parker doesn't have to deal with Health
Canada's farming restrictions. The Applicant does not want
to have to either.

D) an order allowing or correcting any variations as to
the form or content of the documents herein.
THE GROUNDS are that the relief claimed by the Applicant
warrants the court's expeditious attention.

      The Applicant much appreciates that the Court has
proceeded on this Application for Judicial Review by way
of Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment of these issues
and apologizes for any necessary variations in the form
and content of the documents herein which the Court has
been so indulgent as to overlook.
      The Applicant has been promised the chance to look
his judge in the eye when he's told what can and cannot be
done to rectify this multitude of complaints. The
Applicant would appreciate it if the court's decision
could be rendered orally. If a hearing on the evidence be
deemed necessary,


THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE will be used at the
hearing of the motion:
The Affidavit of Jean Charles Pariseau dated Sep 15 2000.

Dated at Ottawa on Fri Nov 3 2000




__________________________
Jean Charles Pariseau
1-173 Alice St.
Vanier, ON, K1L 7X5
Tel: 613-746-3910
Fax: 613-728-2196



Solicitors for the Respondent

Morris Rosenberg,
Deputy Attorney General of Canada,
Per: Alain Prefontaine,
      Catherine A. Lawrence,
Department of Justice,
2nd floor, East Memorial Bldg.,
284 Wellington St.,
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0H8
Tel: 613-946-3815/957-1122
Fax: 613-954-1920

LETS Cancel Debt Growth First! Then work on debt.
John C. "The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
For anti-bank and pro-LETS community currency adventures and reports,
subscribe to http://www.egroups.com/group/turmel
For links to over 700 timecurrency systems in over 45 nations:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/urlsnat.htm

From http://www.medpot.net/jcpnot3b.htm

AFFIDAVIT OF CAROL LANGLOIS:

(Translation by John C. Turmel, B. Eng.)
(Note: These are only excerpts with the main points.)

1. I, Carol Langlois, work at the Ministry of Health since 1987. Other
than 2 years, I served in the anti-drug program. Since 1999, I'm in
charge of the requests for exemptions. I participated in the decision
on the Jean Charles Pariseau exemption.

2. I'll give a brief portrait of the conditions we face...

3. Marijuana comes from flowers of the hemp plant and contain the
psychoactive cannabis delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).

4. I adopt the arguments in the Affidavit of Dann Michols in the James
Wakeford v. R. case. See Tab 1

1) Recent evolution of cannabis use for therapeutic purposes
------------------------------------------------------------

5. The Criminal Code criminalized possession, traffic, and sale
of cannabis in 1923.

6. The Ledain Commission on non-medical use noted little prescription
for medicinal purposes by Western medicine.

7. In 1996, Parliament enlarged the power of the Minister to grant
exemptions "for reasons that are medical, scientific, or where it is
justified by the public interest."

8. In Sep 1998, James Wakeford applied for an exemption.

9. Oct. 12, Jean Charles Pariseau applied.

10. To treat these requests, the Ministry had to create an examination
process.

11. The process plan was announced Mar 3 1999.

12. In April 1999, the Ministry published its evaluation process for
exemptions under Section 56.

13. The first exemptions were granted June 9, 1999, one to Mr.
Pariseau.

14. We continued to receive information to permit us to make necessary
modifications to the examination process.

15. These views convinced the Ministry to adopt new conditions of
exemption.

16. On June 9 2000, the Ministry renewed Pariseau's exemption.

17. On July 31 2000, the Ontario Court of Appeal Parker decision
declared the prohibition against possession of marijuana
unconstitutional but suspended it's effect for a year.

18. September 14, the Ministry announced the intention to pursue a
study.

19. The Ministry hopes to have the new regulatory approach in place
before July 31 2000 after having taken account of the problems raised
by interested parties.

2) Constraints
--------------

20. Canada considers marijuana harmful to health and society and has
signed important international treaties. Yet, the government
recognizes the need to accommodate the exceptional circumstances of
people like Mr. Pariseau within this general prohibition.

21. Tab 1 explains the context of the international prohibition.
Canada has agreed to outlaw the cultivation and import of cannabis
other than other a tightly regulated framework. Import is only
possible if there's an exporter licensed by the exporting country for
medicinal purposes. The Ministry knows of no such country.

22. Of the numerous problems, first of all is the possible diversion
of legitimate cannabis by an exemptee, whether intended or not. The
conditions imposed are to reconcile these divergent factors in such a
way as to respect the underlying legal principles while at the same
time permitting Mr. Pariseau to have access to the product he needs.

3) Initial request
------------------

23. Tab 5 contains the documentation for Mr. Pariseau's initial
request for an exemption.

      1) In Oct 1998, Mr. Pariseau requests an exemption. His doctor
specifies his medical condition requires one dose of marijuana of "0.5
grams qid prn". He also confirms Mr. Pariseau uses marijuana since
1996 and obtains it with a hydroponic garden in his closet.

      2) On Jan 18 1999, the Minister asked for supplementary
information.

      3) June 3 1999, Mr. Pariseau specified exemption for his
cultivation and use.

      4) June 7 1999, his doctor confirms Pariseau needs "0.5
milligrams quid" of inhaled marijuana.

      5) June 9 1999 Dann M. Michols grants the exemption for
cultivation and consumption for medicinal use. This exemption reflects
the information we had at the time. The Ministry reserved to itself
the right to revoke the exemption or to add conditions or to modify
the existing conditions if new data supported such a decision.

      6) To continue to benefit of the exemption, Mr. Pariseau had to
conform to the following conditions under penalty of suspension and
revocation:

           B) Not cultivate, produce or possess more than necessary to
satisfy his current personal medical needs.

           D) be under a doctor's supervision so he can offer
observations.

           E) Furnish doctor's reports every three months.

           F) Take reasonable measures to protect the crop.

           G) Inform us of any loss of crop.

24. The quite long delay between the receipt of Mr. Pariseau's request
and his exemption was caused by the need to adopt a process for these
kinds of requests.

25. In his Oct 13 1998 letter, his doctor cites the need for "0.5
grams qid prn". The expression "qid prn" is an acronym used to signify
that the medicine is administered four times per day ("qid"), as
needed ("prn"). We have always treated this file on the basis of the
quantity cited in the Oct 13 1998 letter, the 2 grams per day.

26. Mr. Pariseau has failed to furnish the trimestrial medical reports
on the evolution of his condition and the effects of cannabis, despite
the fact the condition is included in the letter of exemption.

4) Renewal
----------

27. Between June 9 1999 and June 9 2000, about 200 other people
requested exemptions. To day, the Ministry has granted 110.

28. We've continued to collect information from those interested in
the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

29. The bureau was able to establish a framework to help the Ministry
determine the conditions that could be attached to the exemptions.
This framework is not to predetermine the conditions to be imposed on
those who request exemptions.

30. Tab 6 has documentation relative to Mr. Pariseau's second letter
of exemption.

      1) May 17 2000, Carole Bouchard asks Mr. Pariseau if he wishes to
renew his exemption which lapses on June 9 2000.

      2) May 31 2000, Pariseau submits his renewal.

      3) June 9 2000, Michols renews the exemption granted the year
before. Other than the modifications cited next, the conditions remain
the same as the initial exemption.

5) New conditions
-----------------

31. The second letter modifies the stated conditions in the following
way:
      1) Scope of Exemption:

           B) May not use derivatives like hash or hash oil.

      2) Quantity exempted:

           A) Where the first letter was content to limit the quantity
of cannabis to that "necessary to satisfy your current personal
medicinal needs, the second letter quantifies it precisely;

                1) 3 mature and 4 immature plants, and 90 grams of
useful marijuana (c.a.d. 3 times 30 grams).

                2) Mr. Pariseau may also possess up to 30 grams.

           B) With the information in our possession, these limits to
permitted quantities represent the most reasonable point of compromise
between Mr. Pariseau's medicinal needs and the obligation of the
Ministry to reduce to an acceptable level the risks of diversion of
the crop to purposes prohibited by law.

           C) These quantities do not represent the maximum authorized
for the duration of the exemption. The exemption permits Mr. Pariseau
to renew his stock as fast as he consumes the marijuana he produces.

           D) Given the information furnished by his doctor, Mr.
Pariseau requires up to 2 grams of inhalable marijuana per day. The 90
grams of marijuana represents a stock sufficient for 45 days. He can
possess a stock covering his needs for 15 days;

           E) Neither Mr. Pariseau nor his doctor informed us Mr.
Pariseau needed more than 2 grams per day.

           F) If as he states, he needs 4 grams per day, the exemption
permits him to create an inventory of 22 days. Equally, the exemption
permits him to constantly renew this inventory.

           G) To determine the quantity, outside of the needs expressed
by Mr. Pariseau and his attending physician, we have taken account of
the following factors:

                1) The 200 requests have permitted us to establish that
people request an average of 2.5 grams per day.

                2) Given the average yield of a cannabis plant, from
the information in our possession, 3 mature plants and 4 immature
plants are sufficient to provide 90 grams per month.

                3) US States permit a similar quantity.

      3) New facts making the exemption unnecessary:

                A) The second letter of exemption furnishes examples of
the application of a condition which was already contained implicitly
in the first letter of exemption, c.a.d., the appearance of new facts
to render the exemption unnecessary.

                B) If a new more appropriate therapy is identified,
from the moment a new therapy is legally available, and it offers Mr.
Pariseau the same relief but by legal means, the reason for the
exemption will disappear.

                C) The second example is if another more appropriate
means of access to legal cannabis is identified. Again, if the same
relief is available, the reason for the exemption will disappear.

                D) A third example deals with clinical trials that it
would be reasonable to expect Mr. Pariseau to participate in. This
example does not transform Mr. Pariseau into an involuntary
participant.

                     1) Pursuant to medical protocol, all participants
consent to take part in this research. Mr. Pariseau will never be
forced to participate against his will.

                     2) It is impossible to predict if Mr. Pariseau
would even fit the necessary profile for such research.

                     3) Mr. Pariseau was held responsible for providing
detailed information through the trimestrial reports furnished by his
doctor.

                     4) The Ministry is looking into a legal source of
supply so the participants will get the required marijuana free. His
participation in such a study could solve his needs.

      4) Period of the exemption:

           A) The duration of the exemption has been reduced from 12 to
6 months.

           B) This reduction is due to the recommendation made to the
Ministry by a committee of independent experts on new drugs.

           C) Also, a shorter term permits us to more closely follow
the evolution of exemptees and make modifications to the exemption
that this evolution requires.

           D) A shorter term reduces the difficulty experienced by
certain doctors in certifying that the present state of their patients
will justify the exemption for the following 12 months.

           E) Also, renewing more frequently permits us to ease the
difficulty experienced by certain exemptees, or their doctors, in
submitting their required trimestrial reports on time.

           F) Finally, the renewal process does not impose an excessive
constraint since it only asks his doctor to fill out a 2 page form.
This permits us to synthesize the information furnished by the doctor
with his trimestrial reports. It also permits the doctor to validate
the continued need, for the next 6 months, for the exemption.

32. The goal of the modifications to the conditions of the exemption
were to reflect the supplementary information collected by the
Ministry and to harmonize the content of the existing letters of
exemption so as to furnish a reasonable basis for the exemptions.

6) Getting from a third party
-----------------------------

33. Mr. Pariseau seems to claim the right to obtain marijuana from a
third party, either by authorizing a third party to produce it in his
name or to authorize it's importation.

34. Tab 1 explains why the importation is not possible. There now
exists no legitimate source capable of exporting.

35. Neither the Ministry nor Mr. Pariseau know a legitimate source to
comply with 1961 Convention and 1972 Protocol.

7) Recent Events
----------------

36. Despite the expressed invitation to communicate with us to deal
with his worries, contained in the letter he criticizes, Mr. Pariseau
did not inform us of the worries his conditions were causing him.

37. The second letter of exemption expires next Dec 9. On Oct 27 last,
the Bureau asked Mr. Pariseau if he wanted to renew his exemption.

38. This letter invites him to let us know of his concerns so we could
consider modifying the conditions of his exemption.

39. To properly evaluate the needs of Mr. Pariseau and take into
account the danger of diversion, it remains essential that our
consideration of the modifications are founded on sufficient medical
information and evaluate their risks and benefits.

Sworn before me on Oct 30 2000,
Carole Langlois

LETS Cancel Debt Growth First! Then work on debt.
John C. "The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
For anti-bank and pro-LETS community currency adventures and reports,
subscribe to http://www.egroups.com/group/turmel
For links to over 700 timecurrency systems in over 45 nations:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/urlsnat.htm

Greater ST. LOUIS NORML
     \_______________________________________|_ National Organization for the
                                             |   Reform of Marijuana Laws

   NORML Missouri State Conference:              ~ "MO' NORML 2000" ~
       Sat. Oct. 21, '00                         Ending the Reign of Ignorance

                               CONFERENCE AGENDA
                              //////////////////

  9:00  ((Coffee, Registration))

  9:30  Welcome, Opening                  {Intro: Scottie Addison, St.L NORML}

  9:45  \_PANEL... Victims of Prohibition_/
           Testimonials on personal costs in the Drug War

10:15  * Mitch Moore:                            {Intro: Dan Viets, MO NORML}
           Libertarian Candidate for MO Attorney General
           Prohibition in Law... statutory powers & thresholds of prosecution

10:50  ((Break))

11:00  \_PANEL... The Drug War and Civil Rights_/   {Fred Raines, St.L NORML}
           Initiatives against personal invasion & mass criminalization
           (Active rights organizations, with Dan Viets, Nat'l NORML Chair)

12:00  * Zaki Baruti:
           Greens Candidate for Missouri Governor
           Drug War in Black Communities, repression in society...

12:30  ((Lunch...      Food on-site, Video showing))

  1:30  * Marsha Richeson:                      {Gene Triefenbach, St.L NORML}
           Lobbyist for ACLU-Ea.Missouri
           Pot Politics in JeffCity...
              MO's model 'Profiling Law', Methods in Advocacy

  2:30  \_PANEL... The Industrial Hemp Resource_/
           Renewable Resource under Seige, policy change for farms & products.

  3:00  ((Break))

  3:10  ** Medical Marijuana Studies & Issues    {Scottie Addison, St.L NORML}
           Presentations:  Dr. Christa L. Hines & Dr. Phillip D. Dean...
           New clinical research findings, policy problems in health practice.

  4:20  \_ROUNDTABLE... Organizing for Joint Action _/
           Guidelines & Tactics for cooperating, Discussions for communicating:

          STRATEGIC TOOLS FOR CO-WORK   ‰   'SHOW-ME' PROJECT INITIATIVES
         × Set-Up/ Crews & Affiliates      × Legal Referral/Support Program
         × Outreach & Advocacy             × Voter Initiatives, Columbia/St.L
         × Public Info, Press Relations    × 'Equal Time' Media Access Campaign

  5:00  Conference Council, Closing
         Discussion Reports, Plans for new efforts:
             DARE... to Think for Yourself!

               \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

                            LOCATION & DIRECTIONS:

     "MO'NORML 2000" is sponsored by ST. LOUIS NORML & MISSOURI NORML, and
hosted by ACLU/Washington U. Chapter at the Washington University Law School:
             310 Anheuser-Busch Hall -- Bryan Kane Moot Courtroom
                  Forsyth Blvd. & Olympian Way, St. Louis MO
                            _______________________
     The Washington U. campus is in University City, about 5 miles west of
downtown St. Louis:
     Take I-64 (U.S. 40)... if westbound, exit at Skinker Blvd. (N); if
eastbound, exit at McCausland (N), which becomes Skinker just north of the
highway.  Go north on Skinker about 1.5 miles to Forsyth Blvd., turn left &
proceed (W), with the main campus to your right.  Go about a mile, look for
athletic fields, turn right into Olympian Way (a block east of Big Bend
Blvd.).  The Law School is straight ahead.
     Parking lots are on either side... avoid the "Red Permit" areas, other
areas will be open to visitors.

Greater ST. LOUIS NORML
     \__________________________________\  `National Organization for the
                                         \   Reform of Marijuana Laws`
     Fri., 15 September 2000

     Announcement:

                     ST. LOUIS NORML JOINS FORCES WITH THE
                 'COALITION AGAINST POLICE CRIMES & REPRESSION'
                 (((((((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))))))

     St. Louis NORML has joined the 'Coalition Against Police Crimes &
Repression' as a member organization, forging an important new alliance
for cooperation on shared concerns in our region.

     CAPCR is a well-organized inter-racial advocate, active & effective on
civil rights violations and impacts of the Drug War in St. Louis
communities.  Since last autumn we have built a relationship & attended
several monthly meetings of CAPCR, which have always been impressive by
their focus and competence.  Co-Chair Zaki Baruti spoke at our Jefferson
Day event in May; now the Green candidate for Missouri Governor, he will
be featured as a keynote speaker at the "MO' NORML 2000" State Conference on
October 21.  The Coalition will be represented that day on the Conference
Panel on 'The Drug War & Civil Rights'.

     The decision to join CAPCR was enacted at St. Louis NORML's general
meeting on Sept. 7, in a Resolution approved by a full consensus of
attending Members.  Volunteers then presented a formal letter to the
Coalition meeting on Sept. 14, affirming NORML's membership and good faith
in its purposes (see below).

     This is a significant move -- bridging a longstanding social &
political gap in the cannabis movement, and raising the stakes in Drug War
Resistance.  In the big picture, it's about ending the delusional policies
that systematically criminalize people of color, creed, need, and sense.

              Peace & Justice...

                                 ~ St. Louis NORML Volunteers
               _________________________________________________
           _________________________________________________________

     /////\\\\\   National                                 St. Louis NORML
    |  (LOGO)  |  Organization                               PO Box 220243
    |          |  for the                        St. Louis, Missouri 63122
    |   NORML  |  Reform of                       Hotline/VM: 314-995-1395
    | St.Louis |  Marijuana                          Web: www.mo-norml.org
     \\\\\/////   Laws                       eM: monorml@...
                 ----------------------------------------------------------

                 14 September 2000

     Coalition Against Police Crimes & Repression
     P.O. Box 9226 - St. Louis, MO 63117

                  Attn:  Co-Chairs/ Zaki Baruti, Jamala Rogers
                         CAPCR Members

                   Re:   St. Louis NORML, Coalition Membership

Dear Friends:

         We are pleased to announce that St. Louis NORML has approved a
Resolution to join the Coalition Against Police Crimes & Repression  as a
member organization, and to offer 'CAPCR' a complimentary membership in
turn, in the interest of ongoing cooperation on shared concerns.
     We hereby request admission into the Coalition with all the
responsibilities of membership, and extend our invitation to join St.
Louis NORML.

         Over the past year we have learned about CAPCR and observed its
well-organized and forthright efforts for civil rights in St. Louis
communities.  A good working relationship has begun, with an understanding
that the impacts of the Drug War cross neighborhood and social
boundaries... repressive policies and official violations affect the
rights of all.
     An exchange of memberships is proposed as a practical measure, more
than just symbolic -- enabling two-way representation in our activities,
sharing of available resources, and mutual support in working together.

         On behalf of the Members of St. Louis NORML, we extend our
gratitude to the Coalition for its courageous efforts to bring peace and
justice to our communities.  We hope to contribute to those efforts, and
build new alliances for rights by our cooperation in the future.

                 Respectfully submitted,



                                         ___________________________________
                                             Scottie Addison
                                             St. Louis NORML Volunteer


Cc:  Gene Triefenbach, Pres. pro tem

Greater ST. LOUIS NORML
     \________________________________________|_ 'National Organization for the
       PO Box 220243 - St.L MO 63122          |     Reform of Marijuana Laws'

    10 October '00                         "MO' NORML 2000":
    Press Release...                        ~ Ending the Reign of Ignorance ~


                  NORML STATEWIDE CONFERENCE SET FOR OCTOBER 21
             ‰ Missouri Officials Challenged on Drug War Policies

       |        Saturday, October 21 2000  -  9:30 am - 5:30 pm         |
       |      Washington U. Law School, Bryan Kane Moot Courtroom       |
       | 310 Anheuser-Busch Hall (Forsyth & Olympian Way) St. Louis, MO |
                _______________________________________________

       A strong agenda is set for the upcoming MO' NORML 2000 Conference,
and Invitations have gone out to high-ranking public officials around the
state -- Governor Carnahan, Senators Ashcroft & Bond, Congressmen Gephardt
& Talent, Mayor Harmon, Attorney General Nixon, Police Chiefs Henderson &
Battelle, the entire State Legislature, and many others.

    St. Louis NORML and Missouri NORML will host a compelling forum on the
repression of cannabis in its benign medical, industrial, and personal
uses, and the Drug War's devastating impact on civil rights, the lives of
citizens, and direction of our society.
    In the face of National Elections, we want to ensure that these
widespread public concerns are not blithely ignored, or willfully distorted
by knee-jerk political rhetoric.  At a time when these issues must be
re-examined with the broadest public awareness and discourse, we call for
fair and intelligent reportage in the media, putting the truth before
propaganda.

       It is fitting that people in responsible positions be called to
dialogue and accountability, and that the Public sees who has the courage
to respond in a constructive way.

       The Conference will present three respected Keynote Speakers:

    ‰ MITCH MOORE... Libertarian Candidate for MO Attorney General  (10:15 am).
   ‰ ZAKI BARUTI... Green Party Candidate for Missouri Governor   (High Noon).
  ‰ MARSHA RICHESON... State Lobbyist for ACLU of Eastern Missouri  (1:30 pm).

*  The morning session will be highlighted by testimonials from 'Victims of
Prohibition', telling real stories of costs in their personal lives, and an
intensive Panel on 'The Drug War & Civil Rights' -- including speakers from
the American Civil Liberties Union, National Black Police Association,
Coalition Against Police Crimes & Repression, pcu/Free Assembly Project,
October 22 Coalition, with DAN VIETS, Chairman of National NORML.

*  The afternoon will feature a Panel on 'The Industrial Hemp Resource',
looking at the potentials & perils of cannibis as a renewable economic
resource under policy seige, and a special Presentation on emergent
'Medical Marijuana Studies & Issues', with Dr. Christa L. Hines and Dr.
Phillip D. Dean reporting on new clinical findings on therapeutic use of
cannabis, the right to heal, and the problems faced by health practitioners
under Prohibition.

*  At 4:20 the 'Joint Action Roundtable' will explore guidelines on
Organizing, with ideas & prospects from veteran advocates, and breakout
Discussions on Strategic Tools for CoWork and Show-Me' Project Initiatives.

A 'Conference Council' will close the day and launch new efforts on legal
assistance, voter referendums, and media access in Missouri & the
Heartland.

          It is hoped that "MO' NORML 2000" will be a watershed event,
             putting facts and fair witness squarely on the table,
               and forging new alliances for drug policy reform.
   __________________________________________________________________________
    For INFO:

    Greater ST. LOUIS NORML                MISSOURI NORML- Columbia
    Scott Addison/Coord'r: 314-781-1042    Dan Viets/President: 573-443-6866
        Hotline/VM: 314-995-1395

         eM: StL_norml@...       Web: www.mo-norml.org
   __________________________________________________________________________

Greater ST. LOUIS NORML
     \__________________________________\  `National Organization for the
                                         \   Reform of Marijuana Laws`
                                          \_________________________________
     1 September '00
   Preview Announcement...

         NORML Missouri State Conference:

                 "MO' NORML 2000"... Ending the Reign of Ignorance
                  ________________________________________________

                  Saturday, October 21 2000  -  9:30 am - 5:30 pm
                  Washington University Law School, St. Louis, MO

         ...A Forum on Strategies to End the Drug War in the Heartland,
         to Debunk insane policies on marijuana, and Stop them at
         the source -- in government, corporations, and the media.
            Concerned folks & activists of Missouri and the Midwest are
         invited to bring good ideas, and raise the level of the game!

Sponsors:  Greater ST. LOUIS NORML             Missouri NORML- Columbia

     Info:  Hotline/VM_ 314-995-1395            Dan Viets, Pres.: 573-443-6866
            PO Box 220243 - St.L MO 63122
              eM_ monorml@...     Web_ www.mo-norml.org
                  ________________________________________________

     Provocative Speakers & active Politicians are invited, and the Media
called to full, candid reportage.  We will hear testimonials from Victims
of the War on Drugs.  A strong agenda is in the works... look for details
in late September.

             Anticipate these themes and more:
             ~ Cannabis History... Ignorance As Official Policy
             ~ Reefer Radness... The Drug War As Counterinsurgency
             ~ Censoring Synapses... The Power to Perceive, the Right to Think
             ~ Police in Black Communities... Criminalizing a Generation
             ~ Missouri's New 'Profiling' Law... Breaking the Chain of Deceits
             ~ Mandate for Medical Use... The Right to Heal
             ~ Hemp-onomics... Family Farms & Regional Resources
             ~ Drug Tests on the Job... Coercion as Company Policy
             ~ Schools & Busts... 'Lower' Education, Penalizing Opportunity
             ~ Media Dopery... Equal Time for the Truth

     To close the day, join in Workshops on Organizing, Lobbying, & Outreach --
with guidelines on setting up new regional groups & efforts, and practical
plans  for moving public info & building a strong network for drug policy
reform.

     "MO' NORML 2000" is Your Conference, for learning and alliance...
Ideas are welcome, RSVP:  Send suggestions on topics and resource people to
include, and help spread the word to folks you know and trust.

                         Thanks!

                                 - St. Louis NORML Volunteers

Court File No. T-1832-00


                     FEDERAL COURT - TRIAL DIVISION


BETWEEN

The Applicant:
Jean Charles Pariseau


AND

The Respondent:
Attorney General of Canada


       APPLICATION UNDER Section 18(1) of the Federal Court Act.

                                 -----
                                 ORDER
                                 -----

UPON MOTION on behalf of the Applicant pursuant to Rule 369 of the
Federal Court Rules (1998) for an Order extending the time to file an
Application for Judicial Review,

THIS COURT ORDERS that the motion is granted.

The Record of Notice of Motion is filed as of today.

Since the Respondent has filed a Notice of Appearance, a delay of 30
days as of today is granted to the Respondent to serve and file
pursuant to Rule 307 any supporting affidavits and documentary
exhibits.

Judge Pierre Denault

Dated September 29 2000

LETS Cancel Debt Growth First! Then work on debt.
John C. "The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
For anti-bank and pro-LETS community currency adventures and reports,
subscribe to http://www.egroups.com/group/turmel
For links to over 700 timecurrency systems in over 45 nations:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/urlsnat.htm

LETS Digress to laughing grass

      The discussion of the purchase of drugs with local currencies has
often arisen and I've always said:
      a) since banks aren't responsible for the uses made of their
currency by the free market, LETS banks aren't to police uses either;
      b) I'm in favor of legal exemptees being able to use their
Timedollar notes to purchase the marijuana they need.

      I only bring this up to alert you that I have involved myself in
a Federal Court of Canada battle on behalf of Jean Charles Pariseau, a
dying HIV, Epilepsy, Toxoplasmosis, Anemia sufferer who was dying
enough to qualify as Canada's first Exemption to the marijuana
cultivation and possession laws. Many seriously ill people have been
refused medicinal marijuana and only 72 people have been deemed dying
enough to qualify throughout all of Canada in over a year. Only 72
people were sick enough and Jean Charles Pariseau was the first person
dying enough to qualify for a legal medicinal exemption to use
marijuana.

      Jean Charles's first permit allowed him to cultivate whatever he
needed. Then without consultation, Health Canada informed him that
though his doctor had prescribed two or more grams, they were
prescribing a dosage for everyone of 1 gram per day.

      There were other onerous conditions such as more doctors reports,
compulsion to participate in experimental tests, delayed permits,
claims of unfettered discretion to change the rules, all combining to
let him know that he might be exempted from the Police in the War on
Drugs but he's not exempted from the Health Canada police in the "Cold
War" on Drugs.

      His story hit the Ottawa Citizen, a quarter million reader paper
and is a good synopsis of issues and events. See the Citizen article
at http:/www.medpot.net/cit0916.htm for a good report on what's going
on. I'm hosting all info to on a site called http://www.medpot.net

      Working on his Federal Court paperwork explains why I have not
commented on the fact that the UNILETS section C6 of the Millennium
FORUM Declaration didn't make it into the Millennium SUMMIT
Declaration. There is one last move possible to get us our interest
rate Jubilee in 2000.
      It was hard to focus on the C6 oaktree of good engineering within
the forest of good intentions. But now recommending UNILETS for the
First Amendment does generate the proper focus on a successful anti-
poverty system. As a Millennium Forum Declarant, I move the First
Amendment to the Millennium Summit Declaration be the inclusion of the
"alternative time-based currency" called UNILETS that works on a one-
time service charge and is interest-free.
      And I only have the 189 World Leaders in the "Class of 2000"
picture to convince to get UNILETS in before the new Millennium or
they'll be known as the "Dunce Class of 2000" repeating the same dunce
financial moves as the "Class of 2001."

      I've been refamiliarizing myself with Federal Court Rules. It's
been 10 years since I've fought something in the Federal Court. Might
have been one of the last battles with the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation. Time flies. Many of these are reported at the
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel press section.
      At the site, I mention I've been called the "granddaddy" of
"guerrilla lawyers." So far in the first five days, two judgments have
been handed down and the Attorney General is scrambling to file his
Appearance and Reply within 10 days to this indictment of Canada
Health officials who trip up dying people with red tape when they are
exempted from being shackled with leg-irons. So far, it has cost him
only $20. No kidding.

      The originating motion was for an extension of time to file an
Application for Judicial Review.
      His new exemption is dated Jun 09 and he had 30 days to apply.
But he didn't know his crop would fail after 30 days. Only after 90.
Complaining before harvest would have been deemed premature. He has
complain with 30 days of the result of the Health Canada policy. I
think the court has no choice but to let him in and will look bad if
they close him out on the grounds he didn't complain soon enough!

      The Crown's Appearance gaining them 10 days. The motion for
Summary judgments on all outstanding issues, the decisions, all will
be contained in my reports posted at medpot.net or at the
medpot@egroups.com listserv. If you want to have news emailed to you
of the efforts of John "The Engineer" Turmel in fulfilling a policy
promised 21 years ago to abolish the prohibition on vegetation, my
"Second Cause," send a blank email to medpot-subscribe@egroups.com

      What's scary is to realize Safe from the War on Drugs by police,
he's not safe from the Cold War on Drugs by Health Canada officials.
Never fail to keep in mind that these officials sit around dreaming up
ways to impede people from getting their prescribed medicine. As
George Orwell's doublespeak predicted would happen, "Health Canada"
ends up being dangerous for our health. The guinea pig requirement
shows a complete lack of sensitivity to the well-being of the patients
whose medicine they are in charge of regulating.

      There have been only 72 Exemptions in over a year from across the
whole of Canada. There are hundreds of thousands of ill people across
the country who are now compelled to obtain their medicinal marijuana
which they anecdotally insist has personal beneficial effects but they
aren't dying enough to qualify for the best happiness medicine Health
Canada can provide. So the leg-iron brigade can still threaten to
shackle 99% of ill people in Canada who do and will continue to use
laughing grass to cheer up their days of misery.
      This threat must stop now. It's silly. The War on Farm Products
is insane. I've decided to do what I can do to challenge Vegetation
Prohibition by raising the Judicial Review of the Health Canada
Exemptions for all.

      The final reason that my upcoming judicial battle may be of
relevance to the UNILETS debate is that I do propose a Second
Amendment to the Millennium Declaration for the Abolition of
Vegetation Prohibition. Declare immediate peace with all farmers.
Continued regulation of dangerous substances. Amnesty for non-violent
drug crime. Empty prisons.

      What have I got to lose? I'll always be proud of having been part
of that Millennium Forum that included the UNILETS in our Declaration
in stark contrast to the dunce class in the spotlight that was
endorsing meaningless platitudes. I think the integrity of my LETS
system cannot be shaken by my beliefs in other areas.
      I'm proud to go on record that the Drug War should be switched
off. If I can bring the attention of "The One Hundred and Eighty Nine"
to focus on UNILETS before the end of the class of 2000, they will
have to also focus on my second amendment.
      Though I participate in this battle of national import, I realize
that everywhere around the world are people and groups struggling
against their national authorities. I think that switching all focus
above the national forces to the international level has to be the
better move. Get a handle on national drug laws from the top down, not the
bottom up. A Second Amendment to the Millennium Declaration to abolish
vegetation prohibition would do the trick. Wouldn't it be wonderful to
enter the next millennium with the War on Drugs called off?

      Information on several Turmel's medpot battles visit:
http://www.medpot.net
      To have news delivered to your email box as it happens, subscribe
by sending a blank email to medpot-subscribe@egroups.com or visit
http://www.egroups.com/group/medpot

LETS Cancel Debt Growth First! Then work on debt.
John C. "The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
For anti-bank and pro-LETS community currency adventures and reports,
subscribe to http://www.egroups.com/group/turmel
For links to over 700 timecurrency systems in over 45 nations:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/urlsnat.htm

Joining Marijuana fight

Marc "Boris" St. Maurice
Alexander Neron
Marijuana Party of Canada:

re: http://www.medpot.net

      I'm John Turmel, the Independent Abolitionist candidate who ran
against Alexander in the Nova Scotia byelection in Kings Hants.
Welcome to the political arena. I am truly pleased to see you using
the political system to fight for the abolition of prohibition of
marijuana. I am against all prohibition of vegetation.
      I first ran for Parliament in 1979 on a platform to decriminalize
gambling, prostitution and drugs, what I called victim-less crimes." I
wanted to gamble, ugly people should be able to get laid and every one
should be free to choose their own drugs. I soon added a new Prime
Priority "Abolish Interest Rates" when I realized it caused both
inflation and unemployment and did not fight inflation at all, the big
lie: http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/biglie.htm
      I've been talking mostly about the LETS interest-free banking
software in my campaigns but both issues have been part of my
political platform for the past 21 years. This last election in Kings
Hants was my 50th election contested and my 50th loss, both Guinness
records, for which I'm also in the "Anthology of Great Canadian
Characters." See my homepage for info.
      As leader of the Abolitionist Party of Canada, I may have been
the first Canadian registered political party leader to call for an
end to the war on "illegal" vegetation. I helped fund Chris Clay's
pro-marijuana legal battles with the Abolitionist Party buying two
Victory bonds each worth one ounce of hemp after the abolition of the
prohibition against marijuana is won. Those Victory bonds are a great
example of LETS local currency! I was a guest speaker at the Toronto
pro-hemp festival in 1994 for which I wrote this poem:

My Ode to Laughing Grass:

HEMP: GOD'S PLANT FOR CERTAIN LIFE

To the tune of "Glory Glory Halleluiah"

Throughout all history, hemp's been a plant of great repute,
Four months to grow a mini-tree of twenty foot from shoot,
More oxygen converted from dioxide-carbon smogs,
Four times more wood than forestry can chop trees into logs.

A hardy plant, insecticides and fertilizers, not,
It grows so tall the shade kills weeds for fertile garden plot.
With petro-fuels with sulfur being burned into the air,
A fuel of bio-mass would help environmental care.

REFRAIN:
      Hemp protects human environment,
      Hemp prevents human defilement,
      Hemp promotes human achievement,
      God's gift for certain life.

Hemp fuel, hemp varnishes, hemp paints, hemp fibers, cloth and rope,
Hemp fertilizer, oil and plastics, medicines of hope.
There's never been recorded death from using hemp, they say,
It's sedative that fits receptors in our DNA.

While alcohol debases, vibes of negative grow strong,
The laughing grass makes calm and jolly, wishing no one wrong.
It's source of protein primary for man and beast alike,
The best plant used for finger in environmental dike.
REFRAIN:

The industry of dirty petro-chemicals may fear,
It's nature's agri-chemicals we'll substitute, it's clear.
For crops of untold uses which can soon be realized,
Our greatest source of bio-mass must first be legalized.

The chance that we may yet evade environmental doom,
With planet's fastest-growing vegetable, no need for gloom.
The Abolitionists charge that "On lies are based these laws."
Abolishing hemp prohibition is our second cause.
REFRAIN: John C. Turmel, B. Eng., 19940816

      JCT: So you know where my heart is. Abolishing interest debt
slavery first and hemp prohibition next. Many members of NORML Canada
including President Umberto Iorfida were members of the Abolitionist
Party because we all wanted to legalize marijuana and get rid of
interest rate debt slavery by setting up and using our party's own
LETS alternative currency software to practice the interest-free
trading that we were preaching. You'd be amazed at the benefits of a
political party having its own LETS time-based currency with which to
reward members for the time they contribute.

      You may have noticed that I did not attend the candidates'
debate. Attending debates was always a prime commitment in pursuing my
pauper's political campaigns so it had to be real important for me to
miss meeting you there.
      In May, I was invited to address the Millennium Forum at the
United Nations on the topic of LETS (Local Employment-Trading System)
interest-free currencies. After my presentation, it was included in
section C6 of the Millennium Declaration:

C. The Forum urges The United Nations:
6. To make serious commitments to restructure the global financial
architecture based on principles of equity, transparency,
accountability, and democracy, and to balance, with the participation
of civil society organizations, the monetary means to favor human
endeavor and ecology, such as an alternative time-based currency.
http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
http://un.org/millennium/declaration.htm

Globalization Declaration Themes
Facing the Challenges of Globalization: Equity, Justice, Diversity
Section 5: What the UN must do.
h) Another area of study should be the UNILETS (United Nations
International Local Employment-Trading System).

i) Local Exchange, Trade and currency practices should be developed
further and examined for international application. The eradication of
interest is an essential component in pursuing sustainable human
development.

j) The UN should convene a conference similar to the Bretton Woods
conference of 1944 to discuss what sort of new financial architecture
is needed for our rapidly globalising world.
The adoption of the time standard of money and abolition of interest
rates are both ideas worthy of consideration.
http://www.millenniumforum.org/html/papers/Globaliz_currentpaper.htm

      JCT: I thought it was more important to be in New York to urge
the Sept 6-8 2000 Millennium Summit of world leaders to ratify a
stand-by UNILETS parallel interest-free banking system they call
"anti-poverty" in Britain and a "lifeboat" in Australia than return to
Nova Scotia for one debate. .

      I've got a great picture of the 189 world leaders at the United
Nations Millennium Summit from the Earth Times News, New York,
captioned "Class of 2000." Considering that they had a chance to set
up a UNILETS alternative time-based currency system that could have
saved the planet should the other banking system finally break down
and that they failed to endorse it, I think history will remember
these guys who blew it more as the "Dunce Class of 2000." But I might
still be able to avoid that sorry fate. Perhaps the Dunce Class of
2000 can still pass the test?
      As a Millennium Forum member, I am preparing a resolution for the
First Amendment to the Millennium Declaration to include the
provisions for an interest-free alternative time-based currency system
called UNILETS contained in section C6 of the draft Millennium
Declaration.
      While I'm at it, it might be the time to try to add a Second
Amendment to the Millennium Declaration to end any prohibitions
against illegal vegetation in International Treaties.

      The reason I now seem drawn into the marijuana battle is twofold:

      A) my brother, Ray Turmel, recently got busted in Hull Quebec for
having a hydroponic garden in his basement.
      B) his friend, seriously-ill Jean Claude Pariseau, recipient of
Canada's first legal exemption to permit him to cultivate and consume
as much medicinal marijuana as he deemed necessary, an ounce a week,
has had the conditions on his exemption amended without consultation
which now limit him to a maximum of an ounce a month with which to get
down his 21 grams of 48 pills every day. And by limiting the number of
plants to 3, he has only grown one ounce of dry medicinal marijuana in
the last 3 months for one-third of an ounce per month to get down his
pound and a half of pills.
      The Ottawa Sun May 27 1996 in "Drug law challenge goes up in
smoke" reported on the case of Grant Kreiger needed 5 grams a day for
his muscular dystrophy. Jean Charles says he could use more than four
if he could get it. But he needs at least 4 ounces a month while their
medical opinions has decided he should have one and restricted his
plants to produce only a third of an ounce. Reminds me of the "Yes
Prime Minister" television series where bureaucracy would so often
thwart desired reforms.

      I'm not a lawyer though I've been called the granddaddy of
guerrilla lawyers for having personally argued before the Supreme
Court of Canada five times and authored hundreds of cases with 10
reaching the Supreme Court of Canada. Everyone has to talk for
themselves, do their own gymnastics, and I provide the judicial
trapeze. I showed people being evicted how to fight their foreclosures
by appealing, appealing and appealing. See the press reports at my
home page at http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel from the early 1980s.
After I'd threatened and started plugging up the courts with
foreclosures cases fought by each individual, guerrilla law, in 1986
the Supreme Court of Canada bureaucratically amended the right to a
personal hearing by permitting themselves to dismiss appeals without
personal presentations. That's one Canadian right that disappeared
without Parliament even knowing about it.

      So I wrote an Application for Judicial Review of the new Health
Canada amendments which Jean Charles filed in Federal Court today.
It's slated to be heard on Thursday Sep 21 2000.
      My strategy will be to reverse the onus of proof. Instead of us
having to prove that it's not bad on the original assumption that
they've proven that "it is bad", we have to quash that original
assumption and make them prove that "it's bad for us" again. Which
they can't do. They could easily prove nicotine-poisoning or alcohol-
poisoning but they can never prove laughing-grass-poisoning. There is
no similar toxicity level. No overdoses of marijuana. This means
asking the judges to say they're sorry for having enforced such
erroneous laws for so long.

ORIGINAL JUNE 9 2000 EXEMPTION:
      Jean Charles Pariseau is the first person in Canada to be
exempted from the marijuana laws:

Lettre d'Exemption 9 juin 2000 - Letter of Exemption June 9 2000

Health Canada,
Dann M. Michols,
Directeur General,
Health Protection Branch,
Programme des produits therapeutiques,
Holland Cross, Tour "B",
2e etage, 1600, rue Scott,
Ottawa, ON, K1A 1B6,
Tel: 613-954-6540.

      re: Exemption #3102D1,  98-033373, 98-033518, 98-037613

"Monsieur Jean Charles Pariseau:
      Je tiens a vous signaler que la demande datee du 12 octobre 1998
visant une exemption qui vous permettrait d'avoir un acces legal a de
la marijuana a des fins medicales, de meme que les renseignements
additionnels fournis par la suite, ont ete examines.
I wish to inform you that your application dated october 12 1998 for
an exemption which would allow you to have legal access to marijuana
for medicinal purposes, as well as the additional information
provided, have been examined.
      Conformement a l'article 56 de la Loi reglementant certaines
drogues et autres substances (LRCDAS), et sous reserve des conditions
enoncees dans la presente lettre, vous etes soustrait a l'application
du paragraphe 4(1) (possession) et de l'article 7 (production et
culture) de la LRCDAS en ce qui concerne le cannabis (marijuana), pour
les fins medicales precisees dans votre demande.
Pursuant to Article 56 of the Law regulating certain drugs and other
substances (LRCDAS), and within the conditions enunciated in the
present letter, you are exempted from application of paragraph 4(1)
(possession) and of Article 7 (production and cultivation) of the
LRCDAS with respect to cannabis (marijuana), for the medical purposes
detailed in your demand.

Portee de l'exemption - Scope of the exemption
      Cette exemption vous permet effectivement de produire/cultiver et
d'avoir en votre possession du cannabis (marijuana), sous reserve des
conditions precisees.
This exemption permits you to produce/cultivate and possess cannabis
(marijuana) under the following precise conditions:

      L'exemption ne s'applique que si vous vous conformez aux
conditions suivantes:
The exemption only applies if you conform to the following conditions:

      1) vous ne pouvez produire/cultiver ou avoir en votre possession
la substance designee qu'a des fins d'utilisation personelle dans le
traitement des symptomes precises dans votre demande; vous ne pouvez
pas permettre a une autre personne d'utiliser une part quelquonque de
votre approvisionnement en cette substance;
1) you may not produce/cultivate or possess the designated substance
other than for personal use in the treatment of the precise symptoms
listed in your application; you may not permit another person to use
any part of your supply of this substance;

      2) vous ne pouvez produire/cultiver ou avoir en votre possession
que la quantite de la substance designee necessaire pour satisfaire
vos besoins medicaux personnels courants.
2) you may only produce/cultivate or possess the quantity of the
designated substance necessary to satisfy your current personal
medical needs.

      L'exemption vous ne permet pas d'importer, d'exporter ou de faire
le trafic de la substance designee, au sens de la LRCDAS.
The exemption does not permit you to import, export or traffic in the
designated substance in the sense of the LRCDAS.

Dann M. Michols, Directeur General
---

AMENDED JUNE 9 2000 EXEMPTION:

Lettre d'Exemption 9 juin 2000 - Letter of Exemption June 9 2000
#3102D1 00-021220

"Monsieur Jean Charles Pariseau:
      Vous trouverez ci-joint votre nouvelle lettre d'exemption.
Veuillez prendre note des changements suivants concernant votre
nouvelle lettre d'exemption qui ont pour effet d'harmoniser le contenu
de la lettre avec celui d'autres lettres d'exemption effectuees au
cours de la derniere annee pour d'autres demandeurs:
Attached is your new Letter of Exemption. Make sure to note the
following changes concerning your new exemption letter which has the
effect of harmonizing its content with that of other letters of
exemption granted over the past year to other applicants:

      A) Une quantite maximale de marijuana a ete specifie pour la
possession et la culture a la section intitulee "Portee de
l'exemption".
A) A maximum quantity of marijuana has been specified for possession
and cultivation in the section titled "Scope of the Exemption."
      B) Les exemptions sont actuellement accordees pour une duree de
six mois.
B) The exemptions are now granted for six months.

Portee de l'exemption - Scope of the Exemption

      L'exemption ne s'applique que si vous vous conformez aux
conditions suivantes:
The exemption does not apply unless you conform to the following
conditions:

      2) A l'endroit ou vous produisez/cultivez la marihuana, vous etes
autorise a produire/cultiver et a avoir en votre possession une
quantite n'excedant pas un total de 3 plants matures de marijuana, 4
plants immatures de marijuana et 30 grammes de marijuana utilisable
pour chaque plant mature. A des endroits autres que l'endroit ou vous
produisez/cultivez la marijuana, vous etes autorise a avoir en votre
possession une quantite n'excedant pas 30 grammes de marijuana
utilisable.
2) At the place where you produce/cultivate marijuana, you are
authorized the produce/cultivate and have in your possession a
quantity not to exceed a total of three mature plants of marijuana, 4
immature plants and 30 grams of usable marijuana per plant. At
locations other than where you produce/cultivate, you are authorized
to have in your possession a quantity not exceeding 30 grams of usable
marijuana.

Suspension et revocation - Suspension and Revocation.

      Cette exemption peut etre suspendue et, en bout de ligne,
revoquee, si une nouvelle therapie ou un autre moyen d'acces legal
plus approprie, comme l'acces dans le contexte des activites de
recherche, y compris les essais cliniques auxquels on pourrait
raisonnablement s'attendre que vous participiez, devient disponible.
This exemption may be suspended and, finally, revoked, if another new
therapy or other more appropriate method of legal access becomes
available like access to clinical tests where we would reasonably
expect you to participate.

Dann M. Michols, Directeur General"

The points of objection are that:
      1) The amendment setting the unconscionable maximum limit of 1
gram per day is a medical opinion that Canada Health officials are not
qualified to offer.
      2) The amendment reducing the duration of the exemption from one
year to 6 months adds an unnecessary paperwork burden on the patient.
      3) The amendment allowing suspension of the exemption for failing
to test experimental drugs is unreasonable and ultra vires.
      4) The original failure to exempt from the prohibition against
the importation of this drug which it is lawful for the Appellant to
possess and which is legal in some countries to grow is an impediment
to obtaining a sufficient supply and should be stricken from the text.

See his Federal Court Affidavit at the http://www.medpot.net site. But
it boils down to the fact that:

      1) Jean Charles ingests 48 pills, 21 grams of chemicals, every
day in his fight against HIV-Epilepsy-Anemia-Toxoplasmose. During
1999, he found that he needed 3-5 grams of marijuana to keep his pills
down. An ounce a week.
      Without consultation, the medical opinion of Health Canada
officials is that he and all other medicinal marijuana exemptees need
only 1 gram of medicinal marijuana per day. I doubt Mr. Pariseau's
doctor has been consulted or would agree.
      The harvest of his 3 mature plants produced 25 grams of dry
medicinal marijuana, barely a week's supply that must last him 3
months. So he needs four ounces a month, they say he can have one
ounce a month and can have enough plants to grow an ounce in three
months. This is more than negligent, it's malicious. Obviously,
limiting the amount he can carry means that he can't take more than a
week's worth and so is thus constrained from travel.

      2) For no logical reason, they have doubled everyone's paperwork
by arbitrarily cutting the exemption down from his original 1 year
permission to a 6 month period in order to harmonize his paperwork
burden with that now imposed on others who have applied since his
original exemption.

      3) If he's happy using his ounce a week to help get down his 5
ounces of chemical pills, he shouldn't have to accept being a guinea
pig for something else for him to try that the bureaucrats decide is
"more appropriate." It should be up to the patient and the doctor to
decide what form of medicine is most appropriate and these sick people
should not be threatened with cancellation of their medicine if they
won't be guinea pigs in in experimental trials.

      4) He has a right to possess the medicine. There are countries
where the medicine is legal. Not extending the exemption to importing
his medicinal supply violates the spirit of the exemption.

      I'd like to add all sorts of other arguments to expand it to
complete abolition of prohibition for everyone now but just the facts
speak for themselves in this case. The amendments are a direct
threat to Mr. Pariseau's health whether intended or not. The Terry
Parker case says it's unconstitutional to deny patients their
medicine. That is exactly what these amendments have done and should
be quashed on the face as ultra vires their medical competency. And do
we really want the guys who have tried to do this to him, guys trying
to deny sick people their medicine, to now be able to dictate what
experimental tests they would expect him to submit to or they cut him
off?
      I think it's fortunate that the threat to life is so readily
obvious. The case speaks for itself. Whether the judge tells us we're
in the wrong place, or he has no power to help, he can always help
send it to the right place.
      I've never gone for a little when I could go for the whole. And I
want the judge to feel the need to apologize to marijuana users of the
country for their past enforcement of what is now considered and
unconstitutional law.
      Why wait a year for the Parker decision to take hold. Marc Boris,
I saw you respond when you were asked if waiting year is too much. "I
don't want in a year, I want it last week." That was great. So help me
go for it next week. There is much that you can do.

      With the help of sympathetic members of Parliament, Jean Charles
Pariseau will have a permit to bring his pro-marijuana protest to
Parliament Hill at the opening of Parliament on Monday Sep 18 2000.
You and your supporters are invited. Waving his Federal Court
Application with its nice gold seal should focus the media's attention
on his upcoming Federal Court Motion. Every time his face gets in
front of a camera, he will be inviting the MPs who support
legalization to show up in court to indicate to the judge their
support.
      Jean Charles will also obtain a permit for a support-
demonstration at the Federal Court of Canada building just before and
after the hearing You should be there too.

      So I invite you to make the trip from Montreal to Ottawa on
Monday and Thursday for the demonstrations on Parliament Hill and the
Federal Court of Canada. It's a unique opportunity to end the pain and
aggravation that Health Canada wants to put sick people through to get
their medicinal marijuana.

      And I'll explain the many benefits of starting up your own party
local currency. I hope you can make it.

LETS Cancel Debt Growth First! Then work on debt.
John C. "The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
For anti-bank and pro-LETS community currency adventures and reports,
subscribe to http://www.egroups.com/group/turmel
For links to over 700 timecurrency systems in over 45 nations:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/urlsnat.htm

FEDERAL COURT - TRIAL DIVISION


BETWEEN

The Applicant:
Jean Charles Pariseau

AND

The Respondent:
Attorney General of Canada


        APPLICATION UNDER Section 18(1) of the Federal Court Act

                   ----------------------------------
                   AFFIDAVIT OF JEAN CHARLES PARISEAU
                   ----------------------------------

      I, Jean Charles Pariseau, disabled, residing at the city of
Vanier in the Regional Municipality of Ottawa Carleton swear that:

      1. Ex. A. is my Letter of Exemption dated June 09 1999 pursuant
to section 56 of the law regulating certain drug and other substances
(LRCDAS). I was the first person in Canada to qualify for an exemption
to cultivate, possess medicinal cannabis hemp marijuana for medicinal
purposes. I suffer HIV, Toxoplasmose, Epilepsy, Anemia of the blood
for which I take 48 pills every day in 6 sessions. My doctor has
recommended 2 to 3 grams per day though have found I need to smoke 4
or more than grams of marijuana per day to help me ingest my 21 grams
of pills. The more marijuana I smoke, the more I can eat and the
longer I can keep my weight up and stay alive. Having marijuana to
help in my treatment is the best help in helping me cope with my
illnesses.

      2. According to the scope of exemption in my original letter
dated June 9 1999:

"Scope of Exemption:
      2) you may only produce/cultivate or possess the quantity of the
designated substance necessary to satisfy your current personal
medical needs. The exemption does not permit you to import, export or
traffic in the designated substance in the sense of the LRCDAS."

      3. Exhibit B is my Letter of Exemption dated June 09 2000 with
the following amendments and information:

      "Attached is your new Letter of Exemption. Make sure to note the
following changes concerning your new exemption letter which has the
effect of harmonizing its content with that of other letters of
exemption granted over the past year to other applicants:
      A) A maximum quantity of marijuana has been specified for
possession and cultivation in the section titled "Scope of the
Exemption."
      B) The exemptions are now granted for six months.
Scope of the Exemption:
      2) At the place where you produce/cultivate marijuana, you are
authorized the produce/cultivate and have in your possession a
quantity not to exceed a total of 3 mature plants of marijuana, 4
immature plants and 30 grams of usable marijuana per plant. At
locations other than where you produce/cultivate, you are authorized
to have in your possession a quantity not exceeding 30 grams of usable
marijuana.
Suspension and Revocation.
      This exemption may be suspended and, finally, revoked, if a more
appropriate new therapy or other method of legal access becomes
available like access to clinical tests where we would reasonably
expect you to participate."

      4. I have failed as a farmer in that my 3 plants which Health
Canada officials expect to produce 90 grams only produced 25 grams,
less than I need for one week, let alone 3 months. The new amendments
have limited my access to sufficient marijuana to cope with my
illnesses. A hydroponics shop owner has offered to apply for an
exemption to legally grow it for me.

      5. Ideally, none of these problems would occur if my exemption
also included the exemption against importation from nations where
marijuana is legal. If qualified sick people like myself are permitted
to produce it, possess it and consume it, importing it from a
jurisdiction where it is legal to cultivate is a necessary amendment
to obtain my medicine.

      6. I'm almost out of marijuana, virtually broke with debts I
can't pay. My cablevision has just been cut off. My Hydro bill is
almost $300 to grow 3 plants with lighting that could have grown 85.
This and the stress of coping with these government officials is
killing me.

      7. This Affidavit is made in support of an application pursuant
to Section 18 for judicial review to:

      1) strike the amendment limiting the dosage the Applicant may use
in treating these serious illnesses on the grounds that the medical
opinion of the Health Canada officials is unqualified, unconscionable
and in error;

      2) strike down the amendment that halves the period of the
exemption on the grounds that doubling the Applicant's and his
doctor's paperwork serves no valid purpose;

      3) strike the amendment threatening revocation of the Applicant's
Exemption if he does not act as a guinea pig in experimental trials on
the grounds that this is a matter best left to the medical opinion of
his doctor.

      4) amend the original exemption to permit the Applicant to
authorize an incorporated hydroponics shop to produce his medicinal
supply on the grounds that all conditions already met by the Applicant
can be met by a qualified hydroponic grower;

      5) strike the prohibition against importing the Applicant's legal
supply of marijuana from a legal source of marijuana such as Holland.

                                    Jean Charles Pariseau
Sworn before me at the city
of Ottawa on Fri Sept 15 2000.

LETS Cancel Debt Growth First! Then work on debt.
John C. "The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
For anti-bank and pro-LETS community currency adventures and reports,
subscribe to http://www.egroups.com/group/turmel
For links to over 700 timecurrency systems in over 45 nations:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/urlsnat.htm

From: http://www.MedPot.net

Jean Charles Pariseau suffers from HIV, epilepsy, toxoplasmose, and anemia of
the blood. He received Canada's first medical marijuana cultivation and
consumption exemption which permitted him to cultivate as much as he needed.
His doctor has prescribed 2-3 grams of marijuana per day to help him ingest
his 21 grams of 48 pills. He has found he needs 4-5 grams per day. Health
Canada have amended his original exemption to impede his access to his
prescribed dosage.

His second Letter of Exemption from Health Canada included amendments to:
1) specify a maximum of 3 plants expected to yield 90 grams every three
months, an insufficient 1 gram per day;
2) reduce the duration of the exemption from 1 year to 6 months doubling his
doctor's paperwork requirements;
3) revoke his exemption should he refuse to be a guinea pig for experimental
trials of new forms of access.

His first 90-day crop yielded not 90 grams but only 25. He is already out of
marijuana. He is broke. He has a $300 electricity bill for only 3 plants
where he could have raised 90 with the same lighting. He has just had his
cablevision cut off. He is surviving from the charity of friends. If Health
Canada are successful, he'll die and their problem will have gone away.

I'm John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, leader of the Abolitionist Party of
Canada. I am the first registered party leader to have advocated the
abolition of the prohibition against drugs. I've bought Marijuana Victory
bonds worth an ounce of recreational hemp when it is finally legalized and I
penned the "Ode to Laughing Grass" poem found below for my address to the
Pro-Marijuana Festival in Toronto in 1994. I have been listed in the 1997-8
Guinness Book of World Records and the Anthology of Great Canadian Characters
for having contested more elections than anyone in history, 50 before I turn
50. I've been called "Bank-Fighter-Extraordinaire" and "Guerrilla Lawyer" for
my efforts helping foreclosure victims fight off their evictions in court. It
is time to apply those guerrilla law techniques to help fight marijuana
prohibition in the Courts.

On Friday Sep 15 2000, Jean Charles Pariseau will file a Federal Court of
Canada motion for an extention of time to apply for a judicial review of the
Health Canada amendments to his original Grandfather Exemption.

He has applied for and received a permit to protest on Parliament Hill from
10a.m. until 4p.m. for the opening of Parliament on Monday Sep 18 2000.

He will apply for a permit for a demonstration in front of the Federal Court
at 9a.m. on Thursday Sep 21 2000.

For updates and commentary, send an email to subscribe to
medpot-subscribe@egroups.com or visit http://www.egroups.com/group/medpot and
subscribe at the site.  If anyone needs free legal advice to fight their
marijuana court battles, contact John Turmel.

I have contributed the $20 filing fee for the Friday Motion for the extension
of time but Jean Charles will need another $350 to file the Application for
Judicial Review in the Federal Court by Monday. Though I've been called the
"World's Richest Pauper", the operative word is "pauper." I'm swamped with
debts and living month-to-month like most everyone else. So if anycan can
spare a little cash to help Jean Charles pay his bills and his court costs in
this battle for all of us, please deposit a few dollars in one of Jean
Charles Pariseau's Personal Bank Accounts set up for that purpose.

If any other HIV, Cancer, Epilepsy sufferers who would like quick access to
medicinal marijuana have the time on Monday or Thursday to participate in the
pro-marijuana demonstrations, please come on down to help pressure for the
repeal of the prohibition against marijuana to fill the needs defined by our
constitutional rights to such medicine pursuant to the July 31   2000 Ontario
Court of Appeal decision R. v. Parker.


Français Bientôt!



ODE TO LAUGHING GRASS POEM

By John C. "The Engineer" Turmel to the 1994 Hemp Rally in Toronto Canada.



HEMP: GOD'S PLANT FOR CERTAIN LIFE

(To the tune of "Glory Glory Halleluiah")

Throughout all history, hemp's been a plant of great repute,
Four months to grow a mini-tree of twenty foot from shoot,
More oxygen converted from dioxide-carbon smogs,
Four times more wood than forestry can chop trees into logs.
A hardy plant, insecticides and fertilizers, not,
It grows so tall the shade kills weeds for fertile garden plot.
With petro-fuels with sulfur being burned into the air,
A fuel of bio-mass would help environmental care.

REFRAIN:
Hemp protects human environment,
Hemp provents human defilement,
Hemp promotes human achievement,
God's gift for certain life.

Hemp fuel, hemp varnishes, hemp paints, hemp fibers, cloth and rope,
Hemp fertilizer, oil and plastics, medicines of hope.
There's never been recorded death from using hemp, they say,
It's sedative that fits receptors in our DNA.
While alcohol debases, vibes of negative grow strong,
The laughing grass makes calm and jolly, wishing no one wrong.
It's source of protein primary for man and beast alike,
The best plant used for finger in environmental dike.
REFRAIN:

The industry of dirty petro-chemicals may fear,
It's nature's agri-chemicals we'll substitute, it's clear.
For crops of untold uses which can soon be realized,
Our greatest source of bio-mass must first be legalized.
The chance that we may yet evade environmental doom,
With planet's fastest-growing vegetable, no need for gloom.
The Abolitionists charge that "On lies are based these laws."
Abolishing hemp prohibition is our second cause.
REFRAIN:
John C. Turmel, B. Eng., 19940816



LETS Cancel Debt Growth First! Then work on debt.
John C. "The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel
For anti-bank and pro-LETS community currency adventures and reports,
subscribe to http://www.egroups.com/group/turmel
For links to over 700 timecurrency systems in over 45 nations:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/urlsnat.htm