World Psychedelic Forum - Casey Hardison speech

[~lostgurl~]

A new entry has been added to Drugs Archive

Description:
7 mins
March 2008

Stop Press: Casey Hardison (Prisoner of War on some people who use some drugs) gave a message from prison to the forum at the closing ceremony. Here Casey expresses solidarity with other prisoners of this drug discrimination policy which pervades all issues concerning psychedelics.

To check it out, rate it or add comments, visit World Psychedelic Forum - Casey Hardison speech
The comments you make there will appear in the posts below.

[sergei77]

I had to leave the Forum early so I missed the speech but it's also on www.freecasey.org, great stuff as with everything Casey does. I heard Albert Hoffman is going to sign some blotters for Casey to be auctioned in the above site to raise money for his legal fund.

[Jacco]

Originally Posted by sergei77

I had to leave the Forum early so I missed the speech but it's also on www.freecasey.org, great stuff as with everything Casey does. I heard Albert Hoffman is going to sign some blotters for Casey to be auctioned in the above site to raise money for his legal fund.

Auctioning blotters of an internationally-controlled drug? What? Swim is sure that would be totally illegal.

[Matches]

The FDA must want this man's head on a pike.

I wish there was a way to understand what it would take to give this powerful voice its proper recognition in a legally appealing fashion towards the exact forces that incarcerate its existence with unfathomable discrimination.

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by Matches

I wish there was a way to understand what it would take to give this powerful voice its proper recognition in a legally appealing fashion towards the exact forces that incarcerate its existence with unfathomable discrimination.

Whilst he is clearly intelligent, articulate and knowledgeable I would be hesitant to make him the face of the drugs movement until he stops using PR turn offs. These include referring to drugs as "consciousness expanding" or "bringing the light" etc - whilst these statements may or may not be true, they serve to make people think of him as a "hippy" rather than as a serious political activist and reasoner. The benefit of his sort of challenge is that it is a legal one, and thus he does not need to convince the public at large, but image still plays an important role in any decision where humans are involved. It's a shame because he is so articulate and potentially useful to the movement, he just has to start thinking in PR terms as well as legalistic ones.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	agreed
	ha. yeah, nice, so drunk, but lovin it

[sergei77]

Originally Posted by FuBai

Whilst he is clearly intelligent, articulate and knowledgeable I would be hesitant to make him the face of the drugs movement until he stops using PR turn offs. These include referring to drugs as "consciousness expanding" or "bringing the light" etc

I think you will find that his legal arguments on the issue of "drug discrimination" are much more conventional and sophisticated than when he started off, I thought the speech was appropriate for the audience, it was after all the World Psychedelic Forum!

[Sunshine-Band]

In respect of style, this is true FuBai, Casey made the same mistake at his appeal against sentence by talking in this way. But, please do not confuse this with the ego of would-be politicians seeking to capitalise on the drugs-movement issues. This is a speech from a man whom who is seeking to quash a 20 years sentence, also remember that this address was given to the World Psychedelic Forum, and believe me there are no raised eyebrows there amongst the highly respected academics and researchers when one uses the expressions of "expanded consciousness" or referring to the Light. Part of the process must be to educate people in the evolutionary and religious experience roles that psychedelics played in defining humanity, its frankly impossible to use over the top language in describing such phenomena.

Reputation Comments on this post:

I repespect what you say although I disagree with it

[Alfa]

I think that Caseys case does not only represent his situation, but also his beliefs. The case he makes is therefore the wording of his beliefs. Therefore his wordings include expressions of his beliefs. I would find it hard to belief this has anything to do with ego. It is just what the man rightly beliefs in.

But I agree that this is likely not wise to include in the stanze, as seems to make the arguments esoteric.

[Sunshine-Band]

A transcript will be made available soon. I note Casey did end with "let there be light" but cannot find the word "consciousness" anywhere. FuBai, are you saying that your discord with this speech emanates from something Casey actually said, or does your concern stem from the fact that you don't consider "hippy talk" to be suited to this cause, and therefore were merely seeking to caution against this unhelpful tendency possibly developing in future?

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by Sunshine-Band

A transcript will be made available soon. I note Casey did end with "let there be light" but cannot find the word "consciousness" anywhere. FuBai, are you saying that your discord with this speech emanates from something Casey actually said, or does your concern stem from the fact that you don't consider "hippy talk" to be suited to this cause, and therefore were merely seeking to caution against this unhelpful tendency possibly developing in future?

As I have said repeatedly in other threads, I simply don't think that it does any good to the image of the drugs movement, and it gives people the ability to simply dismiss him as a hippy rather than engage with what he says.

[Sunshine-Band]

FuBai - How can you seek to abstract this topic into the mundane to this degree? You did not address my query, am I to assume that your point of contention is that after 7 minutes of condensed bone dry material he said "let there be light" as his sign-off? This is pandering to prejudice beyond the call of duty. We all recognise pragmatically we need to adhere to certain formalities, and if you look at Casey's documents you will see the exemplary attention to such details, but whatever you have repeatedly said on other threads, I cannot see any valid justification for your critical interjection into this thread by (unfairly) equating this material with "hippyspeak" (and even if it was read by a man wearing sandals, it would hardly be inappropriate in any case given the context of this speech).

[FuBai]

EDIT: I have decided to re-write this post when I am in a better position to write an in depth description of just why you are wrong. It was probably a bad idea to write this at the moment and I will edit this tomorrow.

[sgurrman]

From what I have read, Casey has modified both his style (PR) and attitude/beliefs since beginning the process of his defence. I see little of this 'hippie' style in what he is now doing. For sure, the language of consciousness-expansion etc was entirely appropriate to the Psychedelics Forum, and was used by other speakers eg Grof. It is also used by plenty of more 'respected' advocates of psychedelics (see eg the book 'Entheogens and the future of religion'), and, like it or not, the potentially therapeutic aspect of use of psychedelic substances is one of the arguments in their favour. And this 'therapeutic' aspect includes what we could vaguely term consciousness-enhancing effects.

The discussion in this thread also seems to point up the fact that there are two related but nevertheless distinct aspects to the argument about the legal status of various drugs. It is a distinction that seems rarely made, and I think it adds to the confusion.

The first aspect is the urgent need to radically change the entire legal framework currently surrounding all illegal substances. The reasons for this are sprinkled coherently throughout the pages on various threads in Drugs Forum. The second aspect is the 'psychedelics as a special case' situation. This is where Casey seems to be increasingly coming from. Even if it is accepted that substances need to be controlled by government, the current system is highly discriminatory against psychedelic drugs and their users if the situation is analysed at all rationally. The report commissioned by the UK govnt a while ago into the harm caused by various drugs was at least an attempt to put the matter on a more rational basis. Unfortunately for the powers-that-be, it confirmed what many of us knew - that psychedelics, MDMA, are in a totally different league to heroin, crack etc, and in fact can be considered less harmful than socially accepted drugs such as tobacco, alcohol, and to an extent cannabis. Not liking the results of this study, the UK govnt chose to ignore it and bury its head in its own prejudiced piece of sand.

So it is increasingly from the point of view of discrimination against a minority who would prefer to have legal access to psychedelic drugs, rather than the majority who accept other forms of intoxication as acceptable, that Casey seems to be coming. In this way he is not likely to become the face of the drugs movement, as Fubai suggested he might be. It is a case of being a victim of discrimination, of prejudice. Maybe a word needs to be coined for this kind of discrimination. Substancism is too unwieldy. Druggism is, well, too druggy. Any ideas?

[sergei77]

As said above, I think if you read up on Casey's latest legal docs you will see that it is all pretty tight legal argument, he has moved away from his earlier cognitive liberty arguments which in my opinion were perfectly valid but in practice difficult to pull off in a court of law in these unenlightened times. His logic with regards to proportionality and equal treatment cannot be faulted, he is not just the best person to be fighting this battle, he is the only person in his position doing it, he is totally and utterly devoted to it, there is a lot of talk about the place but how many people are actually doing something about the situation? He deserves the backing of everyone who cares about equal rights and equal treatment. I can't believe that anyone in here would want to fault him in any way for what he is doing.

[Shampoo]

Blotter paper is a legal, common collectors item, and does not always contain, nor is intended for the containment, of any controlled substance.

[Alfa]

From the Drug Paraphernalia Act:

The term ''drug paraphernalia'' means any equipment, product, or material of any kind which is primarily intended or designed for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, concealing, producing, processing, preparing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance, possession of which is unlawful under this subchapter.

In determining whether an item constitutes drug paraphernalia, in addition to all other logically relevant factors, the following may be considered:
instructions, oral or written, provided with the item concerning its use
descriptive materials accompanying the item which explain or depict its use
...
the existence and scope of legitimate uses of the item in the community;

So the sales of blotter paper are legal as long as there is no information about the use of blotters on the same site or linked from/to the site. For example: blotter sales on Drugs-Forum would likely be illegal.

[sgurrman]

Just to say I agree wholeheartedly with what Sergei77 said above. It has taken me a while to tune in more fully to Casey's point of view currently, but it is one of the most rational things around. Unfortunately, rationality is not always respected or recognised......

[sergei77]

Originally Posted by sgurrman

Just to say I agree wholeheartedly with what Sergei77 said above. It has taken me a while to tune in more fully to Casey's point of view currently, but it is one of the most rational things around. Unfortunately, rationality is not always respected or recognised......

If you have faith in humanity then history will prove Casey right, his arguments are totally logical, he's just a bit ahead of his times.

Regarding blotter art, it is blotter ART, artistic value is its only purpose, it neither contains nor is it intented to contain any controlled substances, therefore it is not covered by the Drug Paraphernalia Act.

[Sunshine-Band]

Here is the transcript:

Good Evening, I am Casey William Hardison and I am very grateful for the opportunity to address this forum. I am four years into serving a 20 year sentence in the United Kingdom for the manufacture of LSD, DMT and 2C-B.
It is easy to forget that the majority of those present in this forum, who have tasted Albert’s Problem Child and Wonder Drug, LSD, probably did so via the flask of a chemist who was risking severe restrictions on his or her liberty simply to bring the blessed entity, LSD, into existence.
Indeed, I speak as an individual who has had his physical liberty removed for doing just that. Yet, in contrast to Leonard Pickard who is serving life in a United States prison for his alleged alchemical manipulations, I have got off lightly. Thus, I also speak today to presence the millions of men and women incarcerated worldwide for non-violent drug offences, particularly those peacefully involved with entheogens and other psychedelic-type drugs.
Governments world wide have signed up to the three UN drug Conventions as a model for dealing with a select group of substances but these international agreements are framed by the West in terms of an irrational distinction between familiar drugs and unfamiliar drugs. This inevitably leads to unequal treatment under law and this is where a legal rather than political case can be made.
This past December the UN General Assembly in their resolution entitled “International cooperation against the World drug problem” stated that “drug control activities must be carried out in full conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with full respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms”. Yet, by direct experience, I know they are not.
And so, as a prisoner, it is to the Rule of Law that I turn. Drug Policy is the implementation or administration of Drug Law by the Executive branch of Government and accordingly, the law dictates available policy and not the other way around. Laws and the principles they embody are to be generally applied by Governments in a neutral manner.
In the case of drug policy, the principle aim is the reduction of harms to individuals and society from the consumption of dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs. And since drugs are property, drug laws in both the international and the domestic arena follow the property rights of commerce: cultivation, production, manufacture, packaging, transportation, trade, possession, and use.
Significantly, drug laws do not regulate drugs, drug laws regulate people. Thus, it is wrong to speak of legal and/or illegal drugs as no drug on the planet is in fact legal or illegal rather it is the exercise of property rights by human beings with respect to drugs which may be made unlawful. It is a very simple concept but by convention we have become so accustomed to speaking of legal and illegal drugs that we forget it is the person who is being regulated and thus drug laws affect the liberties of people.
And so we come to the crux of my argument. Drug Laws regulate the property rights of people yet they do so in an arbitrary, unfair and irrational manner. This is contrary to the rule of law. On one hand, we have a group of drugs which it is legal to exercise property rights in, such as alcohol and tobacco, and on the other we have another group of drugs which it is currently not lawful to exercise property rights in. So, the question must therefore be asked: “Is there a rational and objective reason to distinguish between the two groups of drugs?”



The short answer is no. It is “historical and cultural precedents” rather than “pharmacology, economic or risk benefit analysis” which provides for the distinction. This has an uncanny resemblance to racism, sexism and homophobia for it was historical and cultural precedents which kept the unequal treatment of these individuals in place for so long.
Crucially, basing a drug policy, that is the administration of drug law, on subjective and ultimately arbitrary historical and cultural precedents results in the under-regulation of the conduct of the electoral majority who prefer to exercise property rights in drugs property such as alcohol and tobacco whilst over-regulating the conduct of cultural minorities who prefer to exercise property rights in other drugs property with substantially similar or even less potential to cause harm to individuals and/or society when misused, i.e., psychedelic drugs.
This unequal treatment is contrary to the Rule of Law principle of equal applicability of neutral laws. As such, I believe this unequal treatment denies equal rights and equal protection to all people whilst contributing to tens-of-thousands of unnecessary deaths and imprisonments each year on both sides of the legal distinction and neither the people nor our legislatures intended these consequences.
I call this unequal treatment, this denial of equal rights and equal protection, drug discrimination. Drug Discrimination is based on a false distinction between familiar drugs traditionally used by the majority and unfamiliar drugs traditionally used by minorities. This distinction lies at the heart of our Governments’ failure to reduce harm from the consumption of and commerce in dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs. And it is this distinction which cannot withstand legal scrutiny. And so it is to this distinction that I take aim.
When it is understood that democratic Governments worldwide are implementing their drug laws unlawfully based on this false distinction then the current paradigm of drug law administration will transform from a predominantly polarized and punitive approach rooted in a subjective historical and cultural distinction to an evidence based approach committed to reducing potential harm whilst maximizing the benefits of drug consumption and commerce.
The solution is simple: using best policy guidance on risk management and policy modernizing principles, distinguish the objective risk potential, to individuals and society, presented by different drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, when consumed by humans and then regulate proportionately.
When sanity returns to the administration of drug law, harm will reduce, the 5 types of crime directly associated with prohibition will be immediately eliminated, human rights will be respected and millions of drug war prisoners like me will be released from prison.
On the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, there has never been a better time to bring human rights and drug policy together. We can make this transformation now. These legal principles can be adapted and applied in all western democracies.
Ultimately, these legal principles have the power to end the global “War on some people who use some Drugs”.
More information can be found at drugdiscrimination.org and donations can be made to my legal fund at freecasey.org or at the MAPS or EROWID tables outside in the foyer.
Thank you for listening. I deeply appreciate this opportunity. Let there be light!



Recording presented on Casey’s behalf Sunday March 24th 2008 at the Closing Ceremony of the 2008 World Psychedelic Forum in Basel, Switzerland. Available at www.freecasey.org Page 2 of 2

Reputation Comments on this post:

good work, thanks

[sgurrman]

Thanks for the transcript, Sunshine Band. I appreciate the hard work of transcribing, and found Casey's speech heartwarming.

It occurs to me that there is a little service that members of Drugs Forum could provide for Casey (and incidentally, therefore, for themselves). It is this:

Personally, I find Casey's current arguments pretty watertight. However a) I am not a legal dude b)I have not been through all his argument with a fine toothcomb, though I want to examine it more closely c) I am in deep sympathy with Casey's situation, which may cloud slightly my normally pristinely clear, objective mind (that's a joke, by the way). The smallest blemish in Casey's argument is likely to see it thrown out completely. So I wonder whether any possible weak links in his line of thinking could be posted in this thread for referral to the good man himself for consideration. I get the impression that he is largely working by himself, so any outside feedback from those sympathetic to his cause might be useful for ironing out any weaknesses in his presentation.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Good thinking!

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by Sunshine-Band

Here is the transcript:

Good Evening, I am Casey William Hardison and I am very grateful for the opportunity to address this forum. I am four years into serving a 20 year sentence in the United Kingdom for the manufacture of LSD, DMT and 2C-B.
It is easy to forget that the majority of those present in this forum, who have tasted Albert’s Problem Child and Wonder Drug, LSD, probably did so via the flask of a chemist who was risking severe restrictions on his or her liberty simply to bring the blessed entity, LSD, into existence.
Indeed, I speak as an individual who has had his physical liberty removed for doing just that. Yet, in contrast to Leonard Pickard who is serving life in a United States prison for his alleged alchemical manipulations, I have got off lightly. Thus, I also speak today to presence the millions of men and women incarcerated worldwide for non-violent drug offences, particularly those peacefully involved with entheogens and other psychedelic-type drugs.
Governments world wide have signed up to the three UN drug Conventions as a model for dealing with a select group of substances but these international agreements are framed by the West in terms of an irrational distinction between familiar drugs and unfamiliar drugs. This inevitably leads to unequal treatment under law and this is where a legal rather than political case can be made.
This past December the UN General Assembly in their resolution entitled “International cooperation against the World drug problem” stated that “drug control activities must be carried out in full conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with full respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms”. Yet, by direct experience, I know they are not.
And so, as a prisoner, it is to the Rule of Law that I turn. Drug Policy is the implementation or administration of Drug Law by the Executive branch of Government and accordingly, the law dictates available policy and not the other way around. Laws and the principles they embody are to be generally applied by Governments in a neutral manner.
In the case of drug policy, the principle aim is the reduction of harms to individuals and society from the consumption of dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs. And since drugs are property, drug laws in both the international and the domestic arena follow the property rights of commerce: cultivation, production, manufacture, packaging, transportation, trade, possession, and use.
Significantly, drug laws do not regulate drugs, drug laws regulate people. Thus, it is wrong to speak of legal and/or illegal drugs as no drug on the planet is in fact legal or illegal rather it is the exercise of property rights by human beings with respect to drugs which may be made unlawful. It is a very simple concept but by convention we have become so accustomed to speaking of legal and illegal drugs that we forget it is the person who is being regulated and thus drug laws affect the liberties of people.
And so we come to the crux of my argument. Drug Laws regulate the property rights of people yet they do so in an arbitrary, unfair and irrational manner. This is contrary to the rule of law. On one hand, we have a group of drugs which it is legal to exercise property rights in, such as alcohol and tobacco, and on the other we have another group of drugs which it is currently not lawful to exercise property rights in. So, the question must therefore be asked: “Is there a rational and objective reason to distinguish between the two groups of drugs?”



The short answer is no. It is “historical and cultural precedents” rather than “pharmacology, economic or risk benefit analysis” which provides for the distinction. This has an uncanny resemblance to racism, sexism and homophobia for it was historical and cultural precedents which kept the unequal treatment of these individuals in place for so long.
Crucially, basing a drug policy, that is the administration of drug law, on subjective and ultimately arbitrary historical and cultural precedents results in the under-regulation of the conduct of the electoral majority (dictatorship of the majority) who prefer to exercise property rights in drugs property such as alcohol and tobacco whilst over-regulating the conduct of cultural minorities who prefer to exercise property rights in other drugs property with substantially similar or even less potential to cause harm to individuals and/or society when misused, i.e., psychedelic drugs.
This unequal treatment is contrary to the Rule of Law principle of equal applicability of neutral laws. As such, I believe this unequal treatment denies equal rights and equal protection to all people whilst contributing to tens-of-thousands of unnecessary deaths and imprisonments each year on both sides of the legal distinction and neither the people nor our legislatures intended these consequences.
I call this unequal treatment, this denial of equal rights and equal protection, drug discrimination. Drug Discrimination is based on a false distinction between familiar drugs traditionally used by the majority and unfamiliar drugs traditionally used by minorities. This distinction lies at the heart of our Governments’ failure to reduce harm from the consumption of and commerce in dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs. And it is this distinction which cannot withstand legal scrutiny. And so it is to this distinction that I take aim.
When it is understood that democratic Governments worldwide are implementing their drug laws unlawfully based on this false distinction then the current paradigm of drug law administration will transform from a predominantly polarized and punitive approach rooted in a subjective historical and cultural distinction to an evidence based approach committed to reducing potential harm whilst maximizing the benefits of drug consumption and commerce.
The solution is simple: using best policy guidance on risk management and policy modernizing principles, distinguish the objective risk potential, to individuals and society, presented by different drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, when consumed by humans and then regulate proportionately.
When sanity returns to the administration of drug law, harm will reduce, the 5 types of crime directly associated with prohibition will be immediately eliminated, human rights will be respected and millions of drug war prisoners like me will be released from prison.
On the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, there has never been a better time to bring human rights and drug policy together. We can make this transformation now. These legal principles can be adapted and applied in all western democracies.
Ultimately, these legal principles have the power to end the global “War on some people who use some Drugs”.
More information can be found at drugdiscrimination.org and donations can be made to my legal fund at freecasey.org or at the MAPS or EROWID tables outside in the foyer.
Thank you for listening. I deeply appreciate this opportunity. Let there be light!



Recording presented on Casey’s behalf Sunday March 24th 2008 at the Closing Ceremony of the 2008 World Psychedelic Forum in Basel, Switzerland. Available at www.freecasey.org Page 2 of 2

I've highlighted the things I think are good in green, counter-productive in red and a little bit worrying in orange. The interesting thing is that there are only two reds (and two oranges), and yet when I heard the speech I was instantly somewhat put off by them. I think this is because they are placed right at the beginning of the speech, so before you have had a chance to get into his argument he has already used phrases which will turn off Middle England, the group of people from which QCs, Barristers, Solicitors and Judges tend to come from (although by no means exclusively). Perhaps this was because he was addressing the world psychedelic forum and the audience would be more receptive to it; but now, more than ever, it is important to always be on your guard because information is disseminated incredibly quickly to as many people as want to see it, and if opponents wanted to start a campaign against him they could easily collate all his remarks on the subject and paint him as a hippy. I know it's a court case but, as we have seen both in America and in Britain, courts are influenced by public opinion, especially when it comes to interpreting deliberately vague documents like the American Constitution and the EHRA. Moreover it is likley (read: certain) that the government would instantly appeal against any verdict which favoured Casey's Argument, taking it to the Law Lords and even to the European Court. It seems to me that it is unlikely to succeed in a direct manner, but what it will do, I hope, is to raise awareness. Unfortunately we are in a climate in Britain where Human Rights are despised not only by politicians but by many in the general populace because they feel (rightly or wrongly) that they are being used to protect criminals and terrorists, and an argument based on Human Rights that, in essence, forces the majority into a situation they do not want (a greater tolerance of some drugs) may be a bitter pill to swallow.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Very good analysis

[Sunshine-Band]

So, we have to discuss drugs in dry terms such as potential health benefits of legalisation without ever saying that we like them or that many drugs evoke a spiritual experience? The main problem the Daily Mail reading Middle England possy is their insistance that this issue is taboo, in that they assert that it is a given that drugs are bad. This fear is rooted in the notion that drugs are just a step away from sexual "immorality". I'm not sure why entheogens are in orange FuBai, but I can see that you have now thought it through and I would agree that the statement describing LSD as blessed and wonder drug does have a enthusiastic spiritual element which probably is best not used as a free-standing quote in a short speech which is now being played to a wider audience, but this is now missing the point, this is the best thing we have got and people with assets can assist this cause, the worst thing that can happen is a massive increase in awareness.

[Alfa]

Sound good like an idea to me. Feel free to advance on this.

[sergei77]

He is trying to get a proper QC to review all his arguments and present them properly, hence the raising of funds, why not also make a donation on www.freecasey.org if you can afford it. I have. Every little helps as they say!