From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

“Criminalizing the possession of drugs for personal  use leads to discrimination and stigma, and contributes to people hiding their drug use from their  physicians, friends, family, colleagues, and community”

The City of Toronto is asking Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government to decriminalize hard drugs. 

In a March letter, Toronto city officials appealed to the Trudeau government to legalize all quantities of crack, cocaine, heroin, meth, and other hard drugs, despite warnings that it will bring increased chaos and violence to the city. Its reasoning is that people look askance at drug abuse and drug abusers, who then attempt to hide their habit.  

“The evidence demonstrates that criminalizing the possession of drugs for personal  use leads to discrimination and stigma, and contributes to people hiding their drug use from their  physicians, friends, family, colleagues, and community,” the document claimed.  

The letter, penned by Medical Officer of Health Dr. Eileen de Villa, City Manager Paul Johnson, and Chief of Police Myron Demkiw requested that the Trudeau government decriminalize hard drugs for young people as well as adults. The application places no limit on the quantity of drugs which would be legally obtained. 

Toronto is already seeing a rise in crime since the election of Toronto mayor Olivia Chow. Canadians have pointed out that Toronto is dealing with several issues, without adding the decriminalization of hard drugs,  

“Trudeau must reject Toronto’s application to allow public use of crack, cocaine, heroin, & other hard drugs,” Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter. 

“His dangerous policy cannot bring the same chaos, death & destruction to more Canadian cities,” he added.  

Trudeau must reject Toronto's application to allow public use of crack, cocaine, heroin, & other hard drugs.

His dangerous policy cannot bring the same chaos, death & destruction to more Canadian cities. pic.twitter.com/hG5h9lsWPq

— Pierre Poilievre (@PierrePoilievre) May 1, 2024

Poilievre’s condemnation was echoed by Ontario Premier Doug Ford who promised, “I will fight this tooth and nail. This is the wrong way to go.” 

Poilievre further explained that Canadians have already seen the dystopian effects of the decriminalization of hard drugs in British Columbia, which “has caused chaos in hospitals, playgrounds, parks, and public transport.” 

READ: British Columbia should allow addicts to possess even more drugs, federal report suggests

Beginning in early 2023, Trudeau’s federal policy, in effect, decriminalized hard drugs on a trial-run basis in British Columbia.    

Under the policy, the federal government began allowing people within the province to possess up to 2.5 grams of hard drugs without criminal penalty, but selling drugs remained a crime.  

The province’s drug policy has been widely criticized, especially after it was found that the province broke three different drug-related overdose records in the first month the new law was in effect.  

Last week, BC Premier David Eby finally admitted that the province’s ‘safe supply’ program was a failure and called on the Trudeau government to reverse the program. However, Trudeau has yet to respond to the province’s appeal for help.  

“Safe supply“ is the term used to refer to government-prescribed drugs that are given to addicts under the assumption that a more controlled batch of narcotics reduces the risk of overdose. Critics of the policy argue that giving addicts drugs only enables their behavior, puts the public at risk, and disincentivizes recovery from addiction. Where “safe supply” has been implemented, it has not reduced the number of overdose deaths. It has sometimes even increased it. 

The effects of decriminalizing hard drugs in parts of Canada have been exposed in Aaron Gunn’s recent documentary Canada is Dying, and in the British Telegraph journalist Steven Edginton’s mini-documentary, Canada’s Woke Nightmare: A Warning to the West.    

Gunn says he documents the “general societal chaos and explosion of drug use in every major Canadian city.”    

“Overdose deaths are up 1,000 percent in the last 10 years,” he said in his film, adding that “[e]very day in Vancouver four people are randomly attacked.”  

Even Liberals have begun admitting that Trudeau’s drug program has not helped addicts but only added to their problems.   

In April, Liberal MP Dr. Marcus Powlowski testified that violence from drug users has become a problem in Ottawa, especially in areas near the so-called “safe supply” centres which operate within blocks of Parliament Hill.     

“A few months ago I was downtown in a bar here in Ottawa, not that I do that very often, but a couple of colleagues I met up with, one was assaulted as he was going to the bar, [and] another one was threatened,” said Powlowski.    

“Within a month of that, I was returning down Wellington Street from downtown, the Rideau Centre, and my son who is 15 was coming after me,” he continued. “It was nighttime, and there was someone out in the middle of the street, yelling and screaming, accosting cars.”   

RELATED: Liberal MP blasts Trudeau-backed ‘safe supply’ drug programs, linking them to ‘chaos’ in cities

From LifeSiteNews

By Michael Nevradakis Ph. D.,

Utah and Florida passed laws intended to prevent the WHO from overriding states’ authority on matters of public health policy, and Louisiana and Oklahoma have legislation set to take effect soon pending final votes.

Two states have passed laws – and two states have bills pending – intended to prevent the World Health Organization (WHO) from overriding states’ authority on matters of public health policy.

Utah and Florida passed laws and Louisiana and Oklahoma have legislation set to take effect soon pending final votes. Several other states are considering similar bills.

The WHO member states will convene next month at the World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, to vote on two proposals – the so-called “pandemic accord” or “pandemic treaty,” and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) – that would give the WHO sweeping new pandemic powers.

The Biden administration supports the two WHO proposals, but opposition is growing at the state level.

Proponents of the WHO’s proposals say they are vital for preparing humanity against the “next pandemic,” perhaps caused by a yet-unknown “Disease X.”

But the bills passed by state legislatures reflect frequently voiced criticisms that the WHO’s proposals imperil national sovereignty, medical and bodily sovereignty and personal liberties, and may lead to global vaccine mandates.

Critics also argue the WHO proposals may open the door to global digital “health passports” and global censorship targeting alleged “misinformation.”

Such criticisms are behind state legislative initiatives to oppose the WHO, on the basis that states’ rights are protected under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Under the 10th Amendment, all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. Such powers, critics say, include public health policy.

Mary Holland, president of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), told The Defender:

It is encouraging to see states like Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Utah pass resolutions to clarify that the WHO has no power to determine health policy in their states. Historically, health has been the purview of state and local government, not the U.S. federal government.

There is no legitimate constitutional basis for the federal government to outsource health decision-making on pandemics to an international body. As state legislatures become aware of the WHO’s agenda, they are pushing back to assert their autonomy – and this is welcome.

Internist Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, told The Defender that, contrary to arguments that the drafters of the constitution could not foresee future public health needs, vaccines, doctors, and medicine were all in existence at the time the 10th Amendment was written. They were “deliberately left out,” she said.

READ: Thousands of protesters rally in Tokyo against proposed WHO pandemic treaty

This has implications for the federal government’s efforts in support of the WHO’s proposals, according to Nass. “The government doesn’t have the authority to give the WHO powers for which it lacks authority,” she said.

Tennessee state Rep. Bud Hulsey (R-Sullivan County) told The Epoch Times, “We’re almost to a place in this country that the federal government has trampled on the sovereignty of states for so long that in peoples’ minds, they have no options.”

“It’s like whatever the federal government says is the supreme law of the land, and it’s not. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land,” he added.

Utah, Florida laws passed

On January 31, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox (R) signed Senate Bill 57, the “Utah Constitutional Sovereignty Act,” into law. It does not mention the WHO, but prohibits “enforcement of a federal directive within the state by government officers if the Legislature determines the federal directive violates the principles of state sovereignty.”

In May 2023, Florida passed Senate Bill 252 (SB 252), a bill for “Protection from Discrimination Based on Health Care Choices.” Among other clauses, it prohibits businesses and public entities from requiring proof of vaccination or prophylaxis for the purposes of employment, receipt of services, or gaining entry to such entities.

According to Section 3 of SB 252:

A governmental entity as defined… or an educational institution… may not adopt, implement, or enforce an international health organization’s public health policies or guidelines unless authorized to do so under state law, rule, or executive order issued by the Governor.

Nass told The Defender that Florida’s legislation offers a back door through which the state can implement WHO policies because it allows a state law, rule, or executive order by the governor to override the bill. According to Nass, efforts to strengthen the bill have been unsuccessful.

SB 252 was one of four bills Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed in May 2023 in support of medical freedom. The other bills were House Bill 1387, banning gain-of-function research, Senate Bill 1580, protecting physicians’ freedom of speech, and Senate Bill 238, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of people’s medical choices.

Louisiana, Oklahoma also push back against the WHO

The Louisiana Senate on March 26 voted unanimously to pass Senate Law No. 133, barring the WHO, United Nations (U.N.) and World Economic Forum from wielding influence over the state.

According to the legislation:

No rule, regulation, fee, tax, policy, or mandate of any kind of the World Health Organization, United Nations, and the World Economic Forum shall be enforced or implemented by the state of Louisiana or any agency, department, board, commission, political subdivision, governmental entity of the state, parish, municipality, or any other political entity.

The bill is now pending Louisiana House of Representatives approval and if passed, is set to take effect August 1.

On April 24, the Oklahoma House of Representatives passed Senate Bill 426 (SB 426), which states, “The World Health Organization, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum shall have no jurisdiction in the State of Oklahoma.”

READ: Lawmakers, conservatives blast WHO plan for ‘global governance’ on future pandemics

According to the bill:

Any mandates, recommendations, instructions, communications or guidance issued by the World Health Organization, the United Nations or the World Economic Forum shall not be used in this state as a basis for action, nor to direct, order or otherwise impose, contrary to the constitution and laws of the State of Oklahoma any requirements whatsoever, including those for masks, vaccines or medical testing, or gather any public or private information about the state’s citizens or residents, and shall have no force or effect in the State of Oklahoma.

According to Door to Freedom, the bill was first introduced last year and unanimously passed the Senate. An amended version will return to the Senate for a new vote, and if passed, the law will take effect June 1.

Legislative push continues in states where bills opposing the WHO failed

Legislative initiatives opposing the WHO in other states have so far been unsuccessful.

In Tennessee, lawmakers proposed three bills opposing the WHO, but “none of them made it over the finish line,” said Bernadette Pajer of the CHD Tennessee Chapter.

“Many Tennessee legislators are concerned about the WHO and three of them filed resolutions to protect our sovereignty,” Pajer said. “Our legislature runs on a biennium, and this was the second year, so those three bills have died. But I do expect new ones will be filed next session.”

The proposed bills were:

• House Joint Resolution 820(HJR 820), passed in the Tennessee House of Representatives. The bill called on the federal government to “end taxpayer funding” of the WHO and reject the WHO’s two proposals.
• House Joint Resolution 1359(HJR 1359) stalled in the Delayed Bills Committee. It proposed that “neither the World Health Organization, United Nations, nor the World Economic Forum shall have any jurisdiction or power within the State of Tennessee.”
• Senate Joint Resolution 1135(SJR 1135) opposed “the United States’ participation in the World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic Prevention Preparedness and Response Accord (PPPRA) and urges the Biden Administration to withdraw our nation from the PPPRA.”

Amy Miller, a registered lobbyist for Reform Pharma, told The Defender she “supported these resolutions, especially HJR 1359. She said the bill “went to a committee where the sponsor didn’t think it would come out since a unanimous vote was needed and one of the three members was a Democrat.”

Tennessee’s HJR 820 came the closest to being enacted. According to Nass, this bill was “flawed,” as it “did not assert state sovereignty or the 10th Amendment.”

Another Tennessee bill, House Bill 2795 and Senate Bill 2775, “establishes processes by which the general assembly [of the state of Tennessee] may nullify an unconstitutional federal statute, regulation, agency order, or executive order.”

According to The Epoch Times, this would give Tennessee residents “the right to demand that state legislators vote on whether or not to enforce regulations or executive orders that violate citizens’ rights under the federal or state constitutions.” The bill is tabled for “summer study” in the Senate.

In May 2023, Tennessee passed legislation opposing “net zero” proposals and the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals – which have been connected to “green” policies and the implementation of digital ID for newborn babies and for which the U.N. has set a target date of 2030 for implementation.

According to The Epoch Times, “Maine state Rep. Heidi Sampson attempted to get a ‘joint order’ passed in support of personal autonomy and against compliance with the WHO agreements, but it garnered little interest in the Democrat supermajority legislature.”

In Alabama, the Senate passed House Joint Resolution 113 opposing the WHO. The bill was reported out of committee but, according to Nass, it stalled.

Other states where similar legislation was proposed in the 2024 session or is pending include Georgia, Idaho, Iowa,  Kentucky, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Wyoming.

Recent Supreme Court ruling may curtail federal government’s powers

While opponents of the WHO’s proposed “pandemic agreement” and IHR amendments point to the states’ rights provision of the 10th Amendment, others argue that a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council allowed federal agencies to assert more authority to make laws.

The tide may be turning, however. According to The Epoch Times, “The current Supreme Court has taken some steps to rein in the administrative state, including the landmark decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, ruling that federal agencies can’t assume powers that Congress didn’t explicitly give them.”

Nass said that even in states where lawmakers have not yet proposed bills to oppose the WHO, citizens can take action, by contacting the office of their state governor, who can issue an executive order, or their attorney general, who can issue a legal opinion.

Door to Freedom has also developed a model resolution that state legislative bodies can use as the basis for their own legislation.

“It’s important for people to realize that if the federal government imposes something on the people, the people can go through their state’s powers to overturn it,” Nass said.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.