We are people. And we are very different from other living things on this planet. AND now I do not think with my visage, but with my actions. We are intelligent beings and we follow ourselves rules that we set ourselves.
Virtually all of these rules arose from faith in the gods, but even those who have long since followed them
they need no god. Those rules were written in the so-called holy books. The Jews have theirs
Torah. Christians Bible. Islam has its Quran, Hindus Rgveda and Buddhists Diamond
sutra. And I could move on.
Following the rules made life much easier. It was something that when people followed, so
"Did not come across".
Interestingly, all of these rules explicitly prohibited intra-group violence. And it is done
understandable. Every violence provokes a violent response. And that's not good for any community.
It is better to live in peace with others. Someone we don't live in peace will hardly help us with
we will need it. And that can happen at any time. We can fall and get injured. We can
get sick. Someone can attack us. In all these and many other cases
we will need help. So why cause quarrels with others? Sure, she's certain about that
calculation. But why not? The original calculation gradually took us so far that
Today, the vast majority of people take nonviolence as part of their Self.
But there is another aspect of these rules. It is their morality. You won't find it anywhere
regulations that would require something that would be contrary to human nature. What would contradict
Religious Rules gradually became Laws. Here, too, I can write that follow the laws
makes life very easy for all of us. And for exactly the same reasons as I mentioned
Well, yeah, but what if the laws go against each other? What if one law tells me to do something
executed, but then the other one wants to send me to prison for the same thing? You think it's not
Recently, we have been able to record the father and son case in our media
Cake. Their wife / mother has major health problems. She suffers from the pain she eats
Synthetic medications prescribed by a doctor do not help. It is a very bad situation when a man sees his own
wife and son to their mother as they suffer. Who can endure something like that just like a spectator?
They learned that hemp ointment could help her. But an ointment that can be bought in pharmacies
is a shunt that is not even suitable for lubricating wheels. So they got the seeds and planted them. Unfortunately, it is
someone said. Probably a neighbor. Maybe out of malice, maybe out of the "righteous"
outrage. The fact is that in a few days they were attacked by police, all cannabis flowers already
they took the ointment made from them, handed the matter over to the prosecutor, who accused them. Today, both men already have it
Collage court in a row. The court that found them guilty. The cake father was sentenced to punishment
imprisonment for a period of fifteen months with a conditional suspension for a probationary period
two years, Koláčný's son was then sentenced to thirteen months with a delay of eighteen months.
It might seem that they got pretty good out of it. But why would they even make a difference
receive? They didn't grow the cannabis for business. They did not offer joints to children in front of the school. They
they just wanted to help their closest person. Mom and wife. So why should they be worth it
punished in any way?
Before I get to the weirdness of our laws, let me recall one more case from the earlier one
time that I once wrote about. The case of sixty-three-year-old Mrs. Marie Brodská from Rožďalovice.
Mrs. Brodská had big problems with her legs. They swelled heavily, opening bloody
early. Medication from the doctor did not help her. So she took advice and tried cannabis ointment. And that
helped. The swelling subsided and the bloody wounds began to heal. So she got the seeds and planted them
your own plants. She then made her own ointment. Everything seemed good.
But then a good neighbor betrayed her. The police came to her, harvested the plants behind her and took her here as well
already made ointment. She was charged and had to go to court. She was lucky. Her case was solved by JUDr.
Vaclav Krejcik. A judge who remained human even in his office. She studied her file, ma'am
He listened to Brodska and then swept her case off the table. Unfortunately, he no longer sat in the position of the prosecutor
human, but only some strangeness with a human visage. And he appealed. In five years, you get it
he repeated three times. Then Mrs. Brodská gave up and ended her life on April 27, 2012.
It goes without saying that both the police and the prosecutor's office immediately issued a statement that this was not the case
because of their persecution, and they used her farewell letter. But she really would be a lady
Did Brodská reach the last solution if she did not have to endure the constant persecution?
The woman never understood why she was constantly being attacked. She never understood why she couldn't
heal by what really helps her, but she has to buy some strange ointments, the only one
the effect was that they emptied her wallet.
Judge Krejčík acquitted her three times and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor. But go ahead
others who did not like such a result also intervened. They had their prey and wanted to kill it. AND
they did it. They killed an old and seriously ill woman.
Nowadays, this fight is taking place again. Only the Brodská case replaced the case
Cake. In fact, there is another small difference. Judge Krejčík proved to be a man and
he refused to take part in the fight against an old and sick woman. Judge Mgr. Barbora Kocourková
she did not find so much courage in herself. She adhered to the paragraphs and Koláční violated them. So she condemned them.
But shouldn't the laws have a certain morality? And it is moral to give us one paragraph
of the Criminal Code ordered something, for example, that we are obliged to provide assistance to a person in
threat, and the second paragraph of the same code sent us to prison for this help?
Koláční's father and son were convicted under Section 283 of the Criminal Code 40 of 2009. In it
"Whoever unauthorisedly manufactures, imports, exports, transports, offers, mediates, sells or otherwise
provides or stores for another narcotic or psychotropic substance, a preparation
containing a narcotic or psychotropic substance, precursor or poison, will be punished by deprivation
freedom for one to five years or a fine. "
And if we only think about the fact that they actually raised the forbidden illegally
plants and then made an ointment for someone else, then, whether we like it or not, that's all
OK. But they didn't make the ointment for profit. They made it for the one closest to them
a person who has great health problems and who is not helped by anything else. They could at all
to do otherwise? Did they have a choice? I don't think so. And believe me, I know what I'm writing about here. Eight
I grew cannabis for my daughter for years because it was the only thing that still helped her. Today
he already gets medical cannabis from a pharmacy, so I don't have to grow it. But believe me, if you did
cannabis has disappeared from pharmacies again due to some stupid law, so I won't hesitate either
a second and the seeds will go back to the ground.
But in the same Criminal Code that I mentioned, there is another paragraph that, how
I think it should also be taken into account. It is § 150 and it says:
"Who is a person who is in danger of death or shows signs of a serious disorder of health or another
serious illness, will not provide the necessary assistance, although he may do so without danger to himself
or another, shall be punished by imprisonment for up to two years. "
Two laws of the same code. One orders something, the other for obeying the first,
will send to jail. It all depends on their interpretation and how the judge interprets them
Well, shouldn't the judges think a lot first about why someone did something?
They should also not consider whether their possible decision does not contradict the normal one
human thinking? Doesn't it contradict our Morality?
Here, too, the prosecutor aired his prey and decided to kill it. Will the court of appeal allow it?
"Every violence provokes a violent response"
"Shouldn't the laws have a certain morality?"