Canadian laws

GrowRock said:

I see what you are saying but the patient is allowed to consume whatever his or her doctor has prescribed to them not (unlimited). As for our constitution espeacially s7. Every person in Canada has the exact same charter rights so to say that patient A has a right to grow for medical need with a doctors prescription then patient B has the exact same illness but recieved diagnosis and doc prescription after a certain date means they do not have a right to affordable meds. is an infringement of patient s7 charter right.

From my understanding

Click to expand...

JungleStrikeGuy said:

As far as the 'right' to affordable meds, in Phelan's words:

'However, this case does not turn on a right to “cheap drugs”, nor a right “to grow one’s own”, nor do the Plaintiffs seek to establish such a positive right from government.'

'Overall, with respect to affordability, I find that it is a barrier to access. The scope of this barrier is not easily qualified as the definition of affordability reflects the individualized nature of such determination. On access, the evidence adduced was similar to affordability, where a detailed factual finding cannot be made. It can be concluded, however, that there is no guarantee that quality and strain availability at price flexibility (discount pricing) will be accessible when needed.'

So while affordability was found to be a barrier to access, you do not have a positive 'right' to cheap medication.

With regard to s.7 and doctors, R v Mernagh made it very clear that doctors are the final arbiters, which means that they decide if you should be medically approved, and what your dosage is. A reasonable person (the hypothetical person most court decisions are based on) would not expect that everyone diagnosed with an illness should receive exactly the same treatment. R v Parker had some hopeful language in the decision around informed consent which was unfortunately blown away in R v Mernagh, so at the end of the day, 'legally', it's up to your doctor to decide if and how much cannabis you should be consuming.

That being said, the issue resolved in Allard is how exactly you get that cannabis, which has mostly been resolved in the patients favour in the decision, it's just a question of how the MMPR amendments will look.

In the end it's up to the individual, but are you likely, or even very likely to find a sympathetic judge if you get caught growing before August? Some might say yes, I would say it depends on where you are in the country. Can the police and the crown still really fuck up your life if they choose to do so? You bet.

Click to expand...

JungleStrikeGuy said:

As far as the 'right' to affordable meds, in Phelan's words:

'However, this case does not turn on a right to “cheap drugs”, nor a right “to grow one’s own”, nor do the Plaintiffs seek to establish such a positive right from government.'

'Overall, with respect to affordability, I find that it is a barrier to access. The scope of this barrier is not easily qualified as the definition of affordability reflects the individualized nature of such determination. On access, the evidence adduced was similar to affordability, where a detailed factual finding cannot be made. It can be concluded, however, that there is no guarantee that quality and strain availability at price flexibility (discount pricing) will be accessible when needed.'

So while affordability was found to be a barrier to access, you do not have a positive 'right' to cheap medication.

With regard to s.7 and doctors, R v Mernagh made it very clear that doctors are the final arbiters, which means that they decide if you should be medically approved, and what your dosage is. A reasonable person (the hypothetical person most court decisions are based on) would not expect that everyone diagnosed with an illness should receive exactly the same treatment. R v Parker had some hopeful language in the decision around informed consent which was unfortunately blown away in R v Mernagh, so at the end of the day, 'legally', it's up to your doctor to decide if and how much cannabis you should be consuming.

That being said, the issue resolved in Allard is how exactly you get that cannabis, which has mostly been resolved in the patients favour in the decision, it's just a question of how the MMPR amendments will look.

In the end it's up to the individual, but are you likely, or even very likely to find a sympathetic judge if you get caught growing before August? Some might say yes, I would say it depends on where you are in the country. Can the police and the crown still really fuck up your life if they choose to do so? You bet.

Click to expand...

GrowRock said:

Sorry should not have mentioned affordable as far as the growing thing we agree then if you have a doctor script for cannbis you will not be convicted. Most people lose due to the crown draging the case on till the person is either broke or pleas guilty. So use one of turmels kits and represent yourself. As before I was talking about a medically approved patient that there doctor has approved.

Click to expand...