Lawyer takes on Feds over new pot rules

MikeHay

MikeHay

New Member
And another thing. It must be our puritanical british heritage that makes anything that is fun and enjoyable evil.
Why, if something is too good to be true then it muddy be either bad for you or from satan. Why can't we feel good and get a little high while getting our medication. Seems a lot better than getting sicer from the medicine we are taking. If our attitudes were more like Indians we would free to smoke anytime. In India people get stoned and happy and go to temple and praise the gods for the gift of cannabis and hemp, both medicinal and industrial. We, too, should be thankful for this blessed plant.
 
TooDabbed

TooDabbed

New Member
Thank god!! I have been praying for someone to step up in Canada. I just got my license 9 months ago and am just getting started producing some of the most incredible medicine you could imagine! They cannot take this reasonible access from us!
 
Sir.Ganga

Sir.Ganga

New Member
MikeHay said:
I think cannabis should be available to everyone if they want the medication for even minor conditions. There is basically no toxicity in marijuana. Both THC and CBD have health benefits - often different benefits for different conditions, and sometimes complimentary. Even as a preventative medication for high blood pressure (heart disease), high blood sugars (obesity and diabetes), and minor aches and pains (replacing aspirin and Tylenol). Why is it a medication of last resort? Why do we have to suffer through tons of toxic medications and all their side effects before we are able to get medical marijuana prescriptions? The number and severity of side effects are so minor that they don't even compare to alcohol and cigarettes. And those are used recreationally. Once a person has a prescription for medical marijuana, they should have reasonable access. Assuming a person needs to make creams and salves for topical treatment, or they are juicing the plant, etc., they need a larger prescription than just smoking dried cannabis. How can Health Canada force everyone to just smoke it? And how can they justify $8 - $10 per gram in price? If a person needs just 5 grams per day, this would work out to $14,600 per year to buy their cannabis from the licensed grower. I don't think the courts will see this as reasonable access - considering the average income in Canada is just over $40,000 per year. And on another note - if growing indoors is dangerous (fire hazard) then you have to ban all types of grows - roses, tulips, vegetables, etc. The Canadian government can't ban what people do in their own home - assuming it isn't illegal - even if it is more hazardous. That is a bullshit argument. And growers who produce their own products in smaller quantities usually take some precautions to minimize hazards. All in all, I think the new MMPR will be shot down. It only makes sense. Looking forward to the Sept 30 court date....
Click to expand...
I hope your correct Mike...I have lost all hope in our system of Government and I wonder if they will overlook our rights as Canadians because of the stigma attached to the medicine.
 
bigmanc

bigmanc

Well-Known Member
Very interesting stuff the Harper government is doing amongst there scandals and corruption, im not sure if whats currently happening will affect the mmar appeal.

Harper himself has prorogued parliament. (basically closed the doors to Parliament in Ottawa)

Thoughts?
 
MikeHay

MikeHay

New Member
Hi Sir.Ganga. For those wiling to fight with legal action, I think the government can't win this in court. I'm very hopeful that the John Conroy case will delay the MMPR and make the government retire a new program that gives reasonable access to patients. Attitudes are changing. The general population is much more tolerant than the conservative government. Cheers.
 
B

Beaches Compassion

Active Member
MikeHay said:
Hi Sir.Ganga. For those wiling to fight with legal action, I think the government can't win this in court. I'm very hopeful that the John Conroy case will delay the MMPR and make the government retire a new program that gives reasonable access to patients. Attitudes are changing. The general population is much more tolerant than the conservative government. Cheers.
Click to expand...
This will only happen if people donate to John Conroy's fund in Trust. It takes 100K and he's at 28K and at the 30 day count down

http://www.mmarcoalitionagainstrepeal.com/donate.html
 
buckets

buckets

Well-Known Member
I donated awhile ago. I am pretty sure that they have raised more than that amount. We should ask Jason Wilcox to verify.
 
D

DoseOfReality

Well-Known Member
Brian Savage said:
Its unconstitutional....I'm not sure if you understand what that means.
It was argued in the Supreme Court in 2000. It IS being challenged and the court date is set for September 30th.
When the MMPR is found to be in violation of 3 different sections of the charter of rights and freedoms and in violation of the 2000 Supreme Court ruling (that states a person who has medicinal need for cannabis MUST have reasonable access to cannabis), then the government will more than likely be given time to change it and make it constitutional.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by, "make it constitutional"? Are you implying that they will reverse course and continue to allow individuals to apply for and grow their own? Or are you talking about changes to the new regulations effecting commercial growers that would satisfy the aspect of cost and availability to those in need?
 
Brian Savage

Brian Savage

Well-Known Member
I truly believe they will preserve personal production licenses. A supreme court ruling is binding and unless the government says they will provide the cannabis free or ban ALL indoor horticulture of ANY kind then we will be allowed to continue to cultivate our own. Synthetically grown cannabis is significantly more harmful to smoke and/or eat than naturally grown or organic cannabis is. they are also challenging the dried marijuana only restrictions of the program because in BC they have already won the right to make concentrates and edibles after it was found unconstitutional to force patients to smoke it.
 
D

DoseOfReality

Well-Known Member
Brian Savage said:
I truly believe they will preserve personal production licenses. A supreme court ruling is binding and unless the government says they will provide the cannabis free or ban ALL indoor horticulture of ANY kind then we will be allowed to continue to cultivate our own. Synthetically grown cannabis is significantly more harmful to smoke and/or eat than naturally grown or organic cannabis is. they are also challenging the dried marijuana only restrictions of the program because in BC they have already won the right to make concentrates and edibles after it was found unconstitutional to force patients to smoke it.
Click to expand...
That sounds pretty optimistic. Other then the Abbottsford lawyer, are there any other groups or individuals that are challenging the new regulations? I know theres supposed to be hearing starting in Sept but I wonder how long that process will take?
 
JonnyAppleSeed420

JonnyAppleSeed420

New Member
bigmanc said:
worst comes to worst guys, continue to grow your card alotment risk getting caught but it will most definitely be thrown out of court due to lack of access to medication and the 2001 ruling of growing your own medication.
Click to expand...
Do you know what Mandatory Minimum Sentences actually means? It won't matter what the reason is or what rights have been trampled, if this actually passes there is going to be tens of thousands old dope smokin hippies sitting in cells crying "my rights have been trampled" and rightfully so but it will take a good laywer and a year of your life, not to mention...money...and lots of it, to get them out. Be careful people this is a double edged sword.
 
Brian Savage

Brian Savage

Well-Known Member
Mandatory minimums can only be requested by the crown if they can prove the cultivation was for the purpose of trafficking. If a patient simply continues to grow his or her allowed plant numbers from under the MMAR they would easily be able to prove that it was NOT for the purpose of trafficking but for personal medicinal purposes. The crown would not be able to ask for the mandatory minimum sentence.

As for the other guy, you go ahead and eat the potassium nitrate in advanced nutrients, and ill continue to eat the plants that have been fed water.
 
mojoganjaman

mojoganjaman

Well-Known Member
I will continue to grow my own meds regardless of the law... my life and health take presidence over law...if growing my own affordable meds makes me a criminal, I suppose I've been a criminal for most of my 56 yrs on this lil' piece of dirt...never give in!!!!!



mojo
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
The Supreme Court has never ruled on growing your own medication. The ruling he's referring too involved the guy who originally got MMJ legal in Canada. He openly grew a plant on his back deck and then got busted for it. They ended up changing the law so that his single plant was once again simple drug possession in a really shady move. They had already ruled on that in the previous case.

They also ruled the government needed a program setup to allow patients to get their medicine. The government responded with the grow your own program. The courts haven't actually ruled on the growing aspect, of this I am quite sure. Feel free to correct me if I'm blatantly wrong. I don't believe I am.
 
Brian Savage

Brian Savage

Well-Known Member
The supreme court ruled any person that demonstrated need for medicinal cannabis as prescribed by a physician MUST have reasonable access. Forcing people to buy at $8/g what they can grow for pennies is not reasonable access.
Eliminating access to fan leaves violates that 2000 Supreme court ruling as well. The MMPR as it is written is dead in the water and the feds know it.
 
bigmanc

bigmanc

Well-Known Member
If i dont grow my full script it will be a 4000w , 4 plant RDWC in garbage cans to avoid mandatory minimums.
 
R.Raider

R.Raider

Well-Known Member
Will they have a ruling shortly after the court date on Sept 30th or will this drag out for months?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top