MMAR Appeal Factum

C

CannaReview

Well-Known Member
j0yr1d3 said:
Conroy's response to HC's appeal and evidence for cross appeal. Enjoy!

http://johnconroy.com/pdf/Respondents-Memo-of-Fact-and-Law-final-filed.pdf
Click to expand...

Didn't read it all but the beginning was mostly about the cost did it later state that even if the cost was lower most of the LP's don't eve have enough weed to cover the current users let alone 40K users. So great I can get it one week but then have to wait weeks to get it again if their crop has to be destroyed or they run out.
 
bigmanc

bigmanc

Well-Known Member
im going through it all, get this

69. To the contrary, there was no evidence before Justice Manson that the MMPR benefits the Patients.
 
bigmanc

bigmanc

Well-Known Member
79. Instead, he made a Order that was "the least intrusive to the legislative sphere" and issued a Exemption Order applicable only to "those who currently hold a valid ATP, who held a valid DPL or PPL as of September 30th, 2013, or hold a valid amended or new DPL or that was issued after September 30th, 2013, from the repeal of the MMAR and any provisions of the MMPR which are inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the MMAR, pending a expeditious and a decision of this case on its merits"
 
j0yr1d3

j0yr1d3

Well-Known Member
CannaReview said:
Didn't read it all but the beginning was mostly about the cost did it later state that even if the cost was lower most of the LP's don't eve have enough weed to cover the current users let alone 40K users. So great I can get it one week but then have to wait weeks to get it again if their crop has to be destroyed or they run out.
Click to expand...
No real mention of the LP's inability to provide a consistent supply, at least not directly. Most the arguments are about pricing and the threat to liberty/security/freedom and how it all applies to the constitution. He does kind of talk about how the "for profit" LP's look at patients as "customers" though.
 
GrowRock

GrowRock

Well-Known Member
I'm with on that leaf he should have thrown everything at them. Not sure why he didn't maybe he wants to keep that ace in his hand for later?
 
j0yr1d3

j0yr1d3

Well-Known Member
leaffan said:
I'm very concerned that he hasn't hammered them with the lack of consistent supply. He had a full clip he could have unloaded. Very concerned.
Click to expand...
These arguments are only for the appeal/cross appeal of the injunction. I'm sure stuff like inconsistent supply and more will be brought up during the actual constitution case in February.
 
C

CannaReview

Well-Known Member
leaffan said:
I'm very concerned that he hasn't hammered them with the lack of consistent supply. He had a full clip he could have unloaded. Very concerned.
Click to expand...
That why I mentioned nothing being said about lack of reasonable supply/access of cannabis itself by the companies legally allowed to distribute it. I think the courts already said there's no expectation to have access to cheap medicine.
 
j0yr1d3

j0yr1d3

Well-Known Member
CannaReview said:
That why I mentioned nothing being said about lack of reasonable supply/access of cannabis itself by the companies legally allowed to distribute it. I think the courts already said there's no expectation to have access to cheap medicine.
Click to expand...
Um I think Health Canada said that, not the courts.
 
bigmanc

bigmanc

Well-Known Member
atta boy joyride, thanks buddy. This might be a rewind of the 6am gold medal game...beers for breakfast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top