Why does our case rely on this election

The Hippy

The Hippy

Well-Known Member
Well it would appear that we a NOT getting the Allard decision until after the Fed election. This seems pretty obvious eh ? He's waiting and that seems farked up. Now I've been wondering why would this be ? Why would Judge Phellan be waiting to see who get's in .
This seems very sketchy to me. Why would he think that whoever is elected has a bearing on his decision? To my thinking it should NOT. I find this fact very suspicious and worrying.
and why does he need 9 months to figure out his thoughts. All very disturbing to me.
Is this judge waiting to see where his support will lye.
What are you thoughts on this delaying of a very important situation ? Is he bought in pocket by LP's or threats by GOV ???? I dunno
 
torontoke

torontoke

Well-Known Member
To me the bigger question is why does a person not chosen or elected by the people get to decide the outcome for so many in the first place.
2/3 of Canadians have clearly stated they are in favour of legalizing or decriminalizing now so what's the hold up?
How about someone start a Facebook meme asking Canadians to vote on the subject instead of bombarding Facebook with Harper shaking hands with people that have been in Canada for less than a week
 
T

TheDizzyBizzy

Well-Known Member
The Hippy said:
Well it would appear that we a NOT getting the Allard decision until after the Fed election. This seems pretty obvious eh ? He's waiting and that seems farked up. Now I've been wondering why would this be ? Why would Judge Phellan be waiting to see who get's in .
This seems very sketchy to me. Why would he think that whoever is elected has a bearing on his decision? To my thinking it should NOT. I find this fact very suspicious and worrying.
and why does he need 9 months to figure out his thoughts. All very disturbing to me.
Is this judge waiting to see where his support will lye.
What are you thoughts on this delaying of a very important situation ? Is he bought in pocket by LP's or threats by GOV ???? I dunno
Click to expand...
Aha! Another one wakes up!

Finally seeing this is all a scam, including the Liberals, the courts, everything! Hopefully we can get beyond thinking it's all just Harper, and work on REAL reform in Canada.

But that won't happen until people stop giving the Liberals a pass, or assuming anyone who dares point out Sir Justin has no clothes does not make them a Harper supporter.

Legalization is a trap.
 
G

gb123

Well-Known Member
if you look back...we said this is how it would go right from the start...
it was said over and over again that the judge would hold his decision until we have a new PM and then some im betting :lol:


he's waiting for the decision to be made for him... :)
As things are now...and sadly , as far as anyone who has a say matters...

this is working well! :cuss:

ps dude...we already have the courts on our side..hang in there..it's only a matter of time.
 
Last edited:
doingdishes

doingdishes

Well-Known Member
i think the courts will get the least amount of flack/backlash from the new Government. if we won now, Harper would file the appeal. if a new Government won, the appeal would be dropped.
i think it sucks we have to wait but it might be for the best.
Phelan does seem on our side but I also thought the Mernaugh case was a no brainer but he lost. (i didn't follow Mernuagh that closely though)
when i spoke to the SCoC, they said not much will happen on this case until after the election
i still have yet to hear one politician speak about medical use. they only talk legalization and that isn't the same as the medical landscape
 
spider9

spider9

Well-Known Member
he is probably waiting hoping a govt. get in because Harper has probably threatened him if he does not side with them and choices to side with us
 
G

gb123

Well-Known Member
This major decision ended after what was decided by 7 supreme court justices only a couple months ago :hug:
The sick are entitled to meds in every shape and form and can grow their meds cheaply.
The decision has already been made.

bongsmilie
 
redi jedi

redi jedi

Well-Known Member
gb123 said:
This major decision ended after what was decided by 7 supreme court justices only a couple months ago :hug:
The sick are entitled to meds in every shape and form and can grow their meds cheaply.
The decision has already been made.

bongsmilie
Click to expand...
Your crystal ball tell you that?
 
VIANARCHRIS

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
I'm with the Hippy...the governing incompetents, regardless of who gets in will have no bearing on the outcome. Our courts are independent of government....that's why HC had to file an appeal rather than quashing the ruling. Why the judge is waiting to make his decision is a mystery. Is there not a limit where we could claim the delay is causing undue hardship and have the appeal thrown out? There has to be some recourse or the courts would never rule on anything controversial.
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
doingdishes said:
i think the courts will get the least amount of flack/backlash from the new Government. if we won now, Harper would file the appeal. if a new Government won, the appeal would be dropped.
i think it sucks we have to wait but it might be for the best.
Phelan does seem on our side but I also thought the Mernaugh case was a no brainer but he lost. (i didn't follow Mernuagh that closely though)
when i spoke to the SCoC, they said not much will happen on this case until after the election
i still have yet to hear one politician speak about medical use. they only talk legalization and that isn't the same as the medical landscape
Click to expand...
It was a no brainer but his defense really blew ass. Dropped the ball time and time again. Concerned we're being setup by Conroy in the same way. But hey, I guess we'll see right? I know I'm not donating one dollar to those clowns until they get results. Then maybe.
 
doingdishes

doingdishes

Well-Known Member
OGEvilgenius said:
It was a no brainer but his defense really blew ass. Dropped the ball time and time again. Concerned we're being setup by Conroy in the same way. But hey, I guess we'll see right? I know I'm not donating one dollar to those clowns until they get results. Then maybe.
Click to expand...
we donated when we thought CONroy "wore white" but now we really see how he screwed us...and has done zero to correct that
if he was a patient or a family member, i bet he would be fighting harder
 
J

JungleStrikeGuy

Well-Known Member
VIANARCHRIS said:
I'm with the Hippy...the governing incompetents, regardless of who gets in will have no bearing on the outcome. Our courts are independent of government....that's why HC had to file an appeal rather than quashing the ruling. Why the judge is waiting to make his decision is a mystery. Is there not a limit where we could claim the delay is causing undue hardship and have the appeal thrown out? There has to be some recourse or the courts would never rule on anything controversial.
Click to expand...
There's a famous quote about decisions, 'It takes as long as it takes'. Phelan has a lot of factors to consider, and I suspect the case was not as one-sided as it was presented via twitter.

With the R v Smith verdict at the SCC level, Phelan has a whole new set of factors to take into account as far as where a 'right to grow' might fit into the ruling against arbitrary limits. R v Mernagh entrenched the 'You have a right to a constitutional exemption, not a right to cannabis' precedent so R v Smith does not automatically guarantee a win. If the court finds that not allowing growing is constitutionally viable, and it survives appeals then that's what's going to be set as the precedent on growing.

R v Mernagh had weaknesses, but I think it's disingenious to say that Paul Lewin dropped the ball. It is notoriously hard, or even impossible to get doctors into court, and the case was predicated upon the issue of doctors not signing. Paul McKeever has a good summary of the case, in particular the following:

'Only governmental barriers to getting an exemption could cause the regulation to be unconstitutional.'

Because doctors are not agents of the state, something is not unconstitutional if a doctor refuses to sign, but only if governmental barriers exist. Doctors aren't deciding whether people can grow, the government is, so it is an issue that may be unconstitutional. You can also look at this principle in R v Morgantaler, in that it wasn't the medical profession that was prohibiting abortions, but the government, therefore it was up for a constitutional decision.
 
VIANARCHRIS

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
JungleStrikeGuy said:
'Only governmental barriers to getting an exemption could cause the regulation to be unconstitutional.'

Because doctors are not agents of the state, something is not unconstitutional if a doctor refuses to sign, but only if governmental barriers exist. Doctors aren't deciding whether people can grow, the government is, so it is an issue that may be unconstitutional. You can also look at this principle in R v Morgantaler, in that it wasn't the medical profession that was prohibiting abortions, but the government, therefore it was up for a constitutional decision.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the informed post. I could argue that doctors are in fact 'agents of the state'. They are licensed, regulated and paid by government to provide a service that is constitutionally required of government to provide. The government is influencing the various colleges of physicians to discourage doctors from prescribing mmj. By taking direction from the college, who is taking direction from the feds, the doctors are absolutely agents of the state. Hiring an independent contractor to do the service a government is mandated to provide, does not absolve them of responsibility, imo.
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
JungleStrikeGuy said:
There's a famous quote about decisions, 'It takes as long as it takes'. Phelan has a lot of factors to consider, and I suspect the case was not as one-sided as it was presented via twitter.

With the R v Smith verdict at the SCC level, Phelan has a whole new set of factors to take into account as far as where a 'right to grow' might fit into the ruling against arbitrary limits. R v Mernagh entrenched the 'You have a right to a constitutional exemption, not a right to cannabis' precedent so R v Smith does not automatically guarantee a win. If the court finds that not allowing growing is constitutionally viable, and it survives appeals then that's what's going to be set as the precedent on growing.

R v Mernagh had weaknesses, but I think it's disingenious to say that Paul Lewin dropped the ball. It is notoriously hard, or even impossible to get doctors into court, and the case was predicated upon the issue of doctors not signing. Paul McKeever has a good summary of the case, in particular the following:

'Only governmental barriers to getting an exemption could cause the regulation to be unconstitutional.'

Because doctors are not agents of the state, something is not unconstitutional if a doctor refuses to sign, but only if governmental barriers exist. Doctors aren't deciding whether people can grow, the government is, so it is an issue that may be unconstitutional. You can also look at this principle in R v Morgantaler, in that it wasn't the medical profession that was prohibiting abortions, but the government, therefore it was up for a constitutional decision.
Click to expand...
I have seen the memo from the College stating not to prescribe cannabis because it has no proven benefits and all kinds of risks. They didn't even present it. They did a terrible job. The College can cause all kinds of problems for doctors. The idea they aren't agents of the State in Canada is a bit of a stretch too given our health care system and the way they wrote the MMJ law.

Dropped the ball big time IMO.

And worse, the ruling sets precedent - which is that you have no control or say over what is working for you and what isn't. It's an awful decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top