Little excerpt from today's big story on CBC

Rusher

Rusher

Well-Known Member
It just called to me, and I wanted to share.

'Most egregious example'
In his decision, the judge noted that "many 'expert' witnesses were so imbued with a belief for or against marijuana — almost a religious fervour — that the court had to approach such evidence with a significant degree of caution and skepticism."

In particular, he called one RCMP witness for the Crown, Cpl. Shane Homequist, "the most egregious example of the so-called expert.

"He possessed none of the qualifications of usual expert witnesses. His assumptions and analysis were shown to be flawed. His methodologies were not shown to be accepted by those working in his field. The factual basis of his various options was uncovered as inaccurate," he wrote.

"I can give this evidence little or no weight," the judge concluded.
 
cannadan

cannadan

Well-Known Member
Great representation that was...sarcasm....I will repeat this here,,,,thanks rusher this is better...

[160] Mr. Jason Wilcoz and Ms. Danielle Lukiv were plaintiff witnesses who provided affidavit evidence on the correspondence they received from MMAR patients. I would give their evidence little weight and find that the issues around the MMPR are more adequately addressed by the other evidence.
 
doingdishes

doingdishes

Well-Known Member
i don't buy into much of what Wilcox says.
i loved that the cop got called out as being a non credible witness...they did that publicly...haha i wonder how his credibility is now.....haha.
then the fire guy admitting that kitchen fires were more of a risk that a grow.
the Crowns evidence fell apart completely. they could spew the crap they did and they all got busted for it.
 
itsmehigh

itsmehigh

Well-Known Member
Shoppers was in talks when the original MMPR framework was reviewed to dispense through pharmacies. Then hc changed the regs to mail order only. That was 2 years ago. Shoppers has always been on board to dispense.

Itsme.
 
cannadan

cannadan

Well-Known Member
All of these were important in the decision...

[190] The case law decided under the MMAR applies to the analysis of the MMPR’s constitutionality as the case law addressed the limitations and prohibitions imposed on medical marihuana including the cultivation, distribution and use, finding such limitations to engage section 7 rights. The limitations in the MMPR are more impeding than the MMAR in prohibiting home growth, invalidating PUPL and DPPLs and limiting the amount an individual is authorized to possess.
[191] While the patient is presented with a means of access, the simple interference with making a decision about bodily integrity and medical care has been held to trench on liberty. As held in Hitzig at para 93: 93 Here, as in Parker, there is no doubt that the decision by those with the medical need to do so to take marihuana to treat the symptoms of their serious medical conditions is one of fundamental personal importance. While this scheme of medical exemption accords them a medical exemption, it does so only if they undertake an onerous application process and can comply with its stringent conditions. Thus, the scheme itself stands between these individuals and their right to make this fundamentally important personal decision unimpeded by state Page: 67 action. Hence the right to liberty in this broader sense is also implicated by the MMAR. [Emphasis added]
[192] The Plaintiffs argue that there is a right to direct the course of one’s medical treatment and not have it imposed by the government, either directly or by way of delegation. It is accepted that those taking medical marihuana to treat symptoms of their serious medical condition are making a decision of fundamental importance. Although this decision is not prohibited, it is restricted by the MMPR and it is that restriction that engages the liberty interest. The reason the restriction is not trivial is due to the underlying context of medical decision making
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top