Understanding the New Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations

jafro daweedhound

jafro daweedhound

Well-Known Member
G

gb123

Well-Known Member
humorous to say the least..

Good luck with that boyees! :lol:


YOu're not allowed to do what we do... :lol:
 
VIANARCHRIS

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
There are a number of problems with this that still act as barriers to access and violate section 7 of the charter.
1) The need to obtain a doctor recommendation: The various provincial physician colleges have all advised doctors not to prescribe cannabis, or risk sanctions. As a doctor's script is the starting point for any patient needing access, the roadblocks begin before a patient can get started relinquishing their privacy to Health Canada. I'd say that is the first barrier to access.
2) a) The need to inform Health Canada about your medical treatment. Health Canada proudly announces that they do not consider cannabis as a medicine every chance they get. The government has announced cannabis will be available for every Canadian adult in a year or so, why should the sick be forced to 'register'?
b) Your right to autonomy over your body. How can we be forced to choose between liberty and security of the person in order to use a plant that will be as legal as tobacco?
The highest court in this country has said I have a right to treat my medical condition with cannabis. Full stop. The rest is simply an over-reaching intrusion into law abiding Canadians' lives.
 
J

JungleStrikeGuy

Well-Known Member
This is the same notice that was originally posted a few weeks ago, no?

Also:

The SCC is the only court that can reverse the precedent set in Mernagh, and until that happens Doctors are absolutely, 100% the gatekeepers. The provincial colleges have in some cases imposed limits which I would consider unreasonable, but it remains to be seen whether that can be challenged.

Precedent is also clear that you do not have a right to treat yourself with medical cannabis, just like you don't have a right to grow. You have a right to a constitutional exemption from prohibition, and Allard codified that the LP only MMPR model was not it. The SCC has said nothing to undo the 'clarification' of R v Parker made in Mernagh.

s.7 interests were only violated by a blanket prohibition, which means you had no choice, no program, no option to sign up for anything. The discourse since then has been about what is constitutional, but it is very much not a 'full stop' when it comes to what you have a right to do.
 
G

gb123

Well-Known Member
"big cannabis" is not inevitable. Most people who are inclined to use cannabis do so already and the supply is satisfied by independent small farmers. These big corps coming in to the already existing industry, spending fortunes to try and clinch a spot at the "big" table are still going to be putting out a product that will have to compete with regular Joe cannabis farmer who has been growing clean, top quality herb his or her whole life. Once the war is over and the fields are open the game will shift substantially, the value will change substantially, if the price drops quick and they still are in the red and have based their projections off of anything over $1000/Kg they are fucked."
 
VIANARCHRIS

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
JungleStrikeGuy said:
Precedent is also clear that you do not have a right to treat yourself with medical cannabis
Click to expand...
I'm no lawyer, but I'm not sure where you came up with that. I absolutely have the right to treat myself with cannabis. I am very clear I have a right to autonomy, especially when that impacts my health. I don't do doctors. Doctors are largely responsible for the early onset of my condition, and then refuse to treat it until I reach my sixties. They fucked me out of 20 years of enjoying life and earning a living, and now I'm supposed to beg one to allow me to treat my pain? Fuck that. I have managed to treat myself for years, including the two that just passed, where I was permitted to grow ,possess and use legally without any involvement from Health Canada or a doctor. Cannabis will be legal for recreational use very shortly, yet I'm expected to give up my privacy just because I'm sick? I don't need HC or a doctor's permission to manage my pain with a natural health product. Fuck any precedents you think may apply, I'm about to set a new one. :peace::bigjoint:
 
G

gb123

Well-Known Member
no precedent to set Chris... Let em take us to court one by one.

Precedence will be cut in stone that way and they'll finally figure it out.

They do not have the right to profit off of the sick when they're sick. The sick can do for themsleves or have another do it for them :)

Its simple but some get all fucked up due to the green shit they're trying to pull from dying folks.

:weed: good luck with that is all I gotta say.
 
Gquebed

Gquebed

Well-Known Member
Meh. None of it is worth the paper it is written on. I just ignore it. And when the actual legislation comes in the spring i will ignore that too as it will be just as meaningless.

Just keep doing what im doing. They can jail me if they like. And if everybody does the same then they will have no choice but to do it our way...
 
doingdishes

doingdishes

Well-Known Member
the Mernaugh case was bad for us.
that case took away our right to treat ourselves. JSG is correct about the Dr's are the gatekeepers.
we can hate it all we want but until we fight it and win, it's the same ol same ol.
we had to go back to court with Allard to get our supply back even though we already won that right
 
J

JungleStrikeGuy

Well-Known Member
VIANARCHRIS said:
I'm no lawyer, but I'm not sure where you came up with that. I absolutely have the right to treat myself with cannabis.
Click to expand...
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2013/2013onca67/2013onca67.html

[13]As we will explain, in our view the trial judge erred by: (1) wrongly interpreting Parker and Hitzig to recognize a constitutional “right” to use medical marihuana

VIANARCHRIS said:
I don't need HC or a doctor's permission to manage my pain with a natural health product. Fuck any precedents you think may apply, I'm about to set a new one. :peace::bigjoint:
Click to expand...
Best of luck to you, however the current situation, which anyone arrested and charged with production / trafficking will face, is as I've outlined above. Cannabis is not a natural health product as currently defined by law.
 
VIANARCHRIS

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
JungleStrikeGuy said:
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2013/2013onca67/2013onca67.html

[13]As we will explain, in our view the trial judge erred by: (1) wrongly interpreting Parker and Hitzig to recognize a constitutional “right” to use medical marihuana



Best of luck to you, however the current situation, which anyone arrested and charged with production / trafficking will face, is as I've outlined above. Cannabis is not a natural health product as currently defined by law.
Click to expand...
Firstly, I grow for myself, I don't sell a gram, so trafficking is not a concern. I have a piece of paper saying HC recognizes my need to grow, so the only 'charge' would be not divulging my personal information. Given HC's record of protecting information, I feel I am more than justified in refusing to give up my info. In my view the judge ruled correctly, I really don't give a shit what the 'crown' thinks. The courts have ruled I must be given access to marijuana to treat my medical condition, I don't need it written in the constitution. The constitution does give me the right to be autonomous. My right to treat my body and improve my quality of life without interference from government or a third party is fundamental. Security of the person vs. liberty. There is no societal risk in allowing me to continue what I am doing, so how would punishment be justifiable in a free and democratic society?
I know you are looking at this with a different set of skills? or knowledge, but from a non-lawyer type's perspective, I feel I am right, at least on a moral or societal level. Thing is, in today's climate, it is much more likely that a judge is going to side with a patient than some arbitrary, mean-nothing invasion of privacy brought to you by HC.
 
J

JungleStrikeGuy

Well-Known Member
VIANARCHRIS said:
I know you are looking at this with a different set of skills? or knowledge
Click to expand...
The only 'skill' I am using is reading and comprehending a court decision, the quote above is not from the crown but from Justice Doherty. The courts have ruled you do not have a constitutional right to use medical cannabis (unless authorized under a constitutionally viable exemption to blanket prohibition), full stop.

I probably don't disagree with you on how things 'should' be, but presenting false information as fact isn't helping anyone, and is detrimental to someone trying to learn about the convoluted mess of a medical system we have. The courts have only ruled the way they have because of s.7 interests marked in the Charter, so saying you don't need the constitution is rather puzzling.

So as I said, best of luck to you in creating a better precedent than Mernagh, but I'm just failing to see any value in disseminating information that isn't true. You roll the dice when you throw yourself on the mercy of a judge, the dice may be weighted with the prevailing attitudes towards cannabis, but it's still a gamble.
 
G

gb123

Well-Known Member
The info is CORRECT and 100% true...some people just don't quite understand the constitution...
and others follow along with it as they see fit..
 
doingdishes

doingdishes

Well-Known Member
we need a better case than Mernaugh's to prove we have the right. His case hurt us a lot for being to "treat ourselves"
 
VIANARCHRIS

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
JungleStrikeGuy said:
The only 'skill' I am using is reading and comprehending a court decision, the quote above is not from the crown but from Justice Doherty. The courts have ruled you do not have a constitutional right to use medical cannabis (unless authorized under a constitutionally viable exemption to blanket prohibition), full stop.

I probably don't disagree with you on how things 'should' be, but presenting false information as fact isn't helping anyone, and is detrimental to someone trying to learn about the convoluted mess of a medical system we have. The courts have only ruled the way they have because of s.7 interests marked in the Charter, so saying you don't need the constitution is rather puzzling.

So as I said, best of luck to you in creating a better precedent than Mernagh, but I'm just failing to see any value in disseminating information that isn't true. You roll the dice when you throw yourself on the mercy of a judge, the dice may be weighted with the prevailing attitudes towards cannabis, but it's still a gamble.
Click to expand...
I'm not presenting any false information, and I'm certainly not suggesting others take anything I write as somehow explaining the current system. I didn't say I didn't need the constitution, I said the courts have ruled on medical use of cannabis, so it doesn't need to be spelled out in the constitution. Which part of my position is wrong?
1) The courts have said patients with a medical need must have access to a legal source of cannabis
2) Judge Phelan said banning home grows was over-reaching to the point of violating my charter rights
3) The courts have ruled home production does not pose a risk to the public
4) Security of the person gives me the right to treat my pain and improve my quality of life
5) I have a right to autonomy, privacy and dignity

I very likely will never have to present my case as I've managed to fly under the radar for my first 53 years and I don't anticipate a sudden crackdown now.
 
doingdishes

doingdishes

Well-Known Member
VIANARCHRIS said:
I'm not presenting any false information, and I'm certainly not suggesting others take anything I write as somehow explaining the current system. I didn't say I didn't need the constitution, I said the courts have ruled on medical use of cannabis, so it doesn't need to be spelled out in the constitution. Which part of my position is wrong?
1) The courts have said patients with a medical need must have access to a legal source of cannabis
2) Judge Phelan said banning home grows was over-reaching to the point of violating my charter rights
3) The courts have ruled home production does not pose a risk to the public
4) Security of the person gives me the right to treat my pain and improve my quality of life
5) I have a right to autonomy, privacy and dignity

I very likely will never have to present my case as I've managed to fly under the radar for my first 53 years and I don't anticipate a sudden crackdown now.
Click to expand...
unfortunately we don't "have the right to medicate ourselves" if Mernaugh would have won, then the Dr's wouldn't be the gatekeepers and we could...he lost so the courts ruled only they can give us "access"
 
VIANARCHRIS

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
doingdishes said:
unfortunately we don't "have the right to medicate ourselves" if Mernaugh would have won, then the Dr's wouldn't be the gatekeepers and we could...he lost so the courts ruled only they can give us "access"
Click to expand...
A whole lot has changed since Mernaugh. Cannabis will need to be rescheduled prior to legalization, putting it into the same class of drugs as tobacco and alcohol.Once it's rescheduled, it is no longer a physicians concern. Why would I be required to consult a doctor to use something anyone can buy in a store? I can make all the beer I want and grow 15kg of tobacco, as long as I don't sell it, why is cannabis so different? What's the charge and penalty for exceeding your 15kg limit? Surely a plant that doesn't carry the same health risks will warrant the same or lessor penalties. As for making doctors the gatekeepers...they can't say doctors are the sole authority on prescribing cannabis and then instruct the doctors not to prescribe. The reason Canada does not have any abortion law is because of a similar situation with women not being able to get doctors to consent. Doctors are a barrier to access and the precedence was set in the Morgantaler case.
I look at authority and any infringement on my privacy and (perceived) rights through a black and white lens. If I want to do something and it doesn't impact negatively on others, I do it and it's none of anyone's concern. You're either in my business or you're not. If you are in my business you had better have a real good reason. I think the only issue will be needing a permit for growing over the allowed amount for recreational, but if I'm only using it for personal, I'm confident I can walk away from any charges. I really would like to challenge the courts that I do have the right to self medicate,the right to autonomy and the right to privacy and dignity. Maybe someday.
I'm covered still by the injunction and I think that will continue until legalization is implemented, so no worries for awhile!
 
doingdishes

doingdishes

Well-Known Member
VIANARCHRIS said:
A whole lot has changed since Mernaugh. Cannabis will need to be rescheduled prior to legalization, putting it into the same class of drugs as tobacco and alcohol.Once it's rescheduled, it is no longer a physicians concern. Why would I be required to consult a doctor to use something anyone can buy in a store? I can make all the beer I want and grow 15kg of tobacco, as long as I don't sell it, why is cannabis so different? What's the charge and penalty for exceeding your 15kg limit? Surely a plant that doesn't carry the same health risks will warrant the same or lessor penalties. As for making doctors the gatekeepers...they can't say doctors are the sole authority on prescribing cannabis and then instruct the doctors not to prescribe. The reason Canada does not have any abortion law is because of a similar situation with women not being able to get doctors to consent. Doctors are a barrier to access and the precedence was set in the Morgantaler case.
I look at authority and any infringement on my privacy and (perceived) rights through a black and white lens. If I want to do something and it doesn't impact negatively on others, I do it and it's none of anyone's concern. You're either in my business or you're not. If you are in my business you had better have a real good reason. I think the only issue will be needing a permit for growing over the allowed amount for recreational, but if I'm only using it for personal, I'm confident I can walk away from any charges. I really would like to challenge the courts that I do have the right to self medicate,the right to autonomy and the right to privacy and dignity. Maybe someday.
I'm covered still by the injunction and I think that will continue until legalization is implemented, so no worries for awhile!
Click to expand...
i'm with ya!
if someone would challenge again but with better evidence or legal team/defense, i am sure they would change their minds. we really should have it on the books that we ARE allowed to medicate ourselves
when it becomes legal, all this will be moot unless someone growing over the legal/allowable for medical purposes but didn't get licensed. i am curious on that one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top