Predictions
- Thread starter bigmanc
- Start date
The Hippy
Well-Known Member
I think your right.....gulp
oddish
Well-Known Member
That's my only thing. I'm sure there will be an appeal either way, but if the program has to stop in the meantime then you will get to see how law enforcement, health canada, etc intends to behave. Could have a huge impact on the appeal as well.
That said, appeals might work entirely different and, in situations like this, actually hold off a final decision.
That said, appeals might work entirely different and, in situations like this, actually hold off a final decision.
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
i think you are right but there will be another injunction....like the one we are waiting for the results of. I'm sure they won't put us out to dry until the Supreme Court tosses it....hopefully
Things can only get better for patients, sadly through the court process though so they'll have to wait.....
That part will never change and is set in stone!.
They just have to find a way to deal with the small amount of patients...let them keep going and bust the ones tthat are breaking the law and selling it.
That's what law enforcement is supposed to do. GET AT IT!!! DO YOUR FUCKING JOB!!!,,,, lazy fuckwads!!!!!!!
Easy answer!
better yet. legalize it!
That part will never change and is set in stone!.
They just have to find a way to deal with the small amount of patients...let them keep going and bust the ones tthat are breaking the law and selling it.
That's what law enforcement is supposed to do. GET AT IT!!! DO YOUR FUCKING JOB!!!,,,, lazy fuckwads!!!!!!!
Easy answer!
better yet. legalize it!
oddish
Well-Known Member
How do you figure?
It's the worst case that they shut down the MMAR until the Supreme Court hears the case?
Do you have information to backup this hope/dream of a worst case scenario?
oddish
Well-Known Member
You can appeal the Supreme Court, but who makes the next injunction if HC wins this round?
VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
From Kirks twitter page;
I Didn't see this posted here?
On Monday’s Allard Injunction Appeal
The injunction for the Allard et al. and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada case was in the Federal Court of Appeals this week in Vancouver – better known as the injunction case to allows existing MMAR patients with valid personal growing licenses to continue growing until the constitutional challenge is heard next February. The injunction granted is important because it seeks to prevent the violation of patient’s section 7 Charter rights – including the right to life, liberty and security.
One very small piece of the Crown’s discussion centered on affordability and access. This is increasingly complex for patients, even those with immaculate medical benefits, because cannabis is regulated by both the NCR and the CDSA, but doesn’t have a Drug Identification Number (DIN). Without a DIN, it’s almost impossible for medical plan coverage.
One reason why the injunction was granted is how many patients simply can’t afford the required quantities of cannabis to treat their symptoms under the MMPR system. Although during the injunction case issues of affordability were based on “projected” prices Licensed Producers (LPs) would offer, the MMPR is now definitely in full swing, demonstrating the projected prices of $6-12 (I would argue the higher end of this) are very much a reality.
The Crown also argued that the market was in a state of flux, but as lawyer Kirk Tousaw pointed out, patients do not have the time to sit and wait for the market to drive down prices. Tousaw and John Conroy also pointed out that these prices could force sick Canadians into poverty in order to pay for the required amount of cannabis from their Licensed Producer (LP), to seek avenues of access outside of the legal framework, to grow unlawfully, or simply have to go without medication.Tweed and Cannimed, two big Licensed Producers under the MMPR, the Crown pointed out, have affordability programs for patients. The Crown also noted that many Canadians have trouble affording many other prescription drugs.
I felt like the individualistic reality of using cannabis to treat a variety of symptoms was lost somewhere in that statement. It may be true that LPs across the board have some type of affordability pricing, but cannabis is such an individualized treatment, finding what works the best for one person certainly won’t be true for others, so why should low-income patients be relegated to using only ‘discount’ strains, or smaller quantities because they can’t afford to “fill” their prescriptions?
I certainly am not criticizing the LPs who have these programs: they are very important and not all Producers offer this as an option – so it’s certainly significant. But, the argument that the presence of these options is the solution to issues around affordability can be quite problematic.
Many producers have various low-cost options available, and/or discount plans for low-income patients. These are all important and are likely used by many to substitute the quantity they need, perhaps alternating between lower and higher cost strains. This also points to a better understanding of the patient population of medical cannabis users in Canada, but even with these solutions, the bottom line is the MMPR has increased the economic burden of access for patients, particularly those who grew (or continue to grow) for themselves. Cannabis also becomes substantially cheaper when you buy in larger quantities from the illegal market, oppose to paying gram for gram.
When looking at the various compassion pricing models, I do think the “overall” discounts are best practice – it would be naïve to think that one, two or even three strains will always be the best choice for an individual. Low-income patients certainly will need access beyond these strains, or will need other options which subsidized overall orders- like medical benefit coverage- to afford the quantity needed even with overall discounts on orders.
Further, we know that may patients use a variety of strains depending on the time of day, what they are doing or their symptoms, and patients may know they benefit from using this strain during the day, and that strain during the evening, and those strains they need may be a whopping $12/gram before discount depending on where the patient is registered.
By the end, the Court reserved judgment, so patients will have to wait for the answer, which hopefully comes soon. Although many issues were discussed- the 150 gram limit imposed on patients covered by the injunction, and lack of administrative route for address changes, leaving many patients with what John Conroy explained as a “hollow right”. Affordable, quality cannabis should be a right for all, not a privilege for few.
I Didn't see this posted here?
On Monday’s Allard Injunction Appeal
The injunction for the Allard et al. and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada case was in the Federal Court of Appeals this week in Vancouver – better known as the injunction case to allows existing MMAR patients with valid personal growing licenses to continue growing until the constitutional challenge is heard next February. The injunction granted is important because it seeks to prevent the violation of patient’s section 7 Charter rights – including the right to life, liberty and security.
One very small piece of the Crown’s discussion centered on affordability and access. This is increasingly complex for patients, even those with immaculate medical benefits, because cannabis is regulated by both the NCR and the CDSA, but doesn’t have a Drug Identification Number (DIN). Without a DIN, it’s almost impossible for medical plan coverage.
One reason why the injunction was granted is how many patients simply can’t afford the required quantities of cannabis to treat their symptoms under the MMPR system. Although during the injunction case issues of affordability were based on “projected” prices Licensed Producers (LPs) would offer, the MMPR is now definitely in full swing, demonstrating the projected prices of $6-12 (I would argue the higher end of this) are very much a reality.
The Crown also argued that the market was in a state of flux, but as lawyer Kirk Tousaw pointed out, patients do not have the time to sit and wait for the market to drive down prices. Tousaw and John Conroy also pointed out that these prices could force sick Canadians into poverty in order to pay for the required amount of cannabis from their Licensed Producer (LP), to seek avenues of access outside of the legal framework, to grow unlawfully, or simply have to go without medication.Tweed and Cannimed, two big Licensed Producers under the MMPR, the Crown pointed out, have affordability programs for patients. The Crown also noted that many Canadians have trouble affording many other prescription drugs.
I felt like the individualistic reality of using cannabis to treat a variety of symptoms was lost somewhere in that statement. It may be true that LPs across the board have some type of affordability pricing, but cannabis is such an individualized treatment, finding what works the best for one person certainly won’t be true for others, so why should low-income patients be relegated to using only ‘discount’ strains, or smaller quantities because they can’t afford to “fill” their prescriptions?
I certainly am not criticizing the LPs who have these programs: they are very important and not all Producers offer this as an option – so it’s certainly significant. But, the argument that the presence of these options is the solution to issues around affordability can be quite problematic.
Many producers have various low-cost options available, and/or discount plans for low-income patients. These are all important and are likely used by many to substitute the quantity they need, perhaps alternating between lower and higher cost strains. This also points to a better understanding of the patient population of medical cannabis users in Canada, but even with these solutions, the bottom line is the MMPR has increased the economic burden of access for patients, particularly those who grew (or continue to grow) for themselves. Cannabis also becomes substantially cheaper when you buy in larger quantities from the illegal market, oppose to paying gram for gram.
When looking at the various compassion pricing models, I do think the “overall” discounts are best practice – it would be naïve to think that one, two or even three strains will always be the best choice for an individual. Low-income patients certainly will need access beyond these strains, or will need other options which subsidized overall orders- like medical benefit coverage- to afford the quantity needed even with overall discounts on orders.
Further, we know that may patients use a variety of strains depending on the time of day, what they are doing or their symptoms, and patients may know they benefit from using this strain during the day, and that strain during the evening, and those strains they need may be a whopping $12/gram before discount depending on where the patient is registered.
By the end, the Court reserved judgment, so patients will have to wait for the answer, which hopefully comes soon. Although many issues were discussed- the 150 gram limit imposed on patients covered by the injunction, and lack of administrative route for address changes, leaving many patients with what John Conroy explained as a “hollow right”. Affordable, quality cannabis should be a right for all, not a privilege for few.
j0yr1d3
Well-Known Member
This is false. The February case is a constitutional challenge at the Federal level. The only case being heard by the supreme court is the Owen Smith case on extracts. No matter the outcome of the constitutional challenge, the losing side is almost guaranteed to appeal.
CannaReview
Well-Known Member
All this time and there's not one new update on the MMAR Coalition site but they did have time to put up an event flyer?
WHATFG
Well-Known Member
I understood that the mmpr is being challenged in SC in February. The injunction was a temporary measure to preserve patients rights to grow etc. The injunction went to federal court because it is an action against the government....now I see what you're saying ns...mmpr being challenged in federal court can be appealed to SC? Yes...