B.C. to ban the sale of pot in liquor stores, allow landlords to ban home-grown grass
- Thread starter gb123
- Start date
Lightgreen2k
Well-Known Member
"Communal growing room".. share pest that other growers bring in / share plant disease no thanks.
Last edited:
itsmehigh
Well-Known Member
Firstly, we live in Canada and have our "Charter of Rights and Freedoms", US has a constitution.
Second, the "Charter" only pertains to the government, Canadian citizens are not held to account. A land lord can set his own rules, no smoking, no pets, no prostitution etc. As with businesses, no shoes, no shirt, no service.
Itsme.
VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
Huh? Canada also has a constitution - hence every time we've fought government over mmj it's been called a 'constitutional challenge'. http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/05.html
The Charter pertains to EVERYBODY. A landlord CANNOT discriminate against you for your race, religion, disability, sex, etc,etc. They can make rules, but those rules must not violate the charter. The question is, does banning a single species of plant while allowing all others, constitute discriminatory behaviour. That's what we have courts for.
Uncle Reefer
Well-Known Member
But what about a poorly built grow room that destroys the house? You feel you have the right to do this?
VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
Did I say that? You are only permitted to grow 4 plants, I'm sure most people can grow a plant without destroying a house. GB does it with his African Violets. We're not talking about setting up a huge medical or black market grow. Respect your home and the landlords investment and there are no issues. If I can have a potted palm tree in my livingroom, I can have a cannabis sativa.
Uncle Reefer
Well-Known Member
I have seen the horror that is venting exaust into an attic in winter... the horror
Uncle Reefer
Well-Known Member
...and by you I don't mean you in the personal more the general you or in french Vous
VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
I've seen the damage, too. That was when growing was clandestine. There would be no need to hide the smell from 4 plants if you weren't doing anything illegal.
That goes with ZERO concept of growing as well
and IS NOT DONE BY MEDICAL PEOPLE . that own their own homes for cryin out loud
itsmehigh
Well-Known Member
I'm no lawyer, but they were "charter" challenges not "constitutional".
No different than a land lord not allowing smoking, it's his right. He is the master of his domain. A human rights case would need to be filed, nothing to do with charter. As a land lord if I don't like a person for what ever reason I can deny them with no retribution. It's my "constitutional" right. My rights on my property trump your rights, as it should be.
Itsme.
VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
Everyone else seems to think they were constitutional challenges, but call it what you want.
http://thcbiomed.com/constitutional-challenge-of-canadas-medical-marijuana-laws-begins-in-vancouver/
An Ottawa lawyer is launching a constitutional challenge to Canada’s medical marijuana laws as part of his defence of a pot shop clerk charged with drug trafficking.
Are Constitutional Challenges the Future of Canadian Cannabis Litigation?
There is a difference between smoking and growing a plant. Plants can be grown without causing damage whereas smoking indoors WILL cause damage. My argument was whether they can allow me to grow 4 plants of another variety, but ban cannabis.
As a landlord you can deny anybody for any reason - so long as it isn't discriminatory. You can't deny someone because they are black or green, you'll get your ass sued. That wasn't the argument though. My point is whether growing a cannabis plant is a greater risk of causing damage to a rented suite than an African Violet, and if not, whether a landlord can arbitrarily pick and choose species of plants.