" Doctors' group wants to scrap Canada's medical cannabis program

VIANARCHRIS

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
bigmanc said:
Who’s funding the 4yr constitutional battle? Hands? Anyone? Not the lawyers that won our garden cause the ones who got us our permits are telling us the med program is coming to an end. You have HC saying no medical value. Associations country wide from landlords to safety authorities, police forces all wanting to prevent home growing.

So when it’s legalized and impairment laws and home growing laws and bylaws, insurance companies aswell as mortgage companies enforcing there own bylaws and dumb fucking HC is sitting there “hmmm I can fix these complaints and help my investment portfolio” HC will do what they want and deem no medicinal value...access granted it’s legalized. Another damn thing, we didn’t win a “right to grow” we won a “right to access” so they copied and pasted some sections from MMAR b1/b2 forms and merged it with acmpr application. When we won access it’s up to them on how they introduce that, not specifically a garden. When it’s on every corner and legalization is riddled with political money, they won’t hesitate to help them. Same old same old with HC, we have gotten nothing from them. It’s only been headaches. Might be a couple years but I trust what our lawyers have said is true. I kinda just reiterated what they said.
Click to expand...
I think you are getting all worked up over a non existant problem. I dont forsee any constitutional challenges over grow rights and I dont see medical coming to an end. None of your arguments make zense.
HC has always said cannabis has no medicinal value. The homegrowing is not an izsue. All of the organizations you mentioned had an opportunity to plead their case during the task force phase...they decided to a!low grows. Impairment laws, mortgage companies and insurance compa ies do not have any influence on patients needs or rights. Included in all provincial cannabis legislation is the phrase "Non medical use", meaning they accept that there is and will be a separate medical system. I have not heard anyone other than a few doctors argue against it, and they have zero say. Relax...nobody is taking your grow rights
 
bigmanc

bigmanc

Well-Known Member
VIANARCHRIS said:
I think you are getting all worked up over a non existant problem. I dont forsee any constitutional challenges over grow rights and I dont see medical coming to an end. None of your arguments make zense.
HC has always said cannabis has no medicinal value. The homegrowing is not an izsue. All of the organizations you mentioned had an opportunity to plead their case during the task force phase...they decided to a!low grows. Impairment laws, mortgage companies and insurance compa ies do not have any influence on patients needs or rights. Included in all provincial cannabis legislation is the phrase "Non medical use", meaning they accept that there is and will be a separate medical system. I have not heard anyone other than a few doctors argue against it, and they have zero say. Relax...nobody is taking your grow rights
Click to expand...
-Grow permits were a issue before
-We just finished a challenge, we won and those layers say no med program up coming.
-home grown is not resolved, senators wish to amend c46
-when they mean “no” value it’s no value
-I don’t have grow rights, either do you

In the meantime, grow grow grow
 
VIANARCHRIS

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
bigmanc said:
-I don’t have grow rights, either do you
Click to expand...
I disagree. It would take Phelan overturning his ruling in order to take away my mmar. Nothing has changed since that ruling other than it will be legal for rec use.
LP's were available for supplying the mmpr and it was found to be unconstitutional. Our right to grow was reinstated under the acmpr.
- I haven't heard any lawyers talking about ending the med program recently.
- The senators can't amend shit. They do not have the power to change legislation.
- HC's viewpoint on the medicinal benefits of cannabis are mute as proven in one of the first court challenges - hence the reason we have a medical system in the first place.
- I'm pretty sure my mmar pinks give me grow rights, and I see nobody trying to take that away. In a few short months, everybody over the age of 19 will have grow rights.
I could be completely wrong and they will announce an end to the medical system while trying to implement a brand new rec system that is already mired in controversy and confusion. What could possibly go wrong for a government there...? I don't think my garden is being threatened....
 
G

gb123

Well-Known Member
Novabudd said:
The only real rights we have are the ones we give ourselves. Fuck govt.
Click to expand...
hard one for most to grasp


ps ...I thought back to our JA days...30 years back..
They used SOAP as a pesticide.if anything.cheap and smokng it wasnt an issue after is rained ;) lol Not that I would use it .but we have in the passed....all it seemed to do was slow the bugs down. Sunlight! ;)
 
Last edited:
cannadan

cannadan

Well-Known Member
Health Canada at some point will have no choice and see that the plant has all kinds of med value.
they will not be able to defy the mounting evidence.
There will be a day when health Canada's web site...will tell you about all the med values of
cannabis. I hope to live long enough to see it.
 
G

gb123

Well-Known Member
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) wants to scrap Canada's medical marijuana program after the country legalizes recreational marijuana this summer. CMA Vice President of Medical Professionalism Jeff Blackmer says the CMA doesn't want to be involved with the prescribing of cannabis once recreational legalization comes into effect.

"Our view is really that now that the government is obviously intending to legalize this, once this is a substance that's available to all Canadians, there's really no need for physicians to continue to serve in that gatekeeper role," Dr. Blackmer said during a heated debate earlier this month at the Canadian Consortium for the Investigation of Cannabinoids conference in Toronto.

Blackmer believes that physicians can't in good conscience recommend cannabis to patients because the research to support medical marijuana is insufficient. He also claims that 8 out of 9 Canadian physicians aren't comfortable with the current state of medical marijuana.

"It's important to recognize that by and large, that level of evidence doesn't reach the quality that we demand for every other product that physicians prescribe."

Dissenting doctors
Dr. Mark Ware - who organized the conference - strongly disagreed with Blackmer. The current Cannabis Act is in place for good reason, according to Ware, and physicians need to be involved in helping patients choose the right medications for their conditions while also informing them of potential drug interactions.

"The worry I see with losing a medical program is it really completely takes the need for a clinician oversight out of the equation," he said. "You're likely to have questions about the potential interaction of cannabis or cannabinoids with those other medications."

Ware added that there is substantial evidence to support cannabis as an effective treatment for chronic pain and appetite loss.

"THC, the psychoactive ingredient, looks like it's effective in managing some forms of severe neuropathic pain, spasticity, and neuropathy in association with multiple sclerosis, appetite loss in patients with HIV wasting syndrome, nausea and vomiting in patients with chemotherapy. And also CBD, the non-psychoactive ingredient, appears to be looking very promising in the treatment of epilepsy in young children with severe convulsive disorders."

For those reasons, Dr. Ware supported the status quo. "Do I think clinicians have enough to be able to authorize a severely affected patient to possess cannabis. Yes I do."

Health Canada weighs in
Health Canada appears to be siding with Ware - for now. Despite recreational legalization, Health Canada intends to maintain a distinct medical marijuana program, but it will be modified in the near future to "create consistency with rules for non-medical use, improve patient access, and reduce the risk of abuse of the system."

So the status quo isn't going anywhere, but if Blackmer is right about the number of doctors who are opposed to recommending marijuana, then medical-marijuana producers might find themselves stuck with a stockpile of medicine that doctors refuse to offer patients.
 
CalyxCrusher

CalyxCrusher

Well-Known Member
bigmanc said:
Who’s funding the 4yr constitutional battle? Hands? Anyone? Not the lawyers that won our garden cause the ones who got us our permits are telling us the med program is coming to an end. You have HC saying no medical value. Associations country wide from landlords to safety authorities, police forces all wanting to prevent home growing.

So when it’s legalized and impairment laws and home growing laws and bylaws, insurance companies aswell as mortgage companies enforcing there own bylaws and dumb fucking HC is sitting there “hmmm I can fix these complaints and help my investment portfolio” HC will do what they want and deem no medicinal value...access granted it’s legalized. Another damn thing, we didn’t win a “right to grow” we won a “right to access” so they copied and pasted some sections from MMAR b1/b2 forms and merged it with acmpr application. When we won access it’s up to them on how they introduce that, not specifically a garden. When it’s on every corner and legalization is riddled with political money, they won’t hesitate to help them. Same old same old with HC, we have gotten nothing from them. It’s only been headaches. Might be a couple years but I trust what our lawyers have said is true. I kinda just reiterated what they said.
Click to expand...
WHAT constituional challenge? You're gettin your panties all in a bunch over hypotheticals...
 
zoic

zoic

Well-Known Member
bigmanc said:
My drivers license says I can drive. Still not a right, a privilege.

You have access rights, not grow rights. Some people also said they had the right to smoke cigarettes near establishments lol
Click to expand...
From Merriam-Webster:
Define privilege: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor.

Not that I care about the nomenclature. I do recognize the rights or privileges will come with a fee, which is for the privileged.
 
bigmanc

bigmanc

Well-Known Member
Take it as ya wish. Rights rights rights rights. You have the right to do anything you want...apparently. Nobody reads judge decisions or listens to there attorneys anymore cause everyone is smarter then the next.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top