doingdishes
Well-Known Member
i would hope to do this to prevent getting busted.
we'll know more in less than 30 days....Aug 24 can't come fast enough
My right to treat myself without medical professionals
- Thread starter VIANARCHRIS
- Start date
we'll know more in less than 30 days....Aug 24 can't come fast enough
VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
But it is so much more entertaining to force them to make changes. Simply going underground may solve my access issue, providing I go unnoticed, but it won't address what I believe is a breach of my human rights. Doctors need to be pushed off that pedestal they have put themselves on and realize they do not have my permission to determine what my quality of life is going to be. I may go further and argue that Health Canada is over-stepping it's mandate by requiring me to provide them with personal information in order to treat myself with a plant. They have proven they cannot be trusted to protect that information, and it serves no public interest fort hem to have it
GroErr
Well-Known Member
I hear you and applaud you if you take them on, I'd support the cause, financially. Personally, I don't have the energy or time to bother with them. I have no faith in justice through the justice system and could find 100 other things I'd like to do than sit in court rooms with a bunch of MJ blind idiots. Now if they busted me and brought the fight to me, I'd fight them with everything I had, to the supreme court if that's what it takes. When it comes to dealing with me if I'm personally wronged, my partner says she's glad she sleeps with me and doesn't have to deal with me when the shit hits the fan
mauricem00
Well-Known Member
when did they start teaching medicine in law school? why are lawyers,judges and politicians trying to make my heath care decisions for me?
torontoke
Well-Known Member
To protect the kids man
WHATFG
Well-Known Member
I need to see a doctor and don't anticipate that changing anytime soon...wcb likes doctors.
VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
Look at what I found...if I'm reading this correctly, we already have the right to treat ourselves without interference. Maybe they just need a reminder?
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/ille/library/drugs-e.htm#3. Section 7 and the Medical Use of Marijuana
DRUG PROHIBITION AND THE CONSTITUTION
Prepared For The Senate Special Committee On Illegal Drugs
David Goetz
Law and Government Division
1 March 2001
LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT
Justice LaForme of the Ontario Court, General Division found thatby denying the individual the autonomy to choose how to treat his illness, the law infringed his rights to liberty and security of the person under the Charter. The Court adopted the broader conception of the section 7 liberty interest as extending to decisions of "fundamental personal importance" endorsed by a plurality of the Supreme Court of Canada in B. (R.) v. Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto (discussed above).() Weighing the state’s interest in criminalizing marijuana against the individual’s interests in his physical health, Justice LaForme found that the applicant’s interests clearly outweighed those of the state. The Court concluded that "[p]ersonal health and medical care must surely qualify as fundamental matters of personal choice."() For similar reasons, the Court found that the security of the person interest was also engaged.
With respect to security of the person, Justice LaForme applied a formulation of this right based on the opinion of Justice Beetz in Morgentaler (discussed above), which waslater endorsed by Justice Sopinka for the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada in Rodriguez (discussed above): " ‘security of the person’ must include a right of access to medical treatment for a condition representing a danger to life or health without fear of criminal sanction."() In this case, the Court found that "[t]he evidence is clear that Mr. Wakeford finds marijuana to be thebest treatment for his nausea and for the stimulation of his appetite."() The Court went on to observe that Mr. Wakeford’s conclusion seemed reasonable in the circumstances and concluded: "t cannot be said, on the facts of this case, that Mr. Wakeford is not entitled to choose his method of treatment… [t]he [Controlled Drugs and Substances Act], by denying him that right, I find, infringes upon his right to security of the person."
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/ille/library/drugs-e.htm#3. Section 7 and the Medical Use of Marijuana
DRUG PROHIBITION AND THE CONSTITUTION
Prepared For The Senate Special Committee On Illegal Drugs
David Goetz
Law and Government Division
1 March 2001
LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT
Justice LaForme of the Ontario Court, General Division found thatby denying the individual the autonomy to choose how to treat his illness, the law infringed his rights to liberty and security of the person under the Charter. The Court adopted the broader conception of the section 7 liberty interest as extending to decisions of "fundamental personal importance" endorsed by a plurality of the Supreme Court of Canada in B. (R.) v. Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto (discussed above).() Weighing the state’s interest in criminalizing marijuana against the individual’s interests in his physical health, Justice LaForme found that the applicant’s interests clearly outweighed those of the state. The Court concluded that "[p]ersonal health and medical care must surely qualify as fundamental matters of personal choice."() For similar reasons, the Court found that the security of the person interest was also engaged.
With respect to security of the person, Justice LaForme applied a formulation of this right based on the opinion of Justice Beetz in Morgentaler (discussed above), which waslater endorsed by Justice Sopinka for the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada in Rodriguez (discussed above): " ‘security of the person’ must include a right of access to medical treatment for a condition representing a danger to life or health without fear of criminal sanction."() In this case, the Court found that "[t]he evidence is clear that Mr. Wakeford finds marijuana to be thebest treatment for his nausea and for the stimulation of his appetite."() The Court went on to observe that Mr. Wakeford’s conclusion seemed reasonable in the circumstances and concluded: "t cannot be said, on the facts of this case, that Mr. Wakeford is not entitled to choose his method of treatment… [t]he [Controlled Drugs and Substances Act], by denying him that right, I find, infringes upon his right to security of the person."
VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
[QUOTE="VIANARCHRIS, post: 12816403, member: 824521"]Weighing the state’s interest in criminalizing marijuana against the individual’s interests in his physical health[/QUOTE]
There should be no argument now that the state has said they no longer have an interest in criminalizing marijuana....
There should be no argument now that the state has said they no longer have an interest in criminalizing marijuana....
VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
I'm thinking a section 7 class action against HC for forcing sick Canadians to give up their right to personal autonomy in order to exercise their right to determine treatment may be in order. Watch them freak when we argue doctors and HC have no legal jurisdiction over cannabis use as a personal medical choice. They're gonna wish they had just left the mmar alone when I'm done!
VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
Too big to post, but interesting reading. Lets flip this whole thing on it's head by cutting doctors and HC out of the picture. Everything I am reading tells me we have that right. Once it is removed from the cdsa and made legal for recreational use, their last argument to restrict my rights disappears.
http://www.lco-cdo.org/en/older-adults-lco-funded-papers-margaret-hall-sectionIII
http://www.lco-cdo.org/en/older-adults-lco-funded-papers-margaret-hall-sectionIII
The Hippy
Well-Known Member
I hope the greed kills them.
GroErr
Well-Known Member
Doesn't work, my ex is still siphoning funds from my account 7 years later. Although she looks like shit she hasn't kicked it yet
The Hippy
Well-Known Member
I met a guy who said his wife was still at it 12 years after divorce. Anytime he got money..she'd hear about it through the kids. He said the last judge told her " your done lady " don't ever bother him again. True story.Doesn't work, my ex is still siphoning funds from my account 7 years later. Although she looks like shit she hasn't kicked it yet
GroErr
Well-Known Member
I get to take her back next year as part of the original agreement. In the original agreement she had to sign off and did that there would be no increase as the payments were based on what I was making at the time. Also had her sign off on any win-falls like a lottery, inheritance or selling off my business. And she couldn't initiate a review/increase, any increase in her income had to come from self-sufficiency. But that's only because I fought her for 3 years and after $45k. Bottom line is in the clauses, if you don't get them into the agreement you end up in court all the time.
But a big part of the agreement was that she'd have to attempt to become self-sufficient over that period of time and they (judges) put a lot of weight into that clause. She hasn't worked a day since we split so I'm going for a full stop on payments and maybe settle for 1/2 with a specific end date. She obviously needs an incentive to get off her ass
The thing is, after going through the family court system there is no justice and it all comes down to which judge you get and the mood they're in that day. I could get lucky and get one who tells her to get on with her life or I could get a judge who thinks that because I make what I make, she should have a life of luxury while sitting on her ass. It's a f'd up system which I have no faith in but I'll roll the dice, $5 to $10k is nothing compared to what I pay her.
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
You should have this right, but you don't. The Mernagh case ruled that only physicians have control over what you can put into your body. It was a truly awful decision that was one of the worst I've ever read. I wish you luck because I want you to win, but the court specifically ruled on this. You should check it out.
VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
I disagree. While I am not well versed on the Mernagh case, I have found other precedents that give my case validity. When possession is no longer a crime for Canadian adults, and cannabis is no longer under the cdsa, denying me autonomy over my own body becomes even more egregious.
"denying the individual the autonomy to choose how to treat his illness, the law infringed his rights to liberty and security of the person under the Charter. The Court adopted the broader conception of the section 7 liberty interest as extending to decisions of "fundamental personal importance"
"In order to put the cases relating specifically to the drug legislation into perspective, relevant aspects of the general evolution of section 7 interpretation are described. The paper notes the following jurisprudential developments: a broadening of the liberty interest beyond freedom from physical restraint to include freedom from state interference in matters of "fundamental personal importance"; the interpretation of "security of the person" as protecting a broad autonomy over one’s body and, in particular, the right to avail oneself of beneficial treatments for serious medical conditions; and the increasing tendency of the courts to critically review the substantive policy underlying legislation in ensuring conformity with the principles of fundamental justice. It is argued that these general developments in section 7 jurisprudence have had a noticeable impact on how the courts have handled section 7 challenges to the drug prohibition laws.
Who knows how successful I'll be, but I have nothing to lose by defending and demanding what I perceive to be my fundamental rights. I do not trust the medical profession or pharma drugs and I should not have to share any personal information with them. Health Canada does not require any other patient to seek their permission to or provide personal information, and it serves no public interest in them having that information.