You really got me thinking. Well it hurts but here goes. Lol If we mmar patients have a charter challenge due to accessibility then would new patients who were just diagnosed and forced into a system that blocks them from access (which the sc of Canada ruled in favour for accessibility already) ex. Price, availability, strain selection etc. I'm no lawyer but I would say that new patients that were left out of the injunction would be able to have a good shot at a huge class action of there charter rights being violated!!!we are all Canadians at the end of the day!! After all it would be complete ludicrous to tell a person sorry because you were diagnosed on this date not this we aren't giving you access to the quality of life every Canadian deserves. Would someone with legal knowledge please chime in....
Peace
I think you're right...mmpr patients have been forced to spend more for medicine than they should as well. The difference in the scenario I talked about, is that, technically the mmar people are still operating under 'legal legislation'...the injunction 'upheld the law'. The fact that Harper is pissed and won't allow HC to honor their responsibility to administer that program is what the issue is.
In this situation, the mmpr patients are not involved. If the only program available was the mmpr, and they signed up for it, there is no financial loss from the transition or from HC continuing to pretend the mmar no longer exists. The SC case going forward in Feb. (or March?) is the one to argue the unfairness of the obvious hardships placed on mmpr patients vs. those allowed to grow. I don't think a court can make a separate set of rules based on when one got sick....it would just lead to perpetual court challenges. All the patients I know are expecting nothing less than one program for all with the undisputed right to grow what we need. I won't accept less. Even with full legalization we will face challenges that rec users don't, so we need to make sure they get it right.
