Raided...

OGEvilgenius said:

Only temporarily for now. We'll see what the government does with the new regs. They certainly do not have to allow us to grow. Just provide reasonable access, which the court may very well rule is covered as long as the government is more proactive in financing people who can't afford to pay on some level whether it's price controls or simply offering the medicine to low income folk are a lower cost... there are many ways to skin a cat here.

The government could hypothetically reintroduce the MMPR with a few modest changes and we're back in court fighting again with either of these options. And it might be a different judge and the result could be much different too.

The real point here is that through the jury system we have recourse against all bad law, at least that's the intent of the Magna Carta. We've tossed that aside in Canada by allowing the Crown to appeal guilty verdicts. It's the most powerful peaceful recourse we have against bad law. By far. Prosecutors are only told to prosecute based on probability of conviction. This is literally the criteria they use. If people aren't willing to convict then they have a real problem, except they can appeal to a higher court without a jury. They can appeal on the grounds of an unreasonable verdict, which is exactly the grounds they would use if a jury went not guilty on a guy who obviously was, in protest of the law.

Double Jeopardy is important. We don't really have it.

Click to expand...

Here we go again. Predictions of doom and gloom and government conspiracy to deny cannabis patients their meds. The government could ignore the court order and reintroduce the mmpr, but the chances of them willingly wanting to go for round three are pretty slim. They could also ban land ownership and confiscate your property, or take your kids and put them in residential schools. It's happened before. Your theory of "just provide reasonable access" is flawed in a number of ways. The courts ruled on access...not costs. Unless the LP's are able to provide uninterrupted supplies of patient specific strains, one needs to grow their own. Next, they would have to convince voters that their tax dollars should go toward keeping cannabis patients in medicine, rather than wasting the money on schools and hospitals. Should be an easy sell.....we've seen the stories and complaints over the few million spent on Vets, your theory would raise that to hundreds of millions of provincial tax dollars every year. Never, ever going to happen, even in pot friendly BC.
I'm not sure where you came up with this magna carta stuff, or how you think it is going to hurt us, but according to this article (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/magna-carta/) it's alive and well. I honestly think you are being overly paranoid or overly dramatic...or both. Sure the gov can appeal a verdict...but so can the defendant. I's worked pretty well so far...
"(basically not allowing cannabis users to drive legally if Blair has his way". Another flawed and over dramatized statement, imo. Firstly, Blair does not and will not have the authority to pass law unilaterally. I agree some of the talk around driving is just ridiculous, but that's all it is...talk. Any law they introduce must respect our constitution and charter, or much like we've done for the last decade, we challenge it and force change. Only this time we have millions of Canadians demanding fairness and not just 40,000. 2) They've used roadside sobriety tests in BC for years to check impairment if they suspect cannabis use. If the person can walk the line and touch their nose, etc., they are free to carry on. It's happened to me and more recently, my son.
I'm not saying politicians are going to come up with great legislation for rec weed initially, but it will be a base we can work on to get to where we need to be. I don't expect there to be many surprises come August 24 for us patients. My garden ain't going anywhere.
I don't mean to sunshine on your rainy parade, but I'm just not seeing what you are.

WHATFG said:

I am the first to say they will fuck this up...and I believe we have the right to grow it's the regs that will screw us over...@junglestrikeguy????2 cents...

Click to expand...

I don't see they have any choice based on the ruling. But definitely agree it'll be interesting to see how it's implemented. If they put enough restrictions, fees, rules, it may not be worth the bother. I really don't care as I've already decided I'm not registering in the medical program. Will wait until they legalize as that may not require registration of any sort. I'll never be a part of any program that requires registration. It's worked for me so far and I see no need for it if it's legalized.

WHATFG said:

I am the first to say they will fuck this up...and I believe we have the right to grow it's the regs that will screw us over...@junglestrikeguy????2 cents...

Click to expand...

Right to grow : arguably yes.

Will they fuck up the regs : Philpott won't commit to allowing home-grows, so do the math.

Even Tousaw knows it's likely this is going back to court (hopefully this time we get dispensary access in there somewhere). Given Blair's comments as of late and McLellan's appointment to lead the task force on legalization, don't hold your breath on the LPC not screwing this up (either constitutionally valid MMPR or legalization).

Gmack420 said:

Retard what part of buying METH not WEED don't you seem to understand? The fact you lump weed sales together with meth shows you know nothing about the bm. These 2 substances are not the same and are generally not sold by the same type of people. Fuck why do I even bother explaining anything to you your dense so fucking dense is amazing. Buy your weed from a weed dealer not a meth dealer and you'll be fine. Don't do high risk street drug deals and you'll be fine. Yes I've scored weed easily virtually everywhere I've been. Sure there's a few exceptions but if there's weed I'll find it. And just to prove you wrong agian no weed doesn't impair your ability to drive retard.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/kind-study-finds-virtually-driving-impairment-influence-marijuana/

Click to expand...

First off... what's with all the anger and hate? You think childish name calling is going to help convince me of your argument? Again, grow up.

Next... it's true that not all WEED dealers sell other drugs. The guy I used to buy my meds off of before I started growing my own absolutely refused. BUT most DRUG dealers will sell anything they can make a buck off. My friend's kid is in high school and he can get weed, coke, meth, fentanol, X and whole shitload of other things off the same guy. And that goes for most street dealers too... hustlers... out to make a buck any way they can. When I lived in TO, Jane and Finch was a supermarket... get anything you wanted right through your car window. But there was also a good chance you'd get ripped off, stabbed or shot. And you know this perfectly well

The thing with most weed only dealers is that they operate within a closed circle of friends, regular customers, who they trust. They're not out on the street corner or in a bar hustling. And you know this perfectly well too. How do you meet that weed only guy? And even if you do... do you think he's going to offer? Do you think if a new acquaintance asked the weed only guy for some that he would sell it? Fuck no. Only an idiot would. You know this... and yet you call me the retard? Really?

You're a liar.

Next... Don't risk street drug deals and you'll be fine. Yes. True. But again... what if you're new in town and don't know anybody? You have to ask around and HOPE the person you pick isn't a scum bag cunt who'll rip you off.

If I have to explain all this to you... it seems pretty obvious that you know nothing about the BM.

Next... as for the weed impairing ability to drive... that's not even an argument. It is simply chemistry. It is a simple fact. The only people who argue otherwise are boneheaded stoners who can barely tie their shoelaces together. You don't see any doctors or chemists discussing this because they know. Now... to what level of impairment that X amount of weed effects this or that person... that is debatable. And even that changes. I can smoke a bowl one day and hardly feel a thing. Next day, same bowl same strain and... I can't walk straight. it is all dependent on who much you have eaten, how well you have slept, stress levels and on an on...because all of that affects body chemistry. Anyway, that's the last I'll say about impairment. We all smoke the weed to get impaired so to say it doesn't effect your driving is... retarded.

JungleStrikeGuy said:

Philpott won't commit to allowing home-grows, so do the math.

Click to expand...

She also won't commit to banning them. There is no other viable option to satisfy the court decision. Every possible harmful result from allowing home grows was debunked and tossed by the judge, what's changed? We will keep our gardens.

VIANARCHRIS said:

She also won't commit to banning them. There is no other viable option to satisfy the court decision. Every possible harmful result from allowing home grows was debunked and tossed by the judge, what's changed? We will keep our gardens.

Click to expand...

I've gone over why things are not as rosy as you continue to contend in the past, and there's not really any point in doing it again. If you want to trust the institution(s) that responded to 1:1 DG to patient ratio being unconstitutional by changing it to 2:1, be my guest.

This govt is currently rushing through a bill that courts have already suggested will not pass a constitutional test (C-14, assisted dying) so 'but the court said' doesn't really hold much weight (even less than it did before the C-14 debacle).

JungleStrikeGuy said:

I've gone over why things are not as rosy as you continue to contend in the past, and there's not really any point in doing it again. If you want to trust the institution(s) that responded to 1:1 DG to patient ratio being unconstitutional by changing it to 2:1, be my guest.

This govt is currently rushing through a bill that courts have already suggested will not pass a constitutional test (C-14, assisted dying) so 'but the court said' doesn't really hold much weight (even less than it did before the C-14 debacle).

Click to expand...

C-14 probably won't pass, because of unconstitutional elements. And if it does pass with those elements in it then it certainly will go to the supreme court, who will throw it right back at the gov, who will have to re-write it... just like the whole deal mmar is going through right now.

So...yes... "but the court said" does hold a LOT of weight.

This is our "system" working... not perfect, but better than most...

JungleStrikeGuy said:

If you want to trust the institution(s) that responded to 1:1 DG to patient ratio being unconstitutional by changing it to 2:1, be my guest.

Click to expand...

Are you saying there is an alternative? If there is another entity we should be throwing our support behind, I'd like to hear about it. Right now, and for the next 4 years, there is one majority government making the decisions and I don't see the benefit of predicting the worst. I'm not saying they will come up with a flawless system or one that works for everyone all the time,l but I just don't see a valid argument for banning homegrows given the court ruling. When and if they introduce something that again violates our rights, I will be the first one protesting, but so far that hasn't happened. I prefer to relax for the summer and not worry about hypothetical 'what-if's'...but that's me. Neither of us is right or wrong until August 24...I'm thinkin' happy thoughts! Lol

The LAW now states we must be allowed to grow our own come August. Rather simple I thought. Pretty black and white

VIANARCHRIS said:

She also won't commit to banning them. There is no other viable option to satisfy the court decision. Every possible harmful result from allowing home grows was debunked and tossed by the judge, what's changed? We will keep our gardens.

Click to expand...

I agree. We will keep our gardens. The only question is... what limits will be placed on them and how. I can see the limits coming, but what I can't see is how they will be enforced.

CalyxCrusher said:

The LAW now states we must be allowed to grow our own come August. Rather simple I thought. Pretty black and white

Click to expand...

Nope. There is no 'law', at all when it comes to medical marijuana in Canada. It's a 'regulation' published in the Gazette, for which there is no parliamentary debate or requirement for Senate approval. So, in the context of C-14, if it were handled in the same method the MMPR is, an unconstitutional piece of regulation would have already been passed. The only reason C-14 isn't getting the rubber stamp is because of the Senate miraculously actually doing its job.

There is a precedent in Allard v Canada and a direction to the government. This 'regulation' will not go through the same constitutional checks (for what they're worth) as an actual piece of legislation will. So like I said, I've already outlined the legal principles and such in the past, so there's not really much to be gained in diving into minutiae again only to end up at the same point.

With regards to the 'majority government' point though, you're basically saying there's no point to the house of commons if the government has a majority, which is not true. We'll see in August if we'll just have a court case over legalization or a legalization one and yet another medical one.

JungleStrikeGuy said:

There is a precedent in Allard v Canada and a direction to the government. This 'regulation' will not go through the same constitutional checks (for what they're worth) as an actual piece of legislation will.

Click to expand...

I'm not being argumentative, just trying to gain an understanding of your perspective. Whether or not the new medical program is treated as legislation or a Gazette, the end result is it will have to satisfy the court decision and be able to withstand a constitutional challenge.What do you they will introduce that will violate our rights, and why do you think they will want to continue the war against patients, which they historically lose and with legal rec imminent? There would be no political benefit and a lot of negative press.

jafro daweedhound said:

soon there may only be LP owned or affiliated dispensaries if the government gets its way. We are definitely seeing a multiple speared attack from various levels of government to make the market place more LP friendly. It is a sign of desperation, greed, and poor judgment to say the least.

Click to expand...

Boycott Folks...take your soul back...

OGEvilgenius said:

Only temporarily for now. We'll see what the government does with the new regs. They certainly do not have to allow us to grow. .

Click to expand...

Allard was the fight for our right to grow so i am very puzzled by your comment. we won the case so they DO have to let us grow

JungleStrikeGuy said:

Nope. There is no 'law', at all when it comes to medical marijuana in Canada. It's a 'regulation' published in the Gazette, for which there is no parliamentary debate or requirement for Senate approval. So, in the context of C-14, if it were handled in the same method the MMPR is, an unconstitutional piece of regulation would have already been passed. The only reason C-14 isn't getting the rubber stamp is because of the Senate miraculously actually doing its job.

There is a precedent in Allard v Canada and a direction to the government. This 'regulation' will not go through the same constitutional checks (for what they're worth) as an actual piece of legislation will. So like I said, I've already outlined the legal principles and such in the past, so there's not really much to be gained in diving into minutiae again only to end up at the same point.

With regards to the 'majority government' point though, you're basically saying there's no point to the house of commons if the government has a majority, which is not true. We'll see in August if we'll just have a court case over legalization or a legalization one and yet another medical one.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.
But it doesnt matter how you arrive at the supreme court. If the court judges whatever to be unconstitutional it is back to the drawing board... wherever that may be...

VIANARCHRIS said:

Here we go again. Predictions of doom and gloom and government conspiracy to deny cannabis patients their meds. The government could ignore the court order and reintroduce the mmpr, but the chances of them willingly wanting to go for round three are pretty slim. They could also ban land ownership and confiscate your property, or take your kids and put them in residential schools. It's happened before. Your theory of "just provide reasonable access" is flawed in a number of ways. The courts ruled on access...not costs. Unless the LP's are able to provide uninterrupted supplies of patient specific strains, one needs to grow their own. Next, they would have to convince voters that their tax dollars should go toward keeping cannabis patients in medicine, rather than wasting the money on schools and hospitals. Should be an easy sell.....we've seen the stories and complaints over the few million spent on Vets, your theory would raise that to hundreds of millions of provincial tax dollars every year. Never, ever going to happen, even in pot friendly BC.
I'm not sure where you came up with this magna carta stuff, or how you think it is going to hurt us, but according to this article (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/magna-carta/) it's alive and well. I honestly think you are being overly paranoid or overly dramatic...or both. Sure the gov can appeal a verdict...but so can the defendant. I's worked pretty well so far...
"(basically not allowing cannabis users to drive legally if Blair has his way". Another flawed and over dramatized statement, imo. Firstly, Blair does not and will not have the authority to pass law unilaterally. I agree some of the talk around driving is just ridiculous, but that's all it is...talk. Any law they introduce must respect our constitution and charter, or much like we've done for the last decade, we challenge it and force change. Only this time we have millions of Canadians demanding fairness and not just 40,000. 2) They've used roadside sobriety tests in BC for years to check impairment if they suspect cannabis use. If the person can walk the line and touch their nose, etc., they are free to carry on. It's happened to me and more recently, my son.
I'm not saying politicians are going to come up with great legislation for rec weed initially, but it will be a base we can work on to get to where we need to be. I don't expect there to be many surprises come August 24 for us patients. My garden ain't going anywhere.
I don't mean to sunshine on your rainy parade, but I'm just not seeing what you are.

Click to expand...

That article just cites the decision in 2003 to deny the Magna Carta as a constitutional document. Throwing out near 1000 year old documents that are the basis for our legal system. That just reinforces the point I made, although I was surprised to see you link to it.

I agree that supplementing low income is unlikely, however forcing low prices is not. And given the Liberals apparently want a guaranteed minimum income, I don't think it's that much of a stretch to suggest they might go the former route as well.

They have been rapid fire developing road side tests for Cannabis. They're all complete garbage and say nothing but they want to use them as a starting point despite a lack of evidence the limits they're proposing are even reasonable.

In the United States the government cannot appeal a verdict. In any country with English Common Law as a basis, this should be the case as it's a critical pillar to maintaining freedom from government. Not in Canada though. They can take you to a government appointed judge, so the government has final say over the law, not the citizens.

I believe the supreme court of canada is appointed.

But it does not take kindly to gov intereference or influence. Ask steve "the cunt" harper.

Gquebed said:

I believe the supreme court of canada is appointed.

But it does not take kindly to gov intereference or influence. Ask steve "the cunt" harper.

Click to expand...

If they don't like it, they can be replaced. And if you know anything about systems of power, you are probably well aware that all this spying that's going on is going to really hurt the chances of landing honest Judges as government leadership can use such tools to blackmail people. Which is why EVERY SINGLE totalitarian nightmare in history started with massive surveillance (well, that and to find political enemies).

OGEvilgenius said:

I agree that supplementing low income is unlikely, however forcing low prices is not. And given the Liberals apparently want a guaranteed minimum income, I don't think it's that much of a stretch to suggest they might go the former route as well.

Click to expand...

Which big pharma companies are forced to offer low prices to help out low income patients? That cost is paid by the taxpayer. The LP's have million's of dollars invested and have an obligation to investors and shareholders to create profit. Any attempt by government to control the sale price will be met with a bigger court challenge than anything the patients have brought. The only viable option to satisfy the court is to allow home grows. Let me know if anything changes, but for now I'm sticking with my prediction.

OGEvilgenius said:

If they don't like it, they can be replaced.

Click to expand...

How'd that work for little Stevie Hitler? Seems every single piece of legislation he tried to pass was tossed by those very judges in a CON dominated SCoC. 7 of those judges were appointed by Harper himself. Why could he not just replace them and get his shit passed? It's a little more complicated than that, I'm guessin'.