"Government will not appeal the Allard medical pot ruling" Philpott

WHATFG

WHATFG

Well-Known Member
Philpott didn’t go into specifics and said it’s too early to say what kind of regulations will be put in place, but said the overall goals will be to deal with affordability and access of medical marijuana.

hmmm...this concerns me...affordability isn't really an issue with home growing as far as I can see annnnd, I also don't have any accessibility problems with home growing...given these are the overall goals I'm a bit confused...is it me?
 
VIANARCHRIS

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
WHATFG said:
Philpott didn’t go into specifics and said it’s too early to say what kind of regulations will be put in place, but said the overall goals will be to deal with affordability and access of medical marijuana.

hmmm...this concerns me...affordability isn't really an issue with home growing as far as I can see annnnd, I also don't have any accessibility problems with home growing...given these are the overall goals I'm a bit confused...is it me?
Click to expand...
from the ruling:
Page:
99
[282]
"I agree that the Plaintiffs have, on a balance of probabilities, demonstrated that cannabis
can be produced safely and securely with limited risk to public safety and consistently with the
promotion of public health. I again emphasize that the object of the restriction is not to eliminate
the risk to health and safety but to reduce it, and on that conception, there are very simple
measures that can be taken to minimally impact the section 7 interests"
[284]
"The Defendant’s s 1 argument must fail for the same reasons that
I have found the
restriction arbitrary and overbroad."
[285]
"I conclude that the infringement of section 7 is not justified under section 1 of the
Charter"

I don't think Phelan left them any option but to allow home grows.
.
 
N

nobody important 666

Well-Known Member
cannadan said:
I truly hope the grow box is just talk....I would hate to be restricted to a certain sized box...
to do my growing in
I'm becoming less and less flexible each day....and could not operate in a confined space.
I personally think, a grow room properly constructed out of light gauge steel stud and something like cement board,for a sheathing, with the joints all taped and sealed. would not allow for a burn to take place...unless the room is purposely filled with a large volume of combustible material.
Lights and green plants would not be enough by volume ...to build up enough heat to overtake the cement sheathing
and be transferred into the wood walls of a residential building.
and resilient channel could also be applied behind the light gauge steel studs against the wood studs and allow for a 3 hour burn time supposing there was enough combustibles present and in a dense enough volume to allow the heat to penetrate .
mold and mildew resistant paint could be applied over the cement board and you would have a cleanable room.
That type of construction would take care of 2 of the big three supposed area's of concern that the government and insurance/police etc would have....
Video cams and proper locks would provide the 3rd.
Click to expand...
If we get stuck with grow boxes im going to get a cargo container. Impossible to burn and a monster bitch to steal.
 
J

JungleStrikeGuy

Well-Known Member
VIANARCHRIS said:
from the ruling:
"I conclude that the infringement of section 7 is not justified under section 1 of the
Charter"

I don't think Phelan left them any option but to allow home grows.
.
Click to expand...
Yep. Regulations that just put a price cap on LP's or something (I would love to see them lose their minds if this is the solution) but still ban home grows are, as Justice Phelan said over-broad and thus not saved by s.1.

As far as dosage, also correct in that it has to be performed by Drs, so I'd really like to see what they'd propose as far as limiting plants.

Same deal with 'affordability', it's either price cap or subsidize, and the public would lose it if it's integrated into a tax somewhere. Accessibility hopefully means we'll get storefronts of some kind at least.
 
buckets

buckets

Well-Known Member
They could come back in six months time and ask judge phelan for more time. In which case all under the injunction would still be able to grow but those others who fell beneath the cracks...not so good if Phelan doesn't throw them a bone soon.
 
VIANARCHRIS

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
buckets said:
They could come back in six months time and ask judge phelan for more time. In which case all under the injunction would still be able to grow but those others who fell beneath the cracks...not so good if Phelan doesn't throw them a bone soon.
Click to expand...
I think if they intended on asking for an extension, they would have done so yesterday. Everybody will be growing by Aug.24
nobody important 666 said:
If we get stuck with grow boxes im going to get a cargo container. Impossible to burn and a monster bitch to steal.
Click to expand...
Phelan ruled there is no inherent danger to existing grow methods so to insist on a certain appliance to grow is 'overbroad' and continues to violate section 7.
 
jafro daweedhound

jafro daweedhound

Well-Known Member
VIANARCHRIS said:
The only thing they could fuck with would be the number of grams/day vs. number of plants. I have 49 plants for 10g/day...they could say 20 plants would yield that much or something, but only a doctor can determine 'dosage'.
Click to expand...
At the Allard trial at least 2 of the government witnesses ( I believe from Israel and Italy (?)) testified that Canadian patients are allowed to grow / posses larger amounts than in their countries. I bet they will try to use that to our detriment.
Plant count is lame to start with, a plant can be an ounce or 10lbs.
 
M

Medipuffs

Well-Known Member
we are a sovereign nation and should not be using data from Israel or Italy for our medical cannabis program because frankly we are not in Israel or Italy and what works for one patient doesn't always work for another. If patients require juicing or topical creams or edibles with multiple grams of honey oil/hashish a day to relieve pain or inflammation etc... then its up to a doctor that has spent time with the patient to prescribe and maintain an overview of said patient and their health. It doesn't need to be accounted for in such a manner because its about quality of life, therapeutic relief and basic rights to a medicine that you are comfortable with that helps you. In light of that its in nobody's best interest to reduce or restrict access to cannabis for medical patients. Anybody in this country who wants to get a bag of bud, can and does so already. Medical and recreational are two different animals and the fear mongering put forth in the allard trial by the conservative government is just that, fear mongering.

@ jafro: I am not disrespecting you or talking down to you at all, i am just using your post as a starting point to formulate an opinion on the restriction of plant count numbers or grams per day. I enjoy your posts :)
 
T

TheDizzyBizzy

Well-Known Member
VIANARCHRIS said:
from the ruling:
Page:
99
[282]
"I agree that the Plaintiffs have, on a balance of probabilities, demonstrated that cannabis
can be produced safely and securely with limited risk to public safety and consistently with the
promotion of public health. I again emphasize that the object of the restriction is not to eliminate
the risk to health and safety but to reduce it, and on that conception, there are very simple
measures that can be taken to minimally impact the section 7 interests"
[284]
"The Defendant’s s 1 argument must fail for the same reasons that
I have found the
restriction arbitrary and overbroad."
[285]
"I conclude that the infringement of section 7 is not justified under section 1 of the
Charter"

I don't think Phelan left them any option but to allow home grows.
.
Click to expand...
Page:
8
of consumption, the evidence adduced during the course of the litigation focused on the
Plaintiffs’ access to marihuana considering dosages, strains, cultivation, cost economics and the
administration of the drug
in other jurisdictions.
[13]
The anecdotal evidence of the Plaintiffs
on the impact of different strains
is accepted but
its weight is not significant. The Court is not in any position to prescribe or condone different
medical treatments. The Defendant asks th
e Court to conclude that, given the high level of use of
medical marihuana (significantly more than some other countries), Canadian medical
practitioners are, in effect, overprescribing medical marihuana. There is insufficient evidence for
the Court to rea
ch that conclusion much less ground a s 1 finding on that basis.
[14]
To the extent that affordability was advanced as a ground of s 7 violation, it has not been
made out
. M
ore importantly
, it is not
necessary to make such a finding. Affordability can be a
barr
ier to access, particularly where it is a choice made to exp
end funds on medical treatment to
the detriment of other basic
needs
. However, this case does not turn on a right to “cheap drugs”,
nor a right “to grow
one’s
own”
, nor do the Plaintiffs seek to e
stablish such a positive right from
government.
 
T

TheDizzyBizzy

Well-Known Member
Medipuffs said:
we are a sovereign nation and should not be using data from Israel or Italy for our medical cannabis program because frankly we are not in Israel or Italy and what works for one patient doesn't always work for another. If patients require juicing or topical creams or edibles with multiple grams of honey oil/hashish a day to relieve pain or inflammation etc... then its up to a doctor that has spent time with the patient to prescribe and maintain an overview of said patient and their health. It doesn't need to be accounted for in such a manner because its about quality of life, therapeutic relief and basic rights to a medicine that you are comfortable with that helps you. In light of that its in nobody's best interest to reduce or restrict access to cannabis for medical patients. Anybody in this country who wants to get a bag of bud, can and does so already. Medical and recreational are two different animals and the fear mongering put forth in the allard trial by the conservative government is just that, fear mongering.

@ jafro: I am not disrespecting you or talking down to you at all, i am just using your post as a starting point to formulate an opinion on the restriction of plant count numbers or grams per day. I enjoy your posts :)
Click to expand...
That's the stupidest thing I've heard. Canada can't learn from other countries? You sound like an American. You should run for the Republicans.
 
jafro daweedhound

jafro daweedhound

Well-Known Member
Medipuffs said:
we are a sovereign nation and should not be using data from Israel or Italy for our medical cannabis program because frankly we are not in Israel or Italy and what works for one patient doesn't always work for another. If patients require juicing or topical creams or edibles with multiple grams of honey oil/hashish a day to relieve pain or inflammation etc... then its up to a doctor that has spent time with the patient to prescribe and maintain an overview of said patient and their health. It doesn't need to be accounted for in such a manner because its about quality of life, therapeutic relief and basic rights to a medicine that you are comfortable with that helps you. In light of that its in nobody's best interest to reduce or restrict access to cannabis for medical patients. Anybody in this country who wants to get a bag of bud, can and does so already. Medical and recreational are two different animals and the fear mongering put forth in the allard trial by the conservative government is just that, fear mongering.

@ jafro: I am not disrespecting you or talking down to you at all, i am just using your post as a starting point to formulate an opinion on the restriction of plant count numbers or grams per day. I enjoy your posts :)
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree with you more.
I am just throwing out what I heard at the trial just to get an idea of others opinions and take on what happened and more importantly ideas on where we could end up in the next 5 months... At this point who knows what could happen .The conservatives; lied, misled, and spun what ever they could to make us look like a bunch of out of control fools. Fortunately the only ones believing them were themselves, though at times I think they even had a hard time.
I drove 1500kms last spring and took a week of work to watch what was going on - to be one of the many witnesses as to how low the conservatives would stoup to hurt people. I watched the fraud chief from surrey( asshole) and 4 other days of the proceedings. I am just as committed to one day having justice as everyone else here is. One day soon we will have our victory my friend...
You can quote me anytime you want:weed:
 
VIANARCHRIS

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
TheDizzyBizzy said:
Page:
8
of consumption, the evidence adduced during the course of the litigation focused on the
Plaintiffs’ access to marihuana considering dosages, strains, cultivation, cost economics and the
administration of the drug
in other jurisdictions.
[13]
The anecdotal evidence of the Plaintiffs
on the impact of different strains
is accepted but
its weight is not significant. The Court is not in any position to prescribe or condone different
medical treatments. The Defendant asks th
e Court to conclude that, given the high level of use of
medical marihuana (significantly more than some other countries), Canadian medical
practitioners are, in effect, overprescribing medical marihuana. There is insufficient evidence for
the Court to rea
ch that conclusion much less ground a s 1 finding on that basis.
[14]
To the extent that affordability was advanced as a ground of s 7 violation, it has not been
made out
. M
ore importantly
, it is not
necessary to make such a finding. Affordability can be a
barr
ier to access, particularly where it is a choice made to exp
end funds on medical treatment to
the detriment of other basic
needs
. However, this case does not turn on a right to “cheap drugs”,
nor a right “to grow
one’s
own”
, nor do the Plaintiffs seek to e
stablish such a positive right from
government.
Click to expand...
And your point is...? An explanation of reasons for judgement doesn't change the ruling that banning home grows is 'overbroad' and violates section 7. The government needs to justify to the court why home grows pose a substantial risk to public safety and they failed, therefore such restrictions are unconstitutional. It can't be much clearer. Nobody is coming for our gardens...ever again.
 
jafro daweedhound

jafro daweedhound

Well-Known Member
TheDizzyBizzy said:
That's the stupidest thing I've heard. Canada can't learn from other countries?
Click to expand...
Perhaps the other countries could learn from Canada ??? Why they had people from other countries here really shows their desperation to find some foot hold to launch an attack from. Unfortunately for them the Judge was buying it.
 
J

JungleStrikeGuy

Well-Known Member
Some words from the man Tousaw himself on Facebook:

'
Let's also remember that Justice Phelan said strain diversity was very important to access. And that producing for yourself was itself therapeutic.

Put another way: if the response to Allard does not include robust personal possession rights then this government is no better than Harper's and we will be suing again. And again. And again.'

I'm glad to see he's still committed to taking the bad guys down (sure he meant production instead of posession). As Princess Leia says, it's not over yet.

Dizzy, that's a good find, in essence what it means is that those 2 issues aren't the central tenets of the case, but contributing factors. Regardless, the findings mean the government would have to find some other line of reasoning than the public safety / etc to justify a blanket ban since they were proven to be less than truthful about the actual evidence, and I don't see any other reason why they would be able to justify banning home grows.

But they can definitely still screw us around, so we'll see what happens in August. I'm not getting my hopes up.
 
WHATFG

WHATFG

Well-Known Member
Well I have too much time on my hands....while I am delighted that Justice Phelan ruled in our favour, I am still not convinced that mojo's 18 trees in his backyard are going to be acceptable....they could limit plant counts, limit watts, make you grow in a box....the point is they are still allowing you to grow thereby following the courts ruling....1 dg, 2 patients....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top