MMPR Licensed Producer Thread

C

CannaReview

Well-Known Member
VIANARCHRIS said:
I apologize for lumping you in with HC's Little Puppets. It is difficult to know what side someone is on, on an issue, and you seemed to be supporting LP's. I was seriously trying to provoke a discussion that may churn some positive ideas that could lead to positive change. The LP's are in a perfect position to organize and lobby.
Not one of them bothered to reply which is very telling. I doubt more than one or two will be around in 3 years as growing for recreational use is normalized and the 'medical grade' precautions they are forced to invest in and operate under are no longer needed. If it were my money, I'd be pushing for change NOW while the program is in it's infancy in order to stem the bleeding you know is going to come later. But hey...they're the 'business folk'....
Click to expand...

No problem I only set up the site so patients had an outlet to post their reviews. I'm anti LP as MMPR is a farce when it comes to reasonable access on top of that this in limbo we don't want to legalize so we'll just make half ass attempt is bull shit. There's two perfectly good examples across the border that that it works. Min you the government greed for taxes make the prices insane.
 
S

sativeritas

Member
Looks like a bunch of people are confusing Charter Rights with Court Precedent. The Mernaugh case ruled that HC only had to make Medical Cannabis available - it didnt have to make it easy or affordable. Justice Doherty ruled that non goverment participants in the program (doctors) don't have to make it easy to access medical cannabis under the charter.

Unfortunately the Mernaugh case backfired and set a precedent(common law) that institutions like Doctors, and by extension LP's do not violate a patients charter rights if they choose not to prescribe or make cannabis reasonably available. This case law has yet to be cited but i'm sure it will pop up.

This does not mean that a charter challenge may not be successful against HC on the ground of affordable and reasonable access - but with the above decision its a heck of a lot harder. The government can now make access "illusory" while doctors refuse to sign - and hc can wipe its hands of responsibility, likewise if LP's price out of the reach of some patients that's not HC's problem. Because LP's operate in a free market, and Cannabis is not covered under provincial medical programs - its all fair game.

An argument that could be won is to allow for patients to produce for themselves (and currently is being made).

A charter right is only a right - if you can argue it in court.
 
VIANARCHRIS

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
sativeritas said:
Looks like a bunch of people are confusing Charter Rights with Court Precedent. The Mernaugh case ruled that HC only had to make Medical Cannabis available - it didnt have to make it easy or affordable. Justice Doherty ruled that non goverment participants in the program (doctors) don't have to make it easy to access medical cannabis under the charter.

Unfortunately the Mernaugh case backfired and set a precedent(common law) that institutions like Doctors, and by extension LP's do not violate a patients charter rights if they choose not to prescribe or make cannabis reasonably available. This case law has yet to be cited but i'm sure it will pop up.

This does not mean that a charter challenge may not be successful against HC on the ground of affordable and reasonable access - but with the above decision its a heck of a lot harder. The government can now make access "illusory" while doctors refuse to sign - and hc can wipe its hands of responsibility, likewise if LP's price out of the reach of some patients that's not HC's problem. Because LP's operate in a free market, and Cannabis is not covered under provincial medical programs - its all fair game.

An argument that could be won is to allow for patients to produce for themselves (and currently is being made).

A charter right is only a right - if you can argue it in court.
Click to expand...
The precedent has also been set allowing those with a medical need to access marijuana without a doctor or HC's approval. There isn't a jury that, in 2014, is going to convict a legitimate patient for growing or possessing pot for personal use but diverting ANY to the bm would obviously change things. Laws have died from non-compliance before and this prohibition is no different. While the laws haven't changed much, the attitudes of the public and the courts certainly have. And about it not being covered under medical programs...why then is Viagra? There's the very definition of 'recreational drug'! Screw Harper,screw HC and their Little Puppets and just grow.
 
MarijeJane

MarijeJane

Well-Known Member
VIANARCHRIS said:
The precedent has also been set allowing those with a medical need to access marijuana without a doctor or HC's approval. There isn't a jury that, in 2014, is going to convict a legitimate patient for growing or possessing pot for personal use but diverting ANY to the bm would obviously change things. Laws have died from non-compliance before and this prohibition is no different. While the laws haven't changed much, the attitudes of the public and the courts certainly have. And about it not being covered under medical programs...why then is Viagra? There's the very definition of 'recreational drug'! Screw Harper,screw HC and their Little Puppets and just grow.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that anyone with "a medical need" can grow their own plants or have cannabis with them and not be convicted? I think police in most parts of Canada would disagree and would arrest you, despite your being a "legitimate patient". Possession and cultivation charges and convictions occur daily in Canada. I don't know where you live.
 
VIANARCHRIS

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
That is exactly what I am saying. The courts have said those with a medical need shall be able to access marijuana. No where in that ruling does it say "with Health Canada's permission. There were several cases, in Ontario,I believe, where cultivation and possession charges were thrown out due to the patients inability to get a doctor to sign. I think police in most parts of Canada don't have a fucking clue what's legal and what isn't when it comes to medical marijuana. I didn't say people wouldn't get arrested...I say no jury would convict. I have no doubt possession and cultivation charges are laid regularly, but this conversation was about medical use. How many of these 'daily CONVICTIONS' used a legitimate medical need as a defense? With the abysmal record of HC's attempts at administering the program(s) and the LP's inability to grow a weed, a patient has every defense they need. In BC, chances are no charges would be laid to begin with, as police can't lay charges...only the crown...and their record isn't great.
 
MarijeJane

MarijeJane

Well-Known Member
VIANARCHRIS said:
That is exactly what I am saying. The courts have said those with a medical need shall be able to access marijuana. No where in that ruling does it say "with Health Canada's permission. There were several cases, in Ontario,I believe, where cultivation and possession charges were thrown out due to the patients inability to get a doctor to sign. I think police in most parts of Canada don't have a fucking clue what's legal and what isn't when it comes to medical marijuana. I didn't say people wouldn't get arrested...I say no jury would convict. I have no doubt possession and cultivation charges are laid regularly, but this conversation was about medical use. How many of these 'daily CONVICTIONS' used a legitimate medical need as a defense? With the abysmal record of HC's attempts at administering the program(s) and the LP's inability to grow a weed, a patient has every defense they need. In BC, chances are no charges would be laid to begin with, as police can't lay charges...only the crown...and their record isn't great.
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree with you. I, personally, would never take the chance, even as a very legitimate medical user, to grow or possess cannabis without documentation such as a MMPR pink sheet or a valid and current container from an LP. Like many people, I value my perfect record and enjoy travelling. If I had a drug related charge or conviction, I would lose many of my current rights and my reputation would suffer. Unfortunately, people do get arrested and convicted of cannabis related charges regularly. I advise anyone to never break a law unless you are willing to accept the consequences.

I do agree with you that the courts have said that "reasonable access" must be made available. The problem is that Health Canada seems to have their own definition as to what "reasonable access" is. As current laws are in all of Canada, possession or cultivation of cannabis without permission is illegal. I think all of us here agree that the current laws need changing, but they are the current laws and I choose to work within the law and advocate for change.
 
VIANARCHRIS

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
MarijeJane said:
I strongly disagree with you. I, personally, would never take the chance, even as a very legitimate medical user, to grow or possess cannabis without documentation such as a MMPR pink sheet or a valid and current container from an LP. Like many people, I value my perfect record and enjoy travelling. If I had a drug related charge or conviction, I would lose many of my current rights and my reputation would suffer. Unfortunately, people do get arrested and convicted of cannabis related charges regularly. I advise anyone to never break a law unless you are willing to accept the consequences.

I do agree with you that the courts have said that "reasonable access" must be made available. The problem is that Health Canada seems to have their own definition as to what "reasonable access" is. As current laws are in all of Canada, possession or cultivation of cannabis without permission is illegal. I think all of us here agree that the current laws need changing, but they are the current laws and I choose to work within the law and advocate for change.
Click to expand...
You are again talking about the consequences of a conviction. The reality is any lawyer can easily defend someone that can prove legitimate medical need and no jury and likely few judges would convict an otherwise law-abiding citizen. I understand you don't want to take a risk, and no one asked you to, I simply saying IMO and that of several judges and lawyers, a person could bypass HC.
 
MarijeJane

MarijeJane

Well-Known Member
VIANARCHRIS said:
You are again talking about the consequences of a conviction. The reality is any lawyer can easily defend someone that can prove legitimate medical need and no jury and likely few judges would convict an otherwise law-abiding citizen. I understand you don't want to take a risk, and no one asked you to, I simply saying IMO and that of several judges and lawyers, a person could bypass HC.
Click to expand...
  • Any form of Marijuana (including hash and hash oil) are known as Schedule 2 drugs under Canadian Law
  • Minor possession of small amounts of the drug (30g or less for Marijuana and 1g or less for Hash and Hash Oil) can result in a lower level offense called a summary conviction. Anyone who is charged with this lower level offense is not required to have their fingerprints or photographs taken, but still enters the criminal justice system. They could be given a court date and have a trial. A person convicted under this charge will have a court record of this conviction.
  • First time minor possession conviction can result in a maximum penalty of 6 months in jail and/or a $1,000 fine.
  • Possession of larger quantities of the drug (over 30g of Marijuana or 1g of Hash or Hash Oil) can result in a charge of Trafficking or Possession for the purpose of trafficking. This is a much more serious offense and, depending on the exact quantity and previous record of the offender, can carry a conviction penalty of imprisonment from 5 years less a day up to and including life imprisonment.
  • The medical use of Marijuana is permitted in Canada under restricted circumstances only. A permit is required in order to possess or use marijuana for medical purposes.
What must the prosecutor prove to convict you? What can you do?
In court, the prosecutor, also called the crown counsel (Crown), must prove – beyond a reasonable doubt – that you:

  • had control of the marijuana – for example, the police found it on you or in an area you controlled, such as a car, suitcase, or bedroom, and
  • knew the marijuana was there.
If the Crown proves both these things, the judge will convict you. To prove these things, the Crown will have witnesses – normally the police officer who arrested you – tell the court (or testify) about the situation when they found the marijuana on you.
 
VIANARCHRIS

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
Ok, last time. If the person can prove a legitimate medical need and also prove a lack of legal access, be it because of a lack of doctors or LPs with no product, a jury will not convict. They can...but they won't.
 
MarijeJane

MarijeJane

Well-Known Member
VIANARCHRIS said:
Ok, last time. If the person can prove a legitimate medical need and also prove a lack of legal access, be it because of a lack of doctors or LPs with no product, a jury will not convict. They can...but they won't.
Click to expand...
I truly wish that your hopeful delusion will keep you out of jail. I prefer to stick with the truth.
 
j0yr1d3

j0yr1d3

Well-Known Member
The truth is the law is bullshit and antiquated. No judge is going to seek justice under an unjustified law. You know how laws have been changed in this country? By people disobeying them and then challenging their validity, not by following the rules some ass clown politician put forth 90 years ago and doing nothing. So continue to "work within the law and advocate change" while the rest of us fight for what is morally right.
 
WHATFG

WHATFG

Well-Known Member
MarijeJane said:
Interesting article in the Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/high-hopes-investors-take-aim-at-canadas-marijuana-industry/article20085181/
Click to expand...
Where to start...
I find it interesting that there wasn't a reference to producing medicine for patients. This Rosen guy....what qualifies him to say that the grower with 700 plants for four patients wasn't within their licence? Fuck I'm allowed to grow 73 if I want to. The whole point was to be able to provide patients with big scripts the meds they need.

Is it just me or does anyone else not like that foreigners are cashing in on us? I really don't like that Americans are sticking there capitalist noses into this. But then again, it makes sense given who our leader is.
 
GrowRock

GrowRock

Well-Known Member
The proof is in the injunction. The courts do not care the date of your illness ex if you got your diagnoses of needing MMJ after or before the mmar the fact of the matter is the government is violating patients rights section 7 of the charter. So no court will convict.
 
Maritime Marauder

Maritime Marauder

Active Member
GrowRock said:
The proof is in the injunction. The courts do not care the date of your illness ex if you got your diagnoses of needing MMJ after or before the mmar the fact of the matter is the government is violating patients rights section 7 of the charter. So no court will convict.
Click to expand...
That is speculation and extrapolation, not proof. Do you have evidence of someone being arrested for growing and then being acquitted based on the injunction and current access issues? That, and only that, would be proof.
 
VIANARCHRIS

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
MarijeJane said:
Then please stop advising others to break the law. Some may believe you that they will not be convicted. You could ruin someone's life.
Click to expand...
I did not advise anyone to do anything. Stop with the unfounded accusations. I assume everyone in the cannabis community is familiar with the Ontario court decision involving R. v. Mernagh, who had both cultivation and possession charges dropped due to his inability to get a doctor to sign.Google it...How about compassion clubs and their patrons? Who are their suppliers? Unless you get some idiot selling to kids like the guy in Van., the cops ignore it. Please stop advising me what to post. You obviously are coming at this from a different angle, trying to cash in, where as I, although not subjected to the LP farce, care about the human factor and the hardships others face. If the law is unjust, I'm going to fight to make new laws and I encourage others to do the same. If everyone had the same attitude as you, you still wouldn't have the right to vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top