VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
regard
regardless of the injunction or current access rules, the reasons for the judgement haven't changed.
MMPR Licensed Producer Thread
- Thread starter MarijeJane
- Start date
Maritime Marauder
Active Member
That was prior to the MMPR coming into force or the new mandatory minimums, completely irrelevant.
VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
I'm not getting you on mandatory minimums and how that would matter, but the implementation of the mmpr and the quality and supply issues only exasperate the problem and reinforce the courts decision.I wouldn't deliberately go looking for the fight, but if charged I'd be confident of that defense.
Maritime Marauder
Active Member
This doesn't change the fact that your statement is dangerous speculation backed by zero proof. The MMPR has provided an entirely new legal landscape and decisions that happened 10 years ago under a completely different system would bear extremely little weight in the courtroom. Do whatever you want, but don't be advising others that they can grow without fear of punishment because you are not a legal expert and there are no precedents for this type of situation.
Maritime Marauder
Active Member
You also have to remember that not everyone lives in BC where the courts are MUCH more lax with MJ stuff. In other parts of Canada (Alberta and Manitoba for example), they are not at all friendly or receptive to MJ growing, and judges will not be nearly as understanding or lenient. I agree that there is a good chance you could beat the charges with a good lawyer (but far from a sure thing), but that is still going to cost a lot of time, money and stress, so it doesn't come without cost.
bigmanc
Well-Known Member
Quick question; When HC anounced they were repealing the MMAR i heard multiple times that they didnt have the right to do this as it was court ordered in 2001-ish to have a new program that met the needs of patients across Canada. Now, did the judge on March 24th grant permission for the MMPR to persue and the MMAR to co-exist while the kinks get worked out? or was the MMPR even allowed to be proposed?
VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
Well if you want to attack me for my opinion, let me return the favour. You also are not a legal expert, and I would like some evidence to back up your claim that the mmpr "has provided an entirely new legal landscape". A new flawed attempt at appeasing the court decision on medical marijuana does in no way change the constitution or take away the right of a judge or jury to strike any charges as a breach of charter rights. Where are all the new cases of people being charged for violating the mmpr. Again, how about them compassion clubs? The don't just exist in BC...every major city in the country has several. You're talking out your ass.
Maritime Marauder
Active Member
Because I can't afford $400 for a Skype prescription, and don't like what I read about LP product. I grew myself in the past and just took the educated risk. I recently moved and I am no longer in a situation when I can provide for myself....being in a very rural area with no connection, you gotta do what you gotta do. Not having medicine is not an option for me.
I know the chances of issues are slim, but they do exist. All you need is an anti-MJ cop, DA, or judge on a crusade and you are in for an expensive ride through the legal system. I took the risk, but wouldn't be advising others that is zero risk because that simply isn't true.
GrowRock
Well-Known Member
And that would be all you would need to fight and win in court. Because the government is causing you to choose between life and liberty which intern violates section 7 of the charter so they have no case. Now if you get got doing something illegal for monetary gain your hooped. Unless the federal government changes the charter the courts would not be able to convict anyone.
Maritime Marauder
Active Member
Not all of us have money to go to court to fight BS charges, and some of us would lose our jobs and livelihood for even getting raided/charged in the first place. If you have kids, you are at risk of having them taken away in the event of a bust. There are other factors to consider here is all I am saying, and people still need to be wary as they are technically breaking the law by growing without being a former legal personal grower covered by the injunction. Will you be fine? Most likely, but no one can say you will definitely be ok to go ahead and grow for yourself, there is always risk when breaking a law, no matter how unjust it may be.
Last edited:
VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
So that gives you some kind of authority to discredit my posts as reckless advice? I never said it was legal, I never said you will never be charged and I never said presenting the defense would be free. I simply stated what I would do if I were being forced to buy sub-standard bunk from LPs and the defense I would use if charged. You were doing the very thing I suggested and I bet you were going to use that same defense, too. Now you look like a troll.
MarijeJane
Well-Known Member
I suggest you read your own posts before you criticize someone else!!!!!!! You wrote "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". Trolls in glass houses...........
VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
I stand by that statement.Show me a 2014 conviction for a Canadian using marijuana for legitimate medical reasons. I know what I wrote and I'll defend every word. I stated my opinion and backed it up with examples, i.e. R. v. Mernagh and the 'gray area' legitimacy around compassion clubs and dispensaries. What have you provided us other than your opinions? I'm going to leave this conversation while I am still being civil. We'll let the rest of the RIU members make up their own minds. "Beam me up Scotty...there's no intelligent life here" lol! Cheers!
Maritime Marauder
Active Member
Don't let the door hit ya on the way out
sativeritas
Member
R V. Mernaugh did exactly the opposite of what you keep claiming. Justice Doherty stated in the legal argument to the decision: even were a person to have compelling evidence that all physicians were refusing to provide medical evidence of eligibility for exemption, the resulting inability of people to get exempted would not render the regulations unconstitutional. The reason: only governmental barriers to getting an exemption could cause the regulation to be unconstitutional. Because physicians aren’t government, if physicians refuse to sign, that’s not a government decision. Put another way: if the doctor’s don’t play ball, that’s not the government’s fault, so the law cannot be said to be unconstitutional.
Paraphrased - even if you have medical necessity - but a doctor will not sign - you have no more right to access than average joe citizen.
sativeritas
Member
As a side note - so many damn tinfoil hat wearing blow hards on RIU. Such a lost opportunity to have a good discussion here.