Doc Weedlaw
Member
Thanks Canadian..just fighting the good fight.. like veryine else 
your thoughts on today's court case(federal)
- Thread starter cannadan
- Start date
Great point DWL, I'm 29 and living with permanent disabilities, why do I have to annually prove that yes I am still disabled? Why aren't we able to get a permanent license that can give us peace of mind.
Doc Weedlaw
Member
Canadian Constitutional Law. Courts are not allowed to do what the OCA did in Hitzig; says Hogg,*"the courts may not reconstruct an unconstitutional statute in order to render it constitutional."*There ought to come a point at which a court "will recognize that an unconstitutional statute cannot be salvaged except by changes that are too profound, too policy-laden and too controversial to be carried out by a court."*In such cases, as the Supreme Court Justice Lamer had argued in Schacter (1991),*"it is the legislature's role to fill in the gaps, not the court's"*(40-21, 5th edition, 2007)
Doc Weedlaw
Member
*
A permanent constitutional exemption from ss.4 and 7 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for the Applicant, who is medically approved under the Narcotic Control Regulations (NCR), the MMAR or the MMPR,*until such further Order of the court; The MMPR unreasonably restricts the s. 7 Charter constitutional right of a medically approved patient to reasonable access to their medicine by way of a safe, continuous, affordable supply, and are inconsistent with the s.7 Charter right and are not saved by s. 1 of the Charter.
A permanent constitutional exemption from ss.4 and 7 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for the Applicant, who is medically approved under the Narcotic Control Regulations (NCR), the MMAR or the MMPR,*until such further Order of the court; The MMPR unreasonably restricts the s. 7 Charter constitutional right of a medically approved patient to reasonable access to their medicine by way of a safe, continuous, affordable supply, and are inconsistent with the s.7 Charter right and are not saved by s. 1 of the Charter.
cannadan
Well-Known Member
I used a lawyer to see the doctor the first time around.....figuring it would be a wise and informative move.....since my doctor would not budge on her stance...
(or at least the societies stance) and I was told by the surgeon who did my heart operation, to advocate for my own health care if I expected to live thru this process....
and I waited a year and a half for a consultation with a specialist.....who had actually retired before my family phy. made the appointment..... Dr Shit Outta Luck
so when I asked for a second consultation she gave me a photocopy of a bunch of doctors contact info... who would prescribe ,but you try contacting DR's for whom you are not already a patient...and see how much luck you have....
finally after asking my heart specialist who also refused saying he didn't know anything about MJ ,but I was healthy enough to partake if I was successful at getting a prescription...
It was my nature to keep trying and finally a doctor who was no longer practicing put me in touch with a consultant....and then finally the lawyer.....
and a fairly large sum later.....i met my current doc...
(or at least the societies stance) and I was told by the surgeon who did my heart operation, to advocate for my own health care if I expected to live thru this process....
and I waited a year and a half for a consultation with a specialist.....who had actually retired before my family phy. made the appointment..... Dr Shit Outta Luck
so when I asked for a second consultation she gave me a photocopy of a bunch of doctors contact info... who would prescribe ,but you try contacting DR's for whom you are not already a patient...and see how much luck you have....
finally after asking my heart specialist who also refused saying he didn't know anything about MJ ,but I was healthy enough to partake if I was successful at getting a prescription...
It was my nature to keep trying and finally a doctor who was no longer practicing put me in touch with a consultant....and then finally the lawyer.....
and a fairly large sum later.....i met my current doc...
canadiankushman
Well-Known Member
So Doc, in your opinion, what's the worst case scenario if the Po-Po come knocking April or May 1st, warrant in hand?
Ck
Ck
Doc Weedlaw
Member
The accused's liberty interest was engaged by the marijuana prohibition. The threat of criminal prosecution and possible imprisonment itself amounted to a risk of deprivation of liberty and, therefore, had to accord with the principles of fundamental justice. Further, liberty includes the right to make decisions of fundamental personal importance, including the choice of medication to alleviate the effects of an illness with life-threatening consequences. Deprivation of this right must also accord with the principles of fundamental justice. The choice of medication to alleviate the effects of an illness with life-threatening consequences is such a decision.
Deprivation by means of a criminal sanction of access to medication reasonably required for the treatment of a medical condition that threatens life or health also constitutes a deprivation of security of the person.
The prohibition on the possession and cultivation of marijuana for personal use to treat the accused's epilepsy deprived him of his rights to liberty and security of the person. The marijuana prohibition both exposed the accused to imprisonment if convicted and infringed his right to make decisions that were of fundamental personal importance. To intrude into that decision-making process through the threat of criminal prosecution is a serious deprivation of liberty. Moreover, to prevent the accused from accessing a treatment by threat of criminal sanction constituted a deprivation of his security of the person. The marijuana laws forced the accused to choose between commission of a crime to obtain effective medical treatment and inadequate treatment. Finally, the marijuana prohibition infringed the accused's security of the person by interfering with his physical and psychological integrity.*Section 7of the*Charter*protects the right to make choices concerning one's own body and control over one's physical and psychological integrity free from interference by criminal prohibition.
Deprivation by means of a criminal sanction of access to medication reasonably required for the treatment of a medical condition that threatens life or health also constitutes a deprivation of security of the person.
The prohibition on the possession and cultivation of marijuana for personal use to treat the accused's epilepsy deprived him of his rights to liberty and security of the person. The marijuana prohibition both exposed the accused to imprisonment if convicted and infringed his right to make decisions that were of fundamental personal importance. To intrude into that decision-making process through the threat of criminal prosecution is a serious deprivation of liberty. Moreover, to prevent the accused from accessing a treatment by threat of criminal sanction constituted a deprivation of his security of the person. The marijuana laws forced the accused to choose between commission of a crime to obtain effective medical treatment and inadequate treatment. Finally, the marijuana prohibition infringed the accused's security of the person by interfering with his physical and psychological integrity.*Section 7of the*Charter*protects the right to make choices concerning one's own body and control over one's physical and psychological integrity free from interference by criminal prohibition.
R.Raider
Well-Known Member
You mean to get your license you had to go through all that? Why didn't you just do the skype thing for $500? That's what my patient did.
Doc Weedlaw
Member
R v. Parker 2000
Doc Weedlaw
Member
Plain as I can put it folks.
cannadan
Well-Known Member
Hey Raider....all that and some...It was like a slow torture....and I was led to believe back then that the skype...appointments...were only considered by those who
had illegitimate need for....plus 500 bucks...wow....though thru the lawyer it ended up costing double that and some...
but compared to what I was spending weekly on the BM it was cheap....
had illegitimate need for....plus 500 bucks...wow....though thru the lawyer it ended up costing double that and some...
but compared to what I was spending weekly on the BM it was cheap....
Manofculture
Active Member
Can I still keep growing
legally April 1 or not I'm not a lawyer im a Ganja farmer
legally April 1 or not I'm not a lawyer im a Ganja farmer
R.Raider
Well-Known Member
Well at least you eventually got it. My Patient has MS but his DR. wouldn't sign for him so the skype thing worked out perfect for him with very little hassle.
cannadan
Well-Known Member
well Doc Weedlaw....I can't tell you how much we appreciate...concrete info around here.....its a breath of fresh air....
there has been plenty of LP's pushing the MMPR on here...as of late....and though I respect the fact that they have opinions....MMAR vs MMPR
I have not been convinced that what some of them have been saying is completely true with respect to the MMAR....and its problems....
either way I have stood my ground on the issue since day one and done my best to defend....patients issues...and have not entertained the idea of joining the MMPR
there has been plenty of LP's pushing the MMPR on here...as of late....and though I respect the fact that they have opinions....MMAR vs MMPR
I have not been convinced that what some of them have been saying is completely true with respect to the MMAR....and its problems....
either way I have stood my ground on the issue since day one and done my best to defend....patients issues...and have not entertained the idea of joining the MMPR