Predictions

a plaintiff is needed that has a valid license to possess and to produce or have a patient with a DG that needs an address change. what can the judge say to that?
even though hindsight is 20/20-they should have had ALL the bases covered. i guess they thought that Beemish would have been strong enough but because their licenses weren't valid, no go.
i hope they try the new Plaintiff route...that would cover the address change...the left outs because of the timeline, sorry. i have no thought on that except for the Plaintiff's they already have
 
CalyxCrusher said:
SOoooooooo.... where does this leave us people left out who have the same rights as those who won the injunction and want to grow for themselves? Because last I checked they haven't found a cure for my MS yet.
Click to expand...
It's getting ridiculous. I think we should file a class action to recoup what it costs us because of HC's refusal to allow address changes etc. My gas and time to travel to my garden is an unnecessary expense...a lot of us are hurting financially or suffering physically without adequate medicine as a result of an irrational mean-spirited policy by the government. They need to pay.
 
been busy lately with the holidays wraping up, is this adjournment possitive? longer to grow i sapose if you can. Also, longer you cant grow if you cant.
 
VIANARCHRIS said:
It's getting ridiculous. I think we should file a class action to recoup what it costs us because of HC's refusal to allow address changes etc. My gas and time to travel to my garden is an unnecessary expense...a lot of us are hurting financially or suffering physically without adequate medicine as a result of an irrational mean-spirited policy by the government. They need to pay.
Click to expand...

You really got me thinking. Well it hurts but here goes. Lol If we mmar patients have a charter challenge due to accessibility then would new patients who were just diagnosed and forced into a system that blocks them from access (which the sc of Canada ruled in favour for accessibility already) ex. Price, availability, strain selection etc. I'm no lawyer but I would say that new patients that were left out of the injunction would be able to have a good shot at a huge class action of there charter rights being violated!!!we are all Canadians at the end of the day!! After all it would be complete ludicrous to tell a person sorry because you were diagnosed on this date not this we aren't giving you access to the quality of life every Canadian deserves. Would someone with legal knowledge please chime in....

Peace
 
GrowRock said:
You really got me thinking. Well it hurts but here goes. Lol If we mmar patients have a charter challenge due to accessibility then would new patients who were just diagnosed and forced into a system that blocks them from access (which the sc of Canada ruled in favour for accessibility already) ex. Price, availability, strain selection etc. I'm no lawyer but I would say that new patients that were left out of the injunction would be able to have a good shot at a huge class action of there charter rights being violated!!!we are all Canadians at the end of the day!! After all it would be complete ludicrous to tell a person sorry because you were diagnosed on this date not this we aren't giving you access to the quality of life every Canadian deserves. Would someone with legal knowledge please chime in....

Peace
Click to expand...
we can start a petition on change.org & see where it goes. otherwise, we would have to start an action of our own to address the problem....and get in touch with the media to promote it etc so more people knew about it so they could sign.
too bad HC didn't ask any of the 38,000 patients what they wanted/needed so things went smoothly but that would have made sense therefore the Gov't wouldn't consider that.
 
doingdishes said:
we can start a petition on change.org & see where it goes. otherwise, we would have to start an action of our own to address the problem....and get in touch with the media to promote it etc so more people knew about it so they could sign.
too bad HC didn't ask any of the 38,000 patients what they wanted/needed so things went smoothly but that would have made sense therefore the Gov't wouldn't consider that.
Click to expand...
Oh, but they did! HC had a 'consultation' process where patients could give their input before the mmpr was introduced. I got into a pissing match with Leona Aglukkaq about it when she was in charge of HC. Now the bitch reads newspapers in question period instead of answering questions about her constituents getting their food from garbage dumps. Not one change was to the benefit of patients...the changes ONLY helped create a new lp industry, while attempting to force us to destroy our legal property. I hope the bitch gets eaten by a grizzly.
 
GrowRock said:
You really got me thinking. Well it hurts but here goes. Lol If we mmar patients have a charter challenge due to accessibility then would new patients who were just diagnosed and forced into a system that blocks them from access (which the sc of Canada ruled in favour for accessibility already) ex. Price, availability, strain selection etc. I'm no lawyer but I would say that new patients that were left out of the injunction would be able to have a good shot at a huge class action of there charter rights being violated!!!we are all Canadians at the end of the day!! After all it would be complete ludicrous to tell a person sorry because you were diagnosed on this date not this we aren't giving you access to the quality of life every Canadian deserves. Would someone with legal knowledge please chime in....

Peace
Click to expand...
I think you're right...mmpr patients have been forced to spend more for medicine than they should as well. The difference in the scenario I talked about, is that, technically the mmar people are still operating under 'legal legislation'...the injunction 'upheld the law'. The fact that Harper is pissed and won't allow HC to honor their responsibility to administer that program is what the issue is.
In this situation, the mmpr patients are not involved. If the only program available was the mmpr, and they signed up for it, there is no financial loss from the transition or from HC continuing to pretend the mmar no longer exists. The SC case going forward in Feb. (or March?) is the one to argue the unfairness of the obvious hardships placed on mmpr patients vs. those allowed to grow. I don't think a court can make a separate set of rules based on when one got sick....it would just lead to perpetual court challenges. All the patients I know are expecting nothing less than one program for all with the undisputed right to grow what we need. I won't accept less. Even with full legalization we will face challenges that rec users don't, so we need to make sure they get it right.
 
Think we can use freedom of information to get a copy of all those emails and letters HC received in response to their request for mmar patient input? I would love to read those! Conroy should be requesting them...it would show clearly that the patient was not a priority in the mmpr...
 
Sandy420 said:
I am signing up for the Gld Star Team.
http://johnturmel.com/goldstar
Click to expand...
if you do, you'll be slapped with a $500 fee that you will have to plead you are a Pauper. i signed up for the Gold Stars but the Judge said it was too similar to the Allard case and stayed all the Gold Stars. JT has 20 points of arguments while Allard has 4. he left out the 4 that are similar and proceeded but then they were informed you'd have to come up with $500 for them to look at your case. i don't have the $500 at this time.
 
VIANARCHRIS said:
Oh, but they did! HC had a 'consultation' process where patients could give their input before the mmpr was introduced. I got into a pissing match with Leona Aglukkaq about it when she was in charge of HC. Now the bitch reads newspapers in question period instead of answering questions about her constituents getting their food from garbage dumps. Not one change was to the benefit of patients...the changes ONLY helped create a new lp industry, while attempting to force us to destroy our legal property. I hope the bitch gets eaten by a grizzly.
Click to expand...
i think they must have taken the information they got from the MMAR patients & then went back to their boardrooms to discuss how do we piss these people off. i think thy came up with a great plan because I'm pissed off!!
 
VIANARCHRIS said:
Think we can use freedom of information to get a copy of all those emails and letters HC received in response to their request for mmar patient input? I would love to read those! Conroy should be requesting them...it would show clearly that the patient was not a priority in the mmpr...
Click to expand...
Now that is something to forward to conroy...we never were the priority.
 
they used patients input during the consultations...just against them...is all
look at the pictures from the meetings HC held....they were all suits and uniforms....
so where was our representation....??
 
cannadan said:
they used patients input during the consultations...just against them...is all
look at the pictures from the meetings HC held....they were all suits and uniforms....
so where was our representation....??
Click to expand...
we were there....all of us who could afford the transportation cost & for a nice suit...which means I wasn't there but I'm sure the Gov't would be fair.....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
 
Judge now in his Chambers. Only about 20 people there to show support unfortunately. No decision yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Winnipeg police intentionally damaged medical marijuana grow-op equipment, judge rules Social Sharing
Replies
14
Views
1K
cannadan
cannadan
G
OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma files for bankruptcy protection
Replies
2
Views
290
cannadan
cannadan
G
You can now go to prison in Canada for providing raw milk. Seriously
Replies
13
Views
752
Toxic Avenger
Toxic Avenger
G
Why Canadian insurers are wary of covering medical marijuana
Replies
5
Views
511
gb123
G
G
OxyContin maker to appeal judge's decision to reject $20M Canadian settlement
Replies
0
Views
299
gb123
G
Back
Top