So much for maximum 150 gram carry.....

yes Chris
That is the part they need explained!

You're not getting the point Vianarchris. I think what Sativeritas is pointing out that a viable argument can be made due the Regs not covering this angle.
There is no grey area in the law its black and white, compassion clubs are clearly illegal and those claiming medical need without being medically approved by a doctor
Are illegal. Think of Lawyering a bit like doing math proofs if hole exists then one can argue that

black and white and read all over.
doesn't make a sensible argument

I am getting the point. I never ONCE professed that possessing or growing without Der Fuhrer's permission was legal. What I did say is those who can prove a medical need have a very good chance of being acquitted by a jury of their peers. The compassion clubs are clearly illegal but are allowed to operate with impunity. Is that not a gray area? I'm not sure how much clearer I can get on that.As the decision on edibles and extracts is brand new, the no limit carry theory is just one mans' interpretation, and not the man that counts. There are clearly some on here who feel the need to ridicule others to make themselves feel important, unfortunately they only succeed in looking like asses.

Okay its a gray area until you get charged then you face the black and white system, those that have walked away with absolute discharges often
Have the funding to do constitutional challenges that run approx. 250k in legal fees.
How many of these things get to jury trial acquittals?

bcbreeder said:

Okay its a gray area until you get charged then you face the black and white system, those that have walked away with absolute discharges often
Have the funding to do constitutional challenges that run approx. 250k in legal fees.
How many of these things get to jury trial acquittals?

Click to expand...

How many of these never make it to charges as the crown determines there is no likelihood of conviction? I know of two such cases involving people I know in the last 3 years, and I live in a small town. In the end, it's all just speculation on everyone's part, myself included, but I would have preferred a discussion on my opinion rather than outright dismissal and mudslinging. Oh well! Cheers!

You're my boy Chris! *high five*

The difference between the two of us is i quoted relevent court cases, with explanations of the interpretations. You quoted Mernaugh as a case supporting your opinion, when in fact the Mernaugh case set patient access back when he lost and the decision was rendered.

sativeritas said:

You're my boy Chris! *high five*

The difference between the two of us is i quoted relevent court cases, with explanations of the interpretations. You quoted Mernaugh as a case supporting your opinion, when in fact the Mernaugh case set patient access back when he lost and the decision was rendered.

Click to expand...

I think Chris has a better understanding of the situation than you do.

bcbreeder said:

You're not getting the point Vianarchris. I think what Sativeritas is pointing out that a viable argument can be made due the Regs not covering this angle.
There is no grey area in the law its black and white, compassion clubs are clearly illegal and those claiming medical need without being medically approved by a doctor
Are illegal. Think of Lawyering a bit like doing math proofs if hole exists then one can argue that

Click to expand...

Do you really not think those regs aren't changing as we speak so they can throw another fuck into this?

Chris i don't believe I ever did any mudslinging our outright dismissed your opinion. I levelled clear rebuttals with factual information sourced as best I could, with my interpretations of their impact and possible standing.

I actually tend to agree with you on many things, including medical necessity being an argument that needs to be argued again in courts because the MMPR contains massive barriers to access. But i also believe that the argument has been made already in courts for many of the angles that a patient could take to find the CDSA unconstitutional. The courts have already found that doctors not signing, is not grounds enough to strike down the CDSA (making it that much harder to argue again).

I think the Allard case has a big chance of success to re instate the rights of patients to produce for themselves in reasonable amounts - but even in that case the patient is required to have an ATP under the MMAR to be protected.

*shrugs* Im not here to rain on your parade - just offer honest interpretation based on my experience.

No worries! It seemed I was getting it, unfairly IMO, from several posters, you backed them up and I got defensive. I get your argument, but I would still roll the dice with a jury rather than go without my meds. That's just me. I apologize if I unfairly lumped you in with the others, but I did take some of your posts as dismissive. Anyway, it's all good!

Yes the mmpr is a huge barrier to access, myself I'm out 400 for my doctor appointment since my GP got too burned out because of my Mmmar application needing a specialist, he did sign my Mmar for Free to help me in my legal jam but wouldn't sign my MMpr hence the need for the pot clinics\docs who charge these fees, fair no, but assumingly they are taking a significant risk with the colleges
Signing tnese forms so in built in the fee is the risk associated of defending themselves with the college. Just completed my first 150g order with an LP all this went on my credit card, which
Being an Ill person with under 10k a year income is not sustainable, however peace of mind in not being prosecuted\persecuted is worth it for me because my health
Nor my pocket book could afford another run in with the law by taking my chance that grey area would mean I wouldn't be charged.
I was always of the thought that medical cases were often dropped by the crown however apparently direction from above (hail Harper) was that all cases must go forward.
So I was shocked and horrified , therefore not worth it to me to not be in compliance even though I am a great grower and had unique genetics that no LP can match.
I think a great result in Allard would be a hybrid system allowing LPs to sell like compassion clubs do now, and patients to grow say a dozen plants or so ...

A dozen or so? What does a dozen plants make for a patient who ingests 15 grams minimum a day to treat cancer?
... vape as well...
\ burn too...
Every known form of Marijuana medication to help!!!!!


A statement like that makes you sounds like Miss Ambrose.

Dude really. Think about what your saying. It really shows a lack of knowledge of what's being fought for and what's going on in Canada and why.

Ok good point, so what is a reasonable limit then? The problem of bikers with 500 plant licenses is what got
The system scrapped, so maybe get rid of the designated growers with 100 lighters??
And bring back different categories of diseases and corresponding limits for patient growers?
I'm approved for 6grams a day so under the old system I guess that would be 30 plants.

Its really a matter of limiting by plant count for specific medical usage not being the right method. The 6 plant number is often cited as reasonably light recreation and medical usage. Functionally the only way I can think of to properly manage personal production if we assume that prohibition is to be maintained, and medical usage is the only reason for someone to grow, is by using Lumens. Wattage doesnt work because of the variability in efficiency, plants dont work because you could get 6 oz's or 12 lbs off 6 plants.

Some will now argue that that's not fair for those patients that juice the plant. It actually works out pretty well with a lumen restriction. You just grow more plants at 22/2 timings and grow yourself all the juicy leaf you want.

Or perhaps limit the the amount of grow room by cubic feet - and limit out door production to number of plants. *shrugs* These are all the things that need to be discussed at all levels to forward the conversation in a sensible manner. Instead of screaming "fuck you" as loud as we can, we could also try influencing policy by "selling out" and working with the man - thats gonna be a popular statement

Ya...I don't think that 's going to happen. I could be wrong.

I do like a lot of the points you brought up but ya lost me again at selling out to the man. To him I say a big FUCK YOU!

bcbreeder said:

Ok good point, so what is a reasonable limit then? The problem of bikers with 500 plant licenses is what got
The system scrapped, so maybe get rid of the designated growers with 100 lighters??
And bring back different categories of diseases and corresponding limits for patient growers?
I'm approved for 6grams a day so under the old system I guess that would be 30 plants.

Click to expand...

They can't stop designated growers..Just handle them better by forcing them to keep track. Not an issue!
Many sick people can't grow their own. AND they don't have the money or time or are they healthy enough to do so.
If the bikers are doing it wrong and breaking the law? THAT'S WHAT LAW ENFORCEMENT is for. It's WORK for them!
Sick people don't need to worry about being arrested for saving their life! Neither should you BC breeder, if you are indeed sick. You have every right.
SURE, it could cost you a bundle by the time you are finished, Maybe!!! ?????
... but it's your RIGHT you're fighting for after all.
DIE or live, is the only choice some have!

sativeritas said:

Its really a matter of limiting by plant count for specific medical usage not being the right method. The 6 plant number is often cited as reasonably light recreation and medical usage. Functionally the only way I can think of to properly manage personal production if we assume that prohibition is to be maintained, and medical usage is the only reason for someone to grow, is by using Lumens. Wattage doesnt work because of the variability in efficiency, plants dont work because you could get 6 oz's or 12 lbs off 6 plants.

Some will now argue that that's not fair for those patients that juice the plant. It actually works out pretty well with a lumen restriction. You just grow more plants at 22/2 timings and grow yourself all the juicy leaf you want.

Or perhaps limit the the amount of grow room by cubic feet - and limit out door production to number of plants. *shrugs* These are all the things that need to be discussed at all levels to forward the conversation in a sensible manner. Instead of screaming "fuck you" as loud as we can, we could also try influencing policy by "selling out" and working with the man - thats gonna be a popular statement

Click to expand...

The problem I see is with your last paragraph. We (patients under the MMAR) were invited to the discussions and to have input to the creation of the MMPR. Meetings were had, notes made, pats on the back all the way round. HC probably laughed at us when the door closed and threw the notes in the garbage can.
You (patient) cannot work with the man. The man doesn't give a shit about you or your suggestions.
The man cares about 3 things; reelection, tax revenue, providing favours for friends ( or enemies, if you know what I mean )

So I think you need to keep in mind what really matters to the man, and work on the first two issues...reelection, taxation.

Yeah, I don't see a lot of support to selling out to the man. I've been in this fight way too long to turtle now. There are some that will, the LP wannabe's are a prime example, but they traded their principles for the lure of easy money. The fact is, whether it be for medical or recreational use, I should be free to grow what I need. I haven't seen any limits on the number of tomato or parsley plants a person can grow, nor for herbal medicines such as aloe-Vera or gingsing root, I can even grow tobacco and brew as much beer or wine as I want. I will not settle for anything less when it comes to marijuana. That's not to say it's going to come all at once, but that's my ultimate goal. I think a very effective tool would be an advertising campaign to reinstate alcohol prohibition, using the same arguments made to justify marijuana prohibition. We all know how people would react to that and we can use their outrage to highlight the unjust marijuana prohibition. Any one got an extra half million $ so I can get started on that? lol