regardless of the injunction or current access rules, the reasons for the judgement haven't changed.
That was prior to the MMPR coming into force or the new mandatory minimums, completely irrelevant.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Don't let the door hit ya on the way out
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.
