Fundraising Report and Update from John Conroy in #Allard case MMAR

Sandy420

Sandy420

Well-Known Member
Fundraising Report and Update from John Conroy in #Allard case #MMAR #healthcanada https://t.co/yXvb9jnkSI

We are now just over a month away from the beginning of the trial in Allard v. Canada, our constitutional challenge to the Marihuana for Medical Purposes regulations (MMPR) for failing to preserve the rights of “medically approved patients” to produce their own medicine or if unable to do so to have a caregiver do so for them, as provided for in the now repealed Marihuana Medical Access regulations (MMAR) and for continuing to deny access to cannabis (marihuana), other than in its dried form (as is being challenged in the British Columbia case of R v. Smith, that will now be heard in the Supreme Court of Canada is the first medical marihuana case on March 20, 2015) and the imposition in the MMPR of the 150 gm limit on a patient entitlement to possess, other than at their storage or production site.
The trial is set to proceed on February 23, 2015, for 3 weeks until March 13, 2015, in the Federal Court Trial Division located at the Pacific Center on the 7th floor (although the assigned courtroom might be on the 8th floor and we will advise when known) at 701 West Georgia St. in downtown Vancouver, BC. It will take place before the Hon. Mr. Justice Phelan, as a “simplified action” under the Federal Court Act rules that enabled an expeditious trial on this issue. Unlike a traditional trial this trial proceeds by way of affidavits and cross examination on the affidavits followed by people submissions. To expedite matters the schedule was set requiring completion of various tasks before trial.
The Schedule of witnesses
The schedule of witnesses has been almost finalized, subject to some minor adjustments that we have agreed to by letter to the court on Tuesday, January 19, 2015. We expect the final schedule will look like this:
Date
Plaintiffs Witnesses Name & Type of Witness Capacity/ Profession
February 23, 2015 (AM)Monday DAVEY, Shawn (Plaintiffs’ Factual) Plaintiff Patient
February 23, 2015 (PM) ALEXANDER, Brian (Plaintiffs’ Factual) MMAR Patient and Assistant to Mr. Davey February 24, 2015 (AM)
Tuesday BEEMISH, Tanya (Plaintiffs’ Factual) Plaintiff Patient
February 24, 2015 (PM) HEBERT, David (Plaintiffs’ Factual) Plaintiff MMAR DG for Spouse Plaintiff Beemish
February 25, 2015 (AM)Wednesday ALLARD, Neil (Plaintiffs’ Factual)
Plaintiff Patient
February 25, 2015 (PM) WALSH, Zachary (Plaintiffs’ Expert) Psychology Professor and Researcher demographics of patients
February 26, 2015 (AM)Thursday COLASANTI, Remo (Plaintiffs’ Expert)
Cannabis Cultivator expert and Patient
February 26, 2015 (PM) PATE, David (Plaintiffs’ Expert) Botany and Pharmacology expert
February 27, 2015 (AM) Friday Overflow and Arising Matters
February 27, 2015 (PM) NOT SITTING
March 2, 2015 (AM) Monday CAPLER, Rielle (Plaintiffs’ Factual
SHAW, Jamie (Plaintiffs’ Factual) Ph.D. Student and Coordinator and Project lead CANARY Study Pres. CAMCD re Dispensaries in Canada
March 2, 2015 (PM) KING, Mike (Plaintiffs’ Factual)
LUKIV, Danielle (Plaintiffs’ Factual)
WILCOX, Jason (Plaintiffs Factual) Update re MMPR LP’s situation
legal Assistant re MMAR complaints MMAR Coalition Coordinator re complaints received.
affidavits, specifically addressing the government of Canada witnesses indicated below. Consequently, we decided that it is unnecessary to cross examine their experts that are dealt with by our rebuttals. This way there experts do not get an opportunity and cross examination to comment upon our Rebuttal experts reports, and we are free to argue that they do indeed rebut the Defendants experts without having to cross examine them on the same material. Canada is free to argue that they do not. Usually, the credibility of an expert witness is not an issue unlike fact witnesses. This has enabled the above schedule to be condensed into the 3 weeks allocated in so far as the evidence is concerned.
 
Last edited:
C

CannaReview

Well-Known Member
Must have been some pressure built up against him to make this announcement. Really only thing I would ask would be was any of the donation money used for things other than the lawyer/legal case and if so where people told from the beginning that money was going to be used for things other than the lawyers getting the money.
 
Sandy420

Sandy420

Well-Known Member
Continued here ...
Our Rebuttal experts rebut the following Defendant Canada experts:
1. Jason Shut, mold expert – rebutting Dr. Miller on the issue of mold and how to inexpensively control it;
2. Robert Connell Clarke – Author of Marijuana Botany (1981) and with mark Merlin the recent 2013 “Cannabis: Evolution and Ethnobotany” and through whom we not only attach that latest book but also the recent “Handbook of Cannabis” edited by Roger Pertwee that contains the most up to date information on medical cannabis and cannabis generally – to rebut Dr. Kalant and Mahmoud ElSohly from Mississippi. With respect to the latter he is also an author of the “American Herbal Pharmacopoeia 2014” that we have also introduced in evidence through Neil Allard and Dr. Ferris ;
3. Thomas Bauman –Prof. of Horticulture at the University of the Fraser Valley, an expert on not only horticulture, but also growing indoors and outdoors and in greenhouses – to rebut Dr. Miller to some extent, Larry Dybvig, the real estate appraiser and Constable Holmquist and Fire Chief Len Garis to some extent;
4. Dr. Carolyn Ferris – the practitioner with experience in dealing with cannabis clinics – to rebut Dr. Daeninck with respect to dosages and practice in relation to medical marihuana patients;
5. Prof. Susan Boyd – Author of “Killer Weed - Marihuana Grow Ops, Media Justice” to rebut Constable Holmqvist and Fire Chief Garis;
6. Bob Boileau - electrician and firemen – to rebut Fire Chief Len Garis;
7. Paul Armentano – US Norml, Research Director to rebut L. Mehler and Professor Mikos regarding the US situation (we still intend to cross examine Prof. Mikos with respect to what is actually going on in the US as things are changing day-to-day as well as Dr. Baruch with respect to Israel and Ms. Sandvos with respect to the Netherlands).
Canada has decided that it does want to cross examine our Rebuttal experts Tim Moen, a Fire Chief from Alberta and Scott Wilkins, the insurance agent with respect to fire and electrical safety and insurance risks generally and Eric Nash was both an expert and fact witness. His expertise goes to rebut all of the defendant witnesses with respect to fire, electrical and public safety and other issues and his “fact” evidence is
February 26, 2015 (AM) Thursday COLASANTI, Remo (Plaintiffs’ Expert) Cannabis Cultivator expert and Patient
February 26, 2015 (PM) PATE, David (Plaintiffs’ Expert) Botany and Pharmacology expert
February 27, 2015 (AM)Friday Overflow and Arising Matters
February 27, 2015 (PM) NOT SITTING
March 2, 2015 (AM)Monday CAPLER, Rielle (Plaintiffs’ Factual
SHAW, Jamie (Plaintiffs’ Factual) Ph.D. Student and Coordinator and Project lead CANARY Study
Pres. CAMCD re Dispensaries in Canada
March 2, 2015 (PM)KING, Mike (Plaintiffs’ Factual)
LUKIV, Danielle (Plaintiffs’ Factual)
WILCOX, Jason (Plaintiffs Factual) Update re MMPR LP’s situation
legal Assistant re MMAR complaints MMAR Coalition Coordinator re complaints received.
Defendants Witnesses (and some Plaintiff Rebuttal witnesses
March 3, 2015 (AM) Tuesday KULA, Jocelyn (Defendant’s Factual) Health Canada Official
March 3, 2015 (PM) ORMSBY, Eric (Defendant’s Factual) Health Canada Official
March 4, 2015 (AM) Wednesday RITCHOT, Jeannine (Defendant’s Factual) Health Canada Official
March 4, 2015 (PM) CAIN, Todd (Defendant’s Factual) Health Canada Official
March 5, 2015 (all day) Thursday HOLMQUIST, Shane (Defendant’s Expert) Police Officer
March 6, 2015 (AM) Friday Overflow and Arising Matters
March 6, 2015 (PM) NOT SITTING
March 9, 2015 (all day) Monday GARIS, Len (Defendant’s Expert) Fire Chief
March 10, 2015 (AM)Tuesday MOEN, T. (Plaintiffs’ Rebuttal Expert) Fire Chief March 10, 2015 (PM) WILKINS, Scott (Plaintiffs’ Rebuttal Expert)
Insurance Agent
March 11, 2015 (AM)Wednesday SANDVOS, Catherine (Defendant’s Factual) Netherlands Office of Medicinal Cannabis Official March 11, 2015 (PM) BARUCH, Yehuda (Defendants Expert) Doctor
March 12, 2015 (AM) Thursday MIKOS, Robert (Defendants Expert)
Law Professor USA
March 12, 2015 (PM) GROOTENDORST, Paul (Defendant’s Expert) Economics Professor
March 13, 2015 (AM) Friday NASH, Eric (Plaintiffs’ Factual Witness and Rebuttal Expert Witness) Cultivator
We have been advised that Canada does not propose to cross examine Jamie Shaw from CAMCD, Mike King, who provides an update with respect to the LPs under the MMPR based on their webpages, Danielle Lukiv, my assistant attaching numerous emails and statements from various patients impacted by the injunction and Jason Wilcox, who similarly provides numerous emails with respect to people impacted by the injunction. This, except for Jamie Shaw, is pretty well the same evidence; we attempted to introduce as new evidence into the Federal Court of Appeal on the appeal that that court did not allow. At that time, the governments legal counsel said she wanted to cross examine everyone in the attached materials before it could be admitted. This may cause some adjustments with respect to March 2, 2015.
 
Sandy420

Sandy420

Well-Known Member
This is a long one, hope it is ok to post it in its entirety.
While the defendant Canada has said that they do not propose to cross examine Rielle Capler with respect to the Canary Project (the impact of the MMPR on MMAR patients). They are planning to move to strike her affidavit as being in fact “an expert” and not a “fact” witness. We do not intend to elicit an opinion from Ms. Capler, but only to have her introduce the results of the survey that appear to indicate that people are dissatisfied with the LPs and are heading back to the dispensaries and Compassion clubs.
Also, there may be some adjustments in the lineup of the witnesses on March 11 and 12th with Prof. Mikos (USA situation) being moved to the morning of the 11th and Ms. Sandvos (the situation in the Netherlands) to the afternoon of the 12th.
There may be an issue with the evidence of Tanya Beemish as she may be in hospital. The court is willing to attend at the hospital for her cross examination, if necessary. Canada has expressed that they may simply wish to cross examine her spouse and caregiver the Plaintiff David Hebert and not her but presently we think that she should also give evidence, if at all possible.
You will note that we are not calling our “Rebuttal Experts” that provided affidavits regarding the Defendants Experts. The reason for this is that Canada advised that they did not wish to cross examine the following “Rebuttal Experts” that have provided affidavits, specifically addressing the government of Canada witnesses indicated below. Consequently, we decided that it is unnecessary to cross examine their experts that are dealt with by our rebuttals. This way there experts do not get an opportunity and cross examination to comment upon our Rebuttal experts reports, and we are free to argue that they do indeed rebut the Defendants experts without having to cross examine them on the same material. Canada is free to argue that they do not. Usually, the credibility of an expert witness is not an issue unlike fact witnesses. This has enabled the above schedule to be condensed into the 3 weeks allocated in so far as the evidence is concerned.
Our Rebuttal experts rebut the following Defendant Canada experts:
1. Jason Shut, mold expert – rebutting Dr. Miller on the issue of mold and how to inexpensively control it;
2. Robert Connell Clarke – Author of Marijuana Botany (1981) and with mark Merlin the recent 2013 “Cannabis: Evolution and Ethnobotany” and through whom we not only attach that latest book but also the recent “Handbook of Cannabis” edited by Roger Pertwee that contains the most up to date information on medical cannabis and cannabis generally – to rebut Dr. Kalant and Mahmoud ElSohly from Mississippi. With respect to the latter he is also an author of the “American Herbal Pharmacopoeia 2014” that we have also introduced in evidence through Neil Allard and Dr. Ferris ;
3. Thomas Bauman –Prof. of Horticulture at the University of the Fraser Valley, an expert on not only horticulture, but also growing indoors and outdoors and in greenhouses – to rebut Dr. Miller to some extent, Larry Dybvig, the real estate appraiser and Constable Holmquist and Fire Chief Len Garis to some extent;
4. Dr. Carolyn Ferris – the practitioner with experience in dealing with cannabis clinics – to rebut Dr. Daeninck with respect to dosages and practice in relation to medical marihuana patients;
5. Prof. Susan Boyd – Author of “Killer Weed - Marihuana Grow Ops, Media Justice” to rebut Constable Holmqvist and Fire Chief Garis;
6. Bob Boileau - electrician and firemen – to rebut Fire Chief Len Garis;
7. Paul Armentano – US Norml, Research Director to rebut L. Mehler and Professor Mikos regarding the US situation (we still intend to cross examine Prof. Mikos with respect to what is actually going on in the US as things are changing day-to-day as well as Dr. Baruch with respect to Israel and Ms. Sandvos with respect to the Netherlands).
Canada has decided that it does want to cross examine our Rebuttal experts Tim Moen, a Fire Chief from Alberta and Scott Wilkins, the insurance agent with respect to fire and electrical safety and insurance risks generally and Eric Nash was both an expert and fact witness. His expertise goes to rebut all of the defendant witnesses with respect to fire, electrical and public safety and other issues and his “fact” evidence is with respect to his efforts to have his company become an LP and the various problems encountered.
Adjournment application
An application was made to adjourn the trial to await the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Smith, which is set to be heard on March 20, 2015 in Ottawa. This case involves the extracts issue, which is one of the issues in our case, but also, in our opinion, the Supreme Court of Canada will have to do the section 7 and section 1 Charter analysis and coming to its final decision. This will be the first time that the Supreme Court of Canada has addressed the issue. Her application to adjourn was refused. Depending upon how things develop, and bearing in mind that there is a schedule for arguments post trial with the final oral submissions being made April 30 and May 1 under the current schedule, it may be that we ask Justice Phelan to await the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and to enable both sides to address it before he comes to final decision.
 
Sandy420

Sandy420

Well-Known Member
...
Under the current schedule, it is unlikely that there will be a decision in this case before June, 2015.
Changing the address of the production site
One cannot currently change one’s production site address. We sought to address this issue on behalf of the Plaintiffs Beemish and Hebert, but Justice Manson, while finding that they met the injunction criteria did not address the issue on their behalf. Consequently, this was the subject of our cross-appeal to the Canada’s appeal of the granting of the injunction. Canada’s appeal was dismissed with costs to us in our cross-appeal was allowed without costs. The matter was remitted to Justice Manson. He explained that he did not intend to cover them. We have therefore written to the Court of Appeal requesting directions as to whether they will now make a decision on this issue or do we have to file a further appeal. We have filed a notice of appeal to protect the time limit and are awaiting directions from the court.
What if my ATP expired before March 21, 2014, but my PPL or DGL remain valid as of September 30, 2013.
This was also the subject of the cross-appeal as Manson J. simply picked that date as the date of his judgment and Ms. Beemish is ATP had expired in January 2014. We will see if the Court of Appeal deals with this question as well.
In the interim we have advised people in that position to go back to their doctors and obtain a section 53 Narcotic Control Regulations authorization to cover their possession in accordance with similar or the same terms as our ATP. However, Health Canada has been advising the police when they called during investigations, which indicates they are still maintaining the database, that the patient has to have both a valid ATP and PPL or DGL and otherwise that the site is not valid. There is a case in Edmonton that appears to be proceeding that may resolve this issue one way or the other. Of Canada does not appear to address the section 53 situation even though it was referred to by Manson J. in his injunction order reasons.
Fundraising
This case is being handled on a donations basis bearing in mind that many patients are on medical disability pensions. To date, we have raised a total of $204,962.69 through both the Coalition against Repeal group organized by Jason Wilcox and by direct deposits via credit card or otherwise directly to Conroy and Company for this case. The Coalition group has forwarded the sum of $95,000 to Conroy and company since January 2014 and has further funds in its community account of approximately $18,000. Conroy and company has billed $133,707.73 to date since October 2013 of which $51,995.49 approximately has been paid to other lawyers assisting with the case (Tonia Grace, Kirk Tousaw, Bibhas Vaze and Matthew Jackson). We currently have $71,254.96 in the firm trust account that we are holding back in part to ensure we have enough to cover all expenses through the trial. Mr. Conroy has unbilled time recorded in relation to this file, totaling $307,808.56 in addition to the work performed above reflected in the billings to date. Many patients who are Plaintiffs in the class action suit over the privacy invasion relating to the Health Canada letter have completed pledge forms with respect to a percentage of their damages from that case, when it hopefully conclude successfully in the future. The pledge form has been put back up on the webpage so that others who wish to contribute in this fashion can do so.
Webpage and updates
To keep up-to-date and to see what work has been done and to determine the current stage the proceedings, readers are encouraged to go to www.johnconroy.com and click on the “MMAR constitutional challenge” link http://mmarcoalitionagainstrepeal.com/index.html on the left and go to a page dedicated to this proceeding. There you will find the following:
A. Various dated updates, either by video or document or in written form;
B. The pleadings and proceedings in the main action, including the various deadlines and the evidence once filed and returned by the court. Plaintiffs affidavits were filed on January 9, and we are still awaiting their return from the court and will post them as soon as they are available. The Defendants affidavits are due this Friday, January 23. The Plaintiffs experts and Rebuttal experts to the Defendants experts are all posted;
C. The proceedings and evidence filed in support of the injunction and the injunction decision and development since;
D. The Appeal and Cross-Appeal proceedings and judgments and development since.
We are now working our list of documents due February 6th, 2015 that includes all the documents we wish to prove as well as those we wish to put to their witnesses in cross. We also have to finalize what discovery evidence obtained from the Defendants that we wish to put in as part of our case – and otherwise get prepared for trial.
John W. Conroy QC
Conroy and Company
2459 Pauline Street,
Abbotsford, B.C.
 
C

CannaReview

Well-Known Member
Ohhh Len Garis rebuttals should be fun, hopefully they can show that all those people only had personal agendas on their plate with the 48 hour inspections and the fire/safety risks were pull out of their ass.
 
VIANARCHRIS

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
Call the election already. I'm tired of playing Harper's fucking games. I'm gonna grow, I'm gonna smoke and I may even divert some to the CC. Fuck Wilcox too. Why in the fuck is it costing $1 mil+ to restore a right that we already had? What is he taking from it? Time to go on the attack against Harper ourselves...we need to be as vocal and political about this 'attack on the sick and poor' as the vets are with their issues. In the end it comes down to the judges and they are swayed by the public if the message is loud enough.
 
R.Raider

R.Raider

Well-Known Member
3 weeks this trial is going to take? Jesus....Wonder how long for them to make a decision once over?
 
G

gb123

Well-Known Member
Im sure they'll find a way to screw everyone including themselves as they won't find a solution that will suit them so PPPHHHTTT to it all in their mind.
They'll Just spend YOUR KASH and FIGHT YOU with it :lol:
It's an easy job.
 
doingdishes

doingdishes

Well-Known Member
look at how long it took for the injunction to be decided....that was only a part. this is the real deal so I would be surprised if it was longer than 6 months.
how long did it take for the Mernaugh case to get a decision?
 
VIANARCHRIS

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
My "Fuck Harper" letter going out to newspapers and columnists around the country. I don't know if it'll do any good, but
writing it made me feel better!

As the federal election approaches and with the legalization of marijuana supported by almost 70% of Canadians , I am puzzled that the Harper Government ™ is continuing with their strangely obsessive anti-pot campaign. Stephen Harper is determined to force his morals, especially with respect to marijuana, onto every Canadian including medical users. As a legal medical user, a 35 year recreational user and an advocate for ending prohibition, I feel I need to respond to this attack on my freedom and on my right to decide which medicine works best for me. I have survived for more than a half century without relying on the medical advice of Stephen Harper and I am confident I don't need his interference now.

A little over a year ago, 40,000 medical marijuana patients received a letter from Health Canada advising us to destroy our gardens or risk imprisonment under the new 'mandatory minimum sentencing' laws. Instead of being able to grow our own medicine for pennies a gram, we were told the only legal source of marijuana would be government approved 'licensed producers' who would set their own pricing, estimated to be $5.00 per gram. Patients were rightfully outraged, as someone with a 10g/day script would see his or her prescription costs balloon from under $300/month to more than $1500. As many medical cannabis users are disabled and have limited incomes, this would effectively deny them the access to marijuana granted us by the SCoC. A coalition of patients successfully argued that and were granted a temporary injunction to allow us to continue to grow our own medicine until our February 2015 court challenge of the constitutionality of the new rules. The Harper Government™ appealed but were unsuccessful, inexplicably wasting thousands of dollars in legal fees and court costs, mere months before the Court challenge is set to begin. The trial is less than a month away and those of us who rely on being able to grow our own are getting nervous. We are also getting angry.

Those most affected by these new rules, the poor and sick, saw through the charade of the 'community safety' argument used by the Conservatives as a reason to take away our right to grow and quickly realized it was all about money. Big money. The entire purpose of the Licensed Producer model is to establish a regulated industry for marijuana legalization. The needs of the patient never came into play, and the track record of growers so far certainly bears that out. Virtually every grower licensed to sell marijuana has has been plagued with a variety of issues, from recalls, inferior product quality, irradiation of medicine and the above all else, their inability to meet demand. The MMPR has made being successful at ordering medicine equivalent to winning a lottery. Many,many patients report they are told the growers are sold out just minutes after the medicine goes on sale. The medicine that is grown is overwhelmingly the high thc strains popular with the recreational user, and rarely a high cbd strain or hybrid sought by medical users looking for the medicinal benefits without the high. The projected average price of $5/g has now jumped to $8/g for their poorest quality product. Top quality black market weed sells for between $3-$5. While patients wait, hoping to get access to the grossly inadequate supply of over-priced legal marijuana, they are forced to go without or access the black (or grey) market, risking arrest. Health Canada has all but ceased granting new producer licenses, receiving thousands of applications but so far only 15 LP's are approved and operational. By the governments own estimates, the number of medical marijuana users will jump from 40,000 to 3 million in the next decade, yet they seem unwilling to ever allow supply to meet demand. Despite all that, the applications by hopeful producers continue to pour in as investors, many of them foreign, line up to cash in on the ' Canadian Green Rush'. As witnessed in Colorado and Washington State, there are billions of dollars to be made in recreational marijuana, both for the growers and sellers as well as the governments. This will become even more evident as more and more states choose to capitalize on the massive tax windfall that comes with legalization. All of the big players in the legal states were originally medical producers who had managed to be in the right position when legalization took hold. Many of those same people are backing Canadian licensed producers as they too ready for legal marijuana. By creating a system where consumers, in this case the patients, are forced to use a limited number of suppliers, it provides a solid base for a starting successful business. The problem is the patient is nothing more than the guinea pig while they iron out the wrinkles. I hope Canadians are paying attention to the court case next month as the Harper Government™ argues that the financial viability of the licensed producers and the success of the MMPR in general is of greater importance than my access to affordable medicine.

While Stephen-'not on my watch'- Harper has said repeatedly that he will not legalize marijuana, he has indicated softening the laws to allow for fines instead of charges. This form of 'selective taxation' will be the beginning of the end of prohibition. The Harper Conservatives have an eye on that pot of money and are aiding (repaying) their corporate donors and supporters by granting them a spot on the ground floor of a multi-billion dollar industry. A recent CBC article announced a multi-million dollar investment by pay pal founders in Privateer Holdings, owner of Tilray. At the bottom of that article it states that the investment will be used for legal and medical business expansion. Even if the Harper Government ™ had been the greatest government in history, this one issue would be enough for me to vote for someone else. A government that places corporate profits and tax revenue ahead of the health and well being of it's citizens has no business calling itself democratic. A government that seems determined to make me suffer chronic pain, financial ruin or imprisonment rather than allow me to grow a plant, all in the name of the almighty dollar, has over-stepped it's role and needs to be dismissed.

The current round of anti-pot ads being run incessantly with tax dollars are nothing more than reruns of the reefer-madness propaganda ads of the 40's and 50's. On one hand, the government blames a lack of credible research as the reason they won't recognize marijuana as a medicine, and with the other approves cannabinoid based pharmaceuticals that mimic marijuana. They claim the potency of marijuana has increased by a whooping 400% since the 60's, but cannot provide any evidence to show there was testing then; where did that number come from? They make the same tired 'save the children' plea, claiming marijuana can permanently alter a adolescent brain. As they claim a lack of research, how did they arrive at this conclusion. They also don't explain why prohibition has not stemmed the use of marijuana by young people. Curiously, there was no mention of alcohol, also widely used by young people, infinitely more dangerous on a developing brain and a proven killer. Why is there not legislation to reinstate alcohol prohibition if that is what it takes to save the kids? If that were truly the reason to ban a safe plant, it would only make sense to also prohibit the sale of the number one killer of teenagers in this country. Sadly, for Stephen Harper, it is not about giving patients access to medicine and it's not about reducing harm to children and it's not about keeping our communities safe. For Mr. Harper, it is all about ego, and his perceived power to inflict his antiquated views on free thinking Canadians.

Thankfully, in 2015, Canadians will have the opportunity to cast a ballot for a party that has committed to ending prohibition and restoring the very basic freedom to choose a medicine or a recreational intoxicant that is far safer than pharmaceuticals and alcohol.

If you need any help in deciding where to put your vote, listen to the stories from patients forced to fight their way through this maze just to try to have some sort of relief from their illnesses. Vote for the party that has promised to finally end the war on the sick.
 
leaffan

leaffan

Well-Known Member
Very nice Chris!!
There's a couple small grammar errors in it. The number of patients isn't projected to go to 3 million.
No mention of the second biggest killer, opiods?
Why not name the party at the end...Liberals?
Tons of thought and a damn good letter!
 
VIANARCHRIS

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
leaffan said:
Very nice Chris!!
There's a couple small grammar errors in it. The number of patients isn't projected to go to 3 million.
No mention of the second biggest killer, opiods?
Why not name the party at the end...Liberals?
Tons of thought and a damn good letter!
Click to expand...
Good points,...ty. I thought I read 3 mil? I'll have to correct that. Opioid...don't know how I missed that? And adding the Liberal Party name can't hurt. I'm on it. If anyone has email addresses to mmj friendly columnists or bloggers, let me know and I'll send a copy to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top