There are important clarifications to the Santos case to be made for the benefit of anyone thinking they have carte blanche to not seek medical authorization.
The full text of the decision is here :
https://releve.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2014/2014bcpc266/2014bcpc266.html?resultIndex=9
Important things to note:
He was arrested in February 2013, and obtained a valid exemption (by the dates this should be a MMAR authorization) in August of 2013. So this is really a question about the timing and complexity of obtaining the authorization, not eschewing the system completely and getting away with it.
From Justice Challenger:
He has a 50 percent chance that he will develop a life-threatening genetic disease. He is now in the process of having that condition confirmed, but has believed he suffers from it due to ongoing symptomology. Given his family history, he expects that the age of onset will be in the next 10 years and the decline will be very rapid. He has avoided a final determination for psychological and emotional reasons. He faces the prospect that his children may have inherited the same genetic disposition from him.
And further:
In Mr. Santos' written statement to the court, he speaks about the stigma and shame he has experienced as a result of being arrested and charged for producing marihuana in his home. Indeed, he well knew he was undertaking an illegal activity. He knew he should obtain an exemption, but perceived the application process to be a cumbersome one and so did not pursue it. He was concerned about the consequences of admitting his use of marihuana to the government given the uncertain future of the exemption program. His wife did not approve of his production of marihuana in the family home. He is remorseful for his conduct and understands he must face some consequences.
So again, this is not about flouting the medical system, but acknowledging that it is cumbersome and the future of it is, even under the ACMPR, 'uncertain'. Cannabis blogs seriously misrepresented this case by omitting the true nature of the case.
Finally, this case also brings to light that the seriousness of your penalty is somewhat related to your situation (Also from Justice Challenger, in response to submissions on previous precedent):
In cases where an absolute or conditional discharge was granted, the accused was not motivated by profit and the marihuana was for medical use. In many cases, the accused pleaded guilty, was of good character, and without a criminal history. Most of the offenders demonstrated an understanding of the importance of compliance with the law and were remorseful for having come to the decision to break the law. Specific deterrence and rehabilitation was found to have been addressed by the process of investigation and prosecution. The offenders and often their families had already suffered the adverse repercussions arising from involvement in the criminal justice system. Most significantly, the moral culpability of the offenders was found to be very low.
I caution anyone who thinks showing up before a judge waving the Charter and claiming imaginary rights is also going to get you an absolute discharge.
