does not mean it cannot be fought and WON hands down.
Truth is a script is a script is a script and as such gives anyone who is sick, the right to grow.
As for MMAR they had their deal..court will determine the rest!
and truth be known.
.its no difference where you grow your medicine...
grandfathered or not.
The courts have already decided for us.
Just has not gone back to court to be fought with the new BS legislation ..
which wont happen by the way.
cheers everyone knows how it goes...
its a shit show...end of story!
So your smarter than the lawyers that we employed for Allrd et al plus 8 other legal actions all of which we won??
I hear from my good friend Jeff who left this forum because he did not agree with persons PROMOTING that it is perfectly safe to move an MMAR license. It's ILLEGAL plain and simple so anyone reading this reply please stop promoting this DELUSIONAL idea. You only succeed in putting people and their families at risk of serious legal, finiancial, criminal and emotional repercussions. If u choose to do it fine. But to promote it as safe with no repercussions for others, is just plain wrong and irresponsible. Enough said. Here is what the lawyers say.
From John Conroy QC website.
Allard et al v. Canada FCTD T-2030-13 and FCA A-174-2014
A. Status of Trial preparation and developments and interlocutory/interim Appeal and Cross Appeal Updates:
April 2017
As I have stated previously, the Allard final decision of Mr. Justice Phelan of February 24th 2016 contains in the final judgment an Order that the Order Justice Manson dated March 21, 2014 remains in effect
until this court orders otherwise. In other words, the injunction order grandfathering many MMAR patients whose authorizations to possess were valid on March 21, 2014, and whose personal production or designated grower licenses were valid on September 30, 2013 continue to be valid at the specified locations and in the specified amounts notwithstanding the expiry dates on them, to ensure that patients continue to get "reasonable access".
Once the ACMPR came into effect on August 24, 2016 I recommended that those of you grandfathered under the MMAR make applications under the ACMPR for the same ability to possess and produce or have a designated grower do so for you to see if you are able to obtain the same dosage, plant count and storage amount so that we have some evidence to present to the court as to whether or not the ACMPR is providing "reasonable access". I ask you, if you were not getting "reasonable access" and experiencing problems in your ACMPR location and process to please send an email to me, headed "patient communications" at
[email protected] detailing what you had before and providing documents in support and detailing the problems experienced with the ACMPR and its process and supplying any documents in support. This will enable me to produce affidavits attaching your statements of complaint and experiences to counter any effort on the part of the government to end the injunction order if that should occur.
If your problems are with your physician/doctor in relation to authorizing your use of cannabis, or your dosage, this is not caused by the ACMPR, except to the extent that it carries forward the role of doctors as gatekeeper from the MMAR. The Canadian Medical Association and Provincial Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons have not so far endorsed the medical legitimacy of cannabis, and doctors who support patients in the use of cannabis expect to do so under significant professional scrutiny. Many are not willing to take this on. If you feel your reasonable access to cannabis is impeded by not being able to find a doctor willing to authorize your medical use, please send an email statement to my office at
[email protected] indicating the details of your situation. Your statement may suggest whether legal proceedings would be in order, but it may also enable you to get medical assistance by enabling me to share your difficulties with a group of doctors entitled
"PMC - Practitioners for Medicinal Cannabis", a nationwide network of physicians who support the informed use of cannabis in patient care. Upon receipt of your email statement I will forward it, with your permission, to the Coordinator of that group to determine whether they can assist you, in your province. This is a preferable route than simply filing a complaint with the College against the doctor as this leads to sympathetic doctors being investigated and threatened and reduces the pool of doctors available to assist.
For your information from my review of the
new proposed Cannabis Act, that the government proposes to have in place by July 1, 2018, it appears that by section 158 of the proposed Act that, subject to regulations made under 161(1) of that Act, that "registered persons" (namely patients),
if regulations made under subsection 139 (1) that come into force on the commencement date refer to registered persons, then every individual who is a registered person under the ACMPR immediately before the commencement day of the Cannabis Act will continue to be a registered person until the expiry of their registration or unless it's canceled before that and will be subject to any regulations made under s.139(1) and the same applies to designated persons under the ACMPR. In other words, it appears that the plan is to essentially continue the ACMPR regulations as regulations under the Cannabis Act, perhaps with some changes. The same provision is made for "clients" of licensed producers under the ACMPR and further provides that applications under section 35 for a license under the ACMPR or under section 95 to import section 103 to export will be transitioned into regulations under the new Act and applications that are in process on the commencement date of the new Act will be deemed to be applications under section 62 of the new Cannabis Act. The same will apply to patients applying to be "registered persons" or a person applying to be a "designated person" under the ACMPR, where no final decision has been made on their application on the date of commencement of the new Cannabis Act,
if regulations made under subsection 139(1) that come into force on the commencement day provide for the making of such applications.
I suspect that the ACMPR will be transitioned into regulations on this Cannabis Act, but we will have to wait and see exactly what the government does.
and doctors and judges and police etc.......wanna try that again?
..
