So you admit you don't have any proof the Ndp will start issuing tickets when they decriminalize weed? I don't care what the police on down say they won't be the ones make the rules. Where has mulcair said anything about making possession a ticket able offence? He hasn't so stop saying that he has. And another thing we're on the internet why don't you google what the Colorado platform is instead of guessing. And yes jt is absolutely a silent partner in tweed. Until they open their books and prove me otherwise I'll keep saying it. So again I'll ask when and where did jt say we will be able to grow our own?
injunction/court case updates
- Thread starter doingdishes
- Start date
True we won't know until they are in office. I believe higher ups a hc will get sacked for completely disregarding the scoc ruling tbh. The court case will no longer be funded federally and be dropped. What can I say I'm a dreamer.
If mmar patients retain the right to grow we all get the right to grow. Or back to court we go.
sick people are only fighting for what little rights they have with a system that is failing them miserably.
Not giving a shit and being charged when you have no defense would be sad if you ask me.
It's a fight and one that will go on as long as prohibition rears its ugly head continually...
Not giving a shit and being charged when you have no defense would be sad if you ask me.
It's a fight and one that will go on as long as prohibition rears its ugly head continually...
I just don't see the Ndp fighting us on this one GB. The upper echelon inside hc who's fight this is will get sacked. The crown will be told to give in and fuck off or be forced to retire and a new crown that will want nothing to do with this case will take over and drop it. We can already show the body's of the mmj patients that died so far in this fight. Since they have a minority gov and non of the mmpr is actual "law" just hc policy I see it being a easy choice for the Ndp to say "stop fucking with sick people". Like I said I'm a dreamer.
redi jedi
Well-Known Member
I know a couple people who have been charged...but were never convicted.
Yes. There was a member on here over a year ago who had his ducks in a row and got arrested charged and went to court and had the whole thing dropped.
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
JungleStrikeGuy says she has law knowledge and there was a lawyer here a few months ago. i can't remember the lawyers' handle though
JungleStrikeGuy
Well-Known Member
Alberta police recently raided a MMAR injunction-covered home and took all their plants and equipment, although that was related to the dispensary raid so I can see that as 'complicating factors'.
There have been some other 'medical' patients raided but I'm not sure if it was specifically mentioned that they had a MMPR-like recommendation. In any event just having a doctor's recommendation (in my mind) doesn't cover you, R v Mernagh clarified R v Parker to mean you have a right to a constitutional exemption from prohibition and not a right to use cannabis.
So, if MMPR is found to be constitutional with prohibiting home grows you really can't bring up Parker.
WHATFG
Well-Known Member
The lawyer is...not just a pretty face...
torontomeds
Well-Known Member
The real problem here is the Faustian bargain created by marijuana decriminalization laws. In the story of Faust, he makes a deal with the devil, selling his soul in exchange for power and knowledge. So in a Faustian bargain, someone sacrifices values for material gain.
Marijuana decriminalization reduces the legal penalties for people arrested for marijuana possession, and that’s a good thing.
But it comes with a cost, hence the allusion to a Faustian bargain. What’s lost, or sacrificed, is a true accounting for the injustice of marijuana prohibition.
Marijuana decriminalization makes prohibition affordable for the police and local criminal justice systems. Indeed, when you think about the costs and benefits from the law enforcement perspective, they don’t have to pay the costs of jailing people, and instead, they reap the benefits of people paying fines.
The other problem with decriminalization is that it creates the damaging myth that people only use very small amounts of marijuana for personal use.
Think about it, decriminalization affects what is referred to as small personal-use quantities of marijuana. Usually this is defined as an ounce. (Although credit goes to Ohio, where decriminalization of marijuana possession covers up to 100 grams, or a little of over 3 ounces.)
This narrow definition of a personal-use quantity of marijuana is one of many ways marijuana prohibition helps to support the black market—it makes it sensible for marijuana consumers to buy small amounts of marijuana and pay more for them rather than risk harsher penalties for possessing amounts greater than what decriminalization allows.
However, this also reinforces the position taken by police that anyone who has more than an ounce of marijuana must be a drug dealer, especially if they have several ounces or worse, several marijuana plants. That’s the felony equation—if you have more than a little bit of pot, you’re not a marijuana user, you’re a marijuana dealer.
And that means years in prison, or, for in many cases, a felony conviction and a long time under correctional supervision in the form of probation or parole.
People are allowed to buy gallons of scotch and vodka. People are allowed to buy cases of wine. People are allowed by kegs of beer. There are several reasons for this, but the reasons don’t really matter—it’s called freedom.
You can read the rest in HT mag. All about decrim and how it is bad.
doingdishes
Well-Known Member
thanks...??
what brought that up?