injunction/court case updates

bigmanc

bigmanc

Well-Known Member
and il say it again too...good job @doingdishes always on the ball.

So i guess we will hear what happens tomorrow...i wish cannabisculture would have someone else tweeting the governments commentary, not complaining just want to hear both sides.
 
G

gb123

Well-Known Member
VIANARCHRIS said:
Man, I like Tousaw! And he is absolutely correct that if the Gov. doesn't have a valid reason under chapter one, than limiting access violates chapter 7. A dumb redneck hillbilly like me figured than out a long time ago. Now if only we had a government that could respect the constitution...
Click to expand...
Lets hope that feeling is passed onto the judges
 
doingdishes

doingdishes

Well-Known Member
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 5m 5 minutes ago
Gov't counsel arguing to Justice Phelan that patients in the case can actually afford the prices of LPs
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 4m 4 minutes ago
Gov't: it's a red herring because none of the patients are actually impoverished and can afford to purchase from licence producers
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 3m 3 minutes ago
Justice Phelan: "Would your position be different if some of the patients could not afford it? The evidence is clear that it costs more"
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 2m 2 minutes ago
Gov't: Second conclusion is that patients could not show why banning home grows caused them any harm
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 34s 34 seconds ago
Gov't: Third conclusion is that patients have not been prejudiced in an way by the 150 g travel limit -evidence shows this should be enough
 
doingdishes

doingdishes

Well-Known Member
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 12m 12 minutes ago
Gov't: In Parker case, prohibition on marijuana must not deny patients reasonable access to marijuana - but does not protect home growing
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 8m 8 minutes ago
Gov't discussed Hitzig and the development of Prairie Plant Systems - talked about the R v Mernagh case and other cases @Mernahuana
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 5m 5 minutes ago
Gov't discussing Section 7 and Section 1 of the Charter - and elements of arbitrariness, overbreadth, and gross disproportionality
 
doingdishes

doingdishes

Well-Known Member
WHATFG said:
This is beautiful....this is not a stupid judge...
Click to expand...
i really hope he sees through the Gov't crap. there are incomes and expenses to prove LP's are way too expensive. we have shown the flaw in the math regarding the 150g limit.
i wish the Gov't guy needs a "something" everyday and has to go away for a week but only allowed 4 days worth of his "something"...then lets hear him talk about how it wasn't fair!
 
doingdishes

doingdishes

Well-Known Member
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · now
Phelan sums up the Gov't argument: the MMPR may be "dumb, badly conceived, & not what the court would have done…"
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 6m 6 minutes ago
Phelan: …but unless it gets to the point of unreasonableness, the court has no say. Gov't agrees with the summary
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 3m 3 minutes ago
Gov't outlines plaintiffs supposed Section 7 violations as "Affordability argument" & "suitable strain argument"
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 2m 2 minutes ago
Gov't: "Affordability argument" is invalid because patients have enough money - show by ability to set up home growing operations
Cannabis Culture @CannabisCulture · 1m 1 minute ago
Phelan: What about patients who can't afford the medicine because they are sick and can't work?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top