injunction/court case updates

GroErr

GroErr

Well-Known Member
nohibition said:
I'll never turn my back however I frequently find myself without meds as a result. Going to put up a 10 x 20 greehouse this year so there's some left over for me lol.
Click to expand...
Lol, done that a few times but it's worth it when someone's down or on their way out. I'm pulling ~1lb. a month but edibles/meds can eat that up quick. Nice to have the spot to set that size greenhouse up, that should do you for a while.
 
J

JungleStrikeGuy

Well-Known Member
ricky1lung said:
I'm speculating that financial interests and investments in legal business will be supported and somewhat protected in the new set of rules.

--snip

This is not restricting access because everyone will have the legal ability to self produce.
Click to expand...
Nope.

There's 'confusion', at the very least, around Manson's language in the injunction. It goes to the balance of convenience test as specified in the SJS case, and involves the sphere of the will of parliament (which is iffy because the MMPR didn't go through parliament).

However, the ruling is clear. Patients now have a codified, constitutional right to grow. This does not involve LP's at all, and if the LPC drafts bad legislation it will be back in court.

This is big trouble for the LP's. Now that people can grow, their revenue model just disappeared. To be constitutionally viable, the new legislation must follow Phelan's ruling, and the LP's have sweet fuck all for protection.

So no, they do not have to give any special weight to LP's. If they can't survive in a free and fair market, too bad.

Also, arbitrary regulations are exactly what this case was predicated on (and won), so yes, that is still restricting access. The LPC is of course free to write more bad legislation, but it will be back in court (and easily won).
 
ricky1lung

ricky1lung

Well-Known Member
JungleStrikeGuy said:
Nope.

There's 'confusion', at the very least, around Manson's language in the injunction. It goes to the balance of convenience test as specified in the SJS case, and involves the sphere of the will of parliament (which is iffy because the MMPR didn't go through parliament).

However, the ruling is clear. Patients now have a codified, constitutional right to grow. This does not involve LP's at all, and if the LPC drafts bad legislation it will be back in court.

This is big trouble for the LP's. Now that people can grow, their revenue model just disappeared. To be constitutionally viable, the new legislation must follow Phelan's ruling, and the LP's have sweet fuck all for protection.

So no, they do not have to give any special weight to LP's. If they can't survive in a free and fair market, too bad.

Also, arbitrary regulations are exactly what this case was predicated on (and won), so yes, that is still restricting access. The LPC is of course free to write more bad legislation, but it will be back in court (and easily won).
Click to expand...

In a scenario like I've outlined it wouldn't be easily won.

There would be homegrows allowing wide access and a list of "approved" producers who can be chosen from. They can and might legislate the dg's are only to be approved and licenced and no backyard growers are allowed to be dg's to ensure what the gov would label as quality.

That is allowing access and providing options for those who need dg's all within a criteria built around keeping lp's and investments alive.

There is nothing about the market that is "free" and there won't be even in rec it will be carefully regulated.

I'm just going to wait and see what happens again. No point arguing, I've said my piece and am happy to sit back and see if yet another prediction I make comes true.
 
J

JungleStrikeGuy

Well-Known Member
ricky1lung said:
In a scenario like I've outlined it wouldn't be easily won.

There would be homegrows allowing wide access and a list of "approved" producers who can be chosen from. They can and might legislate the dg's are only to be approved and licenced and no backyard growers are allowed to be dg's to ensure what the gov would label as quality.

That is allowing access and providing options for those who need dg's all within a criteria built around keeping lp's and investments alive.

There is nothing about the market that is "free" and there won't be even in rec it will be carefully regulated.

I'm just going to wait and see what happens again. No point arguing, I've said my piece and am happy to sit back and see if yet another prediction I make comes true.
Click to expand...
Of course it would. Arbitrary limits have been decimated both in Allard and R v Smith. Keeping 'lp's and investments alive' do not factor into Charter rights whatsoever (save for the balance of convenience), but that is more applicable to the injunction proceedings.

With people able to grow, the market is most certainly free and fair (for patients). If you want to sit back and ignore the realities of constitutional law, be my guest. I'm curious as to what your other prediction was that came true though.
 
doingdishes

doingdishes

Well-Known Member
i don't think they can regulate DG's anymore than the patients grow.
if they forced me to a DG instead of my choice, i would be on my way to file my motion!
if you're too sick or don't have space, you're hooped for personal production?? i can't see that working. even CONroy mentioned DG's
 
J

JungleStrikeGuy

Well-Known Member
doingdishes said:
i don't think they can regulate DG's anymore than the patients grow.
if they forced me to a DG instead of my choice, i would be on my way to file my motion!
if you're too sick or don't have space, you're hooped for personal production?? i can't see that working. even CONroy mentioned DG's
Click to expand...
Yep, you've pretty much got it nailed.

Ricky, I'm not sure if you have investments in the LP's or something and that's why you're going through all these acrobatics, but the principles of fundamental justice aren't dependent on investments.
 
doingdishes

doingdishes

Well-Known Member
ricky1lung said:
In a scenario like I've outlined it wouldn't be easily won.

There would be homegrows allowing wide access and a list of "approved" producers who can be chosen from. They can and might legislate the dg's are only to be approved and licenced and no backyard growers are allowed to be dg's to ensure what the gov would label as quality.

That is allowing access and providing options for those who need dg's all within a criteria built around keeping lp's and investments alive.

There is nothing about the market that is "free" and there won't be even in rec it will be carefully regulated.

I'm just going to wait and see what happens again. No point arguing, I've said my piece and am happy to sit back and see if yet another prediction I make comes true.
Click to expand...
what would the difference be from LP to DG? your scenario to me seems like the very sick will still be forced into a system found unconstitutional.
 
ricky1lung

ricky1lung

Well-Known Member
Again it will be a new system. They have 6 months to create one.

Will they just tell all those who invested in a legal market to shove it or will they leverage their abilities and try to provide a balance for all at play?

They will look for a balance but part of that will be sending those who need a dg in the direction of an approved grower.

It's a loophole that is available if they choose to legislate it. I wouldn't put it past them to protect the financial interests they or their buddies have.
 
ricky1lung

ricky1lung

Well-Known Member
JungleStrikeGuy said:
Of course it would. Arbitrary limits have been decimated both in Allard and R v Smith. Keeping 'lp's and investments alive' do not factor into Charter rights whatsoever (save for the balance of convenience), but that is more applicable to the injunction proceedings.

With people able to grow, the market is most certainly free and fair (for patients). If you want to sit back and ignore the realities of constitutional law, be my guest. I'm curious as to what your other prediction was that came true though.
Click to expand...

2 quick ones, home grows being reinstated and a liberal win.
 
J

JungleStrikeGuy

Well-Known Member
ricky1lung said:
Again it will be a new system. They have 6 months to create one.

Will they just tell all those who invested in a legal market to shove it or will they leverage their abilities and try to provide a balance for all at play?

They will look for a balance but part of that will be sending those who need a dg in the direction of an approved grower.

It's a loophole that is available if they choose to legislate it. I wouldn't put it past them to protect the financial interests they or their buddies have.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you keep bringing up that it's a 'new system', given no one's disputing that fact.

If they follow the proud Harper tradition of favoring 'business' and 'investments' in trying to re-create the crony capitalist market, it will be back in court, and the 'investments' people will lose.

Given the ruling specifies that there should be no limit on how many people a CG/DG can provide for, you're completely out to lunch here.
 
ricky1lung

ricky1lung

Well-Known Member
JungleStrikeGuy said:
I'm not sure why you keep bringing up that it's a 'new system', given no one's disputing that fact.

If they follow the proud Harper tradition of favoring 'business' and 'investments' in trying to re-create the crony capitalist market, it will be back in court, and the 'investments' people will lose.

Given the ruling specifies that there should be no limit on how many people a CG/DG can provide for, you're completely out to lunch here.
Click to expand...
I keep bringing it up because no one is willing or able to see what could happen and how all players from med patients to lp's have to be considered.

They can regulate mom and pop dg's out of the equation under the guise of safety and quality assurance from licenced producers and still be following the ruling.

They don't have to allow anyone to be a dg, thy simply have to allow dg's and can regulate the crap out of them.

To think otherwise is extremely shortsighted.
 
J

JungleStrikeGuy

Well-Known Member
ricky1lung said:
I keep bringing it up because no one is willing or able to see what could happen and how all players from med patients to lp's have to be considered.

They can regulate mom and pop dg's out of the equation under the guise of safety and quality assurance from licenced producers and still be following the ruling.
.
Click to expand...
Nope. I'm not sure if you don't know what arbitary limits means here, but this is not constitutionally viable.

Since you're either intentionally being obtuse or just can't grasp the legal realities here, I guess we're done.
 
ricky1lung

ricky1lung

Well-Known Member
JungleStrikeGuy said:
Nope. I'm not sure if you don't know what arbitary limits means here, but this is not constitutionally viable.

Since you're either intentionally being obtuse or just can't grasp the legal realities here, I guess we're done.
Click to expand...

And what do limits have to do with the topic at hand?
Were you and I discussing limits or dg's?

I was talking dg's and never mentioned limits, you argued points about dg's and now want to shift to arbitrary limits?

Run out of arguments already?
I guess we're done. :roll:
 
J

JungleStrikeGuy

Well-Known Member
ricky1lung said:
And what do limits have to do with the topic at hand?
Were you and I discussing limits or dg's?

I was talking dg's and never mentioned limits, you argued points about dg's and now want to shift to arbitrary limits?

Run out of arguments already?
I guess we're done. :roll:
Click to expand...
Your conjecture is that the government will regulate DG's to the point of LP-ridiculousness.

Such 'regulations' would be arbitrary limits, just like the limit of 'dried' cannabis in the NCR was ruled arbitrary.

Simple enough? Should I make a powerpoint for you?
 
ricky1lung

ricky1lung

Well-Known Member
JungleStrikeGuy said:
Your conjecture is that the government will regulate DG's to the point of LP-ridiculousness.

Such 'regulations' would be arbitrary limits, just like the limit of 'dried' cannabis in the NCR was ruled arbitrary.

Simple enough? Should I make a powerpoint for you?
Click to expand...

They could. To think otherwise is dumb.

They have not been told to allow anyone to become a dg. They just have to allow home grows and dg's.

The libs very well could legislate what constitutes as a dg and what safety and quality assurances are in place.

I'm not the guy who needs a diagram.
 
The Hippy

The Hippy

Well-Known Member
JungleStrikeGuy said:
Nope.

There's 'confusion', at the very least, around Manson's language in the injunction. It goes to the balance of convenience test as specified in the SJS case, and involves the sphere of the will of parliament (which is iffy because the MMPR didn't go through parliament).

However, the ruling is clear. Patients now have a codified, constitutional right to grow. This does not involve LP's at all, and if the LPC drafts bad legislation it will be back in court.

This is big trouble for the LP's. Now that people can grow, their revenue model just disappeared. To be constitutionally viable, the new legislation must follow Phelan's ruling, and the LP's have sweet fuck all for protection.

So no, they do not have to give any special weight to LP's. If they can't survive in a free and fair market, too bad.

Also, arbitrary regulations are exactly what this case was predicated on (and won), so yes, that is still restricting access. The LPC is of course free to write more bad legislation, but it will be back in court (and easily won).
Click to expand...
Thanks you for saying what i couldn't seem to spit out. My Gov better not offer these private companies any help....Jeez
If they fail...too bad for them. Should have been smarter in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top