My right to treat myself without medical professionals

The Hippy

The Hippy

Well-Known Member
GroErr said:
I get to take her back next year as part of the original agreement. In the original agreement she had to sign off and did that there would be no increase as the payments were based on what I was making at the time. Also had her sign off on any win-falls like a lottery, inheritance or selling off my business. And she couldn't initiate a review/increase, any increase in her income had to come from self-sufficiency. But that's only because I fought her for 3 years and after $45k. Bottom line is in the clauses, if you don't get them into the agreement you end up in court all the time.

But a big part of the agreement was that she'd have to attempt to become self-sufficient over that period of time and they (judges) put a lot of weight into that clause. She hasn't worked a day since we split so I'm going for a full stop on payments and maybe settle for 1/2 with a specific end date. She obviously needs an incentive to get off her ass

The thing is, after going through the family court system there is no justice and it all comes down to which judge you get and the mood they're in that day. I could get lucky and get one who tells her to get on with her life or I could get a judge who thinks that because I make what I make, she should have a life of luxury while sitting on her ass. It's a f'd up system which I have no faith in but I'll roll the dice, $5 to $10k is nothing compared to what I pay her.
Click to expand...
Marriage eh.....maybe the most fucked up bad deal on the planet.
I would never ever ever ...do it again.
 
J

JungleStrikeGuy

Well-Known Member
OGEvilgenius said:
You should have this right, but you don't. The Mernagh case ruled that only physicians have control over what you can put into your body. It was a truly awful decision that was one of the worst I've ever read. I wish you luck because I want you to win, but the court specifically ruled on this. You should check it out.
Click to expand...
Yep, Mernagh was unfortunately the nail in the coffin of any chance of establishing a positive right to treat yourself with whatever 'works' for you, and it is the most recent binding decision on cannabis. R v Mernagh specifically put into black letter law that you do not have a positive 'right' to use cannabis to treat ailments, only that a blanket prohibition without a constitutionally valid medical program is unconstitutional.

With that being said, R v Mernagh specifically looked at the MMAR, but Justice Doherty basically said 'Although Mr.Mernagh has not brought sufficient evidence, even if he had I must make the following findings'. Between a quote from a Justice from 2001 and a binding precedent (Court of Appeal) from 2012-ish, the latter is going to come out on top.

Since no one knows what 'legalization' is going to look like things may change after Spring, but the s.7 interest does not mean 'I can ingest anything I want, even if it's illegal if I say it helps me.' It means 'If I have a doctor's authorization, I have a right to an exemption from cannabis prohibition'. Otherwise there's nothing stopping anyone from saying 'I use cocaine/mdma/heroin/poppies medicinally'.
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
VIANARCHRIS said:
I disagree. While I am not well versed on the Mernagh case, I have found other precedents that give my case validity. When possession is no longer a crime for Canadian adults, and cannabis is no longer under the cdsa, denying me autonomy over my own body becomes even more egregious.

"denying the individual the autonomy to choose how to treat his illness, the law infringed his rights to liberty and security of the person under the Charter. The Court adopted the broader conception of the section 7 liberty interest as extending to decisions of "fundamental personal importance"

"In order to put the cases relating specifically to the drug legislation into perspective, relevant aspects of the general evolution of section 7 interpretation are described. The paper notes the following jurisprudential developments: a broadening of the liberty interest beyond freedom from physical restraint to include freedom from state interference in matters of "fundamental personal importance"; the interpretation of "security of the person" as protecting a broad autonomy over one’s body and, in particular, the right to avail oneself of beneficial treatments for serious medical conditions; and the increasing tendency of the courts to critically review the substantive policy underlying legislation in ensuring conformity with the principles of fundamental justice. It is argued that these general developments in section 7 jurisprudence have had a noticeable impact on how the courts have handled section 7 challenges to the drug prohibition laws.

Who knows how successful I'll be, but I have nothing to lose by defending and demanding what I perceive to be my fundamental rights. I do not trust the medical profession or pharma drugs and I should not have to share any personal information with them. Health Canada does not require any other patient to seek their permission to or provide personal information, and it serves no public interest in them having that information.
Click to expand...
I'm just giving you the most recent ruling. I don't think this court is very friendly. You do have some money to lose possibly unless you want to defend yourself, but either way, I do hope you make a run at it because the Mernagh ruling really pissed me off and sets a horrid precedent on so many levels.
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
JungleStrikeGuy said:
Yep, Mernagh was unfortunately the nail in the coffin of any chance of establishing a positive right to treat yourself with whatever 'works' for you, and it is the most recent binding decision on cannabis. R v Mernagh specifically put into black letter law that you do not have a positive 'right' to use cannabis to treat ailments, only that a blanket prohibition without a constitutionally valid medical program is unconstitutional.

With that being said, R v Mernagh specifically looked at the MMAR, but Justice Doherty basically said 'Although Mr.Mernagh has not brought sufficient evidence, even if he had I must make the following findings'. Between a quote from a Justice from 2001 and a binding precedent (Court of Appeal) from 2012-ish, the latter is going to come out on top.

Since no one knows what 'legalization' is going to look like things may change after Spring, but the s.7 interest does not mean 'I can ingest anything I want, even if it's illegal if I say it helps me.' It means 'If I have a doctor's authorization, I have a right to an exemption from cannabis prohibition'. Otherwise there's nothing stopping anyone from saying 'I use cocaine/mdma/heroin/poppies medicinally'.
Click to expand...
There should be nothing stopping people from using what they want to use. All of those drugs actually are used medicinally in various forms.

I fully expect the courts to rule in favor of government power most of the time though.
 
VIANARCHRIS

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
OGEvilgenius said:
I'm just giving you the most recent ruling. I don't think this court is very friendly. You do have some money to lose possibly unless you want to defend yourself, but either way, I do hope you make a run at it because the Mernagh ruling really pissed me off and sets a horrid precedent on so many levels.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your insight, but I don't agree that it has any bearing on my plight. One lousy ruling doesn't prevent me from fighting for my charter rights. As I said, there are other precedents... Justice LaForme, Ontario Superior court (retired) ruled just the opposite. He said a persons' right to autonomous medical care was of "fundamental importance" and when weighed against the government policy , he prevailed. That was also about cannabis use. A lot has changed in society in regards to cannabis acceptance and the government is moving to legalize rec use, so there is no argument to prevent me from treating myself. It's not like I'm asking to manufacture Oxy's or fentynol. I simply want to continue doing what I am already permitted to do...I just am not going to ask permission from a doctor or HC. How can they argue that providing personal information to a doctor and HC somehow makes a difference in my treatment or health? They can't simply revert to a previous ruling as that wouldn't factor in current societal attitudes which is an important part of our Charter.
As for the costs, I will defend myself as much as possible and I will ask for publicly funded legal council when needed. Poor people have an equal right to challenge any violation of their charter rights. There are organizations out there to assist me with the legal stuff.
If you understood the absolute hatred I have for doctors and my vow to never visit one again, combined with my aversion to any authority over my life, you would know how serious I am at making them recognize my rights. I will win in the end...I usually do!
I will take on board any tips, suggestions or comments that might help with the case...when I win, we all benefit.
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
VIANARCHRIS said:
I appreciate your insight, but I don't agree that it has any bearing on my plight. One lousy ruling doesn't prevent me from fighting for my charter rights. As I said, there are other precedents... Justice LaForme, Ontario Superior court (retired) ruled just the opposite. He said a persons' right to autonomous medical care was of "fundamental importance" and when weighed against the government policy , he prevailed. That was also about cannabis use. A lot has changed in society in regards to cannabis acceptance and the government is moving to legalize rec use, so there is no argument to prevent me from treating myself. It's not like I'm asking to manufacture Oxy's or fentynol. I simply want to continue doing what I am already permitted to do...I just am not going to ask permission from a doctor or HC. How can they argue that providing personal information to a doctor and HC somehow makes a difference in my treatment or health? They can't simply revert to a previous ruling as that wouldn't factor in current societal attitudes which is an important part of our Charter.
As for the costs, I will defend myself as much as possible and I will ask for publicly funded legal council when needed. Poor people have an equal right to challenge any violation of their charter rights. There are organizations out there to assist me with the legal stuff.
If you understood the absolute hatred I have for doctors and my vow to never visit one again, combined with my aversion to any authority over my life, you would know how serious I am at making them recognize my rights. I will win in the end...I usually do!
I will take on board any tips, suggestions or comments that might help with the case...when I win, we all benefit.
Click to expand...
I understand your feelings very much. You should check out the BC Civil Liberties association. I had a professor who was involved heavily with that group, I know for a fact they provide funding where possible to cases they think have merit. Obviously their resources are tight however.

That professor taught me a fair bit about how government operates. He's also the first person I've seen ask the question what is the purpose of government and give an objectively clear answer (to stay in power). They'd be on your side at the very least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top