Leis De Cannabis Medicinal No Canadá Anticonstitucional

[Canadense]

hahaha entao... tem que ter a licensa, e num pode ultrapassar o numero de plantas (por isso que tu vê aquelas plantas monstruosas indoor mais efficiente seria umas plantas menores mais gordas)

porem as licensas medicas são muito dificeis de ser obtidas por varios fatores...

Medicos tem receio de prescrever cannabis por causa da pressão do governo pela classificação da planta. Ou seja, é basicamente os que tão a beira da morte que podem... daí tem que fazer a aplicação pela Health Canada que demora uma eternidade pela, que tem que ser renovada cada 3 anos se num me engano. é uma burocracia tremenda. e tb por medo, muitos medicos não querem assinar ou seja, se u abusar do privilegio os medicos tb serão investigados. MSM por q eles sempre achavam que a resposabilidade deveriam ser deles...por que isso é apenas uma "erva" [sic]

mas a Health Canada forçaram essa condição neles

e quem num tem a licensa ou é designado pra ser grower de alguem é preso por produção (logico não com uma ou duas plantas, os policias iam levar um pito do juiz por gastar o tempo da corte e o dinheiro do contribuinte, mais facil eles destuirem e te dar um aviso). Ai vai na do juiz...

compara a lista do governo canadense

com essa aqui! da califa

alem de lá ser voluntaria o cadastramento das pessoas, e aqui compulsório

isso é pelo qu eu sei...

eu sei que eu tenho varios clientes medicinais que se precisarem depoiriam se eu precisasse

[maconhaisraelense]

E quem te disse q essa decisão gerou uma sumula vinculante?

E mais, o STF considerou crime o porte de maconha, apenas mandou reavaliar a pena!

Vc ta muito ansioso! Para com o prensado...

Babilônia foi a capital da antiga Suméria e Acádia, no sul da Mesopotâmia (hoje no moderno Iraque, localiza-se a aproximadamente 80 km ao sul de Bagdá). O nome (Babil ou Babilu em babilônico) significa "Porta de Deus", mas os judeus afirmam que vem do Hebraico Antigo Babel ( בבל ), que significa "confusão". Essa palavra semítica é uma tradução do sumério Kadmirra.

pare de usar meu remédio, se não acreditar em mim

[Canadense]

os sumerios eram os caras, o resto é tudo uma falacia...

[Pé Gordo]

já tá claro na rua? amanhã o brasil já vai ter legalizado?

Nao israelense, o brasil e 3o mundo e vai demorar um tempo ... mas esse juiz e uma pessoa exclarecida e oq falou e verdade (mas isso foi no canada e nao no banana republic).

Como isso importasse, 25 anos plantando, 2 canas nas costas e a caravana nao para ...

[NinjaDeJah]

Com esse google translator fico foda de entende mesmo, tive que ler em ingles

Tomara que vire isso ein, vou me pro canada se tudo der certo!

[maconhaisraelense]

Como isso importasse, 25 anos plantando, 2 canas nas costas e a caravana nao para ...

Conhece o serviço de atendimento ao grower '24 horas por dia, 7 dias por semana?'

[Pé Gordo]

Conhece o serviço de atendimento ao grower '24 horas por dia, 7 dias por semana?'

Nao sei oq vc esta falando?!?!? E vc sabe?!?!

[Canadense]

FONTE

Matt Mernagh, the medical marijuana user who brought down Canada's marijuana laws.

CANNABIS CULTURE - The Government of Canada will appeal an Ontario court's ruling that struck down the country's marijuana laws as unconstitutional. Matt Mernagh, the med-pot user at the center of a historic court battle over the country's medical marijuana laws, says he has been served his notice of appeal in the case.

"I received a phone call from the Crown prosecutor today," Mernagh told Cannabis Culture earlier this afternoon. "He offered his congratulations on the case and told me to get ready for the appeal."

Mernagh was served with the appeal shortly afterward.

A tweet from posted on his Twitter account just afterwards read, "notice of appeal has just been handed to me wooooooo govt wants its ass handed to them again".

In an April 12 ruling in the case of R. v. Mernagh, Ontario Superior Court Justice Donald Taliano found that Canada's Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) and "the prohibitions against the possession and production of cannabis (marihuana) contained in sections 4 and 7 respectively of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act" are "constitutionally invalid and of no force and effect".

The judge agreed with Mernagh, who had tried unsuccessfully for years to find a doctor who would sign his MMAR forms before being busted growing his own plants, that the medical marijuana program is inadequate for the needs of patients. The judge found that doctors' "overwhelming refusal to participate in the medicinal marijuana program completely undermines the effectiveness of the program" and that "the requirement for a medical doctor's declaration has rendered the MMAR unconstitutional".

The Court struck down medical marijuana laws and the laws dealing with cannabis possession and production, giving the government 90 days to fix the program before the new rules come into effect.

The case will now go back to court on appeal. If the government wins, Mernagh says he will take the case all the way to the Supreme Court.

"Our people have waited way too long for this," he told CC last week. "This could very well be the final kick."

If the government loses the appeal, it would likely be forced to make significant changes to the medical marijuana program.

"If the government is not successful on appeal," lawyer Alan Young told the Toronto Star, "they are going to be caught between a rock and a hard place because they don't have an alternative program in mind. They don't have a plan B. They're in trouble."

Read more and watch video about the case on Cannabis Culture.

Matt Mernagh is a regular contributor to Cannabis Culture. Read his CC blog.

[maconhaisraelense]

esse playboy tá se achando o Messias, né?

[Canadense]

e num é???

po esse. erm, "playboy" é o cara...

[PPerverso]

"Suffering from fibromialgis, escoliosis, seisures and depression, Matt triggered a Bombshell Ontario Superior Court Ruling that dropdown the Medical Marijuana Program as unconstitucional..."

po, que "playboyzinho" firmeza esse

[Canadense]

</h1>

<h1 class="title">Atlas Toked: Why Prohibition is Dead in Canada

By Paul McKeever, Cannabis Culture - Monday, April 25 2011

CANNABIS CULTURE - Canada’s doctors have shrugged-off the role of deciding who should be a medical marijuana patient, leaving the Conservative government holding the bag. Can the politicians salvage the MMAR or will pot be legal for all? In Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged”, the United States’ taxed and over-regulated inventors and problem solvers go on strike. Having shrugged off the burden of carrying others – the burden of thinking for them and making possible the production of goods and services that make civilization possible – the rest of society falls into hunger, darkness, and violence. In the interim, the government attempts to prevent the strike with force of law and guns but it ultimately discovers that the human mind is sovereign; that no amount of law or physical might can force a person to think and work if he simply chooses not to do so. A recent decision in Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice has now demonstrated that the same metaphysical fact faces the proponents of cannabis prohibition in Canada, which now appears destined to share the fate of Rand’s Atlas-forsaken United States.

On April 11, 2011, Ontario Superior Court Justice D.J. Taliano issued his decision in the case of R. v. Mernagh. Justice Taliano declared that the sections of Canada’s Controlled Drugs and Substances Act prohibiting possession (section 4) or cultivation (section 7) are unconstitutional, hence non-existent in law, with respect to cannabis. He stayed (i.e., cancelled) the cultivation charge against Mernagh, whom he found to be a patient benefiting from the use of cannabis as medicine. For reasons that I will explain below, it would appear cannabis prohibition will soon be history in Canada.

Advertisement Before getting into tomorrow’s history, let’s look at a bit of current history. In 2000, in the case of R. v. Parker, Ontario’s Court of Appeal concluded that the government had no power to make a law prohibiting patients from accessing, cultivating, or possessing the cannabis they use as medicine. Until that decision, the law had made no distinction between patients and non-patients. The Court of Appeal in that case gave the government one year to change the law so as to make cannabis prohibitions apply only to non-patients. In response, the government introduced the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (“MMARs“); regulations purportedly designed to ensure that patients, but nobody else, could access, cultivate, and possess cannabis.

The MMARs essentially require patients to get a physician to sign a declaration to the effect that the person is a patient who should be using cannabis to treat his medical condition. As a result, the regulations put into the hands of physicians the power to identify which patients will or will not get exempted from Canada’s cannabis prohibition laws.

In R. v. Mernagh, Mernagh argued that physicians have widely refused to accept the role of cannabis “gatekeeper”, with the effect that patients lack the exemptions they need to obtain cannabis legally. Justice Taliano agreed. He found as a fact that the overwhelming majority of physicians were refusing to sign the MMAR’s cannabis declarations for their patients. As evidence, Justice Taliano detailed the experiences of over 20 patients from across Canada who have run up against a medical profession unwilling to sign the paperwork necessary for the patients to obtain exemptions from prosecution under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. He detailed numerous reports from physician organizations stating that member physicians should not provide patients with legal access to cannabis. The only evidence available concerning the percentage of physicians participating in the government’s exemption program for patients came from 2001 data showing “only .012% of all of the doctors practising in Canada that year signed a declaration for a patient”.

Having found as a fact that the MMARs are failing to provide patients with the legal exemptions they need from Canada’s cannabis prohibition laws, Justice Taliano concluded:

Accordingly, the

MMAR

must be struck in their entirety. In the result, there is no legislative scheme in place to provide an exemption from the prohibitions contained in sections 4 and 7 of the

CDSA

. This brings us back to the situation faced by the court in

Parker

, in which case, those sections would also have to be declared of no force and effect as required by the court in

Parker

.

Justice Taliano suspended the effect of his decision until July 11, 2011, so that Canada’s Parliament and government would have three months to try and come up with another set of laws to give patients better access to cannabis. However, Canada is in the midst of a federal election, and Parliament is not expected to be sitting again before July 11, 2011. It is rather unlikely that any attempt to change the law will be made prior to July 11, 2011.

Given that situation, it should not be all that surprising that the Crown has decided to appeal Justice Taliano’s decision to Ontario’s Court of Appeal. The effect of commencing the appeal is that, until Ontario’s Court of Appeal renders its decision, it is as though Justice Taliano’s decision had not been rendered at all. Until the Court of Appeal renders its decision, patients like Mernagh, who cannot find a physician to sign their declarations, can and probably will be charged with possession or cultivation of cannabis under sections 4 and 7 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

That said, it would appear that the Crown’s appeal has little chance of success. An appeal is not a re-trial of a case. The law limits the powers of an appeal court. Specifically, there are rules about whether or not an appeal court can overrule a trial judge’s decision.

One set of appeal rules applies to “findings of fact”, and another set of rules applies to “findings of law”. “Findings of fact” are the conclusions the judge makes about the facts of reality. For example: “the physicians of Canada have massively boycotted the MMAR and their overwhelming refusal to participate in the medicinal marihuana program completely undermines the effectiveness of the program” is a finding of fact made by Justice Taliano in the Mernagh case. So is this: “…under the current legislative scheme, legal access to medicinal marihuana is practically unattainable for those [patients] who desperately need it”. Facts are proven with other facts, called “evidence”. The following passage includes two pieces of evidence that doctors are refusing to assist patients to obtain a licence to cultivate and possess cannabis for medicinal purposes:

[A patient who was a witness in the R. v. Mernagh case] has asked two neurologists to support her marihuana use by signing the Health Canada declaration. Both have refused. One of these doctors told her he did not sign for anyone; the other held her hands over her ears and sang “la, la, la, la, I can’t hear you” as a response to her request.

In the case of Housen v. Nikolaisen [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that:

The standard of review for findings of fact is such that they cannot be reversed unless the trial judge has made a “palpable and overriding error”. A palpable error is one that is plainly seen.

That means that if a given finding of fact by the trial judge cannot be plainly seen to be erroneous, the appeal court cannot interfere with that finding of fact.

In R. v. Mernagh, the facts and evidence were clearly on Mernagh’s side. The crown tendered no evidence concerning the percentage of physicians that will agree or that routinely refuse to sign declarations. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is simply ridiculous to expect that an appeal court could “plainly see” Justice Taliano’s key finding of fact – that the MMARs fail to provide patients with access legal access to cannabis – to be erroneous.

If the crown’s appeal is to succeed, the crown will have to show that one or more of Justice Taliano’s “findings of law” were such that the court has authority to interfere with his findings. The test for changing findings of law was explained by the Supreme Court of Canada as follows:

The standard of review on pure questions of law is one of correctness, and an appellate court is thus free to replace the opinion of the trial judge with its own.

In other words, if Justice Taliano misunderstood, misrepresented, or misapplied the law, then the appeal court is free to apply the correct law to Justice Taliano’s findings of fact. If, after applying the law correctly, the appeal court comes to a different conclusion (using Justice Taliano’s findings of fact), then it can change the outcome of the case. For example, it could find Mernagh guilty of cultivation, or could find the government’s enforcement of possession and cultivation laws to be consistent with Canada’s constitution.

It is doubtful that Justice Taliano erred with respect to the law. Having well detailed the fact that the MMARs fail, in practice, to provide patients with legal access to cannabis, we are indeed in the situation that the Court of Appeal already has said, in R. v. Parker, not to be constitutionally viable.

It is even more doubtful that the government/Parliament will be able to create regulations or statutory amendments that remedy the situation. The central problem is that the courts have said the power of the government with respect to non-patients differs from its power with respect to patients. Non-patients can be fined or imprisoned for possessing or cultivating cannabis, but – according to the courts – the constitution gives the government no authority to make or enforce such a law against patients who use cannabis as medicine. In order for a patient vs. non-patient distinction to be enforceable, there must be a credible way to identify who is a patient using cannabis as medicine, and who is not. Nobody except a physician is qualified to make such an identification, yet physicians are refusing to make the identifications.

There are both legal and practical barriers to creating a legal framework that would encourage physicians to change their minds and to identify who is and who is not a patient. With respect to legal barriers, physicians rightly fear being sued by patients who might eventually claim that they never should have been prescribed cannabis. A law could be passed to deny patients the right to sue physicians for prescribing cannabis, but there are at least two major problems with introducing such a law. First, there may well be cases in which a physician’s prescription of cannabis amounts to malpractice; in which prescribing cannabis to a given person led to a forseeable, avoidable loss for which a patient should be able to sue for compensation; in which a law against suing the physican would be unjust in some circumstances. Second, a law prohibiting a patient from suing a physican for prescribing cannabis is a law that arguably falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Provincial Legislatures: the federal government arguably has no constitutional authority to make a law that prevents patients from suing their physicians over the negligent prescription of cannabis. In other words, even were giving physicians immunity a way to fix the constitutional problem, the federal government lacks the power to create the fix.

The practical barriers include the fact that potential lawsuits are not the only thing causing physicians to boycott the signing of cannabis declarations under the MMARs. As Justice Taliano explained, “…doctor are obligated by the ethics of their profession not to do anything to harm their patient, and therefore cannot knowingly approve the use of a product whose benefits and risks have not been verified by clinical studies.” Even were doctors immune from cannabis-related lawsuits, it is likely that they would continue to boycott signing the cannabis declarations because they apparently believe, in the circumstances, that prescribing cannabis to patients is unethical, given what they believe to be inadequate research into the effects of smoking cannabis.

It appears unlikely that any appeal or any change in the law will have the effect of giving patients legal access to cannabis so long as non-patients are prohibited from possessing, cultivating, or buying/selling it. If it is unconstitutional to require patients to prove themselves patients in circumstances where such proof is unobtainable, then proof of patienthood cannot be a pre-condition for legal possession or cultivation. And, if proof of patienthood is not a pre-condition for legal possession or cultivation, everyone – in practice – can possess and cultivate without being able to prove themselves to be patients.

In other words, so long as Canada’s physicians remain committed to shrugging-off any attempt to burden them with the role of distinguishing patients from non-patients, the government will not be able to create a law that prohibits non-patients from possessing or cultivating cannabis.

So long as Atlas Shrugs, he – and all of the rest of us – will be free to toke.

Paul McKeever is an attorney, leader of Freedom Party of Ontario, and producer of The Principle of Pot, a film about cannabis activist Marc Emery. Read his blog at http://blog.paulmckeever.ca

http://cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2011/04/25/Atlas-Toked-Why-Prohibition-Dead-Canada

[GatoHaxixado]

POrra mano...

Minha mãe tem fibromialgia... Doença nova, pouco diagnosticada, mas é o bicho!

Causa um sintoma chamado hiperalgesia, tipo, estímulos que não eram pra causar dor, no portabor de fibromialgia causa.

Tem gente que sente dor nos braços ao passar uma pena ou até mesmo vestir uma camiseta....

Triste pracaralho.

[Canadense]

po... maconha na velha cara!!!!

[Mr. Grower]

ow canadense... se ficar mais susse por aí, me conte uma coisa: o nobre velhinho Rick Simpson pode voltar pra casa????

[Canadense]

po, duvido... se num me engano o cara ta sendo acusado de praticar medicina sem licensa,..

acho que ele teria de fazer um acordo com o promotor..

[maconhaisraelense]

Nao sei oq vc esta falando?!?!? E vc sabe?!?!

http://exame.abril.com.br/mercados/noticias/pressa-de-investidores-faz-otimismo-com-brasil-virar-ansiedade

[Canadense]

[Percoff]

e ai que fim que deu canadense?

[Canadense]

prorrogado o julgamento até o dia 15 de Novembro

[leonardo..]

prorrogado o julgamento até o dia 15 de Novembro

iai como ta o canada em relação a canabis irmao sativo?

[Canadense]

prorrogado até o dia 6-7 de maio...

[SelvaEncantada]

tome le prorrogação.... enquanto isso no setup do imigrante....as coisas acontecem

[Canadense]

imigrante não... po, moro 5 quadra de onde eu nasci...

migra não!!!

zueira..

[ThiaBo]

Ah os médicos...

Ninguém quer perder o monopólio do poder!

Cambada de FDP do caral*** msm,

Acostumaram a ter clientes que ficam o resto da vida toda fazendo consulta$ e gastando com drogas que só tratam os sintomas mais que não curam, alem de render 30% da receita...

Assim se sentiram desconfortáveis em tabalhar com um remédio que realmente cura e leva embora o cliente?!?!...

Como já dizia o Rick Simpson... Confie no seu médico e morra!!!