Clairification
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/october/hitzigsynopsis.htm
The federal government has recognized since 1999 that the possession and use of marihuana for medical purposes by individuals who can demonstrate medical need should not be a crime under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. In June 1999, the government began to issue ministerial permits allowing individuals to possess and cultivate marihuana for medicinal purposes. In July 2000, this court held in R. v. Parker that a scheme that depended entirely on how the Minister of Health chose to exercise his or her discretion was unconstitutional. The court gave the government one year to fix the constitutional defect.
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/october/hitzigC39532.htm
[2] This case is not about the social or recreational use of marihuana, but is about those with the medical need to use marihuana to treat symptoms of serious medical conditions. We have concluded that for those people the MMAR as drafted by the Government do not create a constitutionally acceptable medical exemption. Our reasons for so concluding differ somewhat from those of Lederman J. So does the remedy we would impose, namely to declare invalid only five specific sections of the MMAR. This renders constitutional the medical exemption as described in the remaining provisions of the MMAR, thereby rendering the possession prohibition in s. 4 of the CDSA constitutional: R. v. Parker, supra. The interests of justice are best served by removing any uncertainty as to the constitutionality of the possession prohibition while at the same time providing for a constitutionally acceptable medical exemption.
The page from which the first paragraph came is particularly clear and free of legalese... but basically net result is, status quo for recreational possesion, licenced/prescription basis for medical use, and those who are licenced to produce for those with medical need may do so for more than one person in shared facilities and be compensated for their efforts.
Unfortunatly that seems to mean that most of what I have been spouting about the Cretien and Martinn Governments needing to make some kind of law to plug the hole in the criminal code opened by medical possesion laws, is wrong. Of course the further implication is that they have alot more balls raising this issue of de criminalization in that there seems to be perfectly functioning law in place.
And if that didn't make your head spin...
The federal government has recognized since 1999 that the possession and use of marihuana for medical purposes by individuals who can demonstrate medical need should not be a crime under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. In June 1999, the government began to issue ministerial permits allowing individuals to possess and cultivate marihuana for medicinal purposes. In July 2000, this court held in R. v. Parker that a scheme that depended entirely on how the Minister of Health chose to exercise his or her discretion was unconstitutional. The court gave the government one year to fix the constitutional defect.
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/october/hitzigC39532.htm
[2] This case is not about the social or recreational use of marihuana, but is about those with the medical need to use marihuana to treat symptoms of serious medical conditions. We have concluded that for those people the MMAR as drafted by the Government do not create a constitutionally acceptable medical exemption. Our reasons for so concluding differ somewhat from those of Lederman J. So does the remedy we would impose, namely to declare invalid only five specific sections of the MMAR. This renders constitutional the medical exemption as described in the remaining provisions of the MMAR, thereby rendering the possession prohibition in s. 4 of the CDSA constitutional: R. v. Parker, supra. The interests of justice are best served by removing any uncertainty as to the constitutionality of the possession prohibition while at the same time providing for a constitutionally acceptable medical exemption.
The page from which the first paragraph came is particularly clear and free of legalese... but basically net result is, status quo for recreational possesion, licenced/prescription basis for medical use, and those who are licenced to produce for those with medical need may do so for more than one person in shared facilities and be compensated for their efforts.
Unfortunatly that seems to mean that most of what I have been spouting about the Cretien and Martinn Governments needing to make some kind of law to plug the hole in the criminal code opened by medical possesion laws, is wrong. Of course the further implication is that they have alot more balls raising this issue of de criminalization in that there seems to be perfectly functioning law in place.
And if that didn't make your head spin...
posted by Syrrys |
5:55 pm
2 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
woohoo! My first spam comment! sweet!
Post a Comment
<< Home