Ontario Judge Rules Cannabis Prohibition Invalid!

[Keith Fagin]

ONTARIO JUDGE RULES CANNABIS PROHIBITION INVALID!
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Doug Hutchinson (the pot head professor)
Date: Oct 19, 2007
I have the pleasure of announcing an important legal victory.
Today in an Oshawa Court, the trial judge in the 'Tom, Dick, and
Harry' case dismissed the charges against them, for simple possession
of marijuana. He said that in his view the marijuana prohibition had
no valid force or effect.
In the lunch recess Justice Edmunston had read the judgement of
Borenstein, J. which found the same conclusion in July, a judgement
that our team had managed to get to his attention, with difficulty,
against obstruction by the Crown prosecutor.
He said the cases against Tom, Dick, and Harry, are dismissed because
the law is not there to charge them or convict them. The exact terms
of his decision will be available later, after an exchange of faxes
with the Court house.
So the marijuana law has fallen again.
It seems bound to fall repeatedly whenever the Borenstein judgement is
invoked.
Justice Edmundston said that though he was not bound by the decision
of Justice Borenstein (the two courts are 'parallel', viz. neither one
issues judgements that are binding on the other), he was persuaded by
it, and found that the law had fallen into invalidity.
The precise point at issue in the Borensten ruling (the case of R. v.
Lord) is that the 2003 December standing order which made it a policy
to supply Health Canada schwag to those of us who are medically
authorized was only a policy. Being only a policy, it wasn't good
enough protection for those whose rights need to be protected (i.e.
the sick among us); this means that the Medical Marijuana Access
Regulations are unconstitutional, the entire prohibition falls,
because the MMAR is the only thing propping up the prohibition from
falling into obvious and undeniable invalidity/
Therefore in my view the best public relations course is to call for a
stay of all proceedings in Canada on this charge, together with a
moratorium on arrests. I will be making a public call on the
Prosecution service soon, to urge him to make this decision.
The case of R. v. Lord has been appealed by the Government (the appeal
was filed in August, but there was murkiness on this in court today),
but no date has yet been set for this appeal in the Ontario Superior
Court/
The background of the case is repeated, from my earlier post of
September 30 to this list.
Congratulations are very much in order to Ed Pearson, who volunteered
many dozens or hundreds of hours of his time on this case, to fight
the thing on principle, standing beside me (I paid for expenses). The
youngsters were handed this victory gratis, on a silver platter,
because that is how principled jurisprudence should take place.
Telephone follow up to me at 416-702-3579 you have private or
confidential information of immediate use, e.g press contacts;
otherwise followup to this e-mail address.
- Best wishes, Doug H

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Doug Hutchinson (the pot head professor)
Date: Sep 30, 2007
Thanks to Al Graham for raising awareness of the constitutional issue
with the fellow who was charged with simple possession, and thanks to
John Conroy for spelling out the meaning of the various legal
processes.
And thanks very much to Ed Pearson for defending the current case.
I'd like to inform CCC members more about this current case, as it
came into my hands through my philosophy course at the University of
Toronto, and I am paying for the legal expenses out of my own bank
account.
When my situation hit the news briefly last fall, the students in the
class on the philosophy of Seneca that I was then teaching were well
informed about my views on the subject of marijuana prohibition. One
of my students came to me asking for help for her brother, who had
been charged, along with two other youngsters, with simple possession
of maijuana when police officers conducted an apparently illegal
search of their car, parked in a municipal park in Whitby at dusk on a
midsummer day in 2006.
Let's call these youngsters Tom, Dick, and Harry: Tom had 3 grams,
Dick had 0.3 grams (recorded in evidence as 3.0), and Harry had one
joint, well ess than a gram.
I agreed to help steer and pay for their defence as a matter of
principle, mainly for the same reason that Al Graham acted on
recently: "i believe it would help drive another nail into the
prohibition coffin and eliminate prohibition forever," a hope I share.
I also have a particular objection to the damage that this senseless
prohibition often does to young lives, when my entire decades-long
teaching mission is to enhance the lives of young people by higher
education and philosophical enlightenment.
Tom, Dick, and Harry entered pleas of not guilty, and Ed Pearson has
been representing them as agent in the proceedings. After 5 previous
court appearances (!), their case finally came to be heard on 2007
September 7 in Oshawa, and I was present for the proceedings.
The first thing that happened was an apparent defeat for our side. As
Ed remarked, "Crown objected to jurisdiction of trial Judge to
entertain or apply Long in that no notice
of constitutional issue was filed. Notwithstanding my submissions the
Court followed the Crown." Ed had taken the view that since the law
had already been struck down, there was no need to file the regular
notice of constitutional challenge; but the decision went against this
view, and we were denied the opportunity that day even to present the
previously accepted arguments in Parker, J.P., Hitzig, and Long.
<The lesson that should be learned from this episode is this: If you
intend to argue against a possession charge on constitutional grounds,
you need to let the other side, and the Court, know in advance that
this is going to be your line of defence. Ask politely how this is to
be done, and then go ahead and do it. No Justice will agree to hear a
sudden argument from an amateur (or even a professional) that the laws
that were being applied yesterday are not to be applied today.>
The next thing that happened, after we finally got going after lunch.
was the hearing of evidence from the two arresting officers, with
cross-examination by Ed Pearson, also evidence from Dick. I was very
impressed with Ed's cross-examination, which succeeded in showing the
police officers contradicting each other and saying things of
ludicrous implausibility, such as this one: one of the officers claims
to have recognized 'marijuana leaflets' at a distance of many paces,
through the tinted windows of a car at dusk, as they were being
constructed into a spliff of "about 1/16 of a gram", on the pages of a
multi-coloured road atlas. At this point I burst into involuntary
laughter, which I had to stifle and suppress into a cough, since
laughing with derision at a police witness is a sure way to get
yourself thrown out of court.
Due to the late start of the hearing and Ed's extended and successful
cross-examination, the case needed to be carried over to a future
session, which got scheduled for October 19. This allowed Ed
sufficient time to file a new motion of constitutional challenge,
appealing to the reasons in the Long decision as well as the other
cases. This challenge has now been filed and will need to be heard in
3 weeks, unless the Crown withdraws the charges.
So what seemed to have been a defeat was not a defeat: the issues of
legal principle will need to be heard after all, and we now have a
fresh case on the go where the reasons articulated in Long will need
to be attended to by an Ontario trial judge.
If the Crown insists on proceeding, and the Judge rules against both
motions (illegal search and seizure, and constitutionality), then Tom,
Dick, and Harry will be found guilty. In this case we will need to
appeal the conviction to the Superior Court, and we have an automatic
right to do so; and if the Superior Court rules in the same direction
as Borenstein J. did in Long, then that Superior Court decision will
be binding on all Ontario trial judges, and the entire prohibition
will collapse again like in 2003.
If the Crown withdraws the charges at this late stage, that will prove
that the Government is running scared of the flimsy constitutional
status of the prohibition, and would rather let any number of accused
go free than run the risk of having the veil of their Emperor's new
clothes prohibition be ripped off and publicly acknowledged to be
nothing real.
This would be the best outcome for the youngsters, and I'll try to
make good publicity for our cause out of it if it happens. The best
outcome for our movement, though it's more stressful for the
youngsters), would be the hearing of the arguments by judges and their
agreeing with us, which may perhaps happen; let's hope so.

[Cannabishop]

I can't say much, I am ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssoooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooo excited I can hardly breath.

That's 2 courts in four months.

WE ARE GONNA BEAT THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I bet money that the POS crown won't appeal again so that it remains in the lower courts.

Friggin POS's.

More later when I am less excited!!!!

peace Jimmy
p.s. Om My God I don't know if I will sleep tonight I am so excited

[micah]

Thanks for the post Keith..Lets hope this is the beginning of the end for pot laws in this country..Micah

[dee]

Court File No: 06-93270


With permission from ED PEARSON.







ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
(Central East Region)


HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent
V

BODNAR
and
HALL
and

SPASIC
Defendants


APPLICATION RECORD AND- [FACTUM]- OF THE APPLICANTS


PART 1 -- FACTS

1. Prior proceedings in this matter have made known to Your
Honour the facts pertaining to the search, arrest and charges. Not
being in possession of the transcripts of those proceedings and in
that they are not in the opinion of the applicants necessary to
resolution of the issues set forth in the Notice of Application, and
in that the applicant's agent herein having submitted his affidavit
relative to the issues raised and the reasons for the application,
it is respectfully submitted that this Court dispense with the
requirement of production of such transcripts and other
documentation that is already in the body of the Court, Criminal
Proceedings Rules, rule 2. . This in the interest of justice, a more
speedy, effective, less costly and just determination of the issues.

PART 11—NATURE OF THE APPLICATION:

2. The applicant's through their agent sought a dismissal of
the charges against them on the grounds that the Federal Crown had
instituted and was proceeding under a law that was as dictated by
the constitution, constitutionally invalid and of no force and
effect, Controlled Drug and Substances Act s. 4 (1). [CDSA]

PART 111—THE ISSUES
a) Whether a charge and a conviction can constitutionally be
entered notwithstanding final judgments which, by constitution,
dictate that the underlying charge is of no force and effect?
b) Whether a judge can constitutionally disregard a judgment
predicated and founded upon a final judgment of a Court of Appeal of
the Province wherein the proceedings have been instituted?
c) Whether where no error of law, misapprehension or
misapplication of law can be found in the judgment of a Provincial
court of equal standing a judge may disregard and refuse to apply
that judgment notwithstanding that the foundation thereof is a final
judgment of a Court of Appeal of that Province?
d) Whether a federal law can be valid in one province and
constitutionally invalid in another notwithstanding the dictate
of the constitutional equality provisions of the Charter?

PART 1V- THE LAW AND ARGUMENT
3. The applicants stand charged in a single count that they on
July 28th 2006 contrary to CDSA s. 4 (1) subsection (5) possessed
cannabis in an amount that did not exceed the amount set out for
that substance in Schedule V111, CDSA.

4. Prior to the hearing of the application seeking, pursuant to
Charter of Rights and Freedoms s. 24 (2) and Charter s. 8, the
exclusion of the evidence, agent for the accused presented an oral
request to dismiss the charges contending that the law under which
the accused were charged was constitutionally invalid.

5. The oral application for dismissal of the charges was
grounded upon the judgment of R v Long, 2007 ONCJ 340 (CANL11),
wherein it was adjudicated that CDSA s. 4 (1) had, in R v Parker,
(2000) 146 C.C.C. (3d) 193, by dictate of the constitution, been
declared of no force and effect. Also relied upon were the
authorities cited therein and the judgment of the Supreme Court of
Canada in Big M. Drug Mart Ltd. [1985] 1 S.C.R. 29, wherein the
court held:
"The Supremacy of the Constitution declared in s. 52
dictates that no one can be convicted under an
unconstitutional law"

6. In Long, (supra) the charges had been instituted on
September 23 2005. It is submitted that the judgment of His
Honour H. Borenstein, dated July 13 2007 was applicable to the case
at bar.

7. Counsel for the Federal Crown submitted that the Court
lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the charges or rule on the
constitutionality of CDSA s. 4(1) due to the failure of the
applicants to present a written application as required by the Rules
relative to Constitutional issues, Rules of the Ontario Court of
Justice, Rule 26.01 (a) (b).
Rule 26.01 (a) (b) have no application.
8. The applicants submitted then and now that, as they were not
attacking the constitutional validity of an existing law, the Rules
had no application in the circumstances. The applicants were
seeking, based on valid judicial authority, to have the charges they
were facing dismissed. No statute, rule , regulation or common law
principle was being impugned.

9. If there is a valid constitutional issue at all it can be no
other than `Whether it is constitutionally permissible to undertake
and compel a trial where the charges are founded on a purported and
pretended provision of law that is of no force and effect. A law
which previously by constitutional directive is not enforceable and
which is unconstitutional ?' It is respectfully submitted that the
Supreme Court of Canada in Big M Drug Mart Ltd.,(supra) pronounced
in the negative.

10. It is respectfully submitted that the Court in adopting the
misconceived representations of Crown counsel effectively condoned
the position that it is a requirement that an application must be
presented to impugn the constitutional validity of a statute
notwithstanding that it has previously, by competent authority, been
declared of no force and effect and is constitutionally invalid.
The Crowns submissions are untenable. The submission of the Crown
is akin to a claim that a forest of trees is a forest of trees
notwithstanding there are no trees. The Crown's submissions must be
rejected.

R v Long, 2007 ONCJ 340 (CANL11),
11. It is submitted that the judgment in Long (supra) founded as
it is on the Order in Parker (supra) must in accordance with Charter
s. 15 equality clause be followed and applied unless reversed on
appeal, or stayed pending appeal. Parker and Long are constitutional
rulings on the constitutionality of a federal enactment. They
embrace the Supreme Law of Canada and are bound up therein. They can
not be treated as normal appeal errors and judgments pronounced
thereon. They stand as paramount constitutional pronouncements that
pursuant to Charter s. 15 cannot be applied in a manner by the
Federal Crown that conflicts with, infringes upon or denies the
charter right to equality of the law.

12. Long, (supra) may not be applied so as to impinge upon that
Charter s. 15 right either internally in the Ontario courts or the
courts of other provinces. As (C.J. P.E.I.) Thompson, of the PE.I.
Provincial Court stated and which was upheld on appeal, Queen v.
Stavert, 2003 PESCTD 85 (CanLII) (Sup. Ct. A.D.).) Parker, (supra)
should not be applied so as to protect from prosecution persons in
Ontario while in other provinces individuals remain subject to
charges and conviction, in this sense, Morguard Investment v De
Savoye [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077; should be read in conjunction with
Long, (supra) and Big M Drug Mart Limited [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295,
especially where the liberty and security of the person is
involved , Charter s. 7, see: Big M Drug Mart Ltd., (supra)
pronouncement that no person shall be convicted under an
unconstitutional law.

13. For the reasons stated in R V Long, 2007 O.J. No. 2916 2007
ONCJ 341, this Court should adopt and apply the following reasons of
Justice H. Borenstein J., Ontario Court of Justice:
8] The Crown submits that I have no
jurisdiction to declare s, 4(1) of the CDSA unconstitutional. I can
find it to be unconstitutional but I cannot declare it to be
unconstitutional. My jurisdiction is to deal with the issues
presented in the case before me. General declaratory powers are the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior Courts.
[9] I am not declaring the criminal
prohibition unconstitutional. The Court of Appeal did that in
Parker. That Court stated that the criminal prohibition on
possession of marijuana is unconstitutional absent a
constitutionally acceptable medical exemption. Given my finding that
the Government has not enacted a constitutionally acceptable
exemption, then, in accordance with Parker, the law prohibiting
possession of marijuana is unconstitutional.
[10] Mr. Long is charged with a law that is
unconstitutional. Even though he himself is not in medical need of
marijuana, it is certainly open to him to challenge the law on the
basis that it is unconstitutional [2] It is well within his right to
argue that the current criminal prohibition is unconstitutional as
it fails to provide a constitutional exemption for those in medical
need – even though he is not one of those persons. Having
succeeded, he cannot be found guilty of a law that is
unconstitutional. Therefore, the charges against him will be
dismissed.

PART V – CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER SOUGHT
1. The application should be allowed and the relief sought
granted
2. Ordered that the charge against the accused Marcus Spasic,
James Alan Bodnar and Anthony Charles Hall are dismissed.
3. Ordered that the applicants be awarded costs.

Dated this 16th day of September 2007
______________________________
Edwin Pearson
Agent for the Applicants

[dee]

WITH PERMISSION OF ED PEARSON




File No: 06-93270



ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
(Central East Division)

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent



-and-



ALAN BODNAR, ANTHONY HALL, and MARCUS SPASIC

Applicants



APPLICANTS REPLY TO CROWN RESPONSE



NOTED that due to an unforeseeable error the Crown Response in this
matter was by fax forwarded to the applicant at 5:06 p.m. October
16th 2007 and came to the attention of the agent of the applicants
on October 17th 2007 at 8:00 a.m..

THE THREE LISTED GROUNDS SET FORTH WITHIN THE CROWN NOTICE
1. Replying to ground (1): It is respectfully submitted that
the Federal Crown attorney, in error, advanced that the applicants
oral motion, seeking an Order dismissing the charges, was in fact an
attack of the constitutional validity of CDSA s. 4 (1).. This
Honouable Court, could , if Crown counsel was correct properly
decline to entertain or adjudicate based upon the grounds advanced
by the Crown , to wit: that as trial judge jurisdiction to
entertain the applicants request was lacking in that the applicants
had failed to comply with Ontario Court of Justice Rule 26.01 (a)
(b), Rule 26.03 (Notice of Constitutional Question) 26.04 (1) & (3)
(a).

2. It is submitted that the present application served upon the
Federal Crown on September 19th 2007 at paragraph (2) thereof
clarifies, if necessary, the applicants original submission that
sought dismissal of the charges on the grounds that the Information
alleged charged offences that in law and fact had previously been
declared unconstitutional and of no force and effect. Thus, the
applicants were not attacking the constitutional validity of an
existing enforceable law.

3. In reply to Crown Response paragraph (2), the applicants
respectfully submit that the original request for dismissal of the
charges was not predicated upon any of the prescribed provisions of
Rule 26.01 (a) (b) or (c).

4. This present motion seeks only the application by this
Honourable Court of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in
Big M. Drug Mart Ltd. wherein it was held that no one may be
convicted under an unconstitutional law.

5. It is submitted that the pronouncement of the Supreme Court
of Canada in Big M. Drug Mart Ltd. (supra) includes a then
successful constitutional attack of the prohibited act or where the
prohibiting law under which a trial was to be held had, previously
by final judgment, been declared by dictate of s. 52 (1)
Constitution Act 1982 Part 1, to be unconstitutional and of no
force and effect.

PART 1: FACTS

6. The applicants are charged with and the Federal Crown is
seeking to obtain a conviction for an alleged offence that by virtue
of the Supremacy of the Constitution s. 52 has been declared
unconstitutional and of no force and effect. Such an attempt clearly
conflicts with the pronouncement of the Supreme Court of Canada in
Big M. Drug Mart Ltd. (supra).

7. Contrary to paragraph (2) of the Respondents Factum the
applicants have asserted that the offence of possession of cannabis
no longer exists as an enforceable offence and in consequence no
trial or conviction for such a purported and pretended offence can
be obtained.

PART 11: THE ISSUES AND THE LAW
OVERVIEW

8. The judgment in R v Long R v Long , predicated as it
is upon judgments of the Ontario Court of Appeal, R v Parker, and R
v Hitzig et al is binding on this Court and binds the Federal
Crown prosecutors until reversed on appeal. The Crown may not, as it
is attempting, collaterally attack R v Long, (supra) nor situate
this Honourable Court as an appellate court sitting in review of
that judgment. Doing so constitutes a blatant abuse of process.

9. Paragraph (3) of the Crown Factum, is demonstrative of a
misreading and misinterpretation of the judgment in R v Long,
(supra), it is misleading and in contradiction of the Crown
submissions found at paragraph (8) of R v Long, (2007) ONCJ 341:
[7] Turning now to the issue of striking down
section (4)1 of the CDSA.
[8] The Crown submits that I have no jurisdiction to declare s,
4(1) of the CDSA unconstitutional. I can find it to be
unconstitutional but I cannot declare it to be unconstitutional. My
jurisdiction is to deal with the issues presented in the case before
me. General declaratory powers are the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Superior Courts.

It is trite law to say that the Crown submissions do not reflect the
law as regards the issue of jurisdiction. Whether sitting as trial
judge or as a Judge of the trial Court there is jurisdiction vested
in the Judge to find that a law, the constitutionality of which is
in issue, is inconsistent with the constitution in that it violates
a Charter right. Once a law, regulation or common law rule or
principle is found to be in violation of a Charter right, that is to
say unconstitutional it is not the judge but the Supremacy clause
s. 52 of the Constitution which dictates that a law so found is of
no force and effect. As stated in Big M. Drug Mart Ltd. (supra) ``A
court not only has the power, but the duty, to regard legislation
found to be inconsistent with the Charter *****, as being no longer
of force and effect``. There is not in any judge of any Court the
power or authority to disregard the s. 52 dictate of the Supremacy
clause of the Constitution or to suspend a finding of
unconstitutionality founded on a violation of a Charter s. 7 right
or rights.

10. When one properly construes paragraph (9) of R v Long ,
2007 ONCJ 341 it is evident that the Court declared `Given my
finding that the Government has not enacted a constitutionally
acceptable exemption, then, in accordance with Parker, the law
prohibiting possession of marihuana is unconstitutional``. Whether
the quoted part be construed as meaning that the law prohibiting
possession of marihuana is unconstitutional or construed as meaning
that by virtue of or in accordance with the judgment in R v
Parker, no proper exemption having been enacted by Parliament CDSA
s 4 (1) reverted back to the status of Parker, and remained
unconstitutional.
11. Where re-promulgation by the Governor in Council of
regulations dictated by the Supreme law of Canada to be of no force
and effect are reinserted into a regulatory scheme, the MMAR, which
itself was declared of no force and effect due to their negative
effect on the overall scheme the regulations (MMAR).This re-
insertion seeking to revive the MMAR `s constitutionality did ipso
facto, nunc pro tunc regress to the previous unconstitutional
status. The application of a policy that is at the whim and fancy of
the party charged with its implementation, even if properly applied
and followed, cannot serve to give constitutional vibrancy to
constitutionally invalid regulations or the underlying law sought to
be regulated by the same invalid regulations.

12. As regards those parts of the judgment of Little Sisters
Book and Emporium v Canada the Crown`s reliance thereon is ill
founded. What was stated therein has no application whatsoever
where what is sought to be constitutionally validated by policy is
an enactment of the Parliament of Canada that prohibits specified
acts and imposes deprivation of liberty for those who act contrary
to the prescribed law. Whereas, in Little Sisters (supra), excepting
the reverse onus clause the constitutionally of the regulations was
affirmed as was the ministerial directive in that the policy
implemented served to protect and respect Charter rights and not to
ameliorate the excised constitutionally invalid provision reinserted
into the MMAR. While the former protects rights the later is in
negation of rights, thus the distinction. A distinction that is
supportive of R v Long, (supra) and not supportive of the Crown
position.

13. The applicants respectfully submits that as paragraphs 4
through 23 and the Conclusion set forth in paragraph 24 of their
Factum can at best be considered as a Factum in appeal from the
judgment rendered in R v Long (no. 1) and R v Long. (No.2) that
seeks of this Honourable Court the usurpation of the functions of
an appellate Court to sit in review and make a determination that
Justice H. Borenstein wrongly decided R v Long, 2007 ONCJ 340, R v
Long ,2007 ONCJ 341. This collateral attack by the Crown constitutes
an abuse of process. This Honourable Court cannot reverse, vary or
act as a court of appeal. The Crown submissions are a blatant
collateral attack. Paragraphs 4 through and including 24 of the
Crowns Factum must be disregarded and the Court should consider the
Order rendered in R v Parker (supra), and the Order rendered in R v
Hitzig et al (supra).
CONCLUSION
On the law and facts the applicants Motion should be granted and the
Crown`s response dismissed.
ORDER SOUGHT
Ordered that the charge against the applicants, Hall, Bodnar, and
Spasic are dismissed with costs.
Respectfully submitted

___________________________
Edwin Pearson
Agent for the applicants

[cannarchist]

and so the domino's begin to fall

[hollowpoint]

don't forget who is holding power in our government today - ex reform party members.!
I have no doubt that harper will fast tract legislation to head off this new challenge to the prohibition law. this coincides with his new crime bill and we'll see changes to how those folks are charged in the future, ie trafficing when passing a joint.
don't get me wrong, I too am thrilled about this challenge and the direction its taking, perhaps even more so since I live in a province that won't recognize the MMR program and forces me to buy from the street to treat my chronic pain of osteoarthritis for 20 years.
maybe someday a lawyer will step up to allow a class action law suit against the college of physicians who are blocking federal legislation designed to help the sick and dying.

[maple626]

Canada Has their shit together.

[hollowpoint]

"canada has its shit together" what's the point of getting a medical marijuana program if they build in poison pills? the poison pill of the MMR is our college of physicians, who regulate, license, and insure our physicians to practice in each province. so when the C.O.P. say "don't sign the mmr" what choice do you think the doctors have?
take a look at the states, despite the lack of federal approval, and see how many permits have been issued in each state that adopted the program, within one year of that program being in force and effect. then look at how many permits have been issued " IN ALL OF CANADA" for over 7 years now, and we only have 1800 people in all of canada who want to use marijuana legally for thier "qualified" diseases and health problems?. we don't have a program period.

[sevens]

i did found the pots defence law kit i like it a lots . in fact i will use it in court here in st catharines ont the previous victory was for small amount of pots in my case 77 plants it is still personnal use who know ?